Luther’s Doctrine of Imputation: Nominalism vs ...

48 Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach

Luther’s Doctrine of Imputation:
Nominalism vs. Aristotelian
Realism Joshua Price

History & Bible Major

The theology of German reformer Martin Luther has had a profound impact on Christian history. His doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness to the believer is no different. This study examines the philosophic underpinnings that support and inform Luther’s doctrine
and describes the extent to which Luther is influenced by medieval Nominalism. This study then proposes two methods by which Luther’s
doctrine of imputation might be reconciled with a philosophic commitment to metaphysical Realism.

Since the Reformation, scholars of Martin Luther have debated the extent to which his philoso-

phy was influenced by Nominalism. Certain of his doctrines seem inherently nominalist—such as
consubstantiation and the hidden God—and others are opposed to Nominalism, such as Luther’s
doctrine of human will. With some doctrines, it is more difficult to ascertain the extent to which
Luther’s beliefs reflect a Nominalist influence. One such example is Luther’s doctrine of the im-
putation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. In this paper, I will explore the extent to which
Luther’s doctrine of imputation was influenced by Nominalism. Next, I will explore the methods
by which an Aristotelian Realist might reconcile the doctrine of imputation with Realism. I argue
that Luther’s doctrine of imputation represents a break from the traditional Nominalist doctrine. I
further argue that the best way to reconcile the doctrine of imputation with Aristotelian Realism is
by understanding it as a forensic act that provides the grounds for the justification of the believer

before God.
Before delving into the argument, it will be useful to define Nominalism and Aristotelian
Realism and explain the significance of these positions for the doctrine of imputation. Aristotelian
Realism refers to the metaphysical position that everything that exists is a composite of form and

www.jbu.edu/academics/journal 49

matter. Aristotle argued in Book VII Chapter 17 of his with William of Ockham. According to Heiko Oberman, an

Metaphysics that the form or substance of a thing guides and historian who specialized in the Reformation, Luther’s volun-

forms the matter.1 Thus, universals such as redness exist in taristic conception of God stems directly from this Nominal-

nature in individual red things, and these individual things are ist tradition.6 In The Two Reformations, Oberman points out

red because they possess the form of redness. This is signifi- the medieval distinction between the potentia absoluta and

cant for the debate concerning imputed righteousness be- the potentia ordinata as evidence of Luther’s connection to

cause Realism holds that righteousness is a universal that can Nominalism.7 The potentia absoluta defines God’s ultimate

be recognized by the accidents that inhere in righteousness. nature, while the potentia ordinata describes God’s nature as it

Nominalism is the philosophic position opposed to Realism. is revealed in Scripture. In Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote

William of Ockham, a proponent of Nominalism, asserted in of the importance of distinguishing between the revealed

Epistemological Problems that universals do not actually exist God and the hidden God, as though the two have different

in nature, but are merely concepts that the mind invents to characteristics.8 Luther’s distinction between the potentia ab-

describe individual objects.2 To give an example, the Nominal- soluta and the potentia ordinata is essential for understanding

ist sees a dog as a dog not because it has the characteristics of the influence medieval Nominalism had on his conception of

“dog-ness;” instead, he thinks a dog is merely an individual God.

thing to which the human mind ascribes a name. This is signif- However, Luther employed the terms differently than did me-

icant for imputed righteousness because it means that, for the dieval Nominalists. Gordon Rupp, a Luther scholar, points out

Nominalist, one could conceivably possess the accidents of that Nominalists like Ockham appealed to potentia absoluta

sinfulness and yet, at the same time, be considered righteous. to speculate on and explain supernatural occurrences, whereas

So, a philosophic commitment to Realism or Nominalism has Luther used the distinction to cut off speculation and focus

an important effect on one’s doctrine of imputation. on God as He has revealed himself in Scripture.9 Rupp argues

Luther was clearly influenced by Nominalism in some signifi- that Luther rejected the Aristotelian tendency to explain God’s

cant ways, and it affected his understanding of imputation. nature with reference to a hierarchy of being.10 Luther viewed

One manifestation of this influence is found in his belief the Aristotelian view as a Pelagian fallacy, because he thought

concerning the nature of the divine will. In Bondage of the it gave too much credit to human reason.11 Instead, as Rupp

