WHAT DOES EACH ATONEMENT THEORY REVEAL—AND WHAT DOES IT DENY? THE EXAMPLE THEORY
In this series, we will examine each major theory of the Atonement, uncover the biblical truth it reveals, and identify what it leaves unexplained—or denies when treated as the complete explanation of Christ’s work. Most importantly, we will ask how each theory shapes the gospel it presents.
WHEN THE EXPLANATION CHANGES, DOES THE GOSPEL CHANGE?
Christians agree that Jesus Christ died for our sins. But when we ask why He had to die and what His death accomplished, the answers begin to differ.
Throughout Christian history, theologians have developed different explanations of the Atonement. Some emphasize Christ's example. Others emphasize ransom, victory over evil, the restoration of humanity, God's justice, or the penalty for sin.
Each explanation attempts to answer an important question about the Cross. Some preserve biblical truths that are essential to understanding Christ's work. But does any one explanation, taken by itself, account for everything Scripture says the Cross accomplished?
That is what we want to investigate.
We are not searching for a theory we happen to like. Nor are we going to dismiss an entire theory because we disagree with one of its claims. We want to understand what each theory actually teaches, why it developed, what biblical truth it recognizes, and what questions it leaves unanswered.
But before we can evaluate these explanations, we must establish the problem the Cross had to address.
HOW DOES EACH THEORY SHAPE THE GOSPEL IT PRODUCES?
A theory of the Atonement is not merely an abstract theological explanation. It influences how we understand God, how we understand ourselves, why Christ had to die, and what we believe His death actually accomplished. It shapes whether salvation is presented primarily as a victory, a payment, a legal transaction, a demonstration of love, a release from bondage, or something humanity must learn to accomplish by following Christ.
THESE DIFFERENCES MATTER.
If Christ came merely to show us how to live, what did His death accomplish that His example alone could not? If His death was a ransom, what did that ransom accomplish, and from what did it redeem us? If His death satisfied the demands of justice, what does that mean for God's justice, human guilt, and Christ's identification with humanity? If His death demonstrated God's love, does that demonstration fully explain why He had to die?
Each theory raises questions that must be answered from Scripture.
THE PROBLEM THE CROSS HAD TO SOLVE
The Bible presents humanity's problem as more than a collection of individual wrong acts.
Paul writes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12). Humanity is not merely a collection of individuals who occasionally make bad choices. We belong to a fallen human family, and our corrupted condition produces corrupted fruit.
We have a twofold problem: the condition of sin and the actual sins that flow from it.
And both raise a fundamental question about God's justice.
How can a holy and just God justify condemned sinners without setting aside His own law? How can He deal with our actual sins while addressing the deeper human problem that began in Adam?
Paul puts the legal question directly before us in Romans 3:26: how can God be just and at the same time justify the one who has faith in Jesus?
The Cross cannot be understood apart from the problem it was intended to solve.
WHAT MUST WE ASK OF EVERY ATONEMENT THEORY?
As we examine the historical explanations of Christ's saving work, we will return to a few foundational questions.
WHAT IS SUBSTITUTION?
Does Christ simply take the place of unrelated individuals, or does His incarnation establish a real representative relationship with humanity?
WHAT IS TRANSFERRED OR IMPUTED, AND ON WHAT LEGAL BASIS?
What does the explanation say happens to guilt, condemnation, or righteousness? And why is that arrangement just?
WHY CAN CHRIST REPRESENT HUMANITY?
How does His relationship to us as the Second Adam explain what He accomplishes for us?
WHAT DOES CHRIST'S DEATH ACCOMPLISH FOR HUMANITY?
Does the explanation address only the liability associated with individual sins, or does it also account for the deeper human problem that originated in Adam?
These questions will help us examine the theories without confusing the Atonement itself with the results of the Atonement in the believer.
OUR METHOD: UNDERSTAND BEFORE WE JUDGE
We will trace each theory through its historical development, beginning with the biblical truth it sought to explain. We will then examine its central claims and ask what it leaves unexplained when treated as the complete account of Christ's saving work.
We will distinguish between what a theory explicitly denies and what it simply does not address adequately. We will also recognize that historical theologians sometimes held several explanations together rather than relying on a single theory.
