Doesn’t Perfect Justice Require That the Penalty Be Paid By the Offender?

This episode of #STRask explores the theological question of whether perfect justice requires that the penalty for sin be paid directly by the offender, particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of penal substitution—where Jesus bears the penalty for humanity's sins. Greg Kokel and Amy Hall respond to a question from Todd in Burbank, affirming that justice is not an abstract moral law but is grounded in the will of the offended party—God. Drawing from Bill Craig’s work and biblical texts like Romans 3 and 1 Peter, they argue that God, as sovereign and offended by sin, determines what satisfies justice. The analogy of criminal justice systems—where fines can be paid by others—illustrates how substitution is both legally and morally coherent. The hosts emphasize that the alternative to Christ’s substitutionary atonement is either endless punishment for sinners or the abandonment of justice altogether, neither of which is tenable. They then turn to Wendy’s question about 'sharing in the sufferings of Christ,' clarifying that this primarily refers to persecution for faith and spiritual warfare against sin, not suffering as a general life condition. They distinguish between Christ’s once-for-all atonement and our participation in suffering as a means of sanctification and witness, rooted in Romans 6, Philippians 3, and 1 Peter. The conversation underscores the cross as the only framework that harmonizes divine justice and mercy, while affirming the believer’s identity in Christ through suffering and perseverance.