Why Sacraments Are Not Signs
Credenda/Agenda Volume 15, Issue 2: Liturgia
Why Sacraments are not Signs
Peter Leithart
I admit it: sacraments are signs. Though the New Testament never speaks of baptism or the Lord's Supper as "signs," Old Covenant "sacraments" are given this designation. Following Genesis 17:11, Paul writes of "the sign of circumcision," which was "a seal of the righteousness" that Abraham possessed by faith before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11). The blood of the Passover lamb was a "sign" (Exod. 12:13), and the Passover meal together with the Feast of Unleavened Bread was permanently "a sign to you on your hand" and "a reminder on your forehead" (Exod. 13:9). Still, I stand by the title of this essay, which is not meant merely as a provocation. Though sacraments are called "signs" in Scripture, we need to explore what"sign" means, because many Christians, both today and in the past, have understood "sign" in an unbiblical fashion. Popular conceptions of "sign" and "symbol" are erroneous in a number of respects, but in this essay I discuss only one error, namely, the tendency to treat signs rationalistically, purely as means of communicating ideas from one mind to another mind. In this sense, the title is completely accurate—sacraments are not signs.
For many, signs function cognitively or didactically, enabling us to pass on ideas to other people and to remember or consider concepts, ideas, and things. Applied to the sacraments, this view of signs implies that baptism teaches us about our state of original sin, our need for cleansing, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the sprinkling of our hearts with the blood of Jesus. Baptism exists mainly to teach us something. (Obviously, this conception raises unanswerable questions about infant baptism.) The Lord's Supper, similarly, reminds us of the death of Jesus and teaches us that He is our life.
Sacramental theology has employed this idea of signs for many centuries. Augustine defined a sign as "a thing which of itself
Why Sacraments are not Signs
Peter Leithart
I admit it: sacraments are signs. Though the New Testament never speaks of baptism or the Lord's Supper as "signs," Old Covenant "sacraments" are given this designation. Following Genesis 17:11, Paul writes of "the sign of circumcision," which was "a seal of the righteousness" that Abraham possessed by faith before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11). The blood of the Passover lamb was a "sign" (Exod. 12:13), and the Passover meal together with the Feast of Unleavened Bread was permanently "a sign to you on your hand" and "a reminder on your forehead" (Exod. 13:9). Still, I stand by the title of this essay, which is not meant merely as a provocation. Though sacraments are called "signs" in Scripture, we need to explore what"sign" means, because many Christians, both today and in the past, have understood "sign" in an unbiblical fashion. Popular conceptions of "sign" and "symbol" are erroneous in a number of respects, but in this essay I discuss only one error, namely, the tendency to treat signs rationalistically, purely as means of communicating ideas from one mind to another mind. In this sense, the title is completely accurate—sacraments are not signs.
For many, signs function cognitively or didactically, enabling us to pass on ideas to other people and to remember or consider concepts, ideas, and things. Applied to the sacraments, this view of signs implies that baptism teaches us about our state of original sin, our need for cleansing, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the sprinkling of our hearts with the blood of Jesus. Baptism exists mainly to teach us something. (Obviously, this conception raises unanswerable questions about infant baptism.) The Lord's Supper, similarly, reminds us of the death of Jesus and teaches us that He is our life.
Sacramental theology has employed this idea of signs for many centuries. Augustine defined a sign as "a thing which of itself