Theology in the Raw - Justification, Atonement, and the Full Scope of Paul's Gospel. Dr. Jarvis Williams

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

Unlock bonus content, extra episodes, and join an incredible online community: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintherawDr. Jarvis Williams is Professor of NT Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of numerous books, including his recent book Paul’s gospel in Romans: Vertical, Horizontal, and Cosmic Dimensions. This was an awesome deep dive of Pauline justification for all the Bible nerds out there! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

So when I shared the gospel with unbelievers, I focus exclusively on the vertical. Here's how you can come into a saving relationship with God through Christ. Turn from your sin. Believe by faith that God offered Jesus to die for your sin and God raise them from the dead. The moment people convert to Jesus Christ, I then start talking about other aspects of the good news of Jesus, which include that God has worked in Jesus Christ to bring about vertical, horizontal, and cosmic redemption. because Adam's curse was a vertical, horizontal, and cosmic curse. Hey, friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology.

My guest today is my friend, Dr. Jarvis J. Williams, who is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Seventh Theological Seminary. And he's the author of numerous books, including his most recent book, Paul's Gospel in Romans, vertical, horizontal, and cosmic dimensions, which forms the backdrop of our conversation about the gospel. And word of warning, I guess, to some of you, this is a, Jarvis is a capital S scholar and I think he has the Bible memorized in its original

languages as you will see. So we go fast, we go hard, we dance around. You might want to have your Bibles open for this one or we may have to hit pause here and there to kind of look up stuff that we're talking about. And I think those of you who geek out over Pauline theology will geek out over this episode. But yeah, this is a fun conversation as you could tell Jarvis is he's he's a he's a top-notch scholar he's also a preacher and a person who absolutely loves Jesus and it oozes out of everything he says and does so please welcome back to the show the one and only Dr. Jarvis William. Jarvis Williams man it's been a while how are you doing this morning doing well brother good to see you how are you doing I'm doing all right do you remember

when you first met I think I told the story last time you're on but it's been a few years yeah yeah I do do. Providence, Rhode Island. Yes. 2008, November, I believe, at ETS. I was presenting a paper on some obscure academic Second Temple Judaism stuff. I'm like, I think there's like five people in the room. And then we go to Q&A. I'm like, does anybody even understand a word I said?

And this guy, Jarvis in the back, stands up and starts like interacting with my interpretation of Second Temple Jewish text. I'm like, who is this guy? So friendship immediately. I remember there was one fellow that asked you a question and then you responded with just a litany of second temple text. And I thought, this man is a machine. Who is this guy? Yeah.

It was good. It was a good session. I don't know if I could do that now. I mean, that was 2008. I was fresh out of my PhD where I feel like I had more second temple text in my head than the Bible. But I haven't kept up on it like I would like to. Law and life in early Judaism and Paul.

That's your baby, right? Do you remember that? How do you know my dissertation title that nobody is read? I read that bad boy. I read it. Oh, my words. Yeah, yeah. You and three other people.

Wow. Wow. That's impressive. So, Jarvis, what is the gospel? Yeah, great question. Something you've been thinking about for many years. You were. Yeah.

Yeah. A lot of my, as you know, my word. focuses on Paul's Sotriology in his Second Temple Jewish context, and that question of what is his gospel, what is the gospel relates to his sociology? When I think of the question, what is the gospel? I think that's a separate question from what is Paul's gospel in Romans, and this is what I mean. When the question is asked, what is the gospel, I think in my circles, in evangelical circles, what we mean by that is, is what is the basic, message of salvation. And when I'm asked that question, I will respond by saying that all of sin and

fallen short of the glory of God. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. And if one believes by faith that Jesus died on the cross for his sins and that God raised him from the dead, that person can have salvation and receive the gift of eternal life. And if by what is the gospel, that's the question I'm answering, then that's the answer I give. But if the question is more specific, such as, what is Paul's gospel of God in Romans, then I think that's a different question. So that when I see Paul's gospel in Romans, which is a recent book that I worked on, I see Paul articulating the gospel as a gospel that has vertical, horizontal, and cosmic dimensions.

so that for Paul, I think, in Romans, especially, but not only in Romans, but especially in Romans, his gospel centers on the exaltation of Jesus, and Jesus' wrath-bearing death and his resurrection and exaltation at God's right hand. And as you see Paul unfold his gospel in Romans, he talks about it in vertical categories, by which I mean that God forgives us of our sins, justifies us by faith in Christ alone, reconciles us to God, and he delivers us from the future wrath of God. By vertical, that's what I mean. But then also we see Paul thinks of the gospel in terms of horizontal dimensions, by which I mean that God has acted in Christ through his death and resurrection, to set us free from the power of sin, to circumcise our hearts by the spirit, so that we can be transformed and live Romans chapter 6 as slaves of righteousness.

as godly followers of Jesus in an ungodly society. So Romans 6 is crucial. We have died with Christ, been raised to walk in newness of life. We therefore can present our members as weapons of righteousness, as opposed to unrighteousness. And then we see other passages such as Romans 13, where Paul talks about, now that Christ has transformed us by the spirit,