Will, Luther defended a voluntaristic conception of God’s aptly states, Luther understood God as an entirely unpredict-

will, arguing that no cause or ground determines His will, able being.12 Rupp interprets Luther’s attempt to place God

but that His will is the self-determining rule for all things.3 beyond human understanding as a reflection of his theocen-

Thomas Aquinas, an Aristotelian Realist, believed that God’s tric approach to theology.13 Despite the semantic distinction,

will proceeds directly from God’s nature, which is used to both Luther and the medieval Nominalists used the potentia

explain why God cannot sin. Luther, contra Aquinas, argued absoluta and potentia ordinata distinction to support their

that the goodness of God’s actions is not determined by the voluntaristic understanding of God’s will, namely, that His

inherent goodness of His nature, but out of His declaration will is distinct from His nature. So, Nominalism’s influence

that His actions are good.4 For Luther, goodness proceeds on Luther is apparent in his attempt to insulate God from any

out of God’s will rather than His nature, so that the divine rational attempt to comprehend His being. As with Ockham,

will is separated from the divine nature. In other words, God’s this resulted in a voluntaristic understanding of God.

will determines what the term “goodness” means rather than Despite the influence Nominalism had on Luther’s

his nature being consistent with a particular conception of doctrine of the divine will, he rejected Ockham’s view of the

goodness. In Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote that because human will in favor of an Augustinian view. As Oberman

power is part of God’s nature, His will cannot be impeded.5 points out, Ockham—and the Nominalist tradition in the via

In this sense, God can do whatever he wants—even if it ap- moderna—asserted the priority of the will over the priority

pears to be evil to humans—because His will is supreme. of the intellect.14 In contrast, Augustine argued in Confes-

This voluntaristic conception of the divine will is seen sions that men are corrupt from birth, and this corruption

clearly in the tradition of Nominalism, which is associated taints their ability to make decisions.15 In Bondage of the Will,

50 Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach

Luther argued that human will is limited by God’s sovereignty sins are not imputed to us for Christ’s sake.23 However, Luther

and by original sin. Regarding God’s sovereignty, Luther wrote did not allow—unlike Ockham and Scotus—that this non-

that God not only foreknows all things, but He wills them imputation of sins was arbitrary. Instead, Luther argued that

necessarily and immutably rather than merely contingently.16 faith in Christ must be present for the remission of sins.24 In

Thus, for Luther, humanity’s free will of man cannot limit or fact, Luther specifically opposed the Nominalist appeal to the

impede God’s sovereign will that ordains all things. Regarding potentia absoluta to explain imputation in theses 55-56 of

original sin, the Book of Concord echoed Luther’s position Disputation Against Scholastic Theology. Luther wrote against

by stating that original sin refers not to willful acts of sin, but Ockham that even through the absolute power of God,

to corrupt human nature, and asserting that sin inheres in the God could not declare a man righteous unless His grace was

nature, substance, and essence of man.17 justifying him.25 Thus, Luther disagreed with the Nominal-

The Book of Concord summarizes Luther’s assertion ist tradition regarding the doctrine of imputation by insisting

in Bondage of the Will that the human will is so affected by that non-imputation of sin only occurs where faith in Christ is

original sin that there is no goodness in humanity whatsoever. present.

Gordon Rupp observes that the scholastic Nominalist theolo- This distinction between Luther and Ockham does

gians of Luther’s day opposed this doctrine.18 The Nominal- not by itself necessarily lead to the conclusion that Luther

ists appealed to the doctrine of synteresis to oppose original disagreed with the Nominalist understanding of imputation;

sin, claiming that a small amount of goodness inclined the however, he also had a positive understanding of imputa-

will slightly towards the good.19 Luther specifically rejected tion, namely the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the

this Nominalist claim in the tenth thesis of his Disputation believer. This aspect of his doctrine demonstrates that Luther

Against Scholastic Theology, contending that the will is wholly disagreed with the Nominalist doctrine of imputation, namely,

unable to pursue any good thing.20 In Bondage of the Will, imputation in the purely negative sense. Indeed, Bruce defines

Luther further argued that free will without God’s grace is not Luther’s doctrine of imputation as God making the sinner

free at all, since it is a prisoner to evil.21 Luther rejected the righteous by forgiving all of his/her sins for Christ’s sake and

