Is Christ's Cross about God's Wrath? - part 2

Note: This is the second of a two-part series.  You can read part one here and part three here. 

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
1 Corinthians 5:7

In part 1 of this series, I raised the issue of how the wrath of God relates to the cross of Jesus Christ.  I suggested that, contrary to popular evangelical tradition, perhaps the cross of Jesus Christ is actually not purposed to satisfy the wrath of God.

What I intend to do in this post is to be less suggestive and more assertive.  I want to assert that the cross of Jesus Christ was never intended to satisfy the wrath of God. Rather, from the very beginning, it would be more accurate to say that the cross of Jesus Christ was intended to absorb the wrath of Satan (Revelation 12:12), God's adversary, and in so doing, to destroy (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) that ancient serpent.

In building any New Testament theology of the cross, we must understand the Old Testament backdrop against which the cross is set.  And there's arguably no Old Testament event more central to developing a theology of the cross than the Passover/Exodus account.

Passover

In the quote of 1 Corinthians 5:7 above, Paul directly invokes the Passover.  But if we're listening carefully for the indirect Old Testament echoes that reverberate on just about every page of the New Testament, the Exodus and Passover are usually somewhere nearby.  For instance, in Ephesians 1 Paul speaks of how the church has redemption through Jesus's blood (Ephesians 1:7), echoing the Old Testament redemption of Israel from bondage to Pharaoh in Egypt.  In Colossians 1, Paul speaks of the church being delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God's beloved Son (Colossians 1:13), echoing the Old Testament deliverance of Israel from the darkness of Egypt into the light of God's presence in the journey to the Promised Land.  Central to the the church's identity in the New Testament is fulfilling the nation of Israel's identity in the Old Testament as a people liberated from slavery.

So to understand the church in its relationship to the cross, it's imperative to understand the nation of Israel in its relationship to the Passover/Exodus account.

Traditional interpretation

In his book Blood Work: How the Blood of Christ Accomplishes Our Salvation, Anthony Carter explains the traditional evangelical understanding of God's purposes in the Passover:

The last plague was the most horrific. God swore to kill the firstborn of every creature in Egypt, including the house of Pharaoh (Ex. 11:4 ff.). So awesome would be the judgment that even the firstborn of Israel would perish unless the Israelites obeyed the commands of God.  To avert the judgment, God commanded every household of Israel to select a male lamb without blemish, kill it, and smear the blood on the doorposts of the house. Then God said: “The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:13). We must remember that God’s wrath was not against Egypt alone for its sin and idolatry, but against Israel as well. God is not a respecter of persons when it comes to the judgment of sin. His judgment was going to wreak havoc not only on the Egyptians but also on the people of Israel—unless they figuratively covered themselves in blood by literally covering their doorposts with it. What did the blood of the lambs do? It turned away God’s wrath and appeased His anger against sin. It satisfied His justice.

Carter; Anthony. Blood Work (p. 12). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition. (emphasis added)

In this view, the primary problem lingering in the background is God's wrath.  Because of sin, God must pour out His wrath, on both Egypt and Israel.  And that wrath can only be satisfied by death, which is signified by blood.  So rather than killing the firstborn of the Israelites together with the firstborn of the Egyptians, God resolves the problem of His wrath by appointing a lamb as a sacrifice to be killed and then for the blood of that lamb to be smeared on the doorposts of the homes of the Israelite families.  So when God comes to satisfy His wrath by killing the firstborn in each home, when He sees the blood on the doorpost of an Israelite family, that blood functions as though it were the blood of the Israelite firstborn in that home and thus represents the death that satisfies God's wrath so that He can "pass over" (skip over) the Israelite homes in inflicting death on their firstborns and only inflict death on the firstborn of the Egyptian households.  Since there is no blood to satisfy God's wrath on the doorposts of the Egyptian homes, God satisfies His wrath by pouring out the blood of the Egyptian firstborns unto death.

Alternative Interpretation

In her blog post on the Passover, Connie Cook proposes an alternative interpretation (see in particular her note on the Hebrew word “pasach”, which may mean "to pass over" but also means "to halt") and highlights Exodus 12:23 as central to properly understanding the Passover account:

For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you.
Exodus 12:23

This alternative interpretation begins with a different problem lingering in the backdrop.  First and foremost, in the context of Exodus up until this point, the Israelites are slaves under oppression in Egypt.  And the whole movement of the last few chapters leading up to Exodus 12 is a sustained effort by God to bring His people out of slavery and into freedom under His reign, not Pharaoh's.  Second, notice that in Exodus 12:23, there are two parties involved in the "pass over" event.  There is the destroyer who is seeking to enter houses and strike firstborns down in death.  Here is the author of Hebrews in the New Testament commenting on this account:

By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
Hebrews 11:28

There's the destroyer who is seeking to kill firstborns.  And then there is God who "passes over" the door of the house.

