It is not difficult to reconcile the two accounts given in Mark and Luke about the women preparing the spices, and purchasing the spices to embalm the body of the Messiah. It was just before the Sabbath when the ordeal of the cross had transpired. The Messiah's body was placed in the tomb, and there was not sufficient time before the Sabbath to purchase embalming spices. The women prepared the spices that they already had, then waited until after the Sabbath was passed to procure the remainder of the spices they needed and took them very early in the morning of the first day of the week to the tomb. Just take the story line
as it reads, and don't try to make the Bible fit your own particular scenario. As you can never arrive at the truth in this way.
Regardless of whether you adopt a model of Mary purchasing only part of the enbalming spices after the sabbath or the entire inventory necessary to enbalm the body of Jesus, you have painted yourself into a corner you can't get out of. Mark 16:1 is clear when it tells us that the sabbath was over before the women bought these spices, and you have Luke 24:1 telling us that these spices were prepared in the past tense when the first day of the week came. Mary and her aids didn't leave the site of the crucifixion to go buy spices while Jesus hung on a cross, and this very premise violates the historical account that we have. As I mentioned before, there is no means you have to reconcile your thesis with the Biblical record.
There were two sabbaths in the week of Christ's passion, and forcing your model onto the forensic data that contradicts it reveals an agenda of forcing the Bible's record into your own mold. To use your words, "don't try to make the Bible fit your own particular scenario".
It is true that there were 2 Sabbaths that week, only there was not even a single day between them.
This violates the historical record, and contradicts Scripture's testimony showing that Mary bought spices after the High Sabbath was over, and had the spices prepared before the only other sabbath that is mentioned. There was a day between these two sabbaths when Mary procured these spices (spice shops aren't open on either of the sabbaths) and prepared them for use.
I take a dispassionate approach to the record, allowing it to speak for itself. There is nothing of doctrinal importance that causes anyone to insist on a Wednesday or a Friday crucifixion, and I find myself in that frame of mind. The events transpired as the record shows that they did, and the timing doesn't change the propitiation Christ made "
for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant" that Hebrews 9:15 states was completed.
In summary: I don't have a motive to fit the Biblical record to a preconceived doctrinal model.
You do! And, your model builds on a thesis that cannot be reconciled with the Biblical record.
The Messiah has shown by His fulfillment of the Passover and the lunar "shadow" Sabbaths that the 7th-day Sabbath is not a shadow. Only the lunar "shadow" Sabbaths were shadows. They represented the 7th day of the week. There cannot be a shadow making another shadow--shadows cannot make shadows.
This can't be reconciled with the title of this thread you created, that testifies that the sabbath
was a shadow as it is presented in Colossians 2:16-17. The meaning of a shadow (the Greek
skia) indicates "an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object", meaning that the sabbath was only an image of a greater reality that it represented. Hebrews 3-4 deal with the topic of God's rest, and shows that it was a permanent rest that the children of Israel never attained during the time that they observed the sabbath. Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to show the origin of God's rest
that has never ended nor repeated, and the sabbath was a shadow of that permanent rest that wasn't ordained until long after God's rest. It is the permanent that we have entered into, having left the repeating shadow behind: "
For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Hebrews 4:10).
It is clear that you have attributed a significance to the weekly sabbath that Scripture doesn't. Hence the model you force onto the Biblical record with no regard for the doctrinal mutations you violate the Gospel with. This has been mentioned before to you in another thread.
- Acts 3:22 recites Deuteromony 18:18, the promise that Moses gave of the coming of a Prophet, and those who don't abide in His message will be cut off. This was Jesus Christ, who made propitiation for the law in order to fulfill it "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:15). I don't see a reinstatement of all things inclusive of the law that God purchased us from.
- The sabbath didn't exist until about 2500 years after the creation account that shows the origin of God's "My rest". Hinting at a restoration of things as they existed at creation doesn't incude a sabbath.
- The sabbath doesn't exist today, and hasn't for nearly 2000 years. It is not a part of God's plan of salvation, for there isn't anyone here who has ever lived under the law that ordained the sabbath, and God is saving people today. The same can be said of the new moon and all other ordinances that mandate burnt offerings.
- Biblical Christianity doesn't affirm a sabbath, having accepted the permanent rest God has given us from our labors, the former motions under the law, which is illustrative of the assurance of our eternal salvation. This is the present reality, and the sabbath was a mere shadow that led us to it during its tenure. That tenure expired a long time ago.
- The law written into the hearts and minds of Judah and Israel is not according to the covenant that was dictated at Sinai, as Jeremiah 31:32 and Hebrews 8:9 testify. The ten commandments was that covenant, and Hebrews 8:13 realizes that the introduction of a new covenant abolished the first covenant. You're suggesting God wrote a temporal covenant that was abolished into His adopted children, violating the text you rely on for your idea.
- Atonement exists only under the law ordained in the first covenant, and Christ already redeemed our transgressions under that covenant, as shown by Hebrews 9:15, quoted earlier. Propitiation was described as a completed act on the hilasterion mercyseat in the heavenly sanctuary when Hebrews was written. The fall feasts describe the second advent, as atonement is finished and the rites necessary to authorize Adventism's "second and final phase of atonement" (fundie #24) don't exist now nor in 1844.
- Isaiah 66:22 states the new earth in a future tense when it reads "which I will make" in relation to the passage describing burning corpses in the place we will worship in. This is describing the millenium here on earth, when we reign with Christ for 1000 years. It doesn't take place in the new earth at all.
- Galatians 3:25 tells us that we aren't under the schoolmaster law now that we have been justified by faith. That is consistent with other texts describing our deliverence from the law identified by the quote "you shall not covet", showing that we have been delivered from the Sinai covenant, the ten commandments.
- You have not explained why you remain in rebellion to the new covenant commandment to cast off the Sinai covenant, which was the ten commandments, as I asked you from Galatians 4:30.
- You have not found any support for a thesis that the first covenant that has been fulfilled, completed, and abolished will ever have jurisdiction again.
- You have not found a single scrap of support suggesting that God will re-establish a sabbath and terminate the permanent rest He has given us.
You can't just ignore these. There is no sabbath anymore, and the first covenant doesn't have a claim on God's redeemed children.
Even on this very thread, some of use have noted that you refuse to see the fulfillment of the shadows the Gospel portrays to us, so this isn't only my observation:
Our thread sponsor has concluded that the seventh day sabbath is not prophetic at all.
BFA
I even caught you replacing the Gospel of God's adoption and grace apart from the futile deeds of the law, and replacing it with a soteriology based on your own works:
The 7th-day Sabbath is a test of our loyalty. It defines our allegiance, who we are serving.
You must be kidding.
This doesn't explain the temporal nature of the sabbath that was a mere shadow of God's eternal rest that we have entered into.
Your statement asserting a test of "loyalty" in the present tense cannot be reconciled with a component of law that was terminated nearly 2000 years ago.
Of a more serious concern is your notion of a "test of loyalty" that is obviously a condition for eternal life, and is a rejection of salvation by grace. You need to earn "salvation", impossible in light of God's conclusion that all are disobedient to the former covenant law (Romans 11:32). Romans 4:4 shows that a "test of loyalty" isn't an appeal to God's salvation:
Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt..
Can anyone say "classic works-based soteriology"?
Sure you can.
It's a claim made by every cult deviant from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
ByFaithAlone made a statement that really speaks well of the motivation you possess, that has caused you to disregard the Gospel in so many important ways:
It seems that you may be forcing a prophetic interpretation on a passage even though the interpretation is negated by the passage itself.
BFA
We have been given the reality, while your views have kept you chained to the shadow that had a limited tenure and jurisdiction, and has long expired.