Nominalist assertion of the primacy of the will—at least with imputing the righteousness of Christ to him/her.26 Another

reference to humanity—because he subjected human will to distinction between Luther and Ockham’s understandings

the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and original sin. of imputation is found in Luther’s separation of righteous-

With these two instances in mind, it becomes appar- ness into passive and alien righteousness. In Two Kinds of

ent that Nominalism did not have a comprehensive effect on Righteousness, Luther distinguished between proper or active

Luther’s theology. As discussed, Nominalism’s influence can righteousness and alien or passive righteousness. According

be seen in Luther’s voluntaristic conception of God’s will. to Luther, proper righteousness consists in good works and

However, he rejected the Nominalist conception of human actual moral obedience. Luther defined alien righteousness as

will, favoring an Augustinian view. This inconsistency is vital the righteousness of someone else, instilled from without.27

for understanding how Luther’s doctrine of imputation relates This righteousness of Christ justifies believers through faith.28

to his Nominalist influences. The Nominalists held a negative Luther also argued in the same passage that this righteousness

view of imputation; according to Rupp, both Ockham and forms the basis of sanctification. Thus, Luther disagreed with

Scotus appeal to the doctrine of potentia absoluta to explain the Nominalist belief that the basis of justification is merely

how God can impute original sin to humans and to defend God’s declaration that a person is righteous, instead asserting

why God can withhold imputing sin if He so wills.22 As we that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness forms the basis

will see, however, Luther adopted a positive view of impu- for justification as well as the basis for sanctification.

tation, in which God imputes Christ’s righteousness to the It can be concluded that Luther’s doctrine of imputa-

sinner in order to justify him, disagreeing with the Nominalist tion was not Nominalist. As stated above, he tended to use

doctrine of a purely negative imputation. voluntaristic language when discussing the divine will. This

Luther agreed with the Nominalist idea of the non-imputation reveals the influence that Nominalist philosophy (especially

of sin. In Commentary on Galatians, Luther wrote that our the via moderna) had on Luther’s beliefs. However, his beliefs

www.jbu.edu/academics/journal 51

Nominalist. On the contrary, Luther agreed with Augustine actually sinning.

that human will is bound by sin. Augustine was not Nominal- However, not all Aristotelian Realists accept Aquinas’s de-

ist, but was a proponent of Realist philosophy.29 Thus, Lu- fense of transubstantiation. For example, seventeenth century

ther’s beliefs about God’s will were influenced by Nominalism theologian Francis Turretin objected to the separation of

while his beliefs about human will were influenced by Realism. substance and accidents in Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

His theology reflected two diametrically opposed philosophic Turretin argued that the separation of essence and accidents

perspectives. This is what makes his doctrine of imputation necessary for transubstantiation is impossible for two reasons.

difficult to label; it integrates a Nominalist perspective of First, it goes against the testimony of the senses. Turretin

God’s will with a Realist perspective of human will. observed that the senses are used to perceive accidents, and

Given the conflicting philosophic influences on Luther’s a substance is perceived by the accidents.30 Therefore, if the

doctrine of imputation, it seems that it would be difficult to senses indicate that accidents are present, it necessarily follows

integrate his doctrine with Aristotelian Realism. The apparent that the substance is present. According to Turretin, transub-

problem for an Aristotelian Realist is that the doctrine seems stantiation violates the clear testimony of the senses that the

to bifurcate a person’s essence from their perceived qualities. elements in the Eucharist possess the accidents (and therefore

In other words, it would seem that a person cannot be essen- essence) of bread and wine. Turretin’s second argument is that

tially righteous and have the accident of sinfulness. Luther’s transubstantiation is contrary to reason. Turretin noted that

doctrine of imputation asserts that Christ’s righteousness is the nature of an accident requires that it inhere in a substance.

imputed to the believer, yet it is obvious that Christians con- He observed that the formal reason of an accident is to inhere

tinue to sin. Thus, to an Aristotelian Realist, imputation seems in a substance, so that accidents cannot exist at all, even for

to be an untenable doctrine. a moment, without a substance in which to inhere.31 If, as in