12 and 13, we have the ability not to be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds and to love one another, Romans 13, and thereby fulfill the whole law. Now, when I say that, I don't mean the gospel is love your neighbor, but I mean that God acts in Jesus by means of his death and resurrection through the spirit to transform us. This too is part of this good news that God is announcing in Jesus. And then thirdly, I think Paul's gospel in Romans is also cosmic,

by which I mean that God has acted in Jesus through his death and resurrection to set creation free from sins power. So you have statements like Romans chapter 8 where verses 18 to 39 Paul is speaking in the context of suffering. And he says our suffering in the present world is not comparable to the glory that's about to be revealed in us. But he also says that we and the entire creation are groaning and agonizing pain, longing, awaiting. for the redemption of our bodies. And creation likewise groans, every thunderstorm, every tornado, every homicide, every hospice care, visit is creation's way of longing, crying out for redemption.

And Paul makes the point that God's subjected creation in futility with hope, and that hope being, that God and Christ will work to set creation free from sin's power and bring about a new creation. Paul calls it kinocatis, new creation in Galatian 6th. 15 and then also in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 drawing from Isaiah 65 17 through through 25 so when I think about what is the gospel well the message of salvation how a sinner can become right with God have his sins forgiven and how can one have a personal relationship with Jesus that's the the message of salvation but when I think of what is Paul's gospel in Romans he talks about it as a vertical horizontal and

cosmic reality and it's always an announcement that God in Christ has active to bring about vertical horizontal and cosmic redemption through Jesus' wrath-bearing death and his victorious resurrection from the dead. Yeah. I want to go back through each of those three categories, vertical, horizontal, and cosmic. The one most familiar to probably most people listening is the vertical dimension. And you summarize that well, it's probably, you know, what you said is pretty familiar. I do have just maybe one, at least one, maybe one question.

I'm curious, you said the wrath bearing death. Do you see penal substitution as an essential part of that vertical? Okay, because there's been a lot of discussions about that recently. You've done work on this as well. What would be your elevator pitch defense of penal substitution against people who say this is not part of the gospel? isn't even biblical. Yeah, that's a great question. I think if you look at Romans,

the way I read Romans 118 to 320 is Paul makes the point that all are guilty and that all that fall in short of the glory of God. And that Jewishness will not exonerate a person in God's law court and Gentileness will not condemn someone in God's law court because God demands obedience, from both groups. But the solution to the inability to measure up to what God demands is Jesus's

death on the cross for our sins and his resurrection from the dead. So I'll look at verses like, for example, Romans chapter 3, verse 24, were justified freely by God's grace through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus. I think Paul links this declaration. I'm taking justification here in a traditional sense, a declaration of not guilty, not condemned in the judgment. He links that with redemption, redemption in Christ. So Christ's redemption, which he links with blood in verse 35, in which he links with the language of Helasterion in 325, or English translations will say propitiation, with Jesus' justifying work. Then further in Romans chapter 5, verse 6, Paul will say that Christ died for the weak, verse 8, verse 7, Christ didn't

die for the righteous. Romans 5.8, Christ died for for us why we were sinners. Verse 9, he says that we were justified by his blood. I take that to be a shorthand of referring to his death. And therefore, we will be saved by him from wrath. And he also in that same passage in verse 10 speaks of reconciliation. We were enemies and now were reconciled. So it seems to me you put those two texts together, Romans 3, Romans 5,

that Paul is making the point that Jesus is dying not only as a penal substitute, but he is, certainly in my view, in those passages, as a penal substitute to provide eschatological exoneration which breaks into this present evil age right now by the indwelling presence and power of the spirit. I think there's another text in Romans that's helpful here is Romans chapter 7. It's a very debated text.

I've changed my mind quite a bit on that, but I think in Romans 7, and what seems to be the issue, in my reading of it at least, is agreeing with other scholars, is that the law does not give the individual the ability to exercise power over sin, that humans can't master their sin. And so as you're working through that passage, Paul seems to suggest, in my view, that the ego or the I would be Jews and Gentiles who are in Adam, all who are in Adam. and that would include himself, but he's not meditating on his Christian struggle with sin,

but he's reflecting upon his in-adam status outside of Christ status, and he laments toward the end, who will deliver me from this body at death? And the answer is, 724, 725, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ will. Right after that in 8-1, Paul says, therefore there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ-Jesus. The opposite of condemnation would be justification. So there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So that means those who are in Jesus are justified.

Here's the question, though. Why? Verse 2. Because the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death. Why? Verse 3. Because God did in Christ what the law could not do in that he, you know, it's debated how you take the phrase, Peri-Hummer-Tion, but he offered Jesus.

to deal with sin. So Paul seems to be linking linking no condemnation, justification, delivers from God's wrath, reconciliation with God, with Jesus's death on the cross for our sins.

