In introducing his Dynamics of Faith, Paul Tillich speaks of ‘faith’ as one of those terms in religious language ‘which need healing before they can be used for the healing of men’. ‘Truth’ is another term that is in need of healing. Of course, it must be said that the critical reforming and refining of terms and their senses should be a perennial theological task. It can be said that we have witnessed in the twentieth century a cornucopia of linguistic analysis. However, much of this analysis has been less than productive, a fact due in part to highly restricted notions of meaning and verification. A deficiency in analysis is evident in what J. L. Austin has to say about ‘truth’:

Almost all recent discussion in theological hermeneutics has been so abstract that it has had little relevance for the more practical task of the interpretation of biblical texts. This has largely been caused by the prominence in this discussion of proponents of ‘The New Hermeneutic’ who have had a predominantly existential interest in understanding the New Testament, but who represent only one of several alternatives in theological hermeneutics. Moreover, their exegesis has often been unreliable, to put it mildly.1 The chief deficiency of the New Hermeneutic is that it is concerned with the existential situation of the believing Christian, but hardly at all with the understanding and interpretation of texts. It is certainly true that theological hermeneutics can no longer provide a set of rules or principles for the extraction of the correct meaning from the text as was attempted in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, but hermeneutics can still analyse the process and structure of understanding which takes place in New Testament exegesis and can encourage self-reflection and self-criticism on the part of exegetes themselves. The task which now deserves attention, and which has for so long been neglected, is to relate the work done on the problem of hermeneutics by dogmatic theologians to the specific projects of interpretation carried out by New Testament exegetes. In this article I shall try to do just that by focusing attention on one particular problem.

The sacramental principle in its simplest form is the belief in the transmission of spiritual power through material means. If the sacramental principle is going to be upheld it is not enough to be content with a certain ‘congruity’ between the saving revelation of God in salvation history as it culminates in the incarnation and the use of material rites in the economy of realised redemption. The sacramental principle involves the crucial assertion that sacraments are ‘means’ in a ‘causal’ sense, for the transmission of spiritual power through material elements. This asserts ontological efficacy for the sacraments. It is this assertion of genuinely ‘causal’ efficacy for the sacraments, however it is explained, which ultimately divides all who are actually sacramentalists from all non-sacramentalists.

The thinkers of old Israel, whether Psalmists, historians or teachers of Wisdom, were supremely serene and confident men. Their world was established, and could not be moved (1 Sam. 2.8; Ps. 93.1); God's favour and victory were with his people (Deut. 33.26f); his covenant was benign and Israel's king reigned in Zion (Ps. 72.17f; 133); and everyone but the fool knew his proper place and was content, and life's rewards seemed fair and consistent (1 Kings 4.25; Prov. 10.14–15; 12.9; 13.14–16; 14.1, 30 etc.). Evil and tragedy were present, but they were not allowed to pose any ultimate problem, since they were known to be firmly under God's control and part and parcel of the divine economy (Gen. 45.5; 2 Sam. 17.14; Ps. 30.6 (Engl. 5); 73.16–17). Under the double impact of Assyrian imperial advance and of internal social disintegration in the eighth and seventh centuries, this optimistic Weltanschauung was rudely shattered. The prophetic movement, hitherto nonconformist and not highly regarded by those who mattered, came into its own, sounding ever more loudly sour and pessimistic notes that had rarely been heard in Israel before (Amos 5.18f; Mic. 6.1–2; Isa. 5.18f; Zeph. 2.15; Jer. 6.16f; 8.8f etc.). It deeply affected the historians who were responsible for the Deuteronomistic writings,2 but of more direct concern to us, it had a pervasive influence on the Wisdom tradition as well.3 This can be traced in an increasing emphasis upon the need for humble submission to God's will in the face of life's enigmas.