A New Covenant | SermonIndex

P

philologos Jul 2, 2010

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jer 31:31–32 NKJV

This is how Jeremiah introduces the topic of the New Covenant. He makes the initial point here that this covenant will not be 'according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them'. That is to say it will NOT be like the Sinaitic or Old Covenant, however commenting on this verse John Calvin says...

"Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known." John Calvin's Commentary on Jer 31

If you pick out the words 'form' and 'substance' you will find that he is saying that the New Covenant is not SUBSTANTIALLY different from the Old Covenant and that the differences only relate to the FORMS. ie. the outward form changes but the inward essence remains exactly the same.

What are we to make of this? Is the New Covenant only different in its outward forms or is it better? Is it an addition to the Old Covenant or is it something quite new? Is the New Covenant another way of referring to Christ's New Creation or are we not a 'New Creation' but only an improvement of the Old? Answering these questions is fundamental to understanding the New Covenant.

As they used to say in those old school tests.... discuss! If we can do this is a spirit of gentle forebearance we may learn much. If we write only to attack each others' views the sooner this thread ends the better.

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

Ron:
As they used to say in those old school tests.... discuss! If we can do this is a spirit of gentle forebearance we may learn much. If we write only to attack each others' views the sooner this thread ends the better.
------------------------------------------------------------
Shabbat Shalom!

Please consider the following to catch a tiny glimpse of the stance and perspective here.

OK, what constitutes an attack and what is your context of gentle forebearance? What's meant is that from this perspective is -as meditation in the scriptures has brought out from within- there seems to be less and less grey areas, and everything is either black or white. If something is questionable or grey, it's black; and what is clearly white is correct. Lukewarm tolerance just doesn't get it anymore. From years of experience it has been seen repeatedly middle-of-the-roaders end up road-kill and thrown to the burn pile.

Gently forebearing with someone who is mistaken is given unendingly.

Someone who is insistently persistent on propogating lies, and proud about what is completely contrary to what the scripture clearly reveals is another story altogether...and someone who teaches should be put in their place swiftly to save them from a more severe judgement: Jas. 3:1, 11, 12.

Scripture is for doctrine, reproof and correction. Anything contrary to this need be eliminated before yeast leavens the whole lump.

Having stated this, you understand this perspective: gentle forebearance towards all who will accept and learn into a scriptural perspective. If it is not Biblically sound, especially from me, squelch it by whatever means. (i have learned not to talk about things that are not real (to experience in conformity with God's Word). Yet, still i error.)

ya know, that guy Marcion did some real damage to the church painting this picture of Jesus as such a nice guy. Now the world sees movies where Jesus is always looking up to heaven yet never tripping and holding his hands like he just had his nails painted or something. He was a carpenter in the days when you hauled the logs from the forest and then size em' down to specs. Jesus was not a ninny, and he prolly spent more time building coffins than anything else, such as Peter's boats, etc.

If you read greek, you will see that Jesus was more often than not overly demanding and outright mean by human standards. Hardly the sissy He is made out to be in movies. (How many Rabbi's chose several terrorists (aka: zealots) as disciples?)

Then again, a song just popped up in this ole' noggin:

If God is my Father
by
Larry Norman

If God is my Father
And you are my brother,
Then why can’t we bother
To really reach out and
Love one another?
Why do we keep on acting
the way we do?
The way we treat each other
It just breaks my heart in two.

Once we were happy:
Oh yes,
Once in the garden;
And then a lie broke the stillness;
And our hearts began to harden;
And hoping to be wiser,
Man has reached too far.
Sometimes I think that we’ve advanced,
But then I look at where we are.

Still, nice is not equivalent with love
and kind is not only nice.

i am very tenderhearted though posts from here may not appear to be such.

i care too much some say.

This is because i'm always looking at the bigger picture: chastisement is not fun, and hell is everlasting fire with billowing sulfurous smoke so thick catching your breath will make you gag, much less catch even a glimpse of light.