So in my... Yeah. Go ahead. I just want to point out passing to my audience that's listening, two things. Number one, I don't send questions typically to people ahead of time

so Jarvis doesn't have any of my questions ahead of time. I don't know my questions ahead of time they come up in the moment. And number two, this dude does not have a Bible open. He's doing this from memory. Anyway, go ahead. So it seems to me that is exegetically reasonable. Now, I know there are all sorts of things I'm assuming in what I'm saying. There are all sorts of debates about Romans 1 through 4 and all that.

I get that. But it seems to me that there is a reasonable argument to be made from the text that Paul puts forward Jesus as a penal substitute, and that for Paul's sociology, the way I understand sotriology, to include vertical horizontal and cosmic dimensions, especially on the vertical side of that sotriology, that Jesus dying as a penal substitute

is essential for that particular view of justification that I'm putting forward. In addition to that, I would say, while I think Romans emphasizes and prioritizes the vertical aspects of the gospel, I would say that there are other aspects of this announcement

of good news that Paul articulates, which we don't talk a lot about enough in my particular theological circles, which would be also horizontal and cosmic. Yeah, the penal substitution thing. So I would say last fall was kind of wrestling with that. You know, you had the book by Andrew Ruehler. the Lamb of the Free.

He's a former student of mine. I had him on the podcast. We had a great conversation. And I've always assumed penal substitution. It made sense to me, especially from more of a, for lack of better terms, covenantal framework that Israel, you know, disobeyed the law and experienced the wrath for the punishment for sin, exile, ultimately, the curses of the covenant. and yet those curses, the exile didn't fully exhaust the punishment.

And so Jesus became a curse for us, Galatians 313. That just made sense to me. But I wouldn't say I had any kind of prior theological need for it. It just seemed to be there in the text. But then lots of discussions were opening up. I'm like, all right, let me reexamine this and see, you know, maybe we need to ditch it. I don't know. I haven't thought too deeply about it.

But after, you know, reading Ralar's book and reading some reviews and kind of going back to me's text, I feel like I became more convinced of a kind of penal substitution. And the Romans 5 passage that you mentioned, 5, 6 through 10, 11, I would just, I wouldn't see pretty straightforward. You know, I don't know if you read Gathorical's work on that, the parallels in Greco-Roman literature, about somebody dying for somebody else. And of course, yeah, Romans 8.3. he writes, done stuff on that phrase, Perry Hamertia concerning sin.

And yeah, Romans 3, 21 to 26, in light of Paul's whole argument from 118 to 26, 326. See, I can do this too, Jarvis. I don't have a Bible open. Yeah, yeah, but it's just like, I just, you know, is Occam's razor?

I just seems, I, seems to make the most, the most sense to me. does that is that divine child abuse or you know god killing the son because he so mattered you know like the way people frame it like yeah that just doesn't seem to that that doesn't seem to fit right but just textually it I don't know I'm still convinced of it can you steal man like what's the best argument against penal substitution or I you know because I know some good people who say no I just don't see yeah yeah yeah they're not like flaming liberal or whatever they're just you know they're being exegen other. Yeah, yeah. Well, one thing that, some work that I did, 2019, I wrote a monograph in the L&TS series called Christ Redeemed Us from the Curse of the Law,

a Jewish martyrological reading of Galatians 313, in which I made the argument that Paul presents Jesus in Galatians 313, that whole section 310 to 14, which you're very familiar with because of your work on law and life, but in that section where Paul

identifies Jesus as redeeming us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. I made the argument in that monograph that Jesus was both a representation, but also a substitution. And the way I'm defining substitution in that monograph is not that he's becoming a curse so that we don't become a curse because we are already under the curse in Galatians. But what he does is he enters into our plight, he takes on flesh, he enters into the present the evil age. He's born under the law. He's born of a woman. He's born under the power of sin, yet without sin, so that he himself can triumph over it in his cross. And as Paul says in Galatians,

when four delivers from the presently wage. But then also he delivers us 313 from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us so that we would not suffer the eschatological curse set forth for us as a result of being under the law outside of Christ. And the way in which I make the argument is not by appealing to Leviticus text. I made the argument by comparing Paul with Second Temple Jewish motorologies, like Second and Fourth Maccabees, where you have, it seems to me that you have these Jewish texts, and these texts, as you know, are debated about whether they teach sacrificial atonement or not or substitution. But how I read those texts and others read those texts is you have language into Maccabees and four Maccabees, especially four, that will

apply language from the Levitical code in Isaiah 53 to the deaths of the martyrs. One quick example 4th Maccabees 628 to 29 where Eleazar makes the point that he prays as he's faced with death and he asks

the Lord to use his death as a ransom for many. And he also describes his death as providing purification for the nation. And for Maccabees 17, 21, and 22, the narrator summarizes the previous martyrologies and describes those martyrs

deaths as functioning as some kind of Yom Kippur for the nation, and even uses the language of delivering the nation. We've got to define what we mean by Yom Kippur and how those sacrifices work and all that. I get it. But then also you have Izanic language attached to those texts like Second Maccabee's 7, and I think it's 32 to 38, where you have the language of reconciliation attached to the seven son,