However, some Christian Aristotelian Realists may want to transubstantiation, the accidents are supposed to exist without

affirm Luther’s doctrine of imputation. An Aristotelian Realist inhering in a substance, they cease to be accidents. Thus, it

can reconcile the doctrine of imputation with Realism by two appears that transubstantiation results in a contradiction. The

methods. The first method is an insistence on the metaphysi- argument might also be framed in this manner:

cal independence of the substance of righteousness from 1.It is the nature of accidents to inhere in a substance.

the accidents of righteous behavior via a supernatural work 2.An accident cannot exist without a substance in

of God. The second method is to appeal to imputation as a which to inhere.

forensic rather than a substantial act (i.e. an act that affects a 3.In transubstantiation, the accidents of the bread and

person’s standing before God as opposed to an act that affects wine are supposed to exist without a substance in which to

a person’s essence). inhere; therefore,

The first method of reconciliation is to posit that a person 4.Transubstantiation is impossible.

can be essentially righteous even while they sin. At first, this The two preceding arguments posed by Turretin seem to

seems contrary to Realism, but it has a precedent among argue forcefully against the separability of substance and ac-

Realist philosophers. Thomas Aquinas used such a method to cidents in transubstantiation. The substance of his arguments

defend transubstantiation. In Summa Theologica, III, q. 75, would apply to our concern with imputed righteousness as

art. 4, Aquinas argued that in the sacrament of the Eucharist well. It seems that if a person is essentially righteous and they

God converts the substance of the bread and wine into the continue to sin, the accidents of sinful behavior are bifurcated

substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidental from the essence of sinfulness and cease to be accidents.

properties of the bread and wine remain, but the essence is Furthermore, if the senses perceive a person sinning then

the body and blood of Christ. Similarly, an Aristotelian Realist they also perceive the essence of sinfulness in those accidents.

could presumably assert that when God imputes Christ’s righ- Thus, the two arguments seem to prove that Aristotelians can-

teousness to the believer he changes his substance from sinful not reconcile imputed righteousness in this way.

to righteous—without changing the accidents of the person. In spite of Turretin’s strong argument, modern Aris-

In other words, a person could be essentially righteous while totelian Essentialist David Oderberg argues for the possibility

52 Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach

of transubstantiation. Turretin claimed that accidents cannot behave in ways consistent with their nature. In other words,

be separated from substance or subsist separately from the an accident can only be an accident insofar as it behaves as an

substance in which they inhere.32 Oderberg counters this argu- accident—inhering in a substance. Thus, a suspension of the

ment in his book, Real Essentialism, appealing to the fact that laws of nature is very different than a suspension of human

the metaphysical independence of accidents and substance are traffic laws. A suspension of the laws that constrain accidents

required for essentialism.33 Oderberg agrees with Turretin that and substance would necessarily involve a contradiction. The

accidents can never exist without a substance in which to in- nature of an accident is to inhere in a substance. If, as Oder-

here in the order of nature. Oderberg appeals to the possibil- berg argues, an accident can be present in the order of nature

ity of transubstantiation by observing that if God suspended without a substance in which to inhere, it is no longer an acci-

the laws of nature in a particular location, an accident could dent, since accidents are defined as such by their inherence in

exist while inhering in a substance other than the one in which a substance. Due to the law of noncontradiction, we see that it

it normally inheres. Oderberg defends this suspension of the is impossible for an accident ever to exist without a substance

laws of nature by asserting that God can suspend the laws in which to inhere. Thus, Oderberg’s argument for transub-

without actually breaking them.34 So, Oderberg would respond stantiation is invalid.

to Turretin’s arguments by appealing to a possible circum- With these arguments in mind, it is apparent that the first op-

stance in which God suspends the laws of nature to separate tion for accepting imputed righteousness fails. An Aristotelian

the substance and accidents. Realist cannot reconcile imputed righteousness by an appeal

Oderberg’s argument seems convincing. However, I think he is to the separability of a substance and its accidents; the essence

mistaken for two reasons. The first reason is that his conclu- of righteousness cannot be present in a person along with the

sion seems to destroy the reliability of the senses. If Oderberg accidents of sinfulness. The second option available for an

is correct, then it is impossible to perceive—at least with Aristotelian Realist is to adopt an understanding of imputation

certainty—the substance of a thing by perceiving its accidents. as a forensic act that serves as the foundation for justification.

