Journal: Journal of Dispensational Theology
Volume: JODT 28:77 (Autumn 2024)
Article: The Wrath Of God Was Satisfied: The Doctrine Of Propitiation
Author: Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.

JODT 28:77 (Autumn 2024) p. 133

The Wrath Of God Was Satisfied: The Doctrine Of Propitiation

Ron J. Bigalke

* Ron J. Bigalke, M.Apol., M.Div., M.T.S., Ph.D., Ph.D., Georgia State Minister, Capitol Commission; author and lecturer, Eternal Ministries; research associate, University of Pretoria (Missions and Ethics Project); church plant pastor (Flowery Branch, GA), Gwinnett Metro Baptist Network

Years ago, a popular Christian worship song was deemed too controversial to be included in the current edition of the hymnal for the Presbyterian Church (USA). The modern hymn that was rejected is entitled “In Christ Alone” (written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend). The song is consistently ranked as one of the most popular among churches of all denominations. The reason that the Committee on Congregational Song rejected the song from the hymnal of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is that one line was deemed offensive. The line is from the song’s second verse: “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” The committee did not want to portray God as wrathful, thus they contacted the songwriters to change the controversial line to be sung as “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified.” The songwriters rightly rejected the committee’s request. One of the committee members explained her decision as necessary to avoid “a disservice” to the “educational mission” of the church by communicating “the view that the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger.”1

The creed of liberal Protestant theology was expressed well by Niebuhr, when he described it as follows: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”2 The liberal gospel neuters the necessity of the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus by its rejection of the concept of divine wrath. Certainly, the Lord did not need to assuage

JODT 28:77 (Autumn 2024) p. 134

his anger because God has no needs. However, the plight of humanity was desperate as all humanity “have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). God did not need to “crush” his Son for the sake of others (Isa 53:4–5); however, He did so to prove his love toward sinners (Rom 5:8; cf. 8:32). If the concept of God’s wrath is negated, then his crushing of his own Son is devoid of meaning. If the Lord Jesus Christ was not propitiating God’s w...