(Better to have hurt feelings by a seemingly terse word than chastisement by our Father, or worse the damnation of hellfire.)

i have little tolerance for ettiquette when somebody can be forthright and save me from further error. If somebody does not say what they mean and mean what they say, isn't that lying against the truth in unrighteousness? Consider Rom. 1:18,ESV.

As well, Lev. 19:17. 18

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

Ron, I think it is essential to not only look at the fact of a new covenant, but to also look at the particular features of that covenant. Before going into this further, I want to note that the words covenant and testament are the same. So when we're talking about the new covenant, we are in fact talking about the new testament.

I'd like to look at the two verses that follow yours, verses 33-34.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Where is the new testament written? "on their hearts." Not on parchment.

The apostle John picked up on this aspect of the new covenant, or new testament, when he wrote, "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (I John 2:27).

Jeremiah prophesied that under the new covenant, we won't need to teach one another, that all of us will know God, from the least to the greatest. And why? "because I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

While differing from John on the topic of teachers, Paul also knew that the new testament from Christ was written on the human heart:

"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (II Cor 3:2-3).

What we call the New Testament is in fact the library of Christian scriptures, but it is not the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah. Jeremiah predicted that the new covenant would be written on our hearts and placed in our minds, not written down on parchment or stone.

The new covenant is "written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

This makes an incredible difference. Paul says that God "made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor 3:6).

I still do not know how to do this. I am not yet aware that I am adequate as a minister of the new covenant of the Spirit. If God has made me adequate as a minister of the covenat of the Spirit, I still do not know how that works.

But to repeat. It is important to not only realize that a new covenant (testament) was predicted, but that the nature of that new covenant-testament was also predicted. We are not obliged to follow the misunderstanding of the early church fathers when they slapped the label "New Testament" on the canon of Christian scriptures. Jeremiah said that the new Law (the law of love, the law of liberty) would be placed in our minds and written on our hearts.

Ron Goetz

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

he (re)NEW(ed) Covenant is not different; but rather a completion of what was begun with Avraham Avinu.
Greg
The New Covenant is not different at all. It is the completion of what the Old Covenant could not do, having no worthy sacrafice nor living testator to insure Ya's will and testaments fulfillment.

There are several references to covenants being 'renewed' in the OT but this is not one of them. This is quite clearly, IMHO, a New Covenant. This is made even more explicit in the statement that this covenant is not going to be like the Sinaitic Covenent.

Do you have some biblical basis for redefining this as a 'renewed' covenant?

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

Ron
I am with you on this one.

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

The new covenant ratified and typified in the period just before the people of God entered the promised land, Deut 4 onwards is concerning the HOLINESS of God`s people, as previously in the wanderings they did not love Him with the whole heart nor did they give up their idols. But in order to live in the kingdom of God, absolute holiness required.

Under the first covenant, men are serving in the flesh for righteousness but God requires the whole heart. We see the flesh at work when men use the scriptures in the way that God did not intend. His law is to be written on their hearts and they are not to need to be taught, meaning they are to come to maturity and full union as the bride of Christ and to be in direct communication with Him hearing Him speak to them and sharing His heart and thoughts with them. The scriptures will not contradict this communication but we were not made to depend on a book even a holy book or to preach the words which are not applying to our own lives. We must be in the same Spirit as the writers and their experience of the spiritual life must be ours too.

A time of wandering is common for the children of God, not many enter into fullness quickly unless during a revival. During this time, God`s presence leaves them and they grow weary and cold until the day when they can cry out `O wretched man that I am who will deliver me` (from my sin nature) if the Lord grants them repentant and tender hearts. Otherwise they stay stiffnecked in their sins, thinking that they are not expected to be 100% obedient or that they can always come to say sorry (but do the same thing again) Brethren this is not love nor is it holiness.

If they respond to the Holy Spirit`s movement in them the new covenant is made clear and the necessity for Christ`s righteousness to be imparted through faith. Under the new covenant, disobedience is punished severely - they shall surely perish Deut 8:19 because it is not mans ability that enables him to obey absolutely it is the strength and the keeping power of the Lord our God so now there is no excuse.