Now, here's the all-important question: what's the relationship between the destroyer and God?

The traditional interpretation essentially views God and the destroyer as a single entity.  The destroyer acts on behalf of God, simply carrying out God's bidding.  In other words, God is actively seeking to pour out His wrath in Egypt and the destroyer is His agent in doing so.  So when God says He will "pass over" a house, this view sees God looking at the blood on the house and re-directing the hand of the destroyer to move to (skip to) the next house where there is no blood lining the door.

The alternative interpretation sees the destroyer in one sense acting in submission to God's sovereign rule.  But there's another sense in which God is passive when it comes to the destroyer and his execution of wrath.  So when God says He will "pass over" a house, as the destroyer moves from house to house to kill firstborns, God goes before the destroyer and when He sees the blood on the doorpost, God Himself "passes over" that house not in the sense of skipping that house to move to the next but to insert Himself as an obstacle between the destroyer and the firstborn in that house.  In this way, the destroyer cannot touch the firstborn in each blood-covered house because God obstructs the way.  And the blood on the doorpost ultimately signifies God's very own blood because the destroyer has been authorized to draw blood from each home in Egypt and thus must draw blood in order to move on from each home, whether that blood is of the firstborn or the blood of God Himself as a substitute.

In this alternative interpretation, the primary problem lingering in the backdrop is twofold: slavery in Egypt and the sword of the destroyer.  In God's inscrutable wisdom, He uses the destroyer's sword metaphorically falling on Himself to preserve the Israelite firstborns in Egypt and the destroyer's sword falling on the Egyptian firstborns as the mechanism to finally effect Pharaoh sending the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt and into freedom under the reign of God.

In summary, this alternative interpretation understands the Passover account not as God's demand for blood unto death but rather the destroyer's demand for blood unto death, a demand that God Himself will ultimately satisfy by the sacrificial shedding of His own blood.  Which leads us to the New Testament fulfillment of the Passover.

New Testament Fulfillment of Passover

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Colossians 2:13–15

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
Hebrews 2:14–15

Here are three New Testament passages that speak of the spiritual predicament that humanity finds itself in and how Jesus resolves that predicament through the cross.  In light of the alternative interpretation of the Passover set forth in the previous section, the next paragraph is my attempt to harmonize and offer commentary on these three passages.

When we serve master sin, a record of debt is created in which sin now owes us a payment (wage).  But it's not a payment we want.  Because that payment is death.  So there's a record in our name that stands against us because sin owes us a debt of death.  And that debt is legally binding.  Because we are afraid of this payment that we know is coming from our master sin, Satan uses this to bind us in slavery for our entire lives.  At the cross, God makes a "legal settlement" with Satan.  He will deliver Jesus up to receive the payment from master sin, which is to hand Jesus over to Satan to do his worst to Him.  And in exchange Satan will release humanity from this debt of death owed to them, and as a result free them from their lifelong slavery to the fear of death.  In this way, Jesus ransoms humans from Satan, sin, and death.  By this "legal settlement" God effectively sets aside this record of debt that stood against humanity.  He does so by nailing it to the cross because the death of Jesus was what the settlement required for Satan to release humanity.  Because Satan can no longer hold this record of debt against humanity who is in Christ, the entire demonic host is disarmed and put to open shame because, try as he still does to exercise authority and dominion over humanity, through the cross he has been decisively conquered for those who are in Christ.

In fulfillment of the Passover, Satan is the Destroyer (John 10:10a) who demands the death of all who have sinned and has a legal claim to carry out that execution of all who have sinned because we have come into his domain.  But when he collectively moves to strike humanity inside the metaphorical house in which we dwell, Jesus Himself "passes over" the metaphorical door stretching out His arms on the cross to block the way so that Satan can't get to us.  Jesus opens Himself up to let the destroyer do his worst to Him on the cross.  And that Satan does, tearing Jesus to shreds on the cross.  Satan gets the blood he demanded in destroying Jesus unto death.  And not only are we spared death through identifying with Jesus and His house, but we are liberated from Satan's domain because the blood of Jesus legally satisfies the claim that Satan holds over all who have sinned.  This is what it means that Jesus is our Passover, who gave His life to ransom us and free us from bondage, bondage to death (and the fear of death) as well as sin.  This makes sense of Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians to live like people who are morally free in light of the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7).  Viewing the Passover as a means to satisfy God's wrath, however, leaves blanks needing to be filled in for how that satisfaction of God's wrath relates to freeing us from bondage to death and sin.