If Oderberg is correct, there is no certainty in knowledge of In order to explain how imputation might be un-

forms and the very concept of substance seems to lose its derstood in this way, it will be necessary to prove two things.

meaning. The senses become unreliable because there is no First, that justification should be understood in a forensic

necessary connection between accidents and substance. To sense, and secondly, that imputation is the meritorious cause

give a brief example, if the accidents that I perceive to be a for this justification. Scripture clearly teaches that justification

book were under God’s suspension of the laws of nature, they is a forensic act. In Romans 3:24-26 Paul explained, “they are

could actually inhere to the substance of a cow. Oderberg’s now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption

theory undermines the possibility of certainty with respect to that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of

knowing the substance of a thing through the perception of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this

its accidents. to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance

Second, Oderberg’s argument is invalid because it results he had passed over the sins previously committed” (NRSV).

in a contradiction. Oderberg defends transubstantiation by Here Paul specifically appealed to justification as a forensic

appealing to the possibility of God’s miraculous suspension act in which God deals with sin as worthy of punishment. Per-

of the laws of nature. Oderberg asserts that a suspension haps even more persuasive is Paul’s statement to the Romans

of the laws of nature is distinct from breaking those laws. I in 8:3. Paul wrote, “For God has done what the law, weakened

think this assertion is false. Oderberg gives the example of by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the like-

a state that has suspended traffic laws for a month (mean- ness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in

ing those who “break” the law are unpunished because the the flesh.” Paul observed that God punished sin in Christ in

law did not apply when the laws were “broken”). However, I order that sinful men might be justified because the law could

think this is an inaccurate analogy. There is nothing in human not justify men. Turretin further points out that if justification

nature that constrains us to obey human decrees. However, is not a forensic act, but rather a moral and substantial act—as

the nature of substance and accidents do constrain them to the Roman Catholic Church claimed—it is indistinguishable

www.jbu.edu/academics/journal 53

from sanctification.35 Furthermore, Turretin argued, a person will. However, Luther disagreed with the Nominalist tradi-

cannot be justified on the basis of his inherent righteousness tion in his doctrine of human will and imputation of Christ’s

for two reasons. First, inherent righteousness is imperfect, and righteousness. Luther understood the imputation of Christ’s

cannot satisfy God’s requirement for perfect obedience to the righteousness in the positive sense, rather than in the negative

law.36 Second, justification consists in the remission of sins sense described by Nominalists. In this way, his doctrine is

and the removal of guilt. Since inherent righteousness cannot rescued from the accusation of Nominalism. An Aristotelian

remove guilt or the offense to God, it cannot be the basis of Realist can reconcile Luther’s doctrine of imputation in one

the remission of sins (and thus, justification).37 So, justifica- of two ways. The attempt to reconcile it by appealing to a

tion cannot be based on inherent righteousness, but must be a separation of substance and accidents is infeasible because it

forensic act. is contradictory and undermines the testimony of the senses.

Given this understanding of justification, it is ap- The other option is to adopt a conception of imputation and

parent that sinners are in need of a perfect righteousness justification as forensic acts that alter the believer’s standing

by which they can be declared righteous before God. The before God rather than his/her essence. This is the view advo-

imputation of Christ’s righteousness serves this very purpose. cated by Francis Turretin and the Reformed tradition, and it

Luther argued for an understanding of imputation that was is the best way to reconcile Aristotelian Realism with Luther’s

substantive in nature. Turretin modified Luther’s doctrine, doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

asserting that imputation can be understood in two ways. He

stated that Christ’s righteousness serves a twofold purpose,

namely, as a forensic imputation that acts as the grounds for

justification and as a moral infusion that forms the basis of

sanctification.38 Second Corinthians 5:21 represents the un-

derstanding of imputation as a forensic act: “For our sake he

made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might

become the righteousness of God.” This understanding of

imputation is actually necessary for an Aristotelian Realist. An

Aristotelian conceives God’s nature as being perfectly unified.