if I remember, whose death is offering, he's praying that his death would function as a reconciliation for the nation. So my argument in that monograph was that if you look at some of the language Paul uses to describe Jesus' death,

it is similar to, while also different from these Jewish martyrologies, which suggests to me that you have these Jewish texts reworking these Levitical texts and reworking these Izianic texts in Two and Four Maccabees, appropriating them to the martyrs to talk about the martyrs functioning in the narratives of two and four macabees as some kind of representation and substitution to deal with the sin problem of the nation. I think Paul enters into that conversation by using language that is already applied to Jewish people from Leviticus and also from Isaiah. He applies it to Jesus, and he makes the point that Jesus is dying the most significant death,

because it doesn't simply purify the nation temporarily from these Gentile pagans that have come in and to invade our land to Maccabees, for Maccabees. But to the contrary, Jesus' death provides justification, reconciliation, delivers from God's wrath for Jews and Gentiles who have faith. So I make the argument for penal substitution in Galatians based on what I see to be a comparative conversation between Jewish martyrologies and Galatians 313. I don't simply make it by taking Leviticus and applying it to Jesus,

but I look at what Jews seem to be doing with those texts and to them for Maccabees. Paul enters into that conversation, and he's doing what would have been, I think, something in the air in that Second Temple context, but he's doing it in a more significant way because Jesus is the death of the righteous

whereas the martyrs are of the death for the unrighteous, if you will. For the righteous, excuse me, for the righteous. The martyrs die for the righteous nation. Jesus dies for unrighteous people who are cursed by God, eschatologically. Okay. Does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah, it makes great sense. Perfect sense. Yeah, yeah, I forgot that you wrote that work. And yeah, I remember you drawing on the martyr stories, which is a really helpful and interesting angle. So you would say, we don't need to linger here too long, because I think some people who argue against penal substitution, this is coming back to me now, that because Jesus' death is participatory, that mutually excludes substitution. It can only be one or the other. And this is where Gathorical agrees that, and Gathorcold defends penal substitution for those who don't know. Gathorical says, that's true. when it comes to a particular text. But the same author, Paul, can in one place talk about the participatory dimension

and another place talk about substitution. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what, so would you, would you agree with that? So when I say Jesus's death was both a representation and a... You said representation, not participation. That's different. It's a representation. And I would say, you know, he participates in a life like hour.

he took on flesh, he became a human being. Sure. That substitution and representation can coexist in Pauline theology. It would be my point. So the text going back to the Romans passages, seems to me that the Romans 5 passage, in my reading of those passages, would emphasize the substitutionary aspect of it, dying to take on the wrath of God.

and then I think there's an assumption that Jesus obviously took on flesh and became a human being and participated in a life like ours. But what Paul seems to emphasize is that we are delivered from wrath because of this death that provides a so-toreological benefit for others. And again, in my view in terms of substitution in Paul, it seems like the essence of what he means by substitution is that his death is offered to benefit others, and he suffers the judgment so that others would experience the sotelological benefit.

And it's not, I don't necessarily think it's Jesus dying so that I would not have to, because in Galatians, we're already dead, if you will. We're under a curse. So he's not dying for me so that I would not be under a curse. I am under a curse. He's dying for me so that I would not suffer the eschatological curse. it seems in Galatians. In Romans, he doesn't use the language of curse, he uses the language of wrath. It makes it very clear that he's talking about, well, maybe clear is too strong. He seems

to be making the point that there's a future deliverance that's coming. If you link the language of sozo and so trias, salvation and to save in Romans, with the language of the wrath of God is poured out right now, and there's a future day of wrath restored for those who don't obey the gospel, and that Jesus is dying and God's the just-justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus, it seems to be saying that his death for my sin is exonerating me or providing a sociological benefit so that I would not have to suffer the wrath of God in eternity. So I read those passages. So let's move to the horizontal piece because here's where, like you said, less familiar for people. You've done a lot of previous work on specifically, like,

ethnic reconciliation from Ephesians 2 and other passages. And you even see, I mean, it's interesting that the horizontal and vertical dimensions are woven together in Romans. Are they not? Like in Romans 1 through 5, it's, you know, all about Jews and Gentiles and about justification. And, you know, this is where I think some of the early new perspective writers kind of sought more either or that might be a overly simplified way of putting it. But they seem to be belonging together, the vertical and horizontal.

When I talk about vertical, horizontal and cosmic, there is some overlap with those categories in that God is actively involved in accomplishing something for sinners and for the creation, for the cosmos. and he's accomplishing that through Jesus' death on the cross and his resurrection. By the way, parenthetically, I do think that Jesus' death is a penal substitute, but I think Paul also talks about Jesus' death in other ways in his writings. He talks about it in terms, I think, I do think Paul wrote Colossians, by the way, so I'll quote Colossians here.

