1 John 2:2

and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

The propitiation ... This rendition is to be preferred to "expiation" in subsequent versions. Although it is true that expiation is a synonym of propitiation, the latter meaning is a little different. Although this word appears frequently in the Septuagint (LXX), it is found only here and in 1 John 4:10 in the whole New Testament.[6] The objection to "propitiation" is purely "theological."[7] It is said to conjure up ideas of vengeful and vindictive pagan deities who had to be "appeased" by offerings and bribes, ideas which, of course, are foreign to any true ideas of God. Nevertheless, despite the scholars' support of their preference with "linguistic arguments,"[8] there is a sense in which the anger and wrath of Almighty God were indeed turned away by the sufferings of Christ. The Greek word to be translated by one of these words (propitiation, or expiation) is [@hilasmos], the primary meaning being "the removal of wrath."[9] It is this element of the meaning which some would like to get rid of. However, there is a divine wrath against every form of sin (Romans 1:18), and God's forgiveness is not merely the ignoring of this wrath. "Expiation" carries the meaning that Christ's blood indeed procured for people the forgiveness of sins, but it leaves out the connection with God's wrath. Full agreement here is felt with Stott, Morris, and others who preferred "propitiation." There are implications in the atonement wrought by the death of Christ that are completely beyond any total understanding by finite intelligence. "Propitiation" means the "removal of wrath," and "expiation" means the "removal of guilt"; but in view of the fact of God's wrath being a reality mentioned countless times in the New Testament, it would appear to be far better to retain the word that includes "removal of wrath" in its meaning.

And not for ours only, but for the whole world ... The "sins of the whole world" is actually the meaning implied in the last clause,[10] Inherent in a statement like this is the fact that the same basis for forgiving one sin is also the basis for forgiving all sins. There was no limit whatever to the satisfaction that Christ provided as the basis for forgiving sins. Of course, it is not implied here that sins are forgiven unconditionally, either those of persons now saved, or of the whole world in general. We must therefore reject such a notion as this: "Multitudes may be saved through this redemption who never heard of Christ."[11] Universalism is an attractive thesis for many, but there is no hint of such a thing in the New Testament.

[6] James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles, 1John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint, 1969), p. 40.

[7] Stott, John R. W., op. cit., p. 85.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Leon Morris, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1263.

[10] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 611.

[11] W. M. Sinclair, Ellicott's Bible Commentary, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 476.