1 John 2:2 – Hilasmós as a Term of Effect

“And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 2:2

Context

The First Letter of John comes from the late-New-Testament milieu of the Johannine communities, traditionally located in Ephesus and its environs, and is dated to the end of the first century. It does not bear an epistolary form in the strict sense but works as a circular letter or homiletic tract addressed to a community unsettled by inner tensions.

In its immediate context 1 John 2:1–2 offers a pastoral statement: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have a paraklêtos with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is hilasmós for our sins.” Christ here is advocate — a personal, relational figure, not one who endures a penalty; and he is hilasmós: the one through whom atonement actually comes about.

Universal reach: peri holóu tou kósmou — “for those of the whole world.” This astonishing widening breaks every ecclesial narrowing. It is linguistically smooth, but theologically consistent only if hilasmós is understood as an effective term: the effect stands open to all; realisation comes about through faith and repentance.

Strikingly, the same letter picks the term up again in 1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as hilasmón for our sins.” The atonement proceeds from a loving God — it is not something which first turns an angry God around.

The Socinian core thesis

Socinianly, hilasmós is an effective term: that which brings about atonement. In Septuagintal usage the term has moved away from the classical-Greek sense of “making the gods favourable” and has become the rendering of Hebrew kippér (“to cover, to take away”). The effect moves from Christ upon our sin — not from us upon God.

The opposing model — hilasmós as penal substitution — requires two incompatible premises: that God must be personally turned around, and that the universal reach (v. 2b) implies that the penalty has been paid in advance for the whole world. Both collapse. Scripture nowhere says that God has been reconciled to us, but always that we have been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18; Col 1:20, 22). Reconciliation thus names our turning-away — and its healing — not a placating of God.

Christ is hilasmós because God has appointed him as the means of atonement (Rom 3:25). One who is appointed does not render satisfaction to the one who appoints him. As the OT kapporet-cover was instituted by God without owing God any payment, so Christ effects atonement as the divinely appointed locus of forgiveness.

On this reading, the universal reach “for the whole world” is natural: the saving deed of Christ stands open to all, without limitation by a fixed penal sum; it is realised wherever men believe and obey Christ. The penal-substitution reading, by contrast, generates the dilemma: either universalism (all are saved because the price is paid) or a limited penal sum (Christ did not in truth die for all).

Exegesis: key terms and word-field

Four key terms decide the interpretation linguistically:

hilasmós — the effecting of atonement

In classical-Greek usage often “making the gods favourable” (e.g. in Plutarch). In the Septuagint, however, the meaning shifts: hilasmós becomes the rendering of Hebrew kapperá — a term whose ground-meaning is “to cover, to blot out, to take away.” The object of the action is man's sin, not God's wrath.

In the New Testament hilasmós occurs only in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 — in both cases with a personal subject: he is hilasmós. That means: Christ himself is the operative means, not the substance of a penal payment. Johannine language personalises the OT cultic image.

Cognate are hiláskomai (Luke 18:13: “God, be merciful to me”; Heb 2:17: “to make atonement for the sins of the people”) and hilastêrion (Rom 3:25: “mercy seat / means of atonement”; Heb 9:5: the cover of the ark of the covenant). In all three semantic fields the emphasis lies on the effect upon man, upon the people, upon sin — not upon an action upon God as object.

peri with genitive — “for” in the sense of “concerning, on behalf of”

The preposition peri with genitive is typical in the NT for “in the matter of, on behalf of, concerning” — not for substitutive-juridical replacement (for which antí would stand). 1 John 2:2 thus says: Christ is hilasmós peri our sins — in the matter of our sins, for the removal of our sins.

With that the grammar shifts away from a substitution of penalty and towards an effective-cause logic: he operates upon sin, he acts in the matter of our sin. The juridical reading must read into this preposition a substitutive weight which linguistically it does not carry.

peri holóu tou kósmou — “for the whole world”

The universal reach is linguistically smooth. With a penal-substitution understanding, however, a dilemma arises: either the penal sum suffices objectively for all (then all must be saved — universalism), or it suffices only for the elect (then the statement “for the whole world” is linguistically false).

On the effective-term reading the dilemma falls away: Christ's atoning effect stands open to all; it is realised through faith. That fits the letter as a whole, which stresses knowledge of God, repentance, and brotherly love as the path of return — not a forensic reckoning.

paraklêtos — advocate (v. 1)

The immediately preceding word paraklêtos (v. 1: “we have an advocate with the Father”) anchors the whole passage in the language of advocacy, not in that of penal payment. He who stands as advocate before the Father speaks for the client, not in his stead under a penalty.