This means that every act of God must be consistent with all

his attributes. So, in justification, God must be both merci-

ful and just. Thus, God demands a perfect righteousness that

can only be fulfilled by Christ’s perfect obedience. Turretin

explained how this obedience is reckoned as the possession

of the Christian. He argued that no one could stand before

the rigor of God’s court by his/her own works. However,

the perfect obedience of Christ is reckoned as the believer’s,

and it is by his righteousness that believers are forgiven and

counted righteous.39 Thus, the conception of imputation that

is most faithful to Aristotelian Realism is that of imputation as

a forensic act that justifies the sinner before God rather than

a substantive act that changes a sinner’s essence. A person

justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness remains essentially

a sinful person, but his/her standing before God has changed.

To summarize, it is apparent that Martin Luther’s the-

ology was influenced by Nominalism. This influence manifests

itself particularly in his voluntaristic conception of the divine

54 Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach

EndNotes Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillen-

1 Aristotle. “Metaphysics,” in The Basic Works of Ar- berger, (New York: Anchor Books, 1961), 86-88.
istotle, ed. Richard McKeon, (New York: The Modern Library, 28 Ibid.

2001), 810-811. 29 Augustine was a proponent of Platonic Realism

2 William of Ockham. “Epistemological Problems,” rather than Aristotelian Realism, but the distinction between
in Readings in the History of Philosophy, ed. Michael Strantz the two systems of thought is not germane to the present
and Maureen Staudt, (Mason, Ohio: Cengage, 2009), 205-207. discussion.
3 Luther, Martin. “The Bondage of the Will,” in Mar- 30 Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theol-
tin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger, ogy. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Vol. 3. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1997, 490.
(New York: Anchor Books, 1961), 196.
31 Ibid., 491.
4 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
5 Ibid., 181.
33 Oderberg, David. Real Essentialism. New York:
6 Oberman, Heiko. The Two Reformations: The
Journey from the Last Days to the New World. Ed. Donald Routledge, 2007, 155.
34 Ibid., 148.
Weinstein. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, 24.
35 Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theol-
7 Ibid.
ogy. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Vol. 2. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
8 Bondage of the Will, 191.
9 Rupp, Gordon. The Righteousness of God. Cam- Publishing, 1997, 635.
36 Ibid., 643.
bridge: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953, 91.
37 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 30.
38 Ibid., 647.
11 Ibid.
39 Ibid., 648.
12 Ibid.

13 Rupp, 248-9.

14 Oberman, 29.

15 St. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 197.

16 Bondage of the Will, 184.

17 Bruce, Gustav Marius. Luther as an Educator.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1963, 117.

18 Rupp, 152.

19 Ibid.

20 Luther, Martin. “Disputation Against Scholastic

Theology,” in Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed.

James Atkinson, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962),

267.

21 Bondage of the Will, 187.

22 Rupp, 90.

23 Luther, Martin. “Commentary on Galatians,” in

Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillen-

berger, (New York: Anchor Books, 1961), 111.

24 Ibid.

25 Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, 270.

26 Bruce, 119.

27 Luther, Martin. “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” in

www.jbu.edu/academics/journal 55

Hebrew Exogesis: Hebrews
4:14-5:10: Jesus, The Great
High Priest Patton Shinall

Theology Major

This paper attempts to answer what the author of Hebrews offered to teach in Hebrews 4:14-5:10. Through exegetical hermeneutics this
paper shows what the message of this passage is and how Christians are to live in light of this Scripture.

In Hebrews chapter 4, verse 14 through chapter 5, verse 10, Jesus is exalted as the great high priest

of the Church. Within this text are some of the most important truths regarding Christ’s office as
the exalted priestly intercessor on behalf of Christians as well as his atoning work accomplished
through his ministry. As a result, this passage truly is a treasure within the Book of Hebrews and
the New Testament as a whole, and because of this persistent dedication should be implemented in
order to understand God’s holy and transcendent will and grace spoken within this text.

Historical Context.
One cannot begin to understand the interpretation of any biblical text without first under-

standing the historical context of the book in question. Donald A. Hagner, author of Encountering

the Book of Hebrews writes:
Given the central importance of grammatico-historical interpretation, the starting point
for the interpretation of any book of the Bible is the determination of its situation in
history: its author, approximate date, and place of origin, its addressees and their back
ground, its intended purpose, its dependence upon literary and oral sources, and so on
(Hauger, 20).