This verse in Paul's letter to the Romans is one that probably comes closest in the New Testament to explicitly substantiating the claim that the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was to rescue believers from the future wrath of God by Jesus taking it upon Himself as a substitute for sinners. William Lane Craig, a proponent of this view—popularly known as the penal substitutionary view of the atonement—comments on this verse:
For Paul Christ’s death is conceived to be both expiatory and propitiatory... The first clause expresses expiation (justified by his blood), the second propitiation (saved by him from the wrath of God).
In this post, my aim is to show how Romans 5:9 does not teach that the purpose of the cross is for Jesus to take God's wrath upon Himself as a substitute for sinners. I will make this case by unpacking the following two points:
- According to Romans 5:9, being saved from the wrath of God is something separate from and additional to the cross event where Jesus died to spill the blood that justifies us.
- God's wrath is something that the disobedient already experience in the present (and into the future) because it corresponds to their disobedience.
Being Saved from Wrath Is Separate from and Additional to the Cross Event
Paul utilizes a particular formula to relate being justified by Christ's blood to being saved by Him from the wrath of God.
The formula is: "Since X, much more Y"
Since we have now been justified by his blood, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
The phrase "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) or its similar variant "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) is used elsewhere in the New Testament to connect two propositions. Let's look at a few:
For if many died through one man's trespass, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Romans 5:15
For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:17
Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) will their full inclusion mean!
Romans 11:12
For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Romans 11:24
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) will what is permanent have glory.
2 Corinthians 3:11
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Philippians 2:12
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Hebrews 9:13-14
Six out of these seven passages are known to be written by Paul. Four out of these seven utilize the "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) variant while three out of the seven utilize the "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) variant. But in none of these examples is the relationship between the two propositions connected by "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) or "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) one of equivalence.
In each reference to "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) or "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) above, the author is using the phrase to demonstrate that the proposition on the right side of the formula is distinct from the proposition on the left side of the formula. While there is variety in how the phrases are used to convey the relationship between the two propositions—it could be a relationship of contrast or superiority in comparing Adam and Christ or the old covenant and the new covenant; or it could be one of progression in comparing how Jews will be grafted into the olive tree after Gentiles are—the salient point is that the relationship is never one of equivalence. The two propositions are always entirely distinct from each other. Specifically, the proposition on the right is never partially contained in the proposition on the left, which brings us back to Romans 5:9:
Since we have now been justified by his blood, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
If salvation from God's wrath (proposition on the right) was accomplished when Jesus spilled His blood in dying on the cross (proposition on the left), that would mean that being saved from God's wrath is in some way part of Jesus spilling His blood on the cross, as traditional Protestant atonement theory maintains. But based on the common usage of "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) and "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) in the New Testament as shown above, this doesn't make sense. Being saved from God's wrath is entirely distinct from Jesus spilling His blood in dying on the cross. So a stronger exegetical case can be made for the view that God's wrath had nothing to do with the cross event than that it did. Supporting this case, consider the next verse:
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον), now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Romans 5:10
This is an eighth instance of the New Testament usage of "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) or "how much more" (πόσῳ μᾶλλον), not included in the list of seven passages above. I would argue that, on the heels of having just used the "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) phrase in 5:9, Paul is crafting another relationship of propositions using the very same "much more" (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) phrase in 5:10 in order to restate his point in a different way. In other words, he's trying to clarify in 5:10 what he meant in 5:9. And what 5:10 makes clear is that the proposition on the left side of the formula has to do with the death of Jesus while the proposition on the right side—having to do with the resurrection life of Jesus—is subsequent to (chronologically follows) the proposition on the left side. In other words, being saved from God's wrath is subsequent to the cross event and not the purpose of the cross event itself.
We now move to the second point of my case, part of which will include an explanation for why some passages in the New Testament actually don't make sense if we say that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus on the cross.
God's Wrath Is a Present Experience for the Disobedient
One way that traditional Protestant atonement theory conceptualizes God's wrath is as a cup that's being filled up to one day be consumed by the disobedient if we do not repent. And the cross is the place where Jesus consumed that cup so that there is no more of God's wrath left to drink for those who repent. In this way, God's wrath is always something that is yet to come and thus not a present experience of the disobedient. But the New Testament doesn't primarily talk about God's wrath in this way. Consider the following passages:
For the wrath of God is revealed (present tense) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon (present tense) the sons of disobedience.
Ephesians 5:6
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming (present tense).
Colossians 3:5-6
For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come (present tense).
1 Thessalonians 1:9–10
The Romans 1 reference is probably most clear that God's wrath is being revealed in the present. But the Ephesians and Colossians and 1 Thessalonians verses are a bit less clear because if something is coming it's still easy to see it as out in the distance and not yet present (e.g. if the train is "coming", it could still be 3 hours away). But the Greek term ἔρχομαι which is rendered as some form of "come" in the verses above is also translated as "appearing" or "arriving" (e.g. if the train is "appearing" or "arriving" then it's much closer than 3 hours away). Either of these two words would bring home with greater clarity the reality that, consistent with what we read in Romans 1, God's wrath is a present reality for the disobedient and not something far off in the distance.
Why is this important? For at least two reasons:
First, if the disobedient are already experiencing God's wrath as a consequence of their disobedience, then it logically precludes the idea that Jesus experiences God's wrath on the cross as a substitute.
Andrew Rillera writes:
Substitution, by definition, precludes any sort of participation, as Simon Gathercole argues in Defending Substitution. Gathercole writes: "I am defining substitutionary atonement for the present purposes as Christ's death in our place, instead of us. The 'instead of us' clarifies the point that 'in our place' does not, in substitution at least, mean 'in our place with us.'
—Rillera, Andrew. Lamb of the Free (p. 247).
If the disobedient are already experiencing God's wrath (to any extent) as a consequence of sin based on passages such as the three listed above, then even if Jesus did experience the wrath of God in His death on the cross, He did so by means of participation with the disobedient and not as a substitute. But the Protestant theory of the atonement depends on strict substitution when it comes to God's wrath being experienced by Jesus.
Second, if Jesus drank the full cup of God's wrath on the cross so that there is none left for those who confess He is Lord, then Paul's exhortations to Jesus-followers in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 become unintelligible. The very point Paul is making is that it's still possible for Jesus-followers to experience God's wrath if they give way to disobedience. Why? Because God's wrath corresponds to disobedience. You can say that it in some way follows disobedience wherever disobedience is. Paul's exhortations make sense if and only if God's wrath can be experienced by Jesus-followers if they walk as children of the darkness rather than children of the light.
Saved by Him from Wrath
Which brings us back to Romans 5:9-10:
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Romans 5:9–10
How then are we saved by Jesus from wrath if not by His consuming the cup of God's wrath on the cross so that there is none left for us to drink?
I would submit that Paul is attempting to convey that salvation has two parts. First, the blood of Jesus that was poured out on the cross is the means by which we are restored to a right relationship with God. Whether you use the cleansing paradigm so that we can be brought back into God's holy presence or the liberation paradigm where the blood ransoms us from the realm of darkness and death into the realm of God's light and life, the death and blood of Jesus function as the first phase of our salvation. But then, after that, we must continue to walk in a pattern of freedom and holiness in order to remain in God's holy presence of light and life. This is the second phase of our salvation. And we do that not by trying really hard but by means of the resurrection life of Jesus that we experience in union with Christ. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (Romans 6:5). This is what Paul means by being "saved by His life" in Romans 5:10—the resurrection life of Jesus that enables us to continue to walk in obedience and thus avoid God's wrath which corresponds to disobedience. This is the life that Paul is referring to in Galatians when he says that it "is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20). Jesus delivers us from the arriving/appearing wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10) because His resurrection life enables us to live in the realm of the obedient where there is no wrath rather than in the realm of the disobedient where wrath is a present reality (John 3:36). God has not destined us for wrath (present tense), but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep (present tense) we might live with him (1 Thessalonians 5:9–10). Salvation means being brought out of the realm of God's wrath—which is the realm of sin but we exit this realm by dying to sin through union with Christ, Romans 6:10—and into the realm of living with God and staying there, refusing to go back in spite of the many temptations to go back that we face just like Israel was tempted many times to return to Egypt.
I would submit that this way of understanding salvation from God's wrath allows us to make better sense of the New Testament as a whole than when we try to hold onto the traditional Protestant atonement theory of Jesus experiencing the wrath of God as a substitute for the disobedient. Insisting we hold onto our tradition leads to inevitable exegetical and logical problems.
Conclusion
I began with a quote by William Lane Craig and I would like to end with another quote by him:
How is it that Jesus’ death dealt with our sins? How did his death on the cross overcome the estrangement and condemnation of sinners before a holy God, so as to reconcile them to Him? This is the central question concerning the NT doctrine of the atonement. In handling this question we should distinguish between the doctrine of the atonement and a theory of the atonement. The NT teaches explicitly that Christ died for our sins, thereby achieving our reconciliation with God. But a bewildering variety of theories of the atonement have been offered to make sense of the fact that Christ by his death has provided the means of reconciliation with God. A theory of the atonement will seek to explicate how Jesus’ death served to remove the obstacle of sin separating us from God.
—Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ (p. 6).
This excerpt from Craig is spot-on and so important to grasp.
When it comes to doctrine, the New Testament explicitly teaches that Christ died for our sins and in so doing reconciles us to God. This is what is of first importance, according to 1 Corinthians 15:3. This is a first-order doctrine.
But when it comes to theory, the New Testament is not explicit about the mechanics of how the death of Christ for our sins reconciles us to God. Any attempt to explain this occupies the place of theory, not doctrine. And a theory necessarily cannot be of first importance. It is at best a second-order or third-order point of theology. This is why such theories aren't included in any of the evangelistic messages of Acts or confessed in ancient creeds like the Nicene creed or the Apostles' creed (but Acts and such creeds do confess the doctrine that Christ died for us/our salvation).
We may not agree on which atonement theory best harmonizes the biblical data. But I hope we can all agree that our atonement theories are not first-order doctrines that become core to the gospel itself such that to deny any such theory is to deny the gospel.
Comments
Post a Comment