You are totally missing the point. I believe that Jesus' Atonement on the Cross was an Expiation of our sins. If I'm not mistaken, you believe that Jesus' Atonement on the Cross was a Propitiation of our sins. Here is a report I forwarded to another Forum about that:
Is Christ the Propitiation or the Expiation concerning the sins of the whole world?
Same verses, different translations of the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos):
1 John_2:2 (KJV) "And He is the Propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world."
1 John 2:2 (RSV) "And He is the Expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
What exactly is the correct translation of the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos) from the Greek Koine NT? Is it propitiation (appeasing of a deity) or is it an expiation (the acts and offerings for atoning for sins/guilts/trespasses)? The issue at stake here is whether or not God is wrathful/angry at us and must be appeased in order to change his disposition toward us.
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament calls the Hebrew equivalent of ἱλασμός as “make an atonement, make a reconciliation, purge.” In Philo and other Greek Jewish literature it means “atonement” or “sin offering.” Both cases fall on the side of Expiation, not the appeasing of a deity.
In fact propitiation, is derived from Classic Greek writings such as Plutarch, who used it to mean “conciliate” or “a means of appeasing”. This occurred about 500 years before Christ, too long ago to justify such a translation.
Also, if we look at the uses of hilasmos (ἱλασμός) in the KJV OT nowhere does ἱλασμός translate to propitiation. These are: Ezekiel 44:27 (“sin offering”), Leviticus 25:9 (“atonement”), Numbers 5:8 (“guilt offering”), Amos 8:14 (“guilt or trespass offering”), Daniel 9:9 (“forgiveness”). The use of hilasmos on the LXX also supports understanding it as atonement and sacrifice for sins, something which changes us and brings about forgiveness, not something which changes God’s disposition toward us.
I'm ok with Lexicons that do not reject the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint, the KJV OT, the RSV definition of ἱλασμός, the ones that do not side with the Classic Plutarch definition of ἱλασμός which is paganistic.
Historically, why was Propitiation so readily accepted by the Christian masses? That's because that idea was born within an overly and extreme forensic legalistic culture foreign to the Biblical authors, and is something which was read into the text. The Biblical atonement is not purely a legal act, but is more of an ontological act which purifies us from sin and reunites humanity with God. There is no legal dilemma if not all are saved yet Christ died for all. God was not punishing Christ on the cross and the punishment of hell is a self-imposed punishment of separation from God by those who do not wish to know Him. God’s judgment is simply Him affirming their choice to reject Divine Love. (John 3:18-21 NKJV — “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Furthermore, propitiation is not consistent with the statements of Romans 5:8 and 1 John 4:9-10 in that God was already well-disposed towards us and for that reason reconciled us to Himself through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. An atonement for cleansing and forgiving sins fits 1 John 1:10-2:2 which is focused on cleansing from sin and ongoing purification through Christ’s Blood, not any questions of legal standing and certainly not a need to earn God’s favor as if there were ever a time He did not look at us favorably.
1 John 4:10 says, “In this is Love, not that we loved God, but He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins.” Again, hilasmos here means atoning sacrifice or expiation. It was out of God’s love that God died for us, and it was we who needed to be changed, our wills and dispositions needed to be renewed. There is no hint in the whole context that God was angry at us and punished His Son in our place.
The Cross is the place where atonement was made to reconcile humanity which had turned away from God to the God Who never turned away from us. The atonement justifies, cleanses, redeems, and ransoms. Through the atonement God substitutes for us as He takes death on Himself, death is destroyed, and all will be raised at the Last Day (Judgment Day).
Because God is already favorably disposed towards those for whom Christ died, since His favor is why He provided the atonement in the first place, the interpretation of the word hilasmos as propitiation can be rejected. Christ died as a sacrifice of atonement, to purify us and the creation. He did not die to appease God or bear wrath.
In the final analysis, the penal substitute theory presents God as a Legalistic Judge who demands repayment of debt in order to show mercy. This is not forgiveness nor mercy but retribution.
Conclusion: Propitiation, the appeasing of an irate Deity by offering Him a sacrifice which bears the weight of His wrath may be acceptable in Islam or paganism but it has no place in Christianity.