Our purpose is not to force every historical Christian into the same categories. It is to understand how these explanations developed and to test their claims against Scripture.
Because the question is not merely which theory sounds most convincing.
The question is whether the explanation accounts for what the Bible says Christ accomplished through His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection—and how that accomplishment answers the legal problem of condemned humanity.
The theories are witnesses. Scripture is the judge.
SUBSTITUTION, REPRESENTATION, AND THE LEGAL QUESTION OF THE CROSS
Before we examine the different explanations Christians have offered for the Atonement, we need to establish a few things.
What does it mean for Christ to die for us? What does it mean for Him to represent us? What is meant when theologians speak of guilt being transferred or righteousness being imputed? And why did Christ have to die?
These questions are related, but they are not interchangeable. If we confuse them, we can end up assuming that a theory has answered a question when it has actually answered something else.
Let's begin with the Bible.
1. WHAT IS SUBSTITUTION?
In its simplest sense, substitution means that one acts or suffers on behalf of another. Christians use the word because Scripture repeatedly says that Christ died for us and for our sins.
Paul writes:
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8, KJV
But saying that Christ died for us does not, by itself, explain everything about how His death saves us.
What does it mean that He acted for us? What made Him qualified to do so? What did His death accomplish? And how does His work relate to God's justice?
Different atonement theories answer these questions differently.
Some emphasize Christ bearing the penalty that sinners deserve. Others emphasize His victory over the powers that enslave humanity, His representative obedience, or His work of satisfying God's honor and justice.
We cannot evaluate these explanations simply by asking whether they believe Christ died for us. We must ask what each theory means by Christ dying for us and why that work was necessary.
2. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBSTITUTION AND REPRESENTATION?
This distinction is central to our investigation.
A substitute acts on behalf of another. A representative acts on behalf of those whom he represents. The two ideas can overlap, but they are not identical.
Consider Paul's argument in Romans 5.
Paul does not describe Adam and Christ merely as two individuals who made different choices. He places them in a representative relationship with humanity.
Through one man, sin entered the world, and death came through sin (Romans 5:12). Paul then contrasts Adam's trespass with Christ's act of righteousness and obedience (Romans 5:15–19).
The actions of these two men have consequences that extend beyond themselves.
This raises an important question: Why can Christ act for humanity?
Is He simply an innocent individual who takes the place of unrelated guilty individuals? Or does His incarnation establish a real relationship between Him and the human family He came to save?
Hebrews 2:14–17 emphasizes that Christ shared in flesh and blood and was made like His brothers and sisters. Galatians 4:4–5 describes the Son as born of a woman and born under the law to redeem those under the law.
Christ did not remain outside the human story. He entered it.
This is why Paul's identification of Christ as the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45 matters. Christ's relationship to humanity is not an incidental detail. It belongs to the biblical explanation of His saving work.
We must therefore ask not only what Christ did for humanity, but why He can represent humanity.
That question will become especially important when we examine theories of substitution.
3. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TRANSFER OR IMPUTE SOMETHING?
The language of transfer and imputation appears frequently in discussions of the Atonement, but these terms can conceal important differences.
To impute generally means to reckon or credit something to someone's account. In theological discussions, it may refer to righteousness being credited, or to the way a person's guilt or liability is understood in relation to another.
But using the word does not settle the legal question.
If a theory says that guilt is transferred to Christ, we must ask what it means by guilt. Is it referring to the actual commission of a sinful act? To liability for its consequences? To condemnation? And on what grounds can Christ bear what belongs to others?
Likewise, if a theory says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, we must ask what that means and how it relates to Christ's representative work.
The important question is not merely what a theory says is transferred or credited. It is why that arrangement is just and how Scripture establishes it.
We should not assume that every Christian tradition uses imputation, transfer, or substitution in exactly the same way. We must examine each theory's actual claims rather than relying on the terminology alone.
4. WHY DOES HUMANITY NEED MORE THAN FORGIVENESS FOR INDIVIDUAL SINS?
The Bible describes a human problem deeper than the wrong acts we commit.
Paul writes that sin entered the world through Adam and that death spread to humanity (Romans 5:12). He then develops the contrast between Adam and Christ throughout Romans 5:12–21.
Humanity's problem includes both our corrupted condition and the actual sins that arise from it.