Contrary to the traditional interpretation which views God as demanding death and blood, it seems more accurate to say it's the destroyer (Satan) who demands death and blood.  And by letting the destroyer (Hebrews 11:28) destroy Him on the cross, Christ destroys (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) the destroyer.

Glory.

This interpretation of the cross stands seamlessly in line with the first gospel proclamation in Genesis 3:15 where God declares that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent while having His heel bruised, as well as seamlessly aligning with the developing conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent throughout the unfolding biblical narrative.

Perhaps no one has better captured and brought to life the climax of this conflict at the cross than C.S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:  

But Didn't God Do It?

For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
Exodus 12:12

And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.’” And the people bowed their heads and worshiped.  Then the people of Israel went and did so; as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.  At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.
Exodus 12:26–29

The last thing I want to do is ignore some verses of Scripture in favor of others.  It seems obvious from these verses immediately above that God is the one who is doing the striking/destroying in Egypt, not the so-called "destroyer."  Doesn't this indicate that God and the destroyer are working as a single entity?

I would propose that we must never lose sight of the fact that the biblical authors always attributed everything to God.  They understood Him to ultimately be the sovereign first cause of everything.  And it's in this sense that He did the striking down because He decreed/ordained/allowed (choose the word you prefer as all three are really just variations of the same thing) the destroyer to strike down the firstborns in Egypt.  But we must distinguish between God being the sovereign first cause of everything and God being the active agent in doing something.

Perhaps there is no better portrayal of this tension in Scripture than in the book of Job.

And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.  And he took a piece of broken pottery with which to scrape himself while he sat in the ashes.  Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.”  But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Job 2:6–10

Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
Job 42:11

Notice in the first passage that we clearly are told that Satan is the one who strikes Job with sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.  Satan is the active agent in inflicting suffering on Job, not God.  But notice that Job, in a rhetorical question, makes the point that this evil is to be received from God.  And to make sure we understand that these two perspectives are not at odds, God inspires the author to tell us that Job didn't sin or misspeak in saying that.

In the second passage, the narrator himself concludes by stating that God had brought all the evil upon Job even though we know that Satan was the active agent who was tormenting Job.

In order to navigate this tension without stumbling, we must distinguish between God being the sovereign first cause of everything and God being the active agent in doing something.  In the Passover, God is the sovereign first cause in the death of the firstborns in Egypt but Satan is the active agent who destroys the firstborns in Egypt.

But Didn't Jesus Offer Himself to God?

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Ephesians 5:2

If Jesus didn't die to satisfy the wrath of God, then what do we make of the passages that speak of Jesus offering Himself as a sacrifice to God (such as—but not limited to—the verse immediately above)?

Throughout Scripture, the biblical writers highlight the inseparability of loving God and loving neighbor.  Jesus teaches that the first and greatest commandment is to love God with everything we have and the second is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:37-39).  Elsewhere He says that all the Law and Prophets hangs on loving our neighbor (Matthew 7:12).  The apostle John says that there's no way we can love God who we haven't seen if we don't love our brother who we have seen (1 John 4:20-21).

When we put all of this together, there's a profound sense in which our love for God—or we might say our worship of God—is demonstrated precisely in our love for our neighbor.  One place we see this connection play out is in Romans 12:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.  Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1–2

Paul begins Romans 12 in verse 1 with an exhortation to the saints at Rome to worship God, to offer a sacrifice to God.  He then spends essentially the rest of the chapter detailing how they should act toward one another:

This shows us that the primary way God intends for us to sacrifice to Him and to worship Him is precisely through the ways we love one another.

Greater love, Jesus says, has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for His friends (John 15:13).  There was no greater love that Jesus could have shown for His friends—His neighbors—than when He stretched His hands across the doorposts-turned-cross in order to let the destroyer destroy Him instead of us in the Passover at Calvary.  And thus there was no greater sacrifice to God or act of worshipping God than when Jesus gave Himself up to let the destroyer do his worst to Him—for us—in love at the cross (Ephesians 5:2).  That's why it was so sweet-smelling to God.

Did Jesus pay a penalty at the cross?  Yes, the penalty of death that sin required as a wage via agency of Satan.

Did Jesus substitute Himself at the cross?  Yes, because though the record of debt that sin owes is to us in the form of death, Jesus paid that debt for us in His own death so that that record would be set aside and stand against us no more.

Did Jesus atone (make us "at-one" with God once again) for our sins?  Yes, because His ransom frees us from being bound in sin's domain so that we can return to God in His kingdom.

So, yes, Jesus's death on the cross is a penal substitutionary atonement.

But I maintain that none of that has to do with satisfying the wrath of the Father if by that you mean God pouring out His active anger upon sin and sinners.