"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.
But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:
"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"
I am going to answer your question with a resounding “No” because Jesus Christ is God, and why would God need to save us from God?
Now it is true that, unless we accept the nominally Nicene-compatible* heresy of Monothelitism, which I don’t, and of which I am further pleased that it definitely ended when the Maronites entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church during the Crusade, and if as is very possibly the case the Maronites were not actually Monothelite, much earlier, and has not to my knowledge been revived on a large scale, God the Son has both a human and a divine will according to Christian Orthodoxy as defined by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which to my knowledge is one of the least controversial of the Seven Ecumenical Councils** agreed upon by the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman and Eastern Catholics and Moravians, Lutherans, and most Anglicans, and indeed all non-iconoclastic*** non-Calvinist**** Protestants, it was also the position of the Sixth Ecumenical Council that the human and divine wills were in alignment, with the former obedient to the latter.
Rather, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches have preserved a Patristic understanding of the Wrath of God as being the experience of God’s omnipresent light in the eschaton and indeed in the present, even to some extent in this life, if one does not love God, or is opposed to Him, in which case it would be a torture.
Because God is love, indeed the perfection of love, and God is unchanging and eternal, we can assert using apophatic theology, which is the only really valid method, owing to the inscrutable nature of the Divine Essence, that God does not get angry. So, it is opposition to the uncreated energies of God that causes one to experience what is figuratively called His Wrath, which is a choice. So, for example, if we take an Antiochene Historical-Literalist approach to the Book of Exodus, or indeed read the following as an Alexandrian Christological prophetic parable, or both, we could say that the Wrath of God was the experience of God’s love for the Israelites as experienced by Pharoah, who was in opposition to that love as he chased with genocidal intent the Israelites across the exposed sea bed of the Red Sea, whose waters had parted by divine intercession at the behest of Moses. Now, once the Israelites had emerged onto the shore, God, in His love for them, allowed the waters of the Red Sea to return to their normal condition, unseparated by the supernatural forces of the Holy Spirit, and in the process Pharoah and his army were drowned, lest they had followed the Israelites into Sinai and killed them there. God did not hate the Pharoah, God was not angry with the Pharoah; the love of God for Israel rather was opposed by Pharoah, exposing him to wrath.
As much as I loathe using modern science as a source of analogies to explain theological concepts, God’s love can be likened to created light, photons, as it were; when light approaches us, the Doppler effect causes it to appear more blue in color, this being called blueshift, and as it moves away from us, it appears to be more red in color, this being called redshift. God is similar, in that when we receive His Divine Love Eucharistically, which is to say, with thanksgiving, we experience Love in its fullness, whereas if we stand in bold opposition to it we experience what is figuratively called “the wrath of God”, for God is a consuming fire, which can either energize us noetically if we embrace Him through love, or which can burn us perpetually as if we were in a lake of fire if we reject His embrace and oppose His Love through Hate.
And if we, in a lukewarm manner, try to step out of His way so as to not get burned, we do not fully benefit from His love but wind up causing ourselves to be somewhat burned anyway, and indeed, in this life, I would argue our experience of God if we live in a worldly manner alternates between fleeting moments of grace and agony, owing to our inability to stop sinning, but because of God’s infinite mercy, through faith in Christ, when we repose we can receive His love in its fullness, and indeed the more we permit our faith in Christ to be a living faith, and seek through prayer theosis, or entire sanctification, as Wesley called it, the more direct our experience of His love will be in this world, and the more certain our salvation in the next, provided we do not fall into the snares set by the devil and return by temptation to worldliness, like a dog to its vomit, something I myself must confess to doing all too often, or worse, through pride become entrapped in spiritual delusion, something Russian monastics call prelest.
* I would argue that Monothelitism is actually not Nicene-compatible, because it is contrary to the doctrine of His full humanity.
** The Oriental Orthodox reject Chalcedon for various reasons, and consequently the remaining councils, however, their doctrines are in direct alignment with the doctrine of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils. Although they
might explain the doctrine proclaimed at the sixth as Christ having a theandric will from a human and divine will, in which the divine and human wills are united in the incarnation without change, confusion, separation or division, which is precisely how they explain the union of his two natures in the incarnation.
*** Iconoclasts will without fail reject the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which declared that the Church has never had idols, that iconoclasm is heresy, and that icons and the saints are worthy of veneration, but not worship, which some extreme anti-iconoclasts engaged in, for example, by chipping paint off of an icon and putting it in the Chalice during the Eucharistic Liturgy, and this was condemned as also being heresy, as it is actual idolatry.
**** Calvinists, being mongergists, along with Universalists and Pelagians, will reject the Fifth Ecumenical Council, where Monergism and Universalism were declared heretical.