Deuteronomy should not be thought of as concerning the people of Israel but as concerning all of God`s people. If the new covenant, after coming to Christ initially has not been made between us and God then we are in the flesh and flesh cannot see God.

"Take heed to yourselves that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside and serve other gods and worship them" Deut 11:16. What are we putting before the LOrd brethren? What comes first in our lives? Is it a partner, children, a job, our reputation as a Bible teacher? If we are not functioning within the new covenant then we will perish ie we will have no spiritual authenticity in our lives, our inward will not match our outward, we will be hypocrites and only our close family will know how empty and lacking in grace in the crisis we really are. Let Deuteronomy convict us in the name of the Lord.

Brenda

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

Ron B,

I told the people that there was a page in the Bible that was a lie.

And I had everyone in the Bible study turn to the page that reads "New Testament" and tear it out.

Someone asked, "Can we do that?"

The Bibles all belonged to me, so of course I told them it was okay.

But I don't think that's what the concern was.

Ron G.

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

Ron
I do think it would have been more helpful if the translators had not used the word testament. The New Covenant was initiated in the sacrifice of the covenant victim ie Christ at Calvary. It was made effectual for the saints in Acts 2. I have frequently teased people by saying that I was going to read from the beginning of the New Testament only to begin reading at Acts 2.

It is important to understand the beginnings and application of covenants. When the NT speaks the New Covenant it is always in contrast to the Old Covenant, ie. the Sinaitic Covenant. It is important to distinguish between the Sinaitic covenant which was with a nation and the Abrahamic covenant which was with individuals.

I would repeat, whenever the NT speaks of the New Covenant it is in CONTRAST to the Old Covenant. These covenants cannot co-exist. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. Wherever we stand on the destiny of national Israel, the New Covenant is a replacement covenant. To take away one and put another in its place is a definition of the word 'replacement'.

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

The new covenant ratified and typified in the period just before the people of God entered the promised land, Deut 4 onwards is concerning the HOLINESS of God`s people, as previously in the wanderings they did not love Him with the whole heart nor did they give up their idols. But in order to live in the kingdom of God, absolute holiness required.

Brenda
The New Covenant is not introduced in scripture until Jer 31 although there are references in Isaiah that plainly have that new covenant in mind.

Deut is the Old Covenant and is as the title suggests, deutero - second, nomos - law. The second giving of the law. NOT the bringing in of a new covenant but the ratifying and renewing of the old covenant.

R

rookie Jul 3, 2010

Where is the new testament written? "on their hearts." Not on parchment.
The apostle John picked up on this aspect of the new covenant, or new testament, when he wrote, "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (I John 2:2

This anointing of the Holy Spirit is spoken of in Proverbs 1....

Pro 1:23\t \tTurn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

And for what purpose does the Holy Spirit reveal "my words unto you'?

Pro 1:33\t \tBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

The writer of Hebrews confirms this precept when explaining the nature our our Lord's priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec...

Hbr 5:9\t \tAnd being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Hbr 5:10\t \tCalled of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Hbr 5:11\t \tOf whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Hbr 5:12\t¶\tFor when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hbr 5:13\t \tFor every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Hbr 5:14\t \tBut strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

"Unto all them that obey him;" He will make known to us His words by way of the Holy Spirit being poured out onto us..."I will pour out my spirit unto you,"
The Spirit is able to teach us "to discern both good and evil." And why should our Lord want to teach us this?

Pro 1:33\t \tBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

For our Lord, our High Priest's work is to destroy the works of Satan which began with Adam. He is preparing Himself a bride....

In Christ
Jeff

R

rookie Jul 3, 2010

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jer 31:31–32 NKJV

Paul writes of the first covenant this way....

2Cr 3:9\tFor if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

This "ministration of condemnation" the first covenant took effect in the Genesis chapter 3. We see the evidence of this first covenant take effect in the examples of Abel and Cane. Abel became the first adopted son of God and Cane the first child of Satan.