We commit sins, but our problem does not begin anew with each individual act. We belong to the fallen human family in Adam.
This distinction matters because forgiveness for individual sins, though essential, does not by itself explain the entire human problem. We must also ask how God deals with the condition in which sin and death hold humanity.
Think of a tree and its fruit. The fruit reveals what kind of tree it is, and the condition of the tree, but removing individual pieces of fruit doesn't change the fruit it produces and removing individual rotten fruit does not, by itself, restore the tree.
The illustration is limited, but it helps us see why we must ask about both the root and the fruit.
A complete explanation of the Atonement must account for the actual sins human beings commit and the deeper human problem from which those sins arise.
The question is whether each theory adequately explains how Christ's work addresses both.
5. WHY DID CHRIST HAVE TO DIE?
This brings us to the legal question at the heart of our investigation.
Paul writes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). He then speaks of God's righteousness being manifested and of God being both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21–26).
The question is profound:
HOW CAN GOD JUSTIFY SINNERS WITHOUT VIOLATING HIS OWN JUSTICE AND LAW?
God cannot simply declare evil good or pretend that sin does not matter. Yet the gospel announces that God justifies sinners through Jesus Christ.
How does the Cross make this possible?
What did Christ accomplish through His death that answers the problem of condemnation? How does His work relate to humanity's condition in Adam? And why is His death necessary rather than merely His example of a righteous life?
These are the questions the different atonement theories attempt to answer, although they do not all approach the problem from the same starting point.
Some theories focus on the defeat of evil. Others focus on sacrifice, justice, satisfaction, or penalty. We must understand each explanation on its own terms before determining what it accounts for and what it leaves unanswered.
6. WHAT ARE WE TESTING EACH THEORY AGAINST?
As we move through the history of Christian thought, we will return to three questions:
WHAT DOES THIS THEORY SAY CHRIST ACCOMPLISHED?
We will identify its central claim and the biblical truth it seeks to explain.
HOW DOES IT ANSWER THE LEGAL PROBLEM?
We will ask how its explanation accounts for God's just forgiveness and justification of condemned sinners.
WHAT DOES IT LEAVE UNADDRESSED?
We will examine whether it adequately accounts for both humanity's corrupted condition and the actual sins that flow from it, as well as the necessity and significance of Christ's death.
We will distinguish between what a theory explicitly denies and what it simply does not explain. We will also recognize that historical theologians sometimes combined several explanations rather than relying on a single one.
Our standard will not be whether a theory uses the language we prefer. It will be whether its claims adequately account for the biblical evidence.
THE QUESTION WE CARRY FORWARD
We now have the questions necessary to begin our investigation.
Christ died for us. But what does that mean? Why can He represent humanity? What does His death accomplish? And how can God justly justify sinners without compromising His own righteousness?
Throughout Christian history, different theories have attempted to answer these questions. Each deserves to be understood before it is judged.
Our task is to discover what each theory reveals about the Cross, what it leaves unexplained, and whether it accounts for the full biblical problem that Christ came to resolve.
The theories are witnesses. Scripture is the judge.
1. THE EXAMPLE THEORY
THE QUESTION THIS THEORY ASKS
What if Christ came primarily to show humanity how to live?
The Example Theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as the supreme revelation of God's character and the perfect example of love, humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice. By observing His life and following His example, humanity is shown what righteousness looks like and how people ought to live.
There is an important biblical truth here. Jesus revealed the character of God. He told Philip, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9, KJV). Paul describes Christ's humility and obedience in Philippians 2:5–8, and Peter writes that Christ left us an example so that we should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21).
We should not dismiss this truth. Christ is our example. His life reveals God's character, and His followers are called to live in the light of that revelation.
But here is the question:
DOES CHRIST'S EXAMPLE EXPLAIN THE ATONEMENT, OR DOES IT EXPLAIN HOW WE SHOULD LIVE IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHED?
Those are two different claims.
If Christ's example is presented as one aspect of the gospel, it preserves an important truth. But if His example becomes the entire explanation of the Atonement, we must ask what His death accomplished for humanity that His example alone could not accomplish.
THE PROBLEM IS DEEPER THAN A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Scripture does not describe humanity's problem as simply not knowing how to live. We have not merely lost sight of a good example. We are sinners by nature and by experience.
