12 - 1Jn 2:2
Καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν· οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. But there is a second condition which must be met if a successful intervention with God shall take place: the question or case advocated must be in conformity with the divine righteousness. The second verse shows us that this is the case, and how: not in itself is our cause righteous, for the question is of sinners and sins; but because the Lord Himself has taken away their unrighteousness.Καὶαὐτὸς [“and he”], the apostle writes,ἱλασμόςἐστιν [“is an atoning sacrifice”]. Certainly,theκαὶαὐτός[“and he”] must not be taken in the Latin meaning ofet ipse, as if it meant that the very same who is an advocate has at the same time set right our cause; for theκαὶ [“and”] serves here only for the simple connection of the two sentences. That idea, however, which we have discussed is in itself sound enough; for the mereαὐτός [“he”], without the appendage of aκαίbelonging to it, itself asserts that concerning the previous subject a second and new predicate is to be affirmed. This new element is the idea ofἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”]. As the wordsκαταλλάσσειν[“to reconcile”] andκαταλλαγή[“reconciliation”] occur only in St. Paul’s writings, and not often in them, soἱλασμός[“atoning sacrifice”] is peculiar to St. John, and in his writings only twice occurs, here and 1Jn 4:10. The two ideas are not identical.
Καταλλάσσειν[“to reconcile”] means, to wit, that God and theworld are reconciled with each other; the relation of the two is always understood in the word. It is not otherwise when St. Paul uses it of human relations, as that of marriage, in1Co 7:11, and such we find it in its reference to the death of Christ, 2Co 5:19,[N]καταλλάξας ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ, [“reconciled us to himself”], and2Co 5:20, καταλλάγητε [ὑμεῖς] τῷ Θεῷ [“(you) be reconciled to God”], andRom 5:10, κατηλλάγημεν[ἡμεῖς]τῷ Θεῷ [“(we) were reconciled to God”]. Thesame may be said of the decompositumἀποκαταλλάσσω [“reconcile”]. Whether theἀπό[“from”] here means a perfect reconciliation, or a renewed reconciliation, or a reconciliation which brings back out of estrangement, inany case the reconciliation in Col 1:20andCol 1:21is, as inEph 2:16, that of mankind with God, the opposition between the two parties being abolished. Even if, which we do not believe, a reconciliation of two portions of mankind with each other is spoken of inEph 2:16, our assertion would still hold good, for the verbwould have reference to the relation between two separate beings or parties. On the other hand,ἱλασμός[“atoning sacrifice”] keeps in view the reconciliation of God with Himself; it does not therefore refer to the relation of two to each other, but to the relation of one nature to itself. It expresses the overcoming of the divine wrath, or its being brought into harmony or understanding with the divine love; and thus it is the reconciliation of these two characteristics of theinteriordivine nature which had been brought into collision by human sin.Ἱλασμός[“atoning sacrifice”] is, indeed, according to the form of the word, that by means of which any one is made favourable orἵλεως [“merciful”], and thus it is thepropitiation, while καταλλαγή [“reconciliation”] is the reconciliation which has taken place in consequence of the propitiation or atonement, which has, in fact, been rendered possible by that atonement. The atonement or propitiation applies only to the one party, the offended; the reconciliation takes place between the two parties. Thus it comes to pass, that while indeed ἱλάσκεσθαι [“expiate”] may have things for its object (Heb 2:17, τὰς ἁμαρτίας [“the sins”] once), for there is an expiation or atonement of sins, the κατάλλασσειν [“to reconcile”] can never be referred to things as its object, for only personal beings can be reconciled.
