Ezekiel 37:24-26 promises that David will be prince forever, that Israel will live in the land forever, and that God's sanctuary will be set among them forevermore, as part of an 'everlasting covenant' - a set of unconditional, permanent, this-worldly promises the spreadsheet implies the NT does away with.

A few textual details in Ezekiel's own oracle matter and are usually skipped over. First, word choice: Ezekiel deliberately calls the coming Davidic figure nasi ('prince/chieftain'), not melek ('king') - a term Ezekiel uses consistently for this figure elsewhere too (34:24; 44-46's temple-vision ruler), in contrast to the historic kings he condemns earlier in the book. Daniel Block (NICOT, *The Book of Ezekiel*) notes this is not incidental: Ezekiel is qualifying the office, presenting a coming ruler who serves under YHWH's own kingship rather than an autonomous monarch - which anticipates, rather than conflicts with, the NT's presentation of Christ as one who reigns yet remains eternally subject to and glorifying the Father (1 Cor 15:24-28, 'then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father'). Second, on the sanctuary: Ezekiel's own book (chs. 40-48) develops this promise into an elaborate visionary temple whose interpretation is genuinely and honestly disputed even among conservative, historic-orthodox Christian scholars - some (premillennial/dispensational readers, e.g. in the tradition of John Walvoord) hold a future literal fulfillment is still to come, so the claim that the NT simply 'does away with it' is not even uniformly true within Christianity; others read Ezekiel's sanctuary vision typologically, fulfilled in the person of Christ and the church as living temple (this is the NT's own explicit hermeneutic move: John 2:19-21 applies temple language to Jesus' body; 1 Peter 2:5 and Eph 2:19-22 apply it to the church; and Revelation 21:22 - the same vision that answers Isaiah 65 - states 'I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb'). G.K. Beale (*The Temple and the Church's Mission*) traces this as the consistent trajectory of biblical temple theology: not the promise's cancellation but its escalation past a physical structure to unmediated divine presence, which is a MORE complete fulfillment of 'my sanctuary among them forevermore' (37:26), not a lesser one. Third, on the land: even within Israel's own pre-exilic experience, 'forever' land-possession language (e.g. Gen 13:15, 'to you and your offspring forever') already had to be held together with the reality of the Babylonian exile - a genuine, extended interruption of possession that ancient Israelite and later Jewish readers did not treat as falsifying the promise. That the Bible's own historical audience already read 'forever' compatibly with real interruption and later restoration is directly relevant: it shows 'forever' land/throne/sanctuary language was never handled with the flat, zero-gap literalism the objection requires. This is honestly a place of real, ongoing exegetical disagreement among orthodox Christians (premillennial vs. amillennial/covenantal readings differ substantially on how literally future the land and temple promises remain) - which should be conceded rather than papered over - but the disagreement is entirely about the MANNER and TIMING of fulfillment, not about whether the promise is being honored.

Ezekiel 37:24 itself supplies the positive case: 'David my servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd... they shall follow my ordinances.' This 'one shepherd' language is picked up with striking verbal directness in John 10:11-16, where Jesus calls himself 'the good shepherd' who will gather 'other sheep' so that 'there will be one flock, one shepherd' - the Gospel writer presenting Jesus as the explicit fulfillment of exactly this Ezekiel text, gathering a scattered, divided people (cf. Ezek 37's dry bones and reunited sticks of Judah/Israel just prior to this oracle, 37:15-23) into one body under one shepherd-king. Paul's sustained wrestling with Israel's covenant promises in Romans 9-11 culminates in exactly this framework: 'all Israel will be saved... this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins' (Rom 11:26-27, citing Isa 59:20-21/27:9) - an argument for ultimate covenant faithfulness to Israel, not abandonment.