Introduction: The Exegetical Battlefield

Few verses in Scripture have been as contested in theological discourse as 1 John 2:2:

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (ESV)

This verse stands at the center of debates between proponents of universal and limited (or definite) atonement. The question is straightforward yet profound: Did Christ die for the sins of every individual who has ever lived, or specifically for the elect? The answer depends largely on how we understand two key elements: the meaning of “propitiation” (ἱλασμός/hilasmos) and the scope of “the whole world” (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου).

I. The Universal Atonement Interpretation

A. The Grammatical Argument

Many advocates of universal atonement—particularly non-Calvinists—begin with the clear grammatical structure of the verse, which appears to make a deliberate contrast:

• οὐ… δὲ μόνον – “not only…”
• ἀλλὰ καὶ – “but also…”

This construction seems to expand from a smaller group (“our sins”) to a larger, more inclusive one (“the whole world”). As Derickson argues:

“Through these [grammatical] contrasts he makes it clear that Jesus’ propitiatory work is not limited just to believers. He does this by moving from a more mild contrast (οὐ … δὲ), to what would normally be a strong adversative conjunction, ἀλλὰ.”

The parallel with John 17:20 reinforces this reading, where Jesus uses a similar construction to include future converts alongside the apostles.

B. The Natural Reading Argument

Universal atonement proponents contend that their interpretation represents the most natural, straightforward reading of the text. When John writes that Christ is the propitiation “not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world,” the unforced reading suggests comprehensive scope.

In this view, when Scripture uses universal language, we should take it at face value unless compelling reasons exist to restrict its meaning. The burden of proof lies with those who would limit the apparent meaning of “the whole world.”

C. The Missional Argument

This interpretation also resonates with the broader Johannine emphasis on God’s love for the world (John 3:16) and Jesus as “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42, 1 John 4:14). These passages present Christ’s saving work as extending to all humanity, aligning with the Great Commission’s global scope.

On this view, 1 John 2:2 underscores the universal availability of salvation—Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, though efficient only for those who believe.

Conclusion: Reformed Consistency and Theological Integration

Jobes’s exegesis of 1 John 2:2, while not explicitly confessional in orientation, ultimately affirms several key theological principles that align remarkably well with the Reformed understanding of atonement:

1. The Efficacy and Objective Nature of Christ’s Atonement: Jobes consistently emphasizes that hilasmos indicates actual guilt removal and accomplished cleansing, not merely potential or hypothetical satisfaction. She writes, “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin (1:7) and [has the power] to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1:9)” (loc. 1906). This language of actuality and efficacy resonates with the Reformed emphasis on definite atonement that genuinely accomplishes what it intends.
2. The Jewish Sacrificial Framework Behind Hilasmos: Through detailed lexical analysis, Jobes establishes that John’s understanding of atonement is grounded in Hebrew sacrificial categories, not in Greco-Roman concepts of deity appeasement. She observes that in the Septuagint, the term refers specifically to “the removal of guilt achieved by the ritual practices of Israel’s ancient priesthood” (loc. 1890-1891). This sacrificial framework involves substitution, representation, and objective satisfaction of divine justice—theological categories central to Reformed soteriology.
3. The Ethnic and Geographic Inclusivity of “World”: Jobes meticulously reconstructs the historical context of ancient religious particularism, showing how John’s universal language served as a polemic against the parochial understanding of deities prevalent in the Mediterranean world. Christ’s atoning work transcends all ethnic, cultural, and geographic boundaries—”The Christian gospel knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, national, or cultural boundaries” (loc. 1936). This universal scope aligns with the Reformed understanding that the elect are gathered from every nation, tribe, and tongue.
4. The Exclusivity of Christ’s Atonement: Perhaps most significantly, Jobes directly addresses the theological implications of John’s universal.

Karen Jobes, in her commentary on the Johannine epistles published in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series, provides one of the most balanced and exegetically grounded treatments of 1 John 2:2 available in contemporary scholarship. While she does not write from an explicitly confessional Reformed standpoint, her conclusions converge with Reformed theology in essential ways—especially her emphasis on the actuality of atonement (not merely its possibility), the inclusiveness without universalism of kosmos (the Greek term for “world”), and the Jewish theological framework grounding John’s sacrificial language. Her work demonstrates how careful exegesis, attentive to historical and literary context, can transcend theological camps while arriving at conclusions that substantially align with historic Reformed orthodoxy.