In Christ
Jeff

T

twayneb Jul 3, 2010

I found it a little bit interesting that the book of Romans and the book of Hebrews have not yet entered into this discussion. One very good question to ask is, "What was the purpose of the old covenant and what is the purpose of the new covenant?" Paul is very clear about the purpose of the old covenant. Romans 7:1-14. The old covenant, the law if you will, sold us under sin. It actually made sin come alive in us. It showed us that what we were doing was sin. But it did not offer a resolution to that condition. 2 Cor. 3:6-8 actually calls the ten commandments specifically (they were the only portion of the law engraved in stone)a ministration of death. This is Paul simply repeating his message of Romans 7 in other words. The law was not God's perfect standard. It was only a shadow of God's standard. See Hebrews 10 and Matthew 5. The purpose of the law was not righteousness, but rather revelation of sinfulness and the need for something greater than the law. Galatians 3:19-29 tells us this. Paul goes on in Romans 8 to say that the law was weak through the flesh. It was up to us in our flesh to keep the law and that was totally impossible.

Hebrews 10 shows us how Christ fulfilled the law and ended the old covenant. Once the savior had come, the purpose of the old covenant was fulfilled. If I am born again in my spirit and His laws are in my heart through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, if He says go and I go, stop and I stop, if I am being led by the Spirit of God, a written law is superfluous at very best. Why would I need written commandments and prescribed punishments for breaking them if I have been made righteous before God through the blood of Jesus and if He now directs me by His Holy Spirit? Why serve God from fear of punishment and wrath when now I can serve Him in newness of life. This is the exact thing that Hebrews 2:15 is talking about. Gal. 5:1 makes the point that the living under the law is returning to bondage. We are free of that old and inferior covenant. It has not been extended in some new form. According to scripture it has been abolished, done away with. Eph. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:11. When Jesus spoke in Matt. 5 of not destroying the law and prophets, but rather fulfilling, look at the context of the scriptures. He goes on to show how the standard of God's holiness is so much higher than the standard written in the law (recall Heb. 10:1). He begins with the statement that unless the people's righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees they would not enter the kingdom. But the Pharisees kept the law better than anyone. The people would say, this is impossible. Jesus ends the discussion by saying that you must be perfect like God is perfect. Well, that is obviously beyond our reach, unless we have a savior who is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets pointed toward. Luke 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 28:23 etc..

So I don't believe in a "new" old covenant or a simple modification of the old law. I believe in the total abolition of the old so that the new might come. What did Paul say? Cast out the bondwoman. Was he not speaking of the two covenants?

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

"The New Covenant is not introduced in scripture until Jer 31 although there are references in Isaiah that plainly have that new covenant in mind."

Ron, the two covenants have been in place since the begining - the law of sin and death and the law of life. The benefit of the death of Christ is applied through all times. So we have holy prophets of old like Abraham who counted God for his righteousness and was not walking in the old covenant. Other men were also said to be holy and did not sin (although we have recorded incidences when they fell from this and were then restored). They could not keep the law themselves but by faith they were enabled. So the men could choose right from the start whether to serve in the flesh or outwardly or to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Only those who are under the law of life - the life of the Son of God are in union with Him and are in the kingdom.

As you seem to be in agreement with Keswick teaching, have you read Jesse Penn-Lewis on this matter?

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

his "ministration of condemnation" the first covenant took effect in the Genesis chapter 3. We see the evidence of this first covenant take effect in the examples of Abel and Cane. Abel became the first adopted son of God and Cane the first child of Satan.

Jeff, it's been a long time...

I think you are mixing up the covenants here. The covenant that Paul is referring to in 2 Cor 3 is very plainly the Sinaitic covenant.

clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 2 Cor 3:3 NKJV
the covenant on tables of stone was clearly the Sinaitic covenant.

clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 2 Cor 3:3 NKJV

the covenant in view here is the Sinatic or Mosaic covenant. When a contrast is made between the covenants is is always between the Sinaitic Covenant and the New Covenant.

