Demonstrating what?

Here is an extract from the Letter to the Romans:

'For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness . . .'.

But how does Paul go on from there?

'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world held accountable to God . . . But now the love of God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This love of God comes to all through Jesus Christ. For there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are accepted freely by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice as a sign of his love, to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his love and his divine forbearance. He did it to demonstrate his love to all at the present time' (Romans 1.18; 3.19, 21-26).

Anyone who knows their Romans will immediately spot that that is not what Paul wrote. But, if Paul had truly listened to the message of Jesus, should he not have written that? After all, look at the inner logic of Romans. In the opening verse of the above quotation Paul speaks of the wrath of God on everyone. That is where he begins to expound the 'gospel that is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes'. He proceeds to expound that theme of God's wrath, and the allied one of human sinfulness and guilt, in 1.18-3.20.

Wrath and love

So what contrast does Paul point up when he turns to his 'But now'? Surely the clear and obvious contrast to God's wrath is his love? So it would be entirely consistent for Paul to write, 'But now the love of God has been made known'. And if 'the Bible never defines God as anger, power or judgement - if, in fact, it never defines him as anything other than love', then surely our new version above is right. If 'everything (in the Bible) is to be tempered, interpreted, understood and seen through the one, primary lens of love', then surely this pivotal verse in the whole letter is precisely the point at which to bring in the fantastic good news of that love for a lost world. The logic is irresistible - and glorious. Surely this is the moment to bury for good the legalistic fixation with wrath and focus positively on the love?

Or is it? Well, actually, no. That logic falls at the first hurdle, for our new version is clearly not what Paul wrote. So how did Paul get it so wrong? How could he miss such a golden opportunity to emphasise God's love? How could he fail even to mention God's love? Well, it is not that Paul ever neglects or downplays the love of God. He clearly believed it, experienced it, taught it and rejoiced in it. Later in this letter he wrote much about it. It 'has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit' (5.5). 'God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (5.8). His confidence is that, because of all that God has done in his Son, 'nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord' (8.39). So Paul is not unmindful of God's love. He knew that love was the motivation for Christ's death on the cross, that it was because 'the Son of God loved me' that 'he gave himself for me' (Galatians 2.20). He shows it as the source of Holy Spirit living and Christian assurance. But he does not mention it here, at this crucial point in his exposition. How come?

Fitting the needs

Because, to give just one reason, it does not fit the fundamental and primary needs that Paul has exposed in the preceding passages - and that Jesus exposed in his ministry. These are a need in us and, if we may humbly so speak, a 'need' in God. Our need arises from our guilty rebellion against God - and is for righteousness. Paul's summary of the state of the human race was: 'There is no one righteous, not even one' (3.10). If, as unrighteous, we are to have any hope of the righteous God accepting us, we need something radical done about our unrighteousness and guilt. Otherwise 'our mouths are silenced' because we have no valid excuse to offer and are 'held accountable to God', under his judgement. We cannot provide this righteousness ourselves, because no human being will or ever can be justified in his sight by what he or she does (3.20). That is our need - not for a general assertion of God only being love, but for a righteous standing before a holy God.

No blind eye

And God's 'need'? For a way to accept the defiled without ignoring their sin, a way to acquit offenders without turning a blind eye to their guilt, a way to receive sinners without compromising his holiness. If he accepted any out of love but without providing a righteousness for them, none could ever have certain assurance of being given entry to heaven (if indeed it could still be called heaven). Sinners' sin needs to be punished, its penalty fully paid if they are to become God's children. God's wrath on a sinful race is simply the expression of his holy character faced with rebellion and defiance. If God did not view sin like that, he would be amoral and arbitrary - not holy, indeed not God.

Parent and child

God's wrath cannot be explained away simply as 'an aspect of his love'. Those who argue that view generally use the analogy of parent and child. 'Every father will be wronged by his children; it's a simple fact . . . yet a good parent does not seek retribution'. The analogy fails, however, on the basic fact that God is not the Father of those who - by their own choice - are not his believing children. To them he is creator and judge, but not Father. If the analogy is made into a general truth, then we have a lurking implicit universalism, for everyone is viewed as a loved member of the family. But the whole world, as Paul clearly shows, is not in his family. Not all will be received into heaven. Jesus himself will say to some: 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire' (Matthew 25.41). (Is that an aspect of love? Jesus's forgotten words on judgement are the severest in Scripture.)

A truer view of the relation of love to wrath in God is to see his wrath as expressing his love of righteousness. And, incidentally, a truer view of the biblical parent-child analogy is the one in Hebrews 12.4-11. There 'the Lord disciplines those he loves and punishes everyone he accepts as a child', treating them as children. He does so 'for our good, that we may share in his holiness'. Discipline is an aspect of love, but that is quite different from his wrath on the unrepentant who are not his children.

God's demonstration

This is why it is so important to God to 'demonstrate his justice'. Lest we overlook this, Paul uses the phrase twice in two verses (3.25,26). God was not only saving his people on the cross, he was also doing something for the name and reputation of God. Clearly the cross demonstrates God's love, as it demonstrates everything else about God - his wisdom, his patience, his mercy, his grace, his sovereignty . . . But it was specifically to demonstrate two truths: one, that all he does in relation to sinners is just, righteous and consistent with his character as the Judge of all the earth and the Holy One; two, that he justifies or acquits those who have faith in the Jesus who gave himself in their place.

He wants the world, the devil and all the principalities and powers to know that, when he accepts those who trust in Jesus, their guilt has been fully dealt with so that they are absolutely rock-solid secure in that acceptance. No accusation of past wrong, no pointing to their dismal record, no dredging up of what they once did, no skeletons in the cupboard - nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ. And why? On what is this assurance, this defiance of the devil and all accusations, based? On the substitutionary death of Jesus who bore the punishment for their sins. On God 'presenting Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement', a propitiation (3.25). No hint here of 'penal substitution being tantamount to child abuse', as some, almost blasphemously, allege. God presented him and he offered himself. It is in that that God demonstrates his justice. It is because the sinless One carried our sins that we are set free from guilt and have this confidence:

Upon a life I did not live,
upon a death I did not die,
another's life, another's death,
I stake my whole eternity.

Or this:
When Satan tempts me to despair,
and tells me of the guilt within,
I look to heaven, and see him there,
Who made an end of all my sin.

If the death of Jesus did not first demonstrate God's justice, God's consistency with his own character, then it could never demonstrate his love. That love is not a general sentiment in which all share without any reference to repentance. Love is the motive behind the coming and cross and resurrection of Jesus (God so loved that he gave). But only those who 'believe in him will not perish but have eternal life' (John 3.16). The basis of our faith is the death of Jesus, the blood of Jesus (Romans 3.25) shed in our place to carry our guilt and bear our punishment. Thank God for what he demonstrated on the cross. Thank him for the saving and glorious true inner logic of the gospel.