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

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

Questions about whether perfect justice requires that the penalty be paid by the offender rather than someone else, and whether the references in Scripture to sharing in the sufferings of Christ are only about persecution for one’s faith or include things like sickness and financial hardship.   For “perfect justice” to be accomplished, doesn’t the penalty have to actually be paid by the offender rather than someone else? Are the references in Scripture to ”sharing in the sufferings of Christ” only about persecution for one’s faith in Christ, or are they also about sickness, financial hardship, emotional pain, etc.?

Thank you for joining us on hashtag STR Ask. Greg, are you ready to get going? Yep. I don't know why I asked you that. Of course you are. Of course you're ready. That's a way to half hour. You're not sitting here for nothing.

Whether I'm ready or not, let's rock and roll. Here is a question from Todd from Burbank. All right. For perfect justice, doesn't the penalty have to actually be paid by the one offending rather than by someone else or even the offended person? I ask this as a Christian thinking about a potential objection that I may have to answer about Christ paying our penalty. Sure. Bill Craig has addressed this in his book on the Atonement, and the answer he gave, I think, is a fair one, all right?

All that has to be satisfied is the—what's the best way to put it? the desire or sensibilities, if you will, of the one offended. Now, that's really key. It isn't like there's perfect justice kind of hanging out there kind of in the ether, the moral ether, and God is obliged to obey the law of perfect justice that's out there that applies to everyone, including him, and that entails the concern that was just mentioned by Todd. The issue is the offended one, and whether the one who is offended is satisfied with the payment. Justice requires a payment be made. But if you think about even crimes in our community, in our culture, in our jurisprudence, our legal system, those crimes have punishments associated with them.

and the punishments are meant to be commensurate with the crime so that justice is done. But notice that these are punishments that are decided by people in this case, the offended party, so to speak, which is, in a certain sense, people don't think of it so much like this, but not only as an individual who has robbed the offended party, but the government whose laws are, are broken, that's also an offended party. That's why in the past, you don't hear it so much anymore, when a criminal went to prison, oftentimes it would be said that he had paid his debt to society. So we have a debt, an obligation to not just individuals in society, but society as a whole. and when we violate the law, we're violating the law as well as the individual who we broke the law against. So then the law is what, the legislating authority is the one that decides what is the appropriate punishment to establish justice in this particular case.

And so our kind of moral intuitions are in play for some of that. But we even have circumstances where, like, if somebody's, you know, daughter gets a parking ticket, dad can pay as long as the ticket is paid. It doesn't make who paid it. Now, there may be limitations of that. And actually, Bill Craig and his book on Atonement goes into lots and lots of legal detail about how there can be substitutionary payments for a whole host of crimes, even in our judicial system. But the point, really the underlying point, is that. that the one who determines what's ultimately just is the one who is ultimately offended.

So God is the one ultimately offended, being the sovereign of the universe. So he is the one whose law is broken. And if God deems a substitute like Jesus to be adequate payment for our sins, then justice has been satisfied. Yeah, that's a great point. And I will say, as you mentioned with the fines, we have a category for understanding this type of thing because we can do this too. The government is expressing its wrath against the sin, against the crime, and they're levying a fine, but anyone can pay that. And they accept that. So we do have a category for that. I will also say that when it's also proper, and this is, maybe this is hard for us to understand because we don't have any sort of category for us except for two, Adam and Jesus, it's proper for them to represent us. So we are in Adam.

He's representing us until we die with Christ. We're raised and we're joined with him. Right. So we get his righteousness, and he takes our sin and pays our. for our sin. So, I think all of this works together to make sense. I mean, this is a very common question I get. And also remember, we couldn't pay it. So it's not like we have a lot of choice here. I'm going to get to that point in just a moment, but. But this idea of, you know, the government or God demonstrating their wrath. This is what it says in Romans 3 that, let's see here. Let me pull that up. Let's see.

Romans 3. So this was to demonstrate, where am I here? In Romans. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, Jesus on the cross, because in the forbearance of God, he passed over the sins previously committed. For the demonstration, I say, of his righteousness at the present time so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who is faith in Jesus. So in other words, in the past, those sins were not paid for. They were passed over because. there would be a payment coming, so even those past sins would be covered. Right. So if God is showing that he cares about justice and he's fulfilling that justice,

there's, again, this is similar to the government levying a fine, and that's totally fine. And we accept that. So we do have a category for it. That's my point here. Yeah. You brought up the representatives of Adam and Jesus in Adam and in Christ, and this is a, characterization that's developed in Romans 5. But I talk about this in the story of reality.