I think he talks about it in terms of what we could say. He's setting creation free. He's conquering victorously over the cosmic, forces and powers of evil. So that's there, there as well. But back to the point about the different aspects of the gospel in Romans. So God is acting in the vertical horizontal and cosmic, and this is all Trinitarian stuff as well. God, the Father, Son, and Spirit are acting. But with respect to the horizontal, what I see in Romans is, especially when you hit chapter six, the Jew- Gentile stuff is due out one through five, but in chapter six, that horizontal piece is especially linked to

the fact that God works in Christ to transform sinners and to set us free from sin's power, so that now we actually have, to use some of the language you use in your work, the agency. God's agency, divine agency, conquers triumphs and powers human agency in Christ by the spirit. I think Romans 2 hints at this

when he talks about heart circumcision, spirit's written on our hearts, so that when you get to Romans 6, that we are set free and we therefore have the supernatural power to not let sin reign over our mortal bodies, Romans 612. He gives us the command because we are able in Christ by the Spirit because of God's horizontal work to fight and triumph over sin's power in our daily lives in an ungodly society.

So I can present my weapons as members of righteousness. I can love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I can pursue when possible love of neighbor as myself. Again, this doesn't mean, in my view, that Paul is saying love of neighbor is the gospel, but it does mean that God's work in Jesus through the spirit is part of the announcement of the good news that God has triumphed over creation's sin and Adam's vertical horizontal. and cosmic curse so that he now has transformed sinners, and he's enabled them to live in the pursuit of reconciled unity.

Otherwise, why do you get Romans 14 and 15? Why do you get language like love your neighbor as yourself? By the way, I haven't said this yet. I'm going to shut up here in a second. I'm talking too much. Let me stop so you can jump in here. They're good. But in Isaiah, for example, Paul's drawing from the prophet Isaiah here,

the Psalms as well. But Isaiah talks about these vertical things, Isaiah 53 anchored in the servant's death. Isaiah talks about this restoration of this new kingdom or this new creation, Isaiah 65. He uses the verb Oongolidzo. Paul uses that verb in Romans, but he also uses. Paul uses the noun Oongelian. Isaiah's announcement of good news is foreseeing the day in which God would just deliver Israel from exile. But a greater day would dawn when God would set free creation.

Isaiah 65, and when God would bring the nation streaming to Jerusalem, and Jews and Gentiles will participate in this sociological work of God and Christ through the servant. And Paul says, the prophets in chapter one, the prophets in chapter one foresaw this gospel of God that he preaches, and Jesus Christ fulfills it. So this vertical, horizontal, and cosmic thing, it's not new with Paul.

It's right in Isaiah the prophet, and it's fulfilled and revealed clearly, not through a glass, but clearly through Jesus Christ our Lord overall. Amen and amen. Oh, dude. Amen and amen. I love your excitement, man. I feel like you just got saved like five seconds ago and here you are. You've been studying this stuff for years and you're still energized by it. I love it. I know people can get nervous when you start talking about horizontal dimensions. You start talking about spirit empowered obedience under the rubric of the gospel or in relation to the gospel because, right?

Yes. We don't want to, I think there's a concern about smuggling in some kind of works righteousness, right? That if you blur salvation and sanctification, or say justification of sanctification, then, then gosh, you can get and you start toying with some kind of, you know, Pelagian or just, you know, a justification. It's not based fully on grace and unconditional favor. But I just, I like your approach because I just think you're, first of all, I think you're just reading the Bible. I think, but Paul doesn't always seem

so as nervous as we are sometimes to not include aspects of the horizontal impact of the cross of Christ into the good news that Christ is king. How is that I, I'm, what is there? How would you precisely, your person of precision, how would you precisely word the relationship of the horizontal, the spirit's power to enable us to live a righteous life to, to, to enable ethnic reconciliation, to enable reconciliation among other people to love your neighbor? How would you articulate the relationship between those sanctification dimensions with the gospel? Is it part of the gospel? Is it a byproduct of the gospel?

Is it an outflow of the gospel? Am I being too nitpicky with the... Let me say a word here in Galatians about Galatians. So in Galatians 1, verses 15 and 16, I think these are the verses. Paul has just finished giving his autobiographical background and as a means by which to argue against what these opponents are saying, to remind the Galatians his gospel comes from God. And in chapter 1, verse 15, he says he was basically seeking to destroy the church of God

until God revealed his son in him so that he might, Lungalides Amai Alton, so that I might announce him as good news. Okay, let's stop right there. Paul says Jesus is the good news. period. Oonga leads Amai. That's the verb for her to announce good news. Alton is the direct object of that verb in Galatians 1.