Now, as it regards our passage in particular, it is first of all essential to inquire if there is any sacrificial idea involved in the ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”]. Certainly it is currently used in the Septuagint in passages where there is no allusion to sacrifices; as, for example, in Psa 130:4.[N] it is the translation of the Hebrew סְלׅיחָה [sĕlı̂ḥâ, “forgiveness”]. But when we mark, on the other hand, that ἱλάσκεσθαι is the standing translation of כּׅפֵּר [kipper, “atone,” “forgive”], and that ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] is the specific translation off כִפֻּרִים, [kippūrı̂m, “atonement”] we must decide in favour of the sacrificial element. It is true that כּׅפֵּר [kipper,“atone,” “forgive”] itself occurs in many passages without any expressed reference to a sacrifice (Psa 65:3;[N]Psa 78:38; Psa 79:9); but always it is the sacrifice which is the means, whether expressed or not, through which, according to the Old Testament point of view, the covering of human sin is effected. But more: it has not been proved that the substantive כִּפּוּרִים [kippūrı̂m, “atonement”], which precisely corresponds to our ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”], ever occurs without an express reference to sacrifice; rather is the idea so closely associated with the sacrificial offering, that כִּפּוּרִים [kippūrı̂m, “atonement”], is the standing term for the great day of atonement. Now, when we add to this that in Heb 2:17ἱλάσκεσθαι, on the only occasion when it is used, is brought in precisely at the point when for the first time the high-priesthood of Christ is mentioned, and remember also that the ancient high priest had, specially on the כִּפּוּרִיםיוֹם [yomkippūrı̂m, “day of atonement”], the function which made him the type of Christ; and observe further that the substantive ἱλαστήριον [“atonement,” “mercy seat”], derived from the same root, is in the New Testament (Rom 3:25, and Heb 9:5), as in the Septuagint, the current reproduction of the mercy-seat or כַפֹּרֶת [kappōret, “place of atonement,” “mercy seat”], which in that high-priestly sacrificial day occupied so prominent and central a place, and by its very name at least alluded to that mercy-seat,—then shall we feel inclined to take the expression ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] in our passage also as connected with the sacrificial institute generally, and with the great sacrificial offering of the day of atonement in particular. In accordance with this, the ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] is the expiation, inasmuch as it was wrought and perfected by our great High Priest on the New Testament day of atonement by the sacrifice of Himself We do not mean that the expression ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] of itself signifies that sacrifice: it points only to the atonement or propitiation accomplished by its means. But this is what we maintain: כִּפּוּרִים, [kippūrı̂m, “atonement”] has a sacrificial meaning; ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] was the apostle’s designed and chosen translation of that word. The whole New Testament beholds in the death oi Christ the antitype of the great day of atonement, and the great central sacrifice of that day. Hence St. John did actually, in the use of this in itself broader word ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”], think precisely and only of that sacrifice. And it is in precise and striking harmony with this that in our present passage the apostle says that the ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] had reference not only to our sins, the sins of believers, but also to the sins of the whole world. As in the classical passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews special stress is laid upon the fact that, in contrast with the yearly renewed sacrifices of the old economy, Christ presented His sacrifice once for all; so in this passage stress is laid upon the fact that the virtue of His oblation extends, not, like the old offerings, merely to the covenant people, but to the whole world of mankind, having efficacy for all alike, believers as well as unbelievers. Thus this universal dictum not only furnishes a most befitting conclusion for the first section of our Epistle, but also the consolation or encouragement, which it is the apostle’s desire to afford to those who still feel the weight of sin, is carried to its highest point. Tor, if all sins are expiated or atoned for, how were it possible that their sins should not be included in the propitiation, who, as ἐν φωτὶ περιπατοῦντες [“walking in the light”], have, as it were, the first right to stand in the closest connection with the Saviour and His atoning work?
Here we may perceive the right answer to the question why Christ is here termed not ἱλασμήρ [“place of atonement”], but ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”]. For this reason, namely, because it was not the object to lay stress upon the fact that He was the true High Priest, but that He was that true high-priestly offering in virtue of which sin is expiated. Moreover, the construction of ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] with περί is in strict correspondence with the Hebrew, where עַל [’al lit. “above”] or בְּעַר [bear lit. “on high”] is used with the meaning de or concerning. A little above, we said in passing that the ὅλος κόσμος [“whole world”], for which Christ is the propitiation, is to be understood of the world in the widest sense, all unbelievers included. It is well known that many from predestinarian prepossessions have sought to restrict the compass of the word to those who should obtain actual participation in the benefits of redemption. But, not to mention the arbitrariness of any such enfeebling of the words, their hortatory and encouraging purport, as we have shown above, pleads against such an interpretation. "Quam late patet peccatum, tarn late propitiatio.” Through the ἱλασμός [“atoning sacrifice”] of Christ all sin and the sins of all are atoned for; if the salvation of all does not take effect, the fault is not that God will not forgive the sins of any one, but that the unforgiven sinner repels the fatherly heart that moves towards him in mercy.