There is this sense that a one-acts for all. It's interesting when you look at the history of the First and Second World War, the Germans lost, Germany lost the First World War and huge sanctions were placed upon the entire country as payback for the destructive nature of the First War. And this is what, this burden that the people carried made it possible for Hitler to rise to power and then rally them against the rest of the nations, et cetera, et cetera. But the point here is there was this propriety of punishing the country for, in a sense, the sins of the leaders. And this is true all around. This is characteristic when no generals don't go to war, presidents don't go to war.

presidents don't go to war, dictators don't go to war, their countries go to war at their behest. So that's one factor here, just to keep in mind that might help. There is this representative nature that is a legal representative of the whole, and the whole is involved. But there's another thing here, and I want to encourage people to think of this question, and I think it's a great question, because it helps us see the bigger picture. The question is, what's the alternative? What's the alternative? Now, you made reference to it just a moment ago, and I said I'd follow up.

What's the alternative? Let's just say that Jesus, then, is not an adequate substitute, and he doesn't pay for sin. Then the alternative is, well, there's a few of them. One of them is we pay. Well, that means there's no forgiveness. There's no mercy for sinners, and we pay forever. Does that make you feel better? Well, at least justice is being fulfilled in my way of thinking about it.

Yeah. And forever and ever and ever, you're paying the price of justice. Okay, that's one alternative. The other alternative is there's no justice. That everybody is just, you know, boys will be boys, girls will be girls, sinners will be sinners. You're all welcome in, you know. Let the past be forgotten.

So there's just this kind of shallow forgiveness with no payments. And by the way, that's no justice. That's not justice at all, obviously. So there is either no justice done when it should be done or justice is done by the sinners themselves paying. That's not very attractive. Or there's no justice done because there's no such thing as justice, because there is no God and there is no moral grounding. I mean, it seems to me those are your only alternatives. That's what you're left with, and none of them are attractive.

The second two seem to be violations of goodness, and the first one, okay, if that's what you want. By the way, that's what a lot of people are going to get who turn down God's offer of mercy instead of justice. And that's not a very good state of affairs. I mean, why would somebody want that when forgiveness is actually offered instead of quibbling about the issue of justice? I have said this a million times, but I'm going to say it again. This is why the cross is brilliant. There's no – I mean, I'm trying to think – I cannot think of any other philosophy or religion that will maintain justice and offer grace. There is no way.

This is the way. This is the way to have justice and grace. Both the just and the justifier of Him who has faith in Jesus. Okay. Let's go to a question from Wendy. How do you interpret the scriptures about, quote, sharing in the sufferings of Christ? Is it only persecution for their faith in Christ, or do these scriptures also include sickness, financial hardship, emotional pain, et cetera? And if so, in what way are we sharing in the sufferings of Christ through those?

Here's my sense. My sense is that it's really applying to persecution. And we see this in First Peter actually quite a bit. Since Jesus suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves for the same purpose. And also there's a soul-making element there. He who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin. I don't understand that one, you know, because I've had my share of hardships, and I'm not sure it's like kind of lowered my sin threshold. But in any event, it does say that.

I'm not sure if that's First Peter or not. but there's the passages that I'm aware of seem to be the idea of entering into the kind of experience of physical suffering and persecution that Jesus himself experienced, the rejection, the, all the manner of suffering that Jesus experienced. And Peter does talk about, by his stripes, we are healed. So he's identifying the physical sufferings of Christ as a, as a, as a consequence of persecution. And so my sense is that's what it's talking about there.

And I don't think that by sharing the sufferings of Christ, they are somehow efficacious. They don't like add to the merit of Christ. I think it's our encouragement to accept the suffering that is part of being united with Christ, since Jesus did it for us, we do it out of fidelity to him. There's another passage in 1st Peter that towards the end of chapter 4. It says, let him who suffers. I have these ready, so if you want me. Oh, okay.

I'll give you your shot of that. But that would be my sense. One thing we want to be careful is it's not adding to the efficacy of the cross because Jesus' suffering was fully adequate. Human suffering is not to accomplish any and in that sense. And the book of Hebrews, especially chapter 10 makes this crystal clear. So there are some possible interpretations of this concept that are eliminated by clear testimony of other scriptures. By the way, that's a hermeneutical principle.

If you've got a passage of, well, you could go here, it could be this, it could be that. But you want to keep in mind to other passages that disqualify options because of the clarity in those passages, and Hebrews 10 is clear on that issue. But I think it's an identification with Christ. It's an appreciation of what he's done. We suffer in a much more modest manner than he did. But it is part of our lot for the moment. And then God uses that suffering as a vehicle for soulmaking in our heart.

lives. He changes us through the process of our own suffering as we stand before him and suffer in him, as it were, and with him, or he's with us at our suffering at that point. So just to summarize the idea of being persecuted for following Jesus or just doing what's right, because that's another aspect in First Peter. So the passage in First Peter four is make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer or thief or a troublesome meddler. But if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed but is to glorify God in his name. In other words, some people are getting what they deserve because they're goofballs. They're knuckleheads and they're doing all these stupid things.