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

So I don't believe in a "new" old covenant or a simple modification of the old law. I believe in the total abolition of the old so that the new might come. What did Paul say? Cast out the bondwoman. Was he not speaking of the two covenants?

I would certainly agree with this statement. No doubt we shall get to Romans and Hebrews in this thread. Paul asks and answers your question very clearly in Galatans...

... What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3:19 NKJV

This says two very important things about the Sinaitic covenant...

1. it was added... it was not part of God's original revelation
2. it was temporary... it was only to be in force until the Seed should come

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

Brenda

Ron, the two covenants have been in place since the begining - the law of sin and death and the law of life.

No, I don't believe they have. If you read my last post you will see that the Sinai Covenant of the Law was not in place from the beginning but was an addition.

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

Ron:

There are several references to covenants being 'renewed' in the OT but this is not one of them. This is quite clearly, IMHO, a New Covenant. This is made even more explicit in the statement that this covenant is not going to be like the Sinaitic Covenent.

Do you have some biblical basis for redefining this as a 'renewed' covenant?
------------------------------------------------------------

No. This 'renewal' is in reference to the ratification of the Sinai Covenant, and there is still a struugle here to come up with an appropriate definition and synonym better than "New". What is meant is that the Old Covenant is not yet obsolete, except the sacrficial and priestly applications. Yahshuvah made the Sinai Covenant complete.

Currently what we posess through relationship is the seal of the Holy Spirit, and all aspects of the New Covenant must be appropriated through grace by faith. When the fulness of this New covenant is complete, when death is destroyed, we shall see the full manifestation of this. It is then the words through Jerimiah will also come into full play. Currently this is not the case, or there would be no need for any fruits of the Spirit, be they gifts or other inward and outward expressions through love.

What was spoken of Abraham our father, it is in relation to the New Covenant, of which we too are still looking for that city not made with hands, the New Jerusalem.

i miight have confused some in what was stated as i was not clear myself in reference to what was ratified and what is yet to be made complete. While writing, thoughts were jumping back and forth between the two, considering your words regarding form -vs- substance, i was questioning if it is understood that the Sinai Covenant was the Law of Moses and not God's commandments (on which this Covenant had it's basis).

As well as jumping back and forth, what the Sinai covenant entails actually had not been clarified.

i'm probably raising eyebrows even in this post, so it's requested that before the next post from here, just consider 2 verses:

Matt. 5:17, 18

Agapeo,
gregg
Acts 20:32

P

philologos Jul 3, 2010

Gregg

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13

From the moment that Jeremiah designated God's new work as a New Covenant it automatically designated the earlier covenant as 'old'. It was not 'old' until God began to speak about the 'new' from that time on the obvious way to distinguish it from the earlier covenant is to call the earlier one 'old' and the coming one 'new'.

The prophets referred to this coming event as
Isaiah - a new thing
Ezekiel - a new heart and a new spirit
Jeremiah - a new covenant

they are all in their different ways bearing the same testimony. Something was going to happen which would change the parameters conclusively.

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

seeing the thread headline,
"The New Covenant", i said to myself, "Ron Bailey's at it again"......and without prejudice, believing that maybe God gave you a new revelation of His Word, i read on, and my heart just dropped when i read what you wrote:

"I would repeat, whenever the NT speaks of the New Covenant it is in CONTRAST to the Old Covenant. These covenants cannot co-exist. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. Wherever we stand on the destiny of national Israel, the New Covenant is a replacement covenant. To take away one and put another in its place is a definition of the word 'replacement'."

the KEY word being "replacement" as in "replacement theology"...or as some have taken this hellish theo-babble and call it "British-Israelism", though i am not accusing you of being a "British-Israelite", or wishing to engage in any vituperative dialogue with you, i just know you still hew to your......views, which are "replacement theology", what else is new under the sun? it rises in the east and Ron Bailey is a replacement theologian. Don't worry, there are a few newer posters here that will agree with your views.

nothing new.

sermonindex Jul 3, 2010

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.