Paul describes humanity under sin and concludes that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:9–23).
Isaiah describes our condition:
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” — Isaiah 53:6, KJV
He also writes:
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” — Isaiah 64:6, KJV
Notice the expression all our righteousnesses. The problem is not confined to our obviously sinful actions. We cannot establish our standing before God by accumulating good works, performing acts of kindness, or trying harder to imitate Jesus.
An example can show us what righteousness looks like. But showing us righteousness does not, by itself, resolve our condemnation or explain how God can justly declare sinners righteous.
Humanity does not merely need to know the right path. We need God to deal with the sin problem that keeps us from walking in it.
THE PROBLEM OF OUR SINFUL CONDITION
There is another difficulty with the idea that observing Christ's example is sufficient to resolve humanity's problem. It assumes that seeing perfect love is enough to produce perfect love in those who witness it.
But Scripture describes a deeper problem.
Paul writes:
“For the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” — Romans 8:7, KJV
Paul is not describing a simple lack of information. He is describing a condition that requires God's intervention.
Consider the disciples. They lived with Jesus for approximately three years. They witnessed His compassion, humility, patience, and self-sacrificing love. They heard Him teach that the greatest must become a servant. Yet at the Last Supper, they were still arguing about which of them should be considered the greatest (Luke 22:24–27).
They had seen the example firsthand. They had heard the teaching directly. Yet their selfish ambition had not simply disappeared.
This does not mean Christ's example had no value. It means that witnessing perfect love is not the same as being delivered from the sin within us.
The example reveals what righteousness looks like. But the example alone does not explain how God deals with our corrupted condition, our actual sins, or the condemnation under which humanity stands.
WHAT DOES CHRIST'S DEATH ACCOMPLISH?
This brings us to the central question the Example Theory must answer.
If Christ came primarily to show us how to live, what did His death accomplish that His example alone could not?
Paul does not present Jesus merely as a better role model. In Romans 5:12–21, he contrasts Adam and Christ, describing the consequences of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. The passage concerns more than the example one man sets for others. It concerns what God accomplishes through Christ in relation to the human problem that began with Adam.
Paul also writes that God presented Christ in relation to the problem of sin and His righteousness, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21–26).
That brings us directly to the legal question at the heart of our investigation:
HOW DOES CHRIST'S DEATH MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO JUSTIFY SINNERS WITHOUT VIOLATING HIS OWN JUSTICE AND LAW?
An example of perfect obedience does not, by itself, answer that question. Showing condemned sinners how they ought to live does not explain how their condemnation is dealt with.
The Example Theory, when treated as the complete explanation of the Atonement, does not adequately explain what Christ's death accomplishes to resolve this legal problem.
Paul's answer is not that humanity must produce its own righteousness by following Jesus more successfully:
“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” — 1 Corinthians 1:30, KJV
Christ does not merely show us how to become our own righteousness. Paul directs us to Christ Himself.
WHAT DOES THE EXAMPLE THEORY LEAVE UNEXPLAINED?
The Example Theory rightly emphasizes that Christ reveals God's character and that His followers are called to reflect that character. We should preserve that truth.
But an example is not the same thing as an accomplishment. Showing humanity what it ought to be is not the same as explaining how God deals with what humanity has become.
When the example becomes the entire explanation of the Atonement, several questions remain:
How does Christ's death deal with the condemnation under which humanity stands?
How does His work address not only individual sins but the deeper human problem that began in Adam?
On what legal grounds can God justify sinners without setting aside His own justice?
The theory may tell us what righteousness looks like, but an example alone does not explain how Christ's death resolves these questions.
The problem is not that Christ's example is unimportant. The problem is treating the example as a substitute for explaining the saving accomplishment of the Cross.
If the entire burden of salvation is placed on humanity's ability to follow Christ's example, the sinner is left trying to produce the righteousness that the gospel directs us to find in Christ.
The gospel does call us to follow Christ. It calls us to obedience, service, love, and a transformed life. But those things must be understood in relation to what God has accomplished in Christ, not as a replacement for that accomplishment.
Christ did not come merely to show condemned sinners how to live. We must also explain what He accomplished to save them.
Comments