Pastoral Context and Theological Significance

Jobes begins by noting the carefully constructed pastoral tone and significant literary shift that occurs at the beginning of chapter 2:

“After correcting anyone who might be denying or rationalizing their sin, John introduces an affectionate, conciliatory tone by addressing his readers as ‘my little children’ (τεκνία).” (loc. 1841)

This deliberate shift to tender pastoral concern (τεκνία being a diminutive form expressing deep affection) serves as a rhetorical bridge connecting the confrontational message of 1:5-10 with the consolatory theology that follows. The address “my little children” appears repeatedly throughout the epistle (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21) as a marker of John’s pastoral authority and affection. Here it introduces a decisive theological clarification: the believer’s sin, though real and requiring honest confession (1:9), is met by divine advocacy and accomplished atonement. John moves from confronting the reality of sin to offering profound theological comfort through Christ’s dual roles as advocate (παράκλητος/paraklētos) and atoning sacrifice (ἱλασμός/hilasmos). This dual characterization of Christ’s work—both ongoing intercession and completed sacrifice—forms the theological foundation for Christian assurance in the face of continued moral struggle.

Christ as Paraclete: Legal and Sacrificial Context

Jobes offers an extensive exploration of the rich semantic field surrounding Jesus as Paraclete (παράκλητος)—a term with multifaceted significance in first-century Jewish legal, intercessory, and sacrificial contexts. She meticulously unpacks these layers of meaning:

“In Jewish thought of that time, one’s own good works were often thought to function as the paraclete before God’s judgment. The Babylonian Talmud says, ‘The Israelites said: We have no father but thou, we have no paraclete but thou’ (Ber. 7a). Similarly, the Palestinian Talmud states, ‘If a man has a powerful intercessor [paraclete], he wins his case in court’ (TJ, Berakhot 9:12d). In the words of Shammai, ‘Only repentance and good deeds are a man’s paraclete before the judgment seat of God’ (Avot 4:13).” (loc. 1909)

Jobes then emphasizes the radical Christological reorientation John introduces:

“But John claims that only Jesus Christ, who died to atone for sin and who lives to intercede and mediate our petition for forgiveness, can fill that role. Only Jesus, who is himself the atoning sacrifice (2:2), stands before the Father on behalf of the guilty, making efficacious intercession for the forgiveness of confessed sin.” (loc. 1909-1912)

Christ’s status as “the righteous one” (δίκαιον) in 2:1 is of paramount importance—it gives His advocacy legal and moral standing before the Father. His position as advocate is predicated not merely on His words or status, but on His completed once-for-all sacrifice. This juxtaposition of roles—advocate and sacrifice—creates a theological synergy that distinguishes Christian atonement from both Jewish sacrificial practices and Greco-Roman appeasement concepts.

Jobes notes the striking parallelism between John’s characterization of Jesus as both “righteous” and “advocate”:

“The ‘righteous Jesus Christ’ (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον) is in apposition with paraclete… it is the unique status of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for sin (see 2:2) that is the basis of his advocacy for sinners, which therefore provides consolation for anyone who sins.” (loc. 1885-1888)

This righteousness establishes His standing before the Father as our representative and mediator, a theme that resonates with broader New Testament perspectives on Christ’s high priestly ministry (Hebrews 7:25-26; 9:24-28). Unlike the earthly high priests who needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before interceding for the people (Hebrews 7:27), Christ’s righteousness qualifies Him as both the perfect sacrifice and the perfect advocate. The intercessory function described here in 1 John 2:1 complements Christ’s expiatory role in 2:2, creating a comprehensive soteriology that addresses both the legal guilt and moral corruption of sin.

The Meaning of Hilasmos: Actual Atonement

Turning to the theological heart of the verse—”He is the hilasmos for our sins…”—Jobes conducts an exhaustive lexical and theological analysis that firmly establishes this refers to actual, accomplished atonement, not merely potential provision or availability:

“If and when someone sins, our advocate is someone who has standing with the Father, the righteous Jesus Christ, because he himself (αὐτός, emphatic) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (loc. 1886)

The emphatic pronoun αὐτός (“himself”) underscores that Christ’s person and work are inseparable—His qualification as advocate stems directly from His completed work as the atoning sacrifice. His intercession does not merely remind the Father of a potential or conