Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
2. And He is the propitiation ] Or, And He Himself is a propitiation: there is no article in the Greek. Note the present tense throughout; ‘we have an Advocate, He is a propitiation’: this condition of things is perpetual, it is not something which took place once for all long ago. In His glorified Body the Son is ever acting thus. Contrast ‘He laid down His life for us’ (1Jn 3:16). Beware of the unsatisfactory explanation that ‘propitiation’ is the abstract for the concrete, ‘propitiation’ ( ) for ‘propitiator’ ( ). Had S. John written ‘propitiator’ we should have lost half the truth; viz. that our Advocate propitiates by offering Himself. He is both High Priest and Victim, both Propitiator and Propitiation. It is quite obvious that He is the former; the office of Advocate includes it. It is not at all obvious that He is the latter: very rarely does an advocate offer himself as a propitiation.
The word for ‘propitiation’ occurs nowhere in N. T. but here and in 1Jn 4:10; in both places without the article and followed by ‘for our sins’. It signifies any action which has expiation as its object, whether prayer, compensation, or sacrifice. Thus ‘the ram of the atonement’ (Num 5:8) is ‘the ram of the propitiation’ or ‘expiation’, where the same Greek word as is used here is used in the LXX. Comp. Eze 44:27; Num 29:11; Lev 25:9. The LXX. of ‘there is forgiveness with Thee’ (Psa 130:4) is remarkable: literally rendered it is ‘before Thee is the propitiation’ ( ). So also the Vulgate, apud Te propitiatio est. And this is the idea that we have here: Jesus Christ, as being righteous, is ever present before the Lord as the propitiation. With this we should compare the use of the cognate verb in Heb 2:17 and cognate substantive Rom 3:25 and Heb 9:5. From these passages it is clear that in N. T. the word is closely connected with that special form of expiation which takes place by means of an offering or sacrifice, although this idea is not of necessity included in the radical signification of the word itself. See notes in all three places.
for our sins ] Literally, concerning ( ) our sins: our sins are the matter respecting which the propitiation goes on. This is the common form of expression in LXX. Comp. Num 29:11; Exo 30:15-16; Exo 32:30; Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35, &c. &c. Similarly, in Joh 8:46, ‘Which of you convicteth Me of sin?’ is literally, ‘Which of you convicteth Me concerning sin?’ Comp. Joh 16:8; Joh 10:33. Notice that it is ‘our sins’, not ‘our sin’: the sins which we are daily committing, and not merely the sinfulness of our nature, are the subject of the propitiation.
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world ] More literally, but also for the whole world: ‘the sins of’ is not repeated in the Greek and is not needed in English. Once more we have a parallel with the Gospel, and especially with chap. 17. ‘Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe on Me through their word that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and lovedst them, even as Thou lovedst Me’ (Joh 17:20-23): ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ’ (Joh 1:29): ‘We know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world ’ (Joh 4:24). Comp. 1Jn 4:14. S. John’s writings are so full of the fundamental opposition between Christ or believers and the world, that there was danger lest he should seem to give his sanction to a Christian exclusiveness as fatal as the Jewish exclusiveness out of which he and other converts from Judaism had been delivered. Therefore by this (note especially ‘the whole world’) and other plain statements both in Gospel (see Joh 11:51 in particular) and Epistle he insists that believers have no exclusive right to the merits of Christ. The expiatory offering was made for the whole world without limitation. All who will may profit by it: quam late peccatum, tam late propitiatio (Bengel). The disabilities under which the whole human race had laboured were removed. It remained to be seen who would avail themselves of the restored privileges. ‘The world’ ( ) is another of S. John’s characteristic expressions. In his writings it generally means those who are alienated from God, outside the pale of the Church. But we should fall into grievous error if we assigned this meaning to the word indiscriminately. Thus, in ‘the world was made by Him’ (Joh 1:10) it means ‘the universe’; in ‘This is of a truth the Prophet that cometh into the world’ (Joh 6:14) it means ‘the earth’; in ‘God so loved the world’ (Joh 3:16) it means, as here, ‘the inhabitants of the earth, the human race’. But still the prevalent meaning in both Gospel and Epistle is a bad one; ‘those who have not accepted the Christ, unbelievers.’ In the Apocalypse it occurs only thrice, once in the usual sense, ‘The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord’ (Joh 11:15), and twice in the sense of ‘the universe’ (Joh 13:8, Joh 17:8).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he is the propitiation for our sins – The word rendered propitiation ( hilasmos) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 1Jo 4:10 of this Epistle; though words of the same derivation, and having the same essential meaning, frequently occur. The corresponding word hilasterion occurs in Rom 3:25, rendered propitiation – whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; and in Heb 9:5, rendered mercy-seat – shadowing the mercy-seat. The verb hilaskomai occurs also in Luk 18:3 – God be merciful to me a sinner; and Heb 2:17 – to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For the idea expressed by these words, see the notes at Rom 3:25. The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable. The idea is, that there is anger or wrath, or that something has been done to offend, and that it is needful to turn away that wrath, or to appease. This may be done by a sacrifice, by songs, by services rendered, or by bloody offerings. So the word is often used in Homer – Passow. We have similar words in common use, as when we say of one that he has been offended, and that something must be done to appease him, or to turn away his wrath. This is commonly done with us by making restitution; or by an acknowledgment; or by yielding the point in controversy; or by an expression of regret; or by different conduct in time to come. But this idea must not be applied too literally to God; nor should it be explained away. The essential thoughts in regard to him, as implied in this word, are:
(1)That his will has been disregarded, and his law violated, and that he has reason to be offended with us;
(2)That in that condition he cannot, consistently with his perfections, and the good of the universe, treat us as if we had not done it;
(3)That it is proper that, in some way, he should show his displeasure at our conduct, either by punishing us, or by something that shall answer the same purpose; and,
(4)That the means of propitiation come in here, and accomplish this end, and make it proper that he should treat us as if we had not sinned; that is, he is reconciled, or appeased, and his anger is turned away.
This is done, it is supposed, by the death of the Lord Jesus, accomplishing, in most important respects, what would be accomplished by the punishment of the offender himself. In regard to this, in order to a proper understanding of what is accomplished, it is necessary to observe two things – what is not done, and what is.
I. There are certain things which do not enter into the idea of propitiation. They are such as these:
- That it does not change the fact that the wrong was done. That is a fact which cannot be denied, and he who undertakes to make a propitiation for sin does not deny it.
- It does not change God; it does not make Him a different being from what He was before; it does not buy Him over to a willingness to show mercy; it does not change an inexorable being to one who is compassionate and kind.
- The offering that is made to secure reconciliation does not necessarily produce reconciliation in fact. It prepares the way for it on the part of God, but whether they for whom it is made will be disposed to accept it is another question.
When two men are alienated from each other, you may go to B and say to him that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of A are removed, and that he is disposed to be at peace, but whether B will be willing to be at peace is quite another matter. The mere fact that his adversary is disposed to be at peace, determines nothing in regard to his disposition in the matter. So in regard to the controversy between man and God. It may be true that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God are taken away, and still it may be quite a separate question whether man will be willing to lay aside his opposition, and embrace the terms of mercy. In itself considered, one does not necessarily determine the other, or throw any light on it.
II. The amount, then, in regard to the propitiation made for sin is, that it removes all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God: it does whatever is necessary to be done to maintain the honor of His law, His justice, and His truth; it makes it consistent for Him to offer pardon – that is, it removes whatever there was that made it necessary to inflict punishment, and thus, so far as the word can be applied to God, it appeases Him, or turns away His anger, or renders Him propitious. This it does, not in respect to producing any change in God, but in respect to the fact that it removes whatever there was in the nature of the case that prevented the free and full offer of pardon. The idea of the apostle in the passage before us is, that when we sin we may be assured that this has been done, and that pardon may now be freely extended to us.
And not for ours only – Not only for the sins of us who are Christians, for the apostle was writing to such. The idea which he intends to convey seems to be, that when we come before God we should take the most liberal and large views of the atonement; we should feel that the most ample provision has been made for our pardon, and that in no respect is there any limit as to the sufficiency of that work to remove all sin. It is sufficient for us; sufficient for all the world.
But also for the sins of the whole world – The phrase the sins of is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, the whole world, is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:
(1)That the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;
(2)That it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;
(3)That it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.
It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the 2Co 5:14 note, and Heb 2:9 note.
(See also the Supplementary notes at these passages, for a general review of the argument regarding the extent of atonement.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. And he is the propitiation] ‘ The atoning sacrifice for our sins. This is the proper sense of the word as used in the Septuagint, where it often occurs; and is the translation of asham, an oblation for sin, Amo 8:14. chattath, a sacrifice for sin, Eze 44:27. kippur, an atonement, Nu 5:8. See Clarke on Ro 3:25, and particularly See Clarke on Lu 18:13. The word is used only here and in 1Jo 4:10.
And not for ours only] It is not for us apostles that he has died, nor exclusively for the Jewish people, but , for the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews, all the descendants of Adam. The apostle does not say that he died for any select part of the inhabitants of the earth, or for some out of every nation, tribe, or kindred; but for ALL MANKIND; and the attempt to limit this is a violent outrage against God and his word.
For the meaning of the word , which we here translate advocate, See Clarke on Joh 14:16.
From these verses we learn that a poor backslider need not despair of again finding mercy; this passage holds out sufficient encouragement for his hope. There is scarcely another such in the Bible, and why? That sinners might not presume on the mercy of God. And why this one? That no backslider might utterly despair. Here, then, is a guard against presumption on the one hand, and despondency on the other.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And he is the propitiation for our sins: the adding of these words, shows that our Lord grounds his intercession for pardon of sin unto penitent believers, upon his having made atonement for them before; and therefore that he doth not herein merely supplicate for favour, but (which is the proper business of an advocate) plead law and right; agreeably to what is said above, 1Jo 1:9.
And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world; nor is his undertaking herein limited to any select persons among believers, but he must be understood to be an Advocate for all, for whom he is effectually a Propitiation, i.e. for all that truly believe in him, {Rom 3:25} all the world over.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. And heGreek, “AndHimself.” He is our all-prevailing Advocate, because Heis Himself “the propitiation”; abstract, asin 1Co 1:30: He is to us allthat is needed for propitiation “in behalf of our sins”;the propitiatory sacrifice, provided by the Father’s love,removing the estrangement, and appeasing the righteous wrath, onGod’s part, against the sinner. “There is no incongruity that afather should be offended with that son whom he loveth, and atthat time offended with him when he loveth him” [BISHOPPEARSON]. The only otherplace in the New Testament where Greek “propitiation”occurs, is 1Jo 4:10; it answersin the Septuagint to Hebrew, “caphar,“to effect an atonement or reconciliation with God; andin Eze 44:29, to the sinoffering. In Ro 3:25,Greek, it is “propitiatory,” that is, the mercyseat, or lid of the ark whereon God, represented by the Shekinahglory above it, met His people, represented by the high priest whosprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on it.
andGreek,“yet.”
oursbelievers: notJews, in contrast to Gentiles; for he is not writing to Jews(1Jo 5:21).
also for the sins of thewhole worldChrist’s “advocacy” is limited tobelievers (1Jn 2:1;1Jn 1:7): His propitiationextends as widely as sin extends: see on 2Pe2:1, “denying the Lord that bought them.” “Thewhole world” cannot be restricted to the believingportion of the world (compare 1Jo4:14; and “the whole world,” 1Jo5:19). “Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thineheart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter andPaul, but not for me” [LUTHER].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he is the propitiation for our sins,…. For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:
and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:
but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, “not for us only, but also for the whole world”; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles , “the world”; and
, “the whole world”; and , “the nations of the world” l; [See comments on John 12:19]; and the word “world” is so used in Scripture; see Joh 3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that , “there is no propitiation for them” m: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say n,
“it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, , “the whole world” went after him;”
which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere o it is said,
“amle ylwk, “the “whole world” has left the Misna, and gone after the “Gemara”;”
which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place p,
“amle ylwk, “the whole world” fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;”
where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said q, when
“R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), , “the whole world” stood up before him;”
that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added r,
“when a great man makes a mourning, , “the whole world” come to honour him;”
i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, , “the whole world” is not divided, or does not dissent s; , “the whole world” are of opinion t, are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, “all the men of the world” u, only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, “all the world”, or “the whole world”, in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Lu 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for “the sins of the whole world” are opposed to “our sins”, the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jo 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his “little children” with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation, [See comments on Ro 3:25]. The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say w repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous x; sometimes incense y; sometimes the priests’ garments z; sometimes it is the day of atonement a; and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers b, that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them; [See comments on 1Jo 4:10].
l Jarchi in Isa. liii. 5. m T. Hieros. Nazir, fol. 57. 3. Vid. T. Bab. Succa, fol. 55. 2. n T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 71. 2. o T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 33. 2. p T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 22. 2. q T. Bab. Horayot, fol. 13. 2. r Piske Toseph. Megilla, art. 104. s T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 90. 2. & Kiddushin, fol. 47. 2. & 49. 1. & 65. 2. & Gittin, fol. 8. 1. & 60. 2. t T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 48. 1. u Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 11. sect. 16. w Zohar in Lev. fol. 29. 1. x Ib. fol. 24. 1. T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 2. y T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 88. 2. & Erachin, fol. 16. 1. z T. Bab. Zebachim, ib. T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 44. 2. a T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 87. 1. & T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 45. 2, 3. b Seder Tephillot, fol. 41. 1. Ed. Amsterd.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And he ( ). He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice (Heb 9:14).
The propitiation (). Late substantive from (Luke 18:13; Heb 2:17), in LXX, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 4:10. Christ himself is the means of propitiation for ( concerning) our sins. See in Ro 3:15.
For the whole world ( ). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of (the sins of) as we have it in Heb 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard “the whole world” as a mass of sin (5:19). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all (Heb 2:9) if they will only be reconciled with God (2Co 5:19-21).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
And He [ ] . The He is emphatic : that same Jesus : He himself. The propitiation [] . Only here and 1Jo 4:10. From iJlaskomai to appease, to conciliate to one’s self, which occurs Luk 28:13; Heb 2:17. The noun means originally an appeasing or propitiating, and passes, through Alexandrine usage, into the sense of the means of appeasing, as here. The construction is to be particularly noted; for, in the matter of [] our sins; the genitive case of that for which propitiation is made. In Heb 2:17, the accusative case, also of the sins to be propitiated. In classical usage, on the other hand, the habitual construction is the accusative (direct objective case), of the person propitiated. So in Homer, of the gods. Qeon iJlaskesqai is to make a God propitious to one. See “Iliad,” 1, 386, 472. Of men whom one wishes to conciliate by divine honors after death. So Herodotus, of Philip of Crotona. “His beauty gained him honors at the hands of the Egestaeans which they never accorded to any one else; for they raised a hero – temple over his grave, and they still propitiate him [ ] with sacrifices” (v. 47). Again, “The Parians, having propitiated Themistocles [ ] with gifts, escaped the visits of the army” (viii. 112). The change from this construction shows, to quote Canon Westcott, “that the scriptural conception of the verb is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship. Such phrases as ‘propitiating God, ‘ and God ‘being reconciled ‘ are foreign to the language of the New Testament. Man is reconciled (2Co 5:18 sqq.; Rom 5:10 sq.). There is a propitiation in the matter of the sin or of the sinner.”
For the sins of the whole world [ ] . The sins of (A. 5, italicized) should be omitted; as in Revelation, for the whole world. Compare 1Jo 4:14; Joh 4:42; Joh 7:32. “The propitiation is as wide as the sin” (Bengel). If men do not experience its benefit, the fault is not in its efficacy. Dusterdieck (cited by Huther) says, “The propitiation has its real efficacy for the whole world; to believers it brings life, to unbelievers death.” Luther : “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself, and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me.” On kosmou see on Joh 1:9.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And he is the propitiation for our sins”. And He (Jesus) is (Greek hilasmos) that which propitiates for, concerning, our deeds of lawlessness of omission and commission. God, the Father grants mercy, at the mercy seat because of the blood there offered as a basis of the plea of His Son on behalf of penitent believers. Jesus went to Pilate’s Judgement seat, was turned to the world for death’s judgement. When God saw the travail of His soul He was satisfied. He is still satisfied and grants petitions of His Son. Heb 9:24; Heb 9:26; Heb 10:12.
2) “And not for ours only. John hastens to add, “not for our sins alone,” does He propitiate – offer or display His blood on the mercy seat – This blood is the basis for God’s pardoning, redeeming, saving every person who comes and asks for salvation! Rom 3:24-25.
3) “But also for the sins of the whole world.” What the blood of Jesus offers to the believer it also offers to the whole world. Primary Pardon and forgiveness for the unbeliever, who calls on the Lord, is available to save every and each sinner. Isa 55:6-7; Rom 10:9-10; Rom 10:13. Secondary Pardon, or forgiveness for deeds of sin, is available to every erring little child of God when he confesses it to the Christ Who sleeps not, at the mercy seat. Eph 1:7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2 And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ (63) suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.
(63) “It seems to me that the Apostle is to be understood as speaking only of all those who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, over the whole world.” — Doddridge. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
2. Ours only whole world The heart of our apostle is too expansive to limit the grace of the Redeemer to a select number. Christ is a race Redeemer, a world-Saviour. The interpretation that strives against language so rich to force a limit upon it, dishonours Christ and dishonours itself. Such is the perversity of Calvin’s words quoted disapprovingly by Alford: “Under all he does not comprehend reprobates; but designates those who are yet to believe and who are scattered through the various regions of the world.” Such a meaning of the word world has no instance in Scripture; for the Word is more apt to be used, especially by John, to signify the world of unbelievers. In fact, the very purpose of John here is, to deny and repudiate a limited atonement. Beautiful and true are the words of Bengel: “So wide as sin extends does the propitiation extend.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Jn 2:2. And he is the propitiation Rather the propitiatory sacrifice; the sin-offering, or sacrifice of atonement; for so the word ‘ signifies both here and ch. 1Jn 4:10. See on Rom 3:25. In this and the former verse, Jesus Christ is considered as being himself both the High-priest and the Sacrifice of atonement; and St. John having represented him as our Advocate with the Father, or our great High-priest gone within the veil to plead for us, further intimates, that he was also the great Christian Sacrifice or Sin-offering, and entered with his own blood within the veil, there to appear in the presence of God for us. Under the law the high-priest had never perfectly made an atonement, until he had entered within the veil, and sprinkled the blood before the mercy-seat. The slaying of the sacrifice, and offering it upon the altar, were previous steps; but the completion of the work was going within the veil, and there sprinkling the blood: thereby the high priest made an atonement for himself, for his household the priests, and for all the congregation of Israel. Lev 16:17.
In allusion hereto, our blessed Lord is here represented as entering into heaven, to plead our cause with the Father, after he had offered himself on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins; a view in which he is often represented, particularly in the epistle to the Hebrews. “He is the great propitiation for our sins, to whom, under that character, we have fled with cheerful confidence: and it is a joy to us to reflect, that he is not only the propitiation for ours but also [for the sins] of the whole world,” &c. See the annotations on the epistle to the Romans for a full view of this subject, as it relates to the Heathen world.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Jn 2:2 . = et ipse, idemque ille; is here also the simple copula, and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam.
refers back to . , and the epithet is not to be lost sight of here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers to God.
] The word , which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. 1Jn 4:10 , and here also indeed in combination with . , may , according to Eze 44:27 (= ), mean the sin-offering (Lcke, 3d ed.), but is here to be taken in the sense of , Lev 25:9 , Num 5:8 , and no doubt in this way, that Christ is called the , inasmuch as He has expiated by His the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, it is true, is not demanded by the idea in itself, [84] but certainly is demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of Christ, in chap. 1Jn 1:7 , the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, because he knows that reconciliation is based in it.
[84] In the Septuagint not only does appear as the translation of the Hebrew (Psa 129:4 ; Dan 9:9 ), but is also used = to be merciful, to forgive (Psa 65:4 ; Psa 78:38 ; Psa 79:9 ), quite without reference to an offering. The explanation of Paulus, however: “He (i.e. God) is the pure exercise of compassion on account of sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in the first place, God is not the subject, and secondly, the of Christ is not the forgiveness itself, but is that which procures forgiveness.
REMARK.
In classical Greek (as middle) is = ; but in scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this word, whether it is as the translation of (Psa 65:4 ; Psa 78:38 ; Psa 79:9 ), or of (Psa 25:11 ; 2Ki 5:18 ), or of (Exo 32:14 ), God is the subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb 2:17 , Christ is the subject, and the object also is . The case is almost exactly similar with , which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on the other hand, is used as the translation of much more frequently than the simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men, namely Gen 32:21 and Pro 16:14 , that the classical usus loquendi is preserved; but elsewhere with , whether the subject be God (as in Eze 16:63 ) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev 4:20 ; Lev 4:26 ; Lev 6:7 ; Lev 16:6 ; Lev 16:11 ; Lev 16:16-17 ; Lev 16:24 ; Lev 16:30 ; Lev 16:33 ; Eze 45:17 ) or sin (Exo 32:30 ; both together, Lev 5:18 , Num 6:11 ), or even of holiness defiled by sin (the most holy place, Lev 16:16 ; the altar, Lev 16:18 ; Lev 27:33 , Eze 43:22 ); only in Zec 7:2 is found , where, however, the Hebrew text has . , therefore, in scripture does not denote the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not placatio (or as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T. that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God. [85]
[85] Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews , on chap. 1Jn 2:17 , p. 94 ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, while he states correctly the Biblical mode of representation, bases his opening discussion on the idea of the “self-reconciliation of the Godhead with itself,” an idea which is not contained in scripture. It is observed by several commentators that , as distinguished from = “Vershnung” (reconciliation), is to be translated by “Shnung” or “Vershnung” (both = Engl. expiation, atonement ). It is true, Vershnung and Vershnung are properly one and the same word, but in the usage of the language the distinction has certainly been fixed that the latter word denotes the restoration of the disturbed relationship by an expiation to be performed; only it is inexact to assert that the idea in itself contains the idea of punishment, since does not include this idea either in classical or in Biblical usage, and , though mostly indeed used in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by which sin is covered, is also used without this reference (comp. Sir 3:28 ).
Grotius, S. G. Lange, and others take = ; of course that abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the concrete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract is more comprehensive, more intensive; comp. 1Co 1:30 ” (Brckner); it gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through anything outside Himself, but through Himself” (Lcke, 2d ed.), and that there is no propitiation except through Him. [86]
The relation of to the preceding may be variously regarded; either is the higher idea, in which is contained, Bede: advocatum habemus apud Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris reddit; or conversely: is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is subordinated, as de Wette thus says: “ does not merely refer to the sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the intercession as the progressive reconciliation” (so also Rickli, Frommann); or lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the in regard to His blood which was shed, and the , on the other hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence beginning with , by which is marked as an idea which is not already contained in the idea , but is distinct from it; against the second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as, has reference to all sins, but His intercession, on the other hand, has reference only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains, accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune). The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as its presupposition the wrought out in His death, [87] yet the sentence is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster (Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence is thereby taken away; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.
] expresses the reference quite generally: “in regard to;” it may here be observed that , in the LXX. is usually construed with , after the Hebrew . The idea of substitution is not suggested in .
With . , comp. chap. 1Jn 1:9 ; it is not merely the sins of Christians ( , i.e . fidelium; Bengel) before their conversion that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their Christian life; comp. chap. 1Jn 1:7 . Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are added to merely as a preparation for the following additional thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle and without regard to what follows inasmuch as it is only by virtue of them that the idea obtains complete expression.
, ] Expansion of the thought, in reference to the preceding . . , in order to mark the universality of the propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by the Jews, and by the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, etc.); are rather believers, and is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Lcke, Sander, Neander, Dsterd., Braune, etc.
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive); but this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was thinking directly of the as it existed in his time, without, however, limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by which is = “ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world, for the whole of fallen mankind; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Dsterdieck therefore rightly says: “The propitiation is of judicial nature; according to this, the propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world; to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite improperly asserts: sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat, qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly Beza); against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum, tam late propitiatio. The expressly added places the matter beyond all doubt.
With regard to the genitive . , Winer says (p. 509, VII. p. 536): “instead of this, either . ., or, instead of the first words, might have been written; similarly Heb 9:7 ;” many commentators, on the other hand, supply directly, as Grotius, Semler, Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), de Wette, Dsterdieck; as the Vulg. renders: “pro totius mundi,” and Luther: “fr der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of this, appeal is made to passages such as Joh 5:36 , [88] Mat 5:20 ; but the construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural to the apostle, as the idea includes in itself that of sin. [89]
[86] The case is the same with the expression as with other abstractions by which Christ is described, as , , , . . . Who does not feel that by these words something much more comprehensive is expressed than in the concrete forms: , , , . . .?
[87] Kstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): “Christ is , while He is , i.e. high priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high priest who offers himself; and , while He is , i.e. a sacrifice which offers itself;” for neither does . describe the high-priesthood of Christ, according to its full comprehension, nor does mean “sacrifice.”
[88] This passage is cited by Ebrard further, in order to prove his assertion: “This abbreviation for needs no explanation” (!).
[89] When Braune, who has accepted the explanation which is here given of the verse as a whole and in detail, says in reference to the oratio variata which occurs here: “it has not happened for the sake of the evil which attaches to the , for this is true of Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he thereby shows that he has not correctly understood the above remark.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Ver. 2. He is the propitiation ] Heb. Copher; he coffers up, as it were, and covers our sins, Psa 78:38 . See Trapp on “ Rom 3:25 “ The Hebrew word used for covering and propitiating of sin, is Gen 6:14 used of the pitch or plaster whereby the wood of the ark was so fastened that no water could get in.
But also for the sins of the whole world ] That is, of all the faithful, both of Jews and Gentiles, that mundus ex mundo, that world of whom the world is not worthy, Heb 11:38 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 .] and He (“idemque ille,” as Lcke. is merely the copula, not = quia , as Corn.-a-lap.; nor , as Syr. (not in Etheridge), Beza; it serves to bind the fundamental general proposition which follows, to the resulting particular one which has preceded) is a propitiation (“the abstract verbal substantive in – betokens the intransitive reference of the verb,” see Khner’s Gr. Gr. vol. i. 378. So that is not, as Grot., in his notes, = , but is abstract, as applied to Christ 1Co 1:30 , 2Co 5:21 . Dsterdieck here has given a long and able exposition of the word and idea, in refutation of Socinus, and of Grotius’s notes . Grot. himself, being suspected of Socinianism, wrote his “Defensio fidei catholic de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum,” in which, ch. 7 10, he gives a full and satisfactory explanation “de placatione et reconciliatione, de redemptione, de expiatione nostra per Christi mortem facta.” Socinus had maintained that does not mean “ex irato mitem reddere,” but merely “ declarare quod pertinet ad pnas peccatorum, ejus animum cujus est eas sumere atque repetere, mitem atque pacatum: declarare , fore ut peccata meritas pnas non luant.” But against this Grot. shews that , as and , imports ‘placare,’ i. e. ‘iram avertere;’ and Christ has, as our or , i. e. as a sin-offering, reconciled God and us by nothing else but by His voluntary death as a sacrifice: has by this averted God’s wrath from us. According to the constant usage of Scripture, God is in so far in regard to the sins of men, as He suffers His to prevail instead of His . See LXX in 2Ch 6:25 ; 2Ch 6:27 , Jer 38 (31) 34, 43 (36) 3, Num 14:18 ff. And the Greek usage entirely agrees; see Hom. Il . 147, , and Alberti’s note on Hesych. s. v. . Hesych. gives the sense of , , and of , , , , ) for ( , as so often in similar connexions, cf. Heb 10:6 ; Heb 10:8 , and reff., concerning, i. e. in behalf of; not so strong as , which fixes the latter meaning, excluding the wider one) our sins: yet not for ours only, but also for the whole world (in the latter clause there is an ellipsis very common in ordinary speech in every language: “ for the whole world ” = “for the sins of the whole world.” See besides reff., Rev 13:11 , 2Pe 1:1 ; and Winer, edn. 6, 66. 2 f. “Quam late patet peccatum, tam late propitiatio,” Bengel. But this has been misunderstood or evaded by many interpreters. Cyril and c. (alt.) explain to refer to the Jews, to the Gentiles. And many others, taking the former in its true sense, yet limit the latter, not being able to take in the true doctrine of universal redemption. So Bed [14] , “non pro illis solum propitiatio est Christus quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia qu per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, (a) primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit.” (This latter part is an evident reference to Augustine; but it is remarkable that on referring to Augustine we find “Ecce habes Ecclesiam per totum mundum;” but he ends, “ sed et totius mundi, quem suo sanguine comparavit.”) Similarly Calvin: “neque enim aliud fuit consilium Johannis, quam toti Ecclesi commune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus , reprobos non comprehendit: sed eos designat qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant.” But this unworthy and evasive view is opposed by the whole mass of evangelical expositors.
[14] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
The reason of the insertion of the particular here, is well given by Luther: “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world: so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me”).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Jn 2:2 . Our Advocate does not plead that we are innocent or adduce extenuating circumstances. He acknowledges our guilt and presents His vicarious work as the ground of our acquittal. He stands in the Court of Heaven (Rev 5:6 ) and the marks of His sore Passion are a mute but eloquent appeal: “I suffered all this for sinners, and shall it go for naught?” , pro totius mundi (Vulgate), “for the sins of the whole world”. This is grammatically possible ( cf. Mat 5:20 ), but it misses the point. There are sins , special and occasional, in the believer; there is sin in the world; it is sinful through and through. The Apostle means “for our sins and that mass of sin, the world”. Cf. Rothe: “Die ‘Welt’ ist ihrem Begriff zufolge berhaupt sndig, ein Sndenmasse, und hat nicht blos einzelne Snden an sich”. The remedy is commensurate with the malady. Bengel: “Quam late patet peccatum, tam late propitiatio ”.
Observe how the Apostle classes himself with his readers: “ we have,” “ our sins” a rebuke of priestcraft. Cf. Aug.: “But some one will say: ‘Do not holy men pray for us? Do not bishops and prelates pray for the people?’ Nay, attend to the Scriptures, and see that even the prelates commend themselves to the people. For the Apostle says to the common folk ‘withal praying for us’. The Apostle prays for the folk, the folk for the Apostle. We pray for you, brethren; but pray ye also for us. Let all the members pray for one another, let the Head intercede for all.”
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
propitiation. Greek. hilasmos. Only here and 1Jn 4:10. Several times in the Septuagint Lev 25:9. Num 5:8, &c. Compare Rom 3:25.
sins. App-128.
not. App-105.
ours. Greek. hemeteros. Emphatic.
also. This should follow “world”.
world. App-129. Compare Joh 3:16. Rom 5:18, Rom 5:19; 2Co 5:15.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] and He (idemque ille, as Lcke. is merely the copula, not = quia, as Corn.-a-lap.; nor , as Syr. (not in Etheridge), Beza; it serves to bind the fundamental general proposition which follows, to the resulting particular one which has preceded) is a propitiation (the abstract verbal substantive in – betokens the intransitive reference of the verb, see Khners Gr. Gr. vol. i. 378. So that is not, as Grot., in his notes, = , but is abstract, as applied to Christ 1Co 1:30, 2Co 5:21. Dsterdieck here has given a long and able exposition of the word and idea, in refutation of Socinus, and of Grotiuss notes. Grot. himself, being suspected of Socinianism, wrote his Defensio fidei catholic de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum, in which, ch. 7-10, he gives a full and satisfactory explanation de placatione et reconciliatione, de redemptione, de expiatione nostra per Christi mortem facta. Socinus had maintained that does not mean ex irato mitem reddere, but merely declarare quod pertinet ad pnas peccatorum, ejus animum cujus est eas sumere atque repetere, mitem atque pacatum: declarare, fore ut peccata meritas pnas non luant. But against this Grot. shews that , as and , imports placare, i. e. iram avertere; and Christ has, as our or , i. e. as a sin-offering, reconciled God and us by nothing else but by His voluntary death as a sacrifice: has by this averted Gods wrath from us. According to the constant usage of Scripture, God is in so far in regard to the sins of men, as He suffers His to prevail instead of His . See LXX in 2Ch 6:25; 2Ch 6:27, Jeremiah 38 (31) 34, 43 (36) 3, Num 14:18 ff. And the Greek usage entirely agrees; see Hom. Il . 147, , and Albertis note on Hesych. s. v. . Hesych. gives the sense of , , and of , , , , ) for (, as so often in similar connexions, cf. Heb 10:6; Heb 10:8, and reff., concerning, i. e. in behalf of; not so strong as , which fixes the latter meaning, excluding the wider one) our sins: yet not for ours only, but also for the whole world (in the latter clause there is an ellipsis very common in ordinary speech in every language: for the whole world = for the sins of the whole world. See besides reff., Rev 13:11, 2Pe 1:1; and Winer, edn. 6, 66. 2 f. Quam late patet peccatum, tam late propitiatio, Bengel. But this has been misunderstood or evaded by many interpreters. Cyril and c. (alt.) explain to refer to the Jews, to the Gentiles. And many others, taking the former in its true sense, yet limit the latter, not being able to take in the true doctrine of universal redemption. So Bed[14], non pro illis solum propitiatio est Christus quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia qu per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, (a) primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit. (This latter part is an evident reference to Augustine; but it is remarkable that on referring to Augustine we find Ecce habes Ecclesiam per totum mundum; but he ends, sed et totius mundi, quem suo sanguine comparavit.) Similarly Calvin: neque enim aliud fuit consilium Johannis, quam toti Ecclesi commune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus, reprobos non comprehendit: sed eos designat qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant. But this unworthy and evasive view is opposed by the whole mass of evangelical expositors.
[14] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
The reason of the insertion of the particular here, is well given by Luther: It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world: so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Jn 2:2. , He Himself) This word forms an Epitasis [See Append. on this figure]: a most powerful Advocate, because He Himself is the propitiation.- , is the propitiation) The word , and , is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint: it denotes a propitiatory sacrifice: ch. 1Jn 4:10; comp. 2Co 5:21 : that is, the Saviour Himself. There had been therefore enmity (offence) between God and sinners.-, of us) the faithful. There is no reference here to the Jews; for he is not writing to the Jews: ch. 1Jn 5:21.- ) respecting (for) the sins of the whole world. If he had said only, of the world, as ch. 1Jn 4:14, the whole must have been understood: now, since of the whole is expressed, who dares to put any restriction upon it? ch. 1Jn 5:19. The propitiation is as widely extended as sin.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
propitiation (Greek – , that which propitiates). (See Scofield “Rom 3:25”).
the sins Omit words “the sins.”.
world kosmos = mankind. (See Scofield “Mat 4:8”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
he is: 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 4:10, Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18
for the: 1Jo 4:14, 1Jo 5:19, Joh 1:29, Joh 4:42, Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52, 2Co 5:18-21, Rev 12:9
Reciprocal: Gen 23:8 – entreat Exo 25:17 – mercy seat Exo 37:6 – General Exo 40:5 – the altar Exo 40:6 – General Exo 40:20 – mercy Lev 1:4 – atonement Lev 4:20 – an atonement Lev 4:35 – and the priest shall make Lev 5:10 – make Lev 5:16 – and the priest Lev 6:7 – make Lev 14:29 – General Lev 16:10 – to make Lev 16:13 – the cloud Lev 17:11 – I have Lev 23:28 – General Num 11:2 – the fire Num 15:25 – the priest Num 16:46 – an atonement Num 19:19 – shall sprinkle Num 25:13 – atonement 1Ki 8:59 – nigh Job 9:33 – is there Psa 130:7 – for with Isa 6:7 – thine iniquity Isa 53:4 – he hath Jer 30:21 – and I Zec 3:9 – remove Zec 13:7 – smite Mat 1:21 – for Mat 12:31 – All Mat 20:28 – for Mat 26:28 – shed Luk 14:22 – and yet Luk 22:32 – I have Joh 3:17 – but Joh 6:51 – the life Joh 10:15 – and I Joh 12:19 – the world Joh 12:32 – all men Joh 15:10 – even Joh 17:9 – pray for Act 13:38 – that Rom 4:25 – Who was Rom 5:15 – hath Rom 8:34 – who also Rom 14:15 – Destroy 1Co 15:3 – Christ 2Co 5:14 – one 2Co 5:19 – reconciling 2Co 5:21 – he Gal 1:4 – gave Gal 2:16 – we have Gal 3:13 – redeemed Eph 1:7 – whom Eph 2:18 – through Col 1:14 – whom 1Ti 2:6 – gave 1Ti 4:10 – the saviour Heb 2:9 – for every Heb 7:25 – by him Heb 7:26 – holy Heb 8:12 – General Heb 9:24 – appear Heb 10:19 – to enter 1Pe 1:19 – with Rev 5:9 – and hast Rev 8:3 – offer it with the prayers
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
PROPITIATION
He is the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 2:2
The propitiation made by our Lord Jesus Christ lies at the foundation of the whole system of Christianity, so that a weakness there involves a weakness everywhere, and if there is any undermining of this great foundation fact it is time that we should very seriously consider the words of the psalmist, If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
There are three great truths to be for ever written on our memories and hearts:
I. The Divine propitiation is complete.The whole, and every part, is completed for ever. In the typical sacrifices there were two parts in each typical propitiationthe death of the substitute, and the offering, or presentation, of the blood before one of the altars or the mercy-seat. The atonement was not completed by the death alone, but it was necessary that the death should be followed up by the presentation of the blood. Now, in the Divine propitiation both parts have been completed. The one sacrifice has been once offered, and the whole is finished. The blood was shed on Calvary, and sprinkled or presented, when, by His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
II. The Divine propitiation is final.If there were the possibility of any repetition there is no room left for it. Do we not read (Heb 10:18): Where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin? If, therefore, remission is granted according to the covenant of God, if we are enjoying His promise, their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more, and if, according to 1Jn 2:14, by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, what place is there for any further propitiatory offering of any kind whatever? Who can whiten that which is already white as snow? Who can perfect that which God Himself has already perfected? Who can by any means whatever either repeat, or continue, or perpetuate an offering which God Himself has pronounced to be once for all, as in the words (Heb 10:12): But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God?
III. The Divine propitiation is sufficient.By this I mean that it is so complete and perfect in the covenant of God that those who are saved by it are made partakers of a complete reconciliation. There are many persons who appear to be satisfied with what I may call a partial reconciliation. They hope they are not in the position of an altogether unforgiven sinner, but still they dare not accept the position of one whose every sin has been blotted out, and to whom there is no barrier in the way of a full, free, unfettered enjoyment of the love of God. There is nothing of this half-and-half character in our heavenly Fathers provision for us. His love unknown has broken every barrier down. When our blessed Saviour took on Himself the burden of our sin He took the whole; and when He paid the price He paid the whole. He did not leave His work half done. So the whole is taken out of the way, being nailed to His cross, and there is no barrier left between the restored sinner and the Father in heaven. The veil of separation has been rent from the top to the bottom, and as the curse of all sin has been completely and for ever borne, it is the privilege of every soul that is in Christ Jesus to approach the mercy-seat of our most holy God with the same peaceful, loving, filial trust that he would have felt if he had never known sin. Thus it is that we may realise the words of St. John: Because as He is, so are we in this world.
Rev. Canon Edward Hoare.
Illustration
When Absalom returned from Geshur he remained three years at Jerusalem without being permitted to see his fathers face. In his case there was only a partial restoration. David could not see his way to a complete relaxation of law, for nothing had been done to satisfy it, so he adopted a compromise which satisfied neither love nor law. He allowed Absalom to return to Jerusalem, but did not allow him to see his face. Now the position of Absalom when he returned to Jerusalem was very much that of a multitude of those who have not practically received the blessed truth of a complete, final, and sufficient propitiation. They are not as he was when in Geshur, for they are in the midst of religious life as he was in Jerusalem, but they are not fully restored, they have not seen the face of the King, and their Father has not kissed them. The result is that their religion is one of little more than anxiety, and they begin to think that it was almost better with them when they were altogether in the world. But this is not the result of an all-sufficient Divine propitiation.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
1Jn 2:2. Propitiation means something that appeases or satisfies one who is (justly) making strong demands. God is violated by the sins of mankind and His justice demands the eternal condemnation of the offenders. Man was unable to furnish what was rightly required to pay the debt, but Jesus was able and willing to do so. That is what he did when He shed his blood as was shown in chapter 1:7. Not for ours only but also, etc. The pronoun stands for disciples who have already made use of the cleansing blood by obedience to the Gospel. But the blood is sufficient to cleanse the whole world if all will accept it on the same terms as the present disciples. (See the familiar passage in Joh 3:16.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2. Here we have the glorious problem of universal atonement settled forever, beyond the possibility of controversy.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
He is the propitiation for our sins; having made atonement for them by his death.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:2 And he is the {b} propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the {c} whole world.
(b) Reconciliation and intercession go together, to give us to understand that he is both advocate and high priest.
(c) For men of all sorts, of all ages, and all places, so that this benefit being not to the Jews only, of whom he speaks as appears in 1Jn 2:7 but also to other nations.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus Christ did not just make satisfaction for our sins, as a priest, though He did that. He is the satisfaction Himself, as a sacrifice (cf. Rom 3:25). The Septuagint translators used the same Greek word translated "propitiation" here (hilasmos, satisfaction, cf. 1Jn 4:10) to translate the "mercy seat" on the ark of the covenant. Jesus’ body was the site where God placated His wrath against sin. 1Jn 2:1-5; 1Jn 2:2 all have Old Testament tabernacle connotations. Jesus’ death not only expiated (cancelled, dismissed, waived) sins, but it provided cleansing from their defilement and satisfied God’s wrath against sin with an acceptable offering. [Note: See Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 125-85; W. Hall Harris, "A Theology of John’s Writings," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 215; and Yarbrough, pp. 77-.]
This verse provides strong support for the fact that Jesus Christ died for all people (unlimited atonement). In His death the Lord Jesus provided salvation that is sufficient for all, though it is efficient only for those who trust in Him (2Co 5:14-15; 2Co 5:19; Heb 2:9; Rev 22:17). In other words, Christ’s death made eternal life available for all, but not automatic for all. "Our" refers to the sins of all believers, and the "whole world" means all humankind, not just the elect (cf. Joh 1:12; Joh 3:16). Those who hold to "particular redemption" (i.e., that Jesus died only for the elect) limit the meaning of the "whole world" to the world of the elect.
"Johannine thought and terminology leave absolutely no room for any such concept as ’the world of the elect.’" [Note: Hodges, The Epistles . . ., p. 71. See also Yarbrough, p. 80.]
John reminded his readers in this section (1Jn 1:8 to 1Jn 2:2) that fellowship with God is possible only when we deal with sin in our lives. This is true of believers (1Jn 1:5 to 1Jn 2:1) as well as unbelievers (1Jn 2:2). John articulated four fundamental principles that underlie fellowship with God to facilitate his readers’ experience of that fellowship. One must renounce sin (1Jn 1:8 to 1Jn 2:2), obey God (1Jn 2:3-11), reject worldliness (1Jn 2:12-17), and keep the faith (1Jn 2:18-29) to live in the light of God’s presence.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 8
MISSIONARY APPLICATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
1Jn 2:2
LET us now consider the universal and ineradicable wants of man.
Such a consideration is substantially unaffected by speculation as to the theory of mans origin. Whether the first men are to be looked for by the banks of some icy river feebly shaping their arrowheads of flint, or in godlike and glorious progenitors beside the streams of Eden; whether our ancestors were the result of an inconceivably ancient evolution, or called into existence by a creative act, or sprung from some lower creature elevated in the fulness of time by a majestic inspiration, at least, as a matter of fact, man has other and deeper wants than those of the back and stomach. Man as he is has five spiritual instincts. How they came to be there, let it be repeated, is not the question. It is the fact of their existence, not the mode of their genesis, with which we are now concerned.
(1) There is almost, if not quite, without exception the instinct which may be generally described as the instinct of the Divine. In the wonderful address where St. Paul so fully recognises the influence of geographical circumstance and of climate, he speaks of God “having made out of one blood every nation of men to seek after their Lord, if haply at least” (as might be expected) “they would feel for Him”-like men in darkness groping towards the light.
(2) There is the instinct of prayer, the “testimony of the soul naturally Christian.” The little child at our knees meets us halfway in the first touching lessons in the science of prayer. In danger, when the vessel seems to be sinking in a storm, it is ever as it was in the days of Jonah, when “the mariners cried every man unto his God.”
(3) There is the instinct of immortality, the desire that our conscious existence should continue beyond death.
“Who would lose,
Though full of pain, this intellectual being,
These thoughts that wander through eternity,
To perish rather swallowd up and lost
In the wide womb of uncreated night?”
(4) There is the instinct of morality, call it conscience or what we will. The lowest, most sordid, most materialised languages are never quite without witness to this nobler instinct. Though such languages have lien among the poets, yet their wings are as the wings of a dove that is covered with silver wings and her feathers like gold. The most impoverished vocabularies have words of moral judgment, “good” or “bad”; of praise or blame, “truth and lie”; above all, those august words which recognise a law paramount to all other laws, “I must,” “I ought.”
(5) There is the instinct of sacrifice, which, if not absolutely universal, is at least all but so-the sense of impurity and unworthiness, which says by the very fact of bringing a victim,
“I am not worthy to come alone; may my guilt be transferred to the representative which I immolate.”
(1) Thus then man seeks after God. Philosophy unaided does not succeed in finding Him. The theistic systems marshal their syllogisms; they prove, but do not convince. The pantheistic systems glitter before mans eye; but when he grasps them in his feverish hand, and brushes off the mystic gold dust from the moths wings, a deaths head mocks him. St. John has found the essence of the whole question, stripped from it all its plausible disguises, and characterises Mahommedan and Judaistic Deism in a few words. Nay, the philosophical deism of Christian countries comes within the scope of his terrible proposition. “Deo erexit Voltairius,” was the philosophers inscription over the porch of a church; but Voltaire had not in any true sense a God to whom he could dedicate it. For St. John tells us-“whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” Other words there are in his Second Epistle whose full import seems to have been generally overlooked, but which are of solemn significance to those who go out from the camp of Christianity with the idea of finding a more refined morality and a more ethereal spiritualism. “Whosoever goeth forward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ”; whosoever writes progress on his standard, and goes forward beyond the lines of Christ, loses natural as well as supernatural religion-“he hath not God.”
(2) Man wants to pray. Poor disinherited child, what master of requests shall he find? Who shall interpret his broken language to God, Gods infinite language to him?
(3) Man yearns for the assurance of immortal life. This can best be given by one specimen of manhood risen from the grave, one traveller come back from the undiscovered bourne with the breath of eternity on His cheek and its light in His eye; one like Jonah, Himself the living sign and proof that He has been down in the great deeps.
(4) Man needs a morality to instruct and elevate conscience. Such a morality must possess these characteristics. It must be authoritative, resting upon an absolute will; its teacher must say, not “I think,” or “I conclude,” but-“verily, verily I say unto you.” It must be unmixed with baser and more questionable elements. It must be pervasive, laying the strong grasp of its purity on the whole domain of thought and feeling as well as of action. It must be exemplified. It must present to us a series of pictures, of object lessons in which we may see it illustrated. Finally, this morality must be spiritual. It must come to man, not like the Jewish Talmud with its seventy thousand precepts which few indeed can ever learn, but with a compendious and condensed, yet all-embracing brevity-with words that are spirit and life.
(5) As man knows duty more thoroughly, the instinct of sacrifice will speak with an ever-increasing intensity. “My heart is overwhelmed by the infinite purity of this law. Lead me to the rock that is higher than I; let me find God and be reconciled to Him.” When the old Latin spoke of propitiation he thought of something which brought near (prope); his inner thought was-“let God come near to me, that I may be near to God.” These five ultimate spiritual wants, these five ineradicable spiritual instincts, He must meet, of whom a master of spiritual truth like St. John can say with his plenitude of insight-“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.”
We shall better understand the fulness of St. Johns thought if we proceed to consider that this fitness in Christ for meeting the spiritual wants of humanity is exclusive.
Three great religions of the world are more or less missionary. Hinduism, which embraces at least a hundred and ninety millions of souls, is certainly not in any sense missionary. For Hinduism transplanted from its ancient shrines and local superstitions dies like a flower without roots. But Judaism at times has strung itself to a kind of exertion almost inconsistent with its leading idea. The very word “proselyte” attests the unnatural fervour to which it had worked itself up in our Lords time. The Pharisee was a missionary sent out by pride and consecrated by self-will. “Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him tenfold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Buddhism has had enormous missionary success from one point of view. Not long ago it was said that it outnumbered Christendom. But it is to be observed that it finds adherents among people of only one type of thought and character. Outside these races it is and must ever be, non-existent. We may except the fanciful perversion of a few idle people in London, Calcutta, or Ceylon, captivated for a season or two by “the light of Asia.” We may except also a very few more remarkable cases where the esoteric principle of Buddhism commends itself to certain profound thinkers stricken with the dreary disease of modern sentiment. Mohammedanism has also, in a limited degree, proved itself a missionary religion, not only by the sword. In British India it counts millions of adherents, and it is still making some progress in India. In other ages whole Christian populations (but belonging to heretical and debased forms of Christianity) have gone over to Mohammedanism. Let us be just to it. It once elevated the pagan Arabs. Even now it elevates the Negro above his fetich. But it must ever remain a religion for stationary races, with its sterile God and its poor literality, the dead book pressing upon it with a weight of lead. Its merits are these-it inculcates a lofty, if sterile, Theism; it fulfils the pledge conveyed in the word Moslem, by inspiring a calm, if frigid, resignation to destiny; it teaches the duty of prayer with a strange impressiveness. But whole realms of thought and feeling are crushed out by its bloody and lustful grasp. It is without purity, without tenderness, and without humility.
Thus, then, we come back again with a truer insight to the exclusive fitness of Christ to meet the wants of mankind.
Others besides the Incarnate Lord have obtained from a portion of their fellow men some measure of passionate enthusiasm. Each people has a hero during this life, call him demigod, or what we will. But such men are idolised by one race alone. The very qualities which procure them an apotheosis are precisely those which prove how narrow the type is which they represent; how far they are from speaking to all humanity. A national type is a narrow and exclusive type.
No European, unless effeminated and enfeebled, could really love an Asiatic Messiah. But Christ is loved everywhere. No race or kindred is exempt from the sweet contagion produced by the universal appeal of the universal Saviour. From all languages spoken by the lips of man, hymns of adoration are offered to Him. We read in England the “Confessions” of St. Augustine. Those words still quiver with the emotions of penitence and praise; still breathe the breath of life. Those ardent affections, those yearnings of personal love to Christ, which filled the heart of Augustine fifteen centuries ago, under the blue sky of Africa, touch us even now under this grey heaven in the fierce hurry of our modern life. But they have in them equally the possibility of touching the Shanar of Tinnevelly, the Negro-even the Bushman, or the native of Tierra del Fuego. By a homage of such diversity and such extent we recognise a universal Saviour for the universal wants of universal man, the fitting propitiation for the whole world.
Towards the close of this Epistle St. John oracularly utters three great canons of universal Christian consciousness-“we know,” “we know,” “we know.” Of these three canons the second is-“we know that we are from God, and the world lieth wholly in the wicked one.” “A characteristic Johannic exaggeration!” some critic has exclaimed; yet surely even in Christian lands where men lie outside the influences of the Divine society, we have only to read the Police reports to justify the Apostle. In columes of travels, again, in the pages of Darwin and Baker, from missionary records in places where the earth is full of darkness and cruel habitations, we are told of deeds of lust and blood which almost make us blush to bear the same form with creatures so degraded. Yet the very same missionary records bear witness that in every race which the Gospel proclamation has reached, however low it may be placed in the scale of the ethnologist; deep under the ruins of the fall are the spiritual instincts, the affections which have for their object the infinite God, and for their career the illimitable ages. The shadow of sin is broad indeed. But in the evening light of Gods love the shadow of the cross is projected further still into the infinite beyond. Missionary success is therefore sure, if it be slow. The reason is given by St. John. “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.”