The correlation of paraklêtos and hilasmós is semantically coherent: the advocate is at once the operative means of forgiveness. The two belong together, without the dogmatics of penal substitution having to be imported into this logic.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to Fausto Sozzini

Sozzini deals with hilasmós at length in On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), in the confrontation with the doctrine of penal substitution and in the comparison of hilastêrion (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5) with hilasmós (1 John 2:2; 4:10). His central argument: the word designates a means of effect appointed by God, not a satisfaction paid to God.

“Moreover, if you do not refer the word to the cover of the ark of the old covenant, the word can only mean the same as the word hilasmós, which John uses twice in his first letter, that is, atonement; in this passage he may have looked back to the ancient sacrifices, which the mention of blood seems to indicate. But that the remaining sacrifices and the word ‘atonement’ have nothing in common with satisfaction has become plain in the examination of the last chapter of your testimonies.”

Fausto Sozzini, On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), Part II (answer to the argument from the word ‘propitiatio’)

Sozzini puts the Johannine hilasmós in parallel with the OT atonement-rite and with the hilastêrion (mercy seat). Both were appointed by God, not something by which God settled an outside debt. As the OT atonement-rite effected atonement by divine ordinance, since forgiveness followed upon its performance, so Christ effects atonement insofar as God's turning of life towards us follows upon his obedience and his death.

In the same work Sozzini draws the consequence for the question of the addressee of the “payment”: On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), Part I, ch. 1 (four scriptural points, § 3) argues that the “redeeming” in the Old Testament — in Moses, in Cyrus, and in YHWH himself — knows no addressee of a payment; nor does the word hilasmós know any such addressee. Anyone who looks in 1 John 2:2 for the one paid is looking for what biblical usage does not offer.

The Racovian Catechism draws this line together and expounds the passage directly: Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum (Racovian Catechism), § Christ as Atoning Sacrifice explains: “When John, however, calls him a propitiatio for our sins, this means that through him our sins are atoned for. For the Greek word, which in Latin is rendered propitiatio, frequently denotes in Holy Scripture the atonement, that is, the liberation from the guilt of sins.” With this, the effective-term character is fixed in Socinian teaching: hilasmós is liberation from guilt — not satisfaction made to an offended justice.

Sozzini further draws the methodological consequence: “Finally, it is one thing to give satisfaction to someone in the manner those people require, and another to make him favourable: for he who is made favourable, or allows himself to be reconciled, may forgo much of his right; but he to whom satisfaction is rendered in that manner forgoes nothing of his right.” Precisely this is the point: forgiveness is forgiveness only if the right is forgone — otherwise it is no act of grace, but a coerced receipt.

Overview of Sozzini's writings

Logical arguments

From 1 John 2:2 the following linguistic and theological arguments against the penal-substitution reading arise:

1. Argument from Septuagintal usage. Hilasmós is the rendering of Hebrew kippér — an effective term (“to cover, to blot out, to take away”), not a term of mood. The object of the action is sin, not the wrath of God. The NT author writes in the linguistic horizon of the Septuagint, not of classical polytheism.
2. Argument from the subject of the sending (v. 10). The same letter (1 John 4:10) says that God sent his Son as hilasmós. One who is appointed, who is sent, does not render satisfaction to the sender. Penal substitution inverts the logic of sending into a logic of payment which the letter precisely does not yield.
3. Argument from the context (v. 1: paraklêtos). Christ is in the same breath advocate — a figure of relation and counsel, not a figure of penalty-bearing. Paraklêtos and hilasmós form a semantic unity: advocacy works forgiveness — that is the theological line of the verse.
4. Argument from universality (v. 2b). “For those of the whole world” fits seamlessly with the effective-term reading, while penal substitution either forces universalism (all saved because paid for) or must restrict the scriptural statement (the penal sum is limited). The only reading without ad-hoc correction is the effective-term reading.
5. Argument from the propitiatorium-comparison. The OT kapporet-cover was instituted by God and effected atonement without rendering satisfaction to God (it was, after all, his own locus of effect). Paul transfers the word in Rom 3:25 to Christ; John uses the closely related hilasmós. The same logic must be applied: divinely appointed, blotting out sin, without a question of “to whom?”
6. Argument from the subject of love (4:10). “In this is love, that he loved us and sent his Son as hilasmón.” God is subject of love, not recipient of a penal performance which only thereby releases love. Penal substitution stands this scriptural logic on its head.
7. Argument from linguistic consistency with 2 Cor 5:18 and Col 1:20, 22. These passages say without exception that we are reconciled to God — nowhere that God is reconciled to us. The movement of reconciliation proceeds from God and is directed at us. Hilasmós in 1 John 2:2 follows the same grammar.
8. Argument from the logic of forgiveness. “He who is made favourable may forgo much of his right; but he to whom satisfaction is rendered forgoes nothing of his right.” Sozzini's point is logically compelling: forgiveness without remission is no forgiveness. The doctrine of penal substitution turns forgiveness into a juridical receipt, not an act of grace.