And that's okay. That's not the kind of suffering he's talking about. Yeah, right. So we're supposed to bear up under unjust sufferings by continuing to do what's right. So here's, First Peter is great on this topic. But here's First Peter three. this is 13 through 18, I'll kind of skip around. I won't read the whole thing. But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing so that also at the revelation of his glory,

you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests on you. So there is connecting the sufferings of Christ with being reviled for the name of Christ. And then he says, for it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. So you see that here the idea is as we're in a way burying the sins of others because we're taking in the persecution, but we're responding with grace. And this is reflecting Jesus to the world. Now, do you have – I have another actually aspect of this, if you want more to say about this.

Yeah, I just wanted as an aside, and Christ died for sin once for all. You know, there's a battle in certain circles, especially progressive circles, but even among evangelicals about the nature of the atonement. And the idea that Jesus, a substitutionary atonement or penal substitution, he paid the price for our sins. he was punished in our place. This is controversial to people. And I look at verses like this, Jesus, Christ died for sin once for all. And there's another verse in First Peter says he, he himself, it's another short wood. He himself took on our, bore our sins.

Yeah, yeah, something like that is towards chapter four maybe or maybe three. I don't know, but there's these. It's full of it. It's full of suffering passages. Yeah, but it's, but the point. is such a clear statement of substitutionary tomen. It's chapter two, and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross. That's the phrase I'm looking at. That's substitution. Yeah. For by his wounds, you were healed. We are healed. Then there's a citation of Isaiah 53 by Peter. So I had one other thing I wanted to say about that, but go ahead.

Go ahead. No, okay. I'll make a note. Go ahead. Well, there's one other aspect of, I think, the way that sharing and the sufferings of Christ is used. It's related, which I'll get to how it relates at the end. But I think it's also used in the context of putting our sins to death. So if you look at Romans 6, it talks about.

about how we've been buried with him through baptism into death. And it says our old self was crucified with him in order that our body of sin might be done away with so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. For the death that he died, he died to sin once for all. So keeping that in mind, that background in chapter six, when you get to chapter eight, he's talking in the context of, that whole chapter's in the context of sanctification. So he's talking about putting our sins to death, how the first in chapter seven, he says, the law didn't enable us to put our sin to death. It just condemned us. But then he gets to eight and he says, but now we have the spirit of life and the Holy Spirit gives us the power to put our sins

to death. And he says, in that, in midst of that, the Spirit himself testifies with, our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. So in the context of putting our sin to death, he's talking about, and in light of Romans 6, he's talking about our putting our sins to death, suffering in putting our sins to death and identifying with Jesus in that way so that we will ultimately. be glorified. And we see this again in Philippians 3, 9 through 12 when he talks about not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the

righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know him in the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I've already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. So see, he's connecting this idea of the fellowship of his sufferings and being conformed to his death with sanctification. So what you have here, you have, first, we talked about the context of being persecuted for Jesus' sake and identifying him with him in that way and being persecuted for doing what's right, but also putting our own sin to death. And what

But you see is that this whole idea, if you put these two things together, sharing the sufferings of Christ is putting our sin to death and bearing the effects of other people's sin while responding as Jesus responded. So you see, we're becoming an image of Jesus for the world, because that's exactly what he did for us. So I think all of these things are working together. Yeah, Peter says, Lettia suffers according to the will of God, entrust himself. to a faithful creator in doing what is right.

It's the last of chapter 4, 1st Peter. And I think of that a lot because it really sums up what you've just been saying. One last reflection here, and it's amazing, just so people know. You guys know, Amy and I don't talk through these questions beforehand. Once or while, she'll say, well, look up in a verse because that's part of the question, and so I know that I got to check the verse out or whatever. But it's amazing how our minds work together at this. It's like the Vulcan mind melt.

So, you know, I'm going to First Peter. And you got First Peter right open there with, you know, highlighted everything. So I just thought that's interesting. You all should memorize First Peter. I'm just telling you it's so relevant to what we're doing now. And you get the idea. I think we sometimes forget why we're doing this. It's all about representing Christ to the world and show.

knowing him to be glorious in so many ways, not only by responding the way he did, but also by not giving in. We're showing them that he's worth more than our suffering is painful. And that whole book just, I think it's so helpful in helping us to persevere. And this is because, I mean, think about it. Peter was the one who failed. Peter was the one who denied Jesus. And Jesus told him, when you return, strengthen your brothers. And I think this is what he's doing.

And I think this is why he has so many insights because he failed and he thought so carefully about how do we persevere. Whereas Paul's not quite as concerned. He's totally different personality. But we see that Peter has thought so much about this. So we can all benefit from thinking carefully through his book. But you did cite Romans 8, which is Paul obviously. Yes, yes. But he doesn't talk about how quite as much as Peter. Peter is very intent on getting you to persevere.

Right. All right. Well, thank you so much, Wendy and Todd. We appreciate hearing from you. Make sure you send us your question. You can send that on X with the hashtag STR Ask, or you can just go to our website. Our websites at STR.org. And while you're there, check out the older episodes. We've been doing this for many, many years. I think maybe even 10 years now that Melinda started this with you. So we've answered so many of these questions. But we'd love to hear yours too. So make sure you send that. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.