Backdate Your Baptism
Hebrews 10 contrasts Christ with the Judaic priests. They have to sacrifice every year, whereas Christ did it once. The argument is that Christ’s sacrifice was obviously more effective. Are you really sin free if you keep sinning and need a new atoning sacrifice every year?
The yearly atoning sacrifice makes sense from the childish view of sin that it’s a question of debits and credits with the sacrifice periodically topping off your account. This forensic view is not totally wrong but it is badly incomplete.
Hebrews 10 talks about how the Mosaic sacrifice was meant to compensate for violations of the law but Christ’s sacrifice makes you holy. The New Perspective on sin is that it is primarily a state of being. It is who you are. Sins are a reflection of your inward weakness and malice, and pay the price of your existing sins all you wish, if the inside of the vessel is not cleansed, you are still in sin.
Christ pays your debts, to be sure, but only incidentally. He spends freely to do something much more difficult and lasting–to make you the kind of person who is not a debtor. We might extend Elder Packer’s old (and good!) LDS parable of the debtor in this way:
There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.
He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.
So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.
The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.
But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.
Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.
“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.
“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”
“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”
The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”
“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”
“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”
There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.
“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.
“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.
Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?
There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.
The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.
“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”
As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”
And so the creditor agreed.
The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”
“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”
“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”
[Elder Packer, spiritually astute, ended the parable with the mediiator telling the debtor that there would be new terms. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with the point he is making, so no one really comments on this aspect of his parable, but its critical, as will be obvious in the parable’s extension. Ask yourself, why did the mediator decide that the debtor was going to have to pay off some of the debt?]
“It will not be easy,” the benefactor repeated, “but only in this way can you learn not to get in debt. My first requirements are as follows. Here is a book on personal finance. Read it. We will discuss it as you go along. I will help you set goals. I have also purchased budgeting software for you, to keep track of your expenses. Your income isn’t all that it could be. I will pay for your schooling or for an apprenticeship.. Lets review some options. I will expect you to commit to one of them. I will help you in whichever option you choose as your mentor. The extra earnings will help you pay off your debt to me, and avoid debt in the future. Finally, let us discuss what you wanted with the money so bad that you went into crippling debt to get it. You are sad, and lonely, and therefore prone to these kinds of decisions. Let’s walk every morning. It’s good for your health and we can talk.”
“I have chosen to pay your debts. Now you pay me back by ceasing to be a debtor.”
***
Which brings me to the sacrament. What Hebrews 10 says about sacrifice is a little awkward for us who take the sacrament every Sunday as a renewal of our baptism. Hebrews mocks the Jews for needing their atonement every year. I get mine every week. It’s a far cry from once and for all. How to reconcile the sacrament with Hebrews?
Let me go off the reservation a bit. [Ed.–were you ever on?]
One of these days I will renew my baptismal covenant and it will stick. It will be the purification that Hebrews talks about, because I will have finally fully committed. When I finally make the baptismal covenant for real, I think it is as if it will be backdated to my actual baptismal date. For now, I provisionally enjoy the benefits of that covenant with the expectation that someday I will succeed at making it.
Ugly Mahana
November 16, 2023
We speak of enduring to the end. That is good Book if Mormon language. But I think Jesus used a different term in the New Testament, or at least the same idea was translated differently. In the instructions Jesus is reported to have given at the last supper (when the Sacrament was instituted), Jesus told his disciples to “abide in him.”
The sacrament hearkens back to that meal. We show that we still would sup with our Lord and desire to abide with him.
I think your extended parable is quite on point with the actual terms of the new covenant.
Observer
November 16, 2023
You don’t actually renew your baptismal covenant when you take the sacrament. You only make the baptismal covenant once. In fact, it’s a misnomer to say that baptism by water cleanses or purifies you of your sins. Baptism by water shows that you are making a covenant to follow Christ and take His name.
Receiving the Holy Ghost (baptism by fire) is what cleanses and purifies you. That is not an outward ordinance. When you are confirmed, you are commanded to receive the Holy Ghost, but it is still up to you to receive it. When you take the Sacrament, you are making a covenant to follow the commandments so that the Spirit can always be with you (and, hence, purifying you). But you don’t actually need the Sacrament to gain that purification, you only need to receive the Holy Ghost as you were commanded to do when you were confirmed.
G.
November 16, 2023
Excellent comments
Handle
November 17, 2023
“The yearly atoning sacrifice makes sense from the childish view of sin that it’s a question of debits and credits with the sacrifice periodically topping off your account. This forensic view is not totally wrong but it is badly incomplete.”
Yearly atoner here, and to be clear, no problem with this assessment from another theological perspective and not offended or anything like that at all.
Still, I think something is lost in translation here. Though I understand the childish, double-entry-karma-bookkeeping accounting is a kind of straw-man here, either I misunderstand or am misreading the way of knocking it down.
In the yearly atoner tradition perspective, the childish view would be like the annoying child questioner in Passover, “why do we have to do this every year!?” It’s the wise, mature, adult view of sin to respond in the manner of “only the dead have seen the end of war” in this case, one’s personnel wars against sinning. One would say, “when you are older you will by experience and many shameful stumbles realize why it’s essential to do something extra special like this every yearly cycle of your life, not just a holy thing to do, but the holiest thing on the holiest High Holiday.”
You can make payments to lower your credit card balance any day. Why does there need to be a big periodic cleansing (or spiritual reorganization bankruptcy petition) to start from scratch? But the adult knows the importance. In Old Testament times there were also the collective versions of the jubilee (sabbatical of sabbaticals, 49 years) to clear debts between tribes, which in practice makes acquiring such debts very hard. That was about ancestral real property not as spiritual metaphor, but there is a spiritual metaphor regarding the term of adult life lurking there.
Zen
November 17, 2023
I have always loved the idea of a Jubilee and the seven release of debt.
Deeply loved it.
We complain about the evils of slavery, but then we have an entire economy reliant on debt.
Ugly Mahana
November 17, 2023
I very much appreciate Handle’s comments, and especially the spirit in which they are given. I think Handle asks a fair and good question. I also share Zeno’s admiration.
I would like to hazard a partial amswer to Handle’s question, which I hope will be perceived to be as respectful as the question which was asked.
In my view, neither annual nor final atoning is meaningful unless authorized. So the question becomes: To Whom is the debt owed? What are the terms of the covenant?
Annual and final atoning represent two different approaches, not towards sin, but towards God. Juxtaposition of the two as alternatives is a thought experiment only, meant more to explain the difference between the old and new covenants rather than denigrate the prior practice. If the statement “If the Son shall make you free, then are you free indeed” is meaningful, then the former practice, although instructive, becomes more symbolic than salutary. This is not to say that the prior command lacked power, but that it’s purpose was fulfilled, and that to hold to the prior practice would be to reject the very Being who gave that practice, because that same Being now requires something new.
As pointed out in the OP, the Sacrament demonstrates that the new covenant does not strip away the commitment or repetition of the old
covenant, but re-centers its focus on God, not our own efforts.
Note that I further believe that a proper understanding of yearly atonement would likewise be focused on God, not man’s own effort. But this, then, points out the rub: Either Jesus was God’s Son, or He was not. If he was, then there is no getting around it: We must follow the path He marked out. If Jesus was not God’s Son, then both Jesus and Christianity (regardless of denomination) are usurpers, and the comparison between final and annual atonement is utterly hollow. Which is to say that the two systems cannot really be compared one-to-one. They are not on equal footing as to final effect. One or the other is correct. But hopefully we can still learn from each other as we all try to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
G.
November 18, 2023
Handle, always an honor to hear from you.
So, yes, the post is setting up a bit of a strawman (or to be more accurate, Hebrews 10 is).
I don’t think there its a mistake to think that we need to periodically refresh the account like you say. In fact, we believe the same thing, except we do it weekly instead of yearly. Artfulness aside, the basic thrust of the post here is to reconcile the two perspectives. “Hebrews says Christ’s atonement is superior to yearly sacrifices, because it only has to happen once, but we manifestly don’t have a one-time commitment that cures all our problems, we continue to have to be recommitting and repenting and re-being atoned for, so what gives?”
As an aside, I don’t always mean childish as a pejorative in religious discussions. The New Testament injunction to become as a little child is something we take very seriously. A childish view is usually an incomplete view, not a wrong view.
My modified parable shows my resolution of the problem, which is that you need help addressing your debtor nature (you are the kind of person who gets into debt) but also you need help with the debts you have already acquired. And until you become the kind of person who doesn’t get into debt, which for most of us will be more than a lifetime, you also need help with your ongoing debt accumulation.