Biblical cross-references

The following biblical passages are foundational for the correct understanding of 1 John 2:2:

1 John 4:9–10 — love as the source of the sending

“In this God's love was made manifest among us, that God sent his Son as hilasmón for our sins.” Here the subject of the saving deed stands fixed: God loves and sends. The Son is the operative means of love already present, not its precondition. With this the dogmatics of penal substitution breaks on Johannine grammar itself.

Romans 3:25 — God appoints Christ as hilastêrion

“Whom God put forward as a means of atonement through faith.” Paul uses the closely related word hilastêrion (mercy seat) and makes God the active subject of the appointing. One who is appointed does not render satisfaction to the one appointing — the logic is linguistically and theologically parallel to 1 John 2:2.

Hebrews 2:17 — hiláskesthai the sins

“That he might become a merciful and faithful high priest … to make atonement for (hiláskesthai) the sins of the people.” The Letter to the Hebrews makes the word-field unambiguous: the accusative object is the sins, not God. Christ makes atonement for sins; he does not placate God.

Luke 18:13 — hilásthêti moi

The tax-collector prays: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” The verb hiláskomai is here used in the passive with God as subject — yet in the sense of “be gracious-effective towards me,” not in the sense of “let yourself be turned around.” Here too, the emphasis lies on the effect that proceeds from God as subject.

2 Corinthians 5:18–19 — God reconciles us to himself

“God through Christ reconciled us to himself … God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” Scripture never says the opposite, “God was reconciled to us.” This is the theological grammar of all reconciliation texts and excludes the penal-substitution mechanism which would make God the recipient of a placation.

Colossians 1:20–22 — reconciliation as homecoming

“Through him to reconcile to himself all things … you, who once were estranged, he has now reconciled.” Again: we were estranged, we are led back. Reconciliation as homecoming into communion, not as juridical exchange.

Hebrews 9:5 — the hilastêrion as mercy seat

The Letter to the Hebrews calls the OT cover of the ark of the covenant hilastêrion. It was ordered by God, was his own locus of grace, and did not stand in a juridical logic of advance performance. Christ typologically assumes this role — not the role of a recipient of penalty.

John 3:16 — sent out of love

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.” Again God's love is the cause, not the consequence, of the saving deed. The universal reach (“the world”) corresponds exactly with 1 John 2:2b — and is linguistically consistent only on the effective-term reading.

Objections and Socinian responses

Objection 1: “Hilasmós means ‘placation’ in classical Greek.”

The decisive linguistic horizon of the NT is not classical Greek but the Septuagint. There hilasmós is used to render Hebrew kippér, and the focus of meaning lies on the atonement of sin, not on the placation of a deity. This semantic shift is well documented linguistically.

It is also confirmed within the New Testament itself: Heb 2:17 uses the cognate hiláskesthai with the sins as accusative object; Heb 9:5 calls the OT cover hilastêrion. In none of these cases is God the object of a placation; the field of effect is always man or sin.

Sozzini insists on this: the word hilasmós, which John uses, belongs to the same semantic field as the OT atonement-offering — and that knows no satisfaction rendered to God. On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), Part II: “That the remaining sacrifices and the word ‘atonement’ have nothing in common with satisfaction has become plain.”

Finally: if John thought in classical-Greek terms, his whole theology would be polytheistically shaped (the swaying of a deity). It manifestly is not. John thinks biblical-Jewishly — and that means in OT atonement-language.

Objection 2: “‘For the whole world’ (v. 2b) is merely rhetorical and does not exclude penal substitution.”

This solution is a later dogmatic plaster, not an exegetical argument. The verse itself makes no such distinction — rather it places “our sins” (limited) and “those of the whole world” (universal) linguistically symmetrically alongside each other.

If the second half of the statement were only rhetorically true, the parallel construction would be a deception. John could simply have said “for our sins.” The fact that he makes the extension explicit shows: the universal reach is intentional and substantive.

The distinction ‘sufficient / effective’ presupposes that Christ's saving deed is a quantifiable penal sum — which is precisely what is denied Socinianly. The effective-term reading, by contrast, explains the universality effortlessly: the means of atonement stands open to all and is realised through faith.

Socinianly 1 John 2:2 fits seamlessly with John 3:16, 2 Cor 5:19, and 1 Tim 2:4 — all universalist in reach, particularist in realisation (through faith).

