Satisfying God’s Wrath
A look at the vital importance of the doctrine of propitiation. The biblical doctrine of propitiation is under attack in our culture. Adherents of postmodernism and even some people within the church have rejected biblical teachings they perceive to be too harsh—such as judgment, hell, and the doctrine of propitiation. Also called “penal substitutionary atonement,” propitiation refersGet More Articles—Subscribe Today!
New Digital & Archive Subscription Options!
Digital Subscriptions are only $9.99/year. Digital + Archive Subscriptions are only $19.99/year.
First-time digital subscriber? Get a FREE, one-year trial at foi.org/digital!
To the writer of this article I say thank you for this commentary. It has opened up my understanding of the Word of God and His work on the cross.I thank you for sound doctrine also.The word “propitiation” has been explained to the fullest…satisfying the wrath of God. Amen..praise the Lord for His work on the cross. God blessings be upon you and I pray that you continue in His work and that I look forward to more of your articles.In Jesus precious name amen.
In response to Dorothy’s question, some of the NT verses that appear to be referring to the wrath of God in the future tense could be about the wrath of God being poured out on sinners at the end of time, those who have NOT accepted Christ’s substitionary sacrifice for their sins.
Hi Mike. I have carefully read your article several times. I think it has some serious problems that deal with how you define propitiation as well as the specific passages you reference. I would like to start a dialogue on this issue and share the problems I see. You mention so many passages that I will not attempt to address them all (but am willing to in-turn). I want to focus on Romans 3 first and get your responses to my comments and questions. I apologize for sounding terse, but I will write them as a list here:
1) You write: “the word [propitiation] specifically denotes the satisfaction of God’s wrath.” I noticed you used a dictionary reference to define expiation, but you do not use any lexical resource to define any of the three words that get translated as “propitiation”. The most respected Greek-English lexicon, the BDAG, defines hilastērion (propitiation) in Romans 3:25 as “means of expiation” (p.474). Additionally, Thayer’s Lexicon defines hilastērion used in Romans 3:25 as “an expiatory sacrifice; a piacular victim”1. Can you please comment on BDAG and Thayer’s entries? Also, can you provide the most reliable lexicon that has the word hilastērion (as used in Romans 3:25) that specifically denotes it as “the satisfaction of God’s wrath”? From there, we can move the conversation to grammar since denotative meaning is only one part of understanding a word.
2) Later in the article you actually describe one aspect of Christ’s death perfectly in harmony with the BDAG and Thayer’s lexicons. You describe Christ’s death as “…the means by which sin is expiated.” So, you do show a right understanding of Christ’s death at that point, but there is a serious problem leading up to it. You write, “God is propitiated. His wrath was satisfied by Christ’s death….” This error is easy to spot when we examine the grammar. Not only are you using propitiation as a verb, but then you are claiming that it changes something about God (i.e., his wrath). This explanation simply does not fit in the context of Romans 3. God is the subject who puts Christ Jesus forward. “Whom” refers to Jesus and is the object in the sentence. “propitiation” is the complement to the object in that it describes something about Jesus (i.e. “…Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood…” (Romans 3:24-25, ESV). So, in Romans 3, nothing is presented to God to change something about Him– in fact, it is just the opposite–God is providing something to humanity so they can be changed (i.e. be justified). By using Romans 3:25 to make your point that the death of Jesus satisfied God’s wrath, you are a) arguing against the actual denotative meaning of hilastērion in Romans 3:25, b) changing the grammar of the sentence, and c) reaching a conclusion that goes against the immediate context. After doing this, you then argue against the main point of your article and ignore another contextual detail.
3) You write, “Expiation, though important, is impersonal: Sin is expiated, not a person.” I am not arguing against this sentence, but I am quoting it show that it undermines your main argument. Here is Romans 3:23-25, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”. It can be seen that “sinned”/”sin” forms a book-end in Paul’s thought and that sins are being discussed– not wrath. The context confirms BDAG and Thayer’s entries that discuss hilastērion as rightly focusing on expiation.
4) The rest of the article functions as an argument from repetition. You merely restate your definition of propitiation and mention verses that use “propitiation” or are related to the death of Jesus. You write: “And we must not reject propitiation as the satisfaction of God’s wrath…. His death propitiated God’s wrath…. The cross of Christ turns away God’s wrath…. The Father made His Son a propitiation to satisfy His wrath…. The idea of the satisfaction of God’s wrath is consistent with the context…. the satisfaction of God’s wrath…. His propitiation of God’s wrath…. satisfy God’s wrath on human sin…. the Bible clearly teaches the reality of God’s wrath and His intention to turn it away through Jesus. The divine plan sent Christ to the cross to die as a punitive substitute for our sin so God’s wrath would be satisfied. This is the concept of propitiation.”
I know you might be thinking, “but I mentioned a ton of passages making my point- what about those!” Again, I am happy to discuss those one at a time (Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2 & 4:10). I think going through those passages first will be helpful. The denotative meanings of those words, the grammar, and the contexts will reveal similar problems like the ones with your interpretation of Romans 3.
Thanks in advance for noticing two things 1) that my concerns deal only with what Scripture says and not any other issue and 2) I completely 100% acknowledge that God has wrath.
ps. I am not ascribing canonicity or untouchable status to BDAG or any other lexical source, but the point is that it needs to be dealt with as a serious source for what Romans 3:25 means; and it can be demonstrated that “means of expiation” makes perfect sense of the grammar and context of Romans 3.
Endnote
1 https://biblehub.com/thayers/2435.htm
Dorothy,
Thanks so much for your interaction on my article on the wrath of God in the Atonement at the Cross. I am not sure I agree that all the references to his wrath being poured out in the NT are described as future events. Especially is this so when we are talking about propitiation and the work of Christ on the Cross. Certainly the OT prediction from Isaiah 53 points ahead to a future event — the Cross as we understand it from NT perspective — when God’s wrath will be satisfied. This is an accomplished fact in history from our point of view and from Paul’s point of view as he wrote his NT letters. Jesus on the Cross was publicly displayed (past tense) as a propitiation (satisfaction of the wrath of God) — Rom 3:25. This refers to his work on the Cross which is a past event. However, this past work is the basis for the fact that we will never face the wrath of God in hell, a deliverance which is accomplished in the mind of God for us but which has both present and future ramifications for our ongoing lives (Rom. 5:10 ). Perhaps this is what you had in mind. Thanks again for interacting.
If God’s wrath was satisfied at Calvary, why are all the references to his wrath being poured out (to be appeased) described as future events by the writers of the New Testament? That is, the theology is his wrath WAS appeased but they all saw it as a future event from their timepoint. Does his wrath continually need to be appeased?
Phyllis, thank you for reading the article and for forwarding your thoughts. The doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement refers to the satisfaction of God’s wrath upon sin. In other words, Christ was punished in our place. He paid the penalty for our rebellion against God. Now, of course, such a work pleases God the Father. But the satisfaction of God’s wrath was a necessary component for our salvation. Either we die to be punished for our own sins or someone else dies for us. Christ did this willingly and pleased God in doing so. But he did more than please the Father. He took care of the sin problem which can be applied to us if we trust Christ for salvation.
One can be pleased without one being terribly angry (wrathful) before. That God was pleased doesn’t mean his wrath was appeased.
Dorothy, in my response I do not argue that God’s wrath was appeased is based upon the fact that he was pleased. I merely assert that he was pleased in the Cross being the satisfaction of His wrath. Those are not the same thing.
Thank you so much
We were searching for the difference in Pleasing God and Satisfying God.
I knew someone had most likely been led to study this
Thank you so much