He announces Jesus as good news. Okay. That's important because his announcement of good news, going back, bringing this together with Romans, is an announcement that was foreseen in the prophetic scriptures, that Isaiah pointed to a day when Yahweh was seeing his servant, who was anointed by the Spirit to bring about this cosmic,

or excuse me, this vertical horizontal and cosmic redemption that was promised in Isaiah the Prophet. Some good news was, Israel's coming out of exile. But there was better news that there would be a day

when the servant would come and die for the sins of many. That good news also includes a day, Jeremiah 31, 31 and following, when the Spirit of God would be written on their hearts. That good news, I would argue, Ezekiel 36 and 37, when the spirit is raising dead people from the dead and transforming

heart so that people, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36, would know the Lord. And so then you have this God divinely initiated work within the human agent so that he and she would love Jesus Christ, who is the one in whom God fulfills these promises of of vertical horizontal and cosmic redemption. Okay, more specifically to your point. So the way Paul seems to work this out in Romans is, is that I think justification

is a sociological category for Paul and is an essential element of Paul's gospel. But it's vastly different in my view from what we would call sanctification. So justification in my reading of Paul and sanctification are not the same sociological realities. But here's what I think Paul does say

that the transformation of the heart by the spirit, Romans 2, and the transformation of the human being, Romans 6, who dies to sins power, this happens only in Christ, which therefore means Christ is bringing about the good news of Vertical,

we're right with God, he's the one who brings about this transformative, of work as well, which is not the same thing as justification by faith. And he's the one in whom God fulfills the cosmic promises too. So the way I put it together is, is to say that Paul is, in my view, distinguishing, in Romans primarily, justification from walking in the spirit, Galatians 5, we're being transformed. Justification, in my view, I know there are people who disagree with this.

I know they disagree with this, but in my view, justification is, always and only a forensic verdict that an individual sinner receives from God upon faith in Jesus. God declares us not guilty in Christ. He doesn't condemn us because he reckons to our account Christ's righteousness and he reckons to the account of Christ our sin. We're justified not guilty. The opposite of justification is condemnation. On the other hand, this idea of transformation by the Spirit, Jesus brings this about. This only happens as well because of the death and resurrection of Jesus. We're raised to life with Christ in newness of life and we're transformed and we are able to live in a godly way. This too is part of the good news that Yahweh is promising to do through the

servant Messiah. So when I shared the gospel with unbelievers, I focus exclusively on the vertical. Here's how you can come into a saving relationship with God through Christ. Turn from your sin. Believe by faith that God offered Jesus to die for your sin and God raise them from the dead. The moment people convert to Jesus Christ, I then start talking about other aspects of the good news of Jesus

which include God's work in Christ to set us free from sins power. So if people want to talk about outcomes of the gospel, benefits of the gospel, implications of the gospel, fine, whatever, I don't care. I just want to say this.

That God has worked in Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection to bring about vertical, horizontal, and cosmic redemption because Adam's curse was a vertical, horizontal, and cosmic curse. And Jesus, Romans 5 is the new Adam. And all that's part, yeah, that's good, all that's part of the good news. And I agree, like, I think there are distinct categories, justification, sanctification. but I just don't, and while those are distinct categories, it's hard, like, I wouldn't want to, I would want to separate them as two different categories, but they're still intrinsically linked.

He who is justified is given the spirit, and the spirit is going to transform, and those are all part of the good news, right? I mean, if the good news is Jesus, in Jesus, we receive the, positive verdict that we didn't deserve it. And also we received the Spirit who transforms our lives. Yes. So I wrote a book. Sorry to plug another book here. I wrote a book in 23 called the Spirit, Ethics and Eternal Life, Paul's Vision for the Christian Life in Galatians. In which I make the point that in Galatians, I'm thinking specifically about Galatians, that Paul makes the argument that justification by faith is different from walking in the spirit,

but justified people walk in the spirit. And God is doing all of that. So that for what I'm trying to do in that book is to make the point that when we think of the words in the New Testament, in Paul, words salvation. So those words, as you know, words like sozo, and soterian, soteriya, these words are used to talk about deliverance from something. And in Paul, they typically, in my view, refer to deliverance from future wrath or judgment. But in theological conversations, when we talk about the, when we use the theological words soteriology,

we incorporate a lot of different things under that category. Like Paul's sotriology includes other things in addition to vertical dimensions. It would also include cosmic dimensions and horizontal dimensions. So what I would say is that when you think of Paul's argument, especially in Galatians, he says, justified people, how do you know you're justified? What about faith in Christ alone? How do you know you're justified by faith in Christ alone? You walk in the spirit.

And if you don't walk in the spirit, 520 of Galatians, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. And he makes the point that also Romans 5, or sorry, Galatians 5. verse, I think it's verse five, correct me if I'm wrong here, five or six. He says, we, we await by the spirit, the hope of righteousness. I take, yeah, five, six, I take that to be sure hanged for. I think it's five six. We walk in the spirit by faith, and as a result, we will prove in the day of judgment that we are justified. justified people walk by the spirit. And the walking in the spirit is the evidence, the proof that we are justified by faith in Christ alone. So part of what I'm trying to do in my work is think about the fact that we're, again, when we're answering the question,

what is the message of salvation for a sinner? And if we mean by that, what is the gospel? Then it's a very specific message explaining to an unbeliever. how to have a relationship with God through Christ by turning from their sins and trusting in his death and resurrection on the cross, in my view, by his death and resurrection, in my view. But if I'm answering the question,

what is Paul's Gospel of God in Romans? How does he unpack that? Then I have to let the text of Romans drive my explanation of that phrase. Likewise, if I'm answering the question, how does he unpacked his gospel in Galilee? I have to let the text of Galatians drive my analysis to that question. And then when we analyze all of Paul's text, we bring them all together.

And then we try to see what is his gospel as a whole. And then when we have a gospel conversation with an unbeliever, we focus on what they need to hear in order to enter into a saving relationship with Jesus. So obviously, I'm an evangelical in how I understand that aspect of the gospel. Yeah. I wonder though, maybe you clarified it here because I was going to question, genuinely, like a genuine question, whether that when we're preaching the gospel, that we should always and primarily emphasize the horizontal dimension. Vertical. Sorry, vertical, vertigo. And I'm just thinking like, because you just hinted at it. Like, Paul, contextualize the gospel in his letter to the Romans, and his letter to Galatians,

and there's different emphases. You have the apostolic preaching in Acts, hardly even mentions the atonement. Doesn't mean the atonement wasn't. And their gospel was, let's go back to Abraham and David and getting all back into the Jewish history that I'm not necessarily going to,

I'm probably not going to preach the gospel the same way the apostles did in the book of Acts. That sounds radical, but I don't think anybody does that. Like, you know, what must I do to be saved? let me tell you about, you know, Moses and David, you know, like, but in other contexts, I might. To your point about vertical, horizontal and cosmic, like, what if somebody, I don't know, I'm just thinking of an example of somebody who is deeply into, like, creation care. And maybe this is part of God's general revelation, because I think God cares about his creation, obviously. and somebody else, non-believer, cares deeply about creation.

And maybe they think that Christian faith, Christianity is responsible for harming creation, destroying creation, not caring about creation. And what if that's one of the barriers that is preventing this person to consider Jesus? Yeah, I think they need to hear the vertical. So I'm not saying no to that. I'm just saying, could we not contextual? actualize the gospel. In that point, to say, actually, let me tell you about the creator's grand vision for creation and new creation. That's good. Yeah, thank you. Let me clarify my point. So I think it's always good and right to engage in a gospel conversation at the particular

point of contact with which your dialogue partner is beginning the conversation. And you see that, I think that's what you see happening quite a bit in Acts in the episodic preaching. And so, yeah, you might start off with, hey, creation. But then you go back to, this is what God's design is for creation. Here's why there's a problem. And you talk about the fall and sin and Christ coming. Paul seems to do things like this, doesn't he? And actually, is it 17?

17, where they're worshiping this unknown God on this. and Paul says, let me explain to you who this God is and appeals to some natural revelation things, if I recall. So, yeah, I want to make sure when I'm having a conversation with someone who is not a Christian who has questions about the Christian faith, I want to listen to them.

I want to allow them to give me an entry point to help me understand where I need to begin, in articulating the gospel. That's good. But I think the point I was trying to emphasize was, in 1 Corinthians 15, when Paul talks about the gospel, he says, cross and resurrection, by which you're said, if you go fast. So it seems as though those first important things

that he talks about as the gospel are the death and the resurrection of Jesus, that you are, those are the foundation for him. And while he doesn't unpack in 1st Corinthians 15, seems to me at least, he doesn't unpack cosmic, well, he does actually talk about the kingdom of God, doesn't he in that passage, but doesn't talk about the horizontal dimension as much as he does there. So my point is, Paul might press in on one aspect of the announcement in one text and emphasize another in another text. So Ephesians 2 seems to press into the horizontal piece.

Philemon seems to press into the horizontal piece, right? Whereas Roman seems to highlight and prioritize the vertical piece. So I think Paul can provide, and the other preachers in the New Testament can provide for us a helpful model that we need to allow context to help us know what's the point to enter into. But I want to make sure that no matter where I enter, that I end with the cross and the reservoir. direction and the need to repeat and believe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. That makes

sense. That absolutely makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. So, okay, just we have a few more minutes. The cosmic dimension. You mentioned Romans 8. That's a big passage, creation, groaning. Is that the only passage in Romans that emphasizes the cosmic or is a cosmic scene else? Yeah, in my book, Paul's Gospel in Romans, I deal with a couple other passages as well, though I primarily talk about Romans 8. I think you had bits and pieces of the cosmic in Romans 5. I think when Adam, Romans 512, Adam's sin has brought about not only an individual curse, but cosmic curse.

Death has come into the world because of Adam's sin. That seems to me to be a cosmic problem. that individuals, because of Adam's transgression, we all sin, but also there's death. And death exists universally. Creation dies, and human beings die and are in the process of dying, both physically and spiritually. And then I think in Romans 6 as well, where you have the language of cosmic stuff going on there, I think when Paul uses the word, talks about the flesh there, if I recall. And that word flesh, as you know, it is tricky in Paul.

But I think it has, it can have a cosmic flavor to it, flesh with a capital F, that it enslaves. And it has appetites, we know. Well, even sin. I mean, I know Joey Dodson would argue or has argued, all of Romans 6 to 8 is cosmic. It's capital S sin. It's this cosmic power of sin that it is animated in our sinful flesh, but it also almost exists outside, kind of the world, the flesh and the devil kind of thing, like these three concentric circles. I agree with that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I agree with that. And we, I think it was it Roman 6, 7, that we're set free. And Roman 6 says, oh, we're set free. But there's a, so we are in sleet. We are, so the flesh has a power. it enslaves us as individuals.

And we as individuals and the entire creation needs to be set free from the cosmic power of sin. And then likewise, I think in Roman 7, I don't think Roman 7 is the Christian experience. I think it's talking about this whole, this cosmic hold that sin has and does not allow the law to enable the individual to master the cosmic power of sin

and to conquer one's own sin consequently. Only Christ can do that. But then Romans 8 uses this language, I think, explicitly of the creation groaning and agonizing and this idea of it's going to be set free from this agony. So vertical horizontal and cosmic stuff, I think, is sprinkled throughout Romans, but you have the cosmic piece sprinkled throughout Romans, but then I think five, as you come to the end of that section on hope in five through eight, seems the punch toward the end there strongly about this cosmic redemption,

which is great news for sinners like ourselves that are dying and for the creation that is enslaved. Is it in power? Have you set Tom, Tom Shrinder right yet on Romans 7? Is he still hold to us? I share with him my view and he told me, as scholars, we can't, you even caught yourself. We're not supposed to say clear. And I, you know, there's really good people who hold to the view that this is talking about the life of a believer.

I just think it's really clear. When you go to seven, Romans 7, 5, and 6 where he sets up this contrast between the power of the law, power of the spirit. And then he, of course, in 714 to 25, talks about the inability of the law. And then Romans 8, 1 to 11, the power of the spirit. It's a contrast. So whatever Romans 8 1 to 11 is talking about, which is the power that believers have to conquer sin through the power of the spirit and be not condemned through Jesus Christ, that's contrasted with whatever Robert 7 was talking about. So I just, I don't know, man. I love his commentary on Romans is outstanding.

I just got to Romans 7. I'm like, oh, yeah, I just, I'm not there, man. And most commentators aren't. People don't realize. It's so popular in preaching, but most commentators. evangelical and non on Romans. Right? I don't.

I mean, I know, I mean, I think maybe Dunn does, but like, boo, boo, boo, boo's commentary. I think it obliterates the Roman 7 is a believer view. But anyway. Well, I tell you, I don't know if you've seen Will Timmons monograph. I think, I can't remember the publication did it. I think 2012, maybe later. Or, yeah, I think maybe later.

But Will Timmons, I think, argues a very nuanced, tight, the exegetically tight view on Romans 7, speaking about the, to draw from his language, the adamant condition of fleshliness. So the way in which he articulates the view is, I think, much more precise and compelling than other readings that would hold to it, referring to the Christian experience. I think that's the monograph that changed Tom's view. Oh. And Will wrote a, he wrote a gospel coalition article summarizing his view, which is very clear. Very, very clear. I'm still wrestling with his argument. For me, he has an answer to this question that I'm wrestling with, but for me, the Roman 714 verse,

I am fleshly sowed under sin. That's a hard verse for me. to attach to a Christian experience. Because it seems as though the way I understand, like Paul talks about being under sin in Romans 3-9. And it's not applied to Christians, applied to Jews and Gentiles being under sin. And in Romans 714, under sin is the second place,

I think, where he uses the hoopah hamartion under sin phrase. And then, of course, he talks about being under grace in Romans. So it seems to me that for him, under sin is linked with the experience of Jews and Gentiles who are not in Christ. But Will's monograph has a pretty compelling argument why one might want to question that view. But right now I'm still thinking my view is the right view. Joey Dodson has an excellent book out on Romans 7, which again, I think is, yeah, it's hard to argue again. I mean, Romans 8, 1 to 11 is clearly describing the life of a believer, and it's, I think, clearly contrasted with what he just got finished talking about.

Anyway, Jarvis, thanks so much for your book and this fun conversation that could talk to you for hours. I hope some are still falling along here. I've got a pretty nerdy audience, but, yeah, so some, hopefully did he get lost too much in some of the scholarly garb. But yeah, man, appreciate you. Thank you so much for your work. And yeah, how can people find? So the book is Paul's Gospel in Romans, vertical horizontal and cosmic dimensions.

You got a website? People can check out? No, I don't have a website, but it's published by Baker. You can get it on Amazon. I think Amazon has it at a good price right now. And it's a short book, too. It's only about 60,000 words.

And I try to be, I try to engage as best as I can with some of the most recent scholarship in the conversation and then also keep the chapters as short as I possibly can. So I think it can be accessible as well to your audience. Right on. All right. Thanks, man. Appreciate you.

Thanks for being a guest on the Al Jura. Thank you, brother. Appreciate you.