Objection 3: “But Hebrews 9:22 requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness.”

Hebrews 9:22 says literally schedon “almost everything is cleansed with blood” — the ‘almost’ breaks the universal validity. The OT system itself knows exceptions (Lev 5:11–13: a grain offering for the poor).

Moreover, Heb 9:22 is a cultic-priestly statement about the OT purification system — not a universal teaching about the juridical conditions of forgiveness. Forgiveness in the OT is often granted without blood: Ps 51, Luke 15 (the father of the prodigal son), Matt 18 (the parable of the cancelled debt) — all without any penal execution.

The Racovian Catechism draws the consequence: Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum (Racovian Catechism), De officio Christi prophetico, regio et sacerdotali — the OT sacrifices were not offered as payment but for forgiveness; and the Apostle says that God himself appointed Christ as the means of atonement (Rom 3:25). One who is appointed does not render satisfaction to the one appointing him.

Finally: the blood of Christ stands in 1 John 1:7 as a means of cleansing (“the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin”), not as a penal sum. Cleansing acts upon man, not upon God as object.

Objection 4: “Without penal substitution, no real content of atonement.”

This reduction is false. Socinian soteriology knows a multidimensional effect of Christ: his obedience (Rom 5:19), his resurrection (Rom 4:25), his heavenly high-priestly activity (Heb 9:11–14), the setting of the covenant in his blood (Matt 26:28), the revelation of God's love (Rom 5:8), and the power to lead men to repentance and to a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

None of these aspects needs the forensic model of penal substitution. All together yield a fully redemptive saving event — and precisely this fullness is what the NT calls ‘atonement’ in the full sense.

Sozzini argues: forgiveness is forgiveness only if God can forgo his right. The doctrine of penal substitution turns forgiveness into a juridical receipt, in which nothing at all is forgone — and thus undermines the biblical concept of forgiveness itself.

Finally, the objection misses the tradition: the Racovian Catechism confesses clearly that Christ reconciled us with God (in the sense that he showed us the way back and through his death demonstrated the love of God). That is not a merely exemplary, but an effectively redemptive understanding.

Objection 5: “But the Church Fathers read this differently.”

The history is more complex. The Greek patristic tradition (Origen, Cyril of Alexandria) often understood hilasmós as an effective term, in the line of the Septuagint. Only with Latin theology and its juridically shaped vocabulary satisfactio was the centre of gravity shifted.

Anselm's Cur Deus Homo (eleventh century) is the actual beginning of the dogmatics of penal substitution in its sharp form. Before Anselm the picture was more diffuse. Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy later sharpened the doctrine into a juridical precision-weapon — not without overstretching the biblical evidence.

Socinianly, the demand to return to biblical language is no break with tradition, but a renewal of older readings. Sozzini himself appeals to Origen and to the OT kapporet-image, which there was already understood as a locus of effect, not as a recipient of penalty.

Moreover: tradition is not Scripture. What Scripture says decides — and Scripture itself does not know the word “placation of God” in this substitutive form. An interpretation which must introduce that without loud silence is not scripturally covered.

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation set out here:

• Romans 3:25–26 — Hilastêrion as God-appointed locus of grace; linguistic parallel-field to hilasmós.
• 1 John 4:10 — love as the source of the sending — God loves, and so sends the Son as hilasmós.
• Hebrews 9:11–14 — Christ as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary — lytrôsis as cultic-consecrative, not juridical.
• Hebrews 9:22 — theology of cleansing instead of a penal maxim; the “almost” breaks the universal reading.
• Mark 10:45 — lytron as a metaphor of liberation, not a penal payment — the same effective-term hermeneutics.
• Isaiah 53:5 — a text of solidarity, not of penal substitution; the kippér-word-field is present there too.
• Matthew 26:28 — covenant-blood following Exodus 24:8 — a covenant-sign, not penal blood.

Summary

1 John 2:2 is linguistically, theologically, and contextually an effective-term text. Hilasmós designates the God-appointed means of atonement which removes sin — not a penal sum paid to God. The Septuagintal rendering of kippér, the sending-logic of 4:10, the prepositional semantics of peri, and the immediate correlation with paraklêtos (v. 1) show this unambiguously.

The universal reach “for those of the whole world” fits only the effective-term reading. The penal-substitution alternative must either move over into universalism or restrict the scriptural statement by dogmatic distinctions. Both are exegetically problematic.

Sozzini and the Racovian Catechism stand in this line: hilasmós is liberation from the guilt of sins, not satisfaction made to an offended justice. Christ as hilasmós is the gracious means of God's love — and thus the real, not juridically contrived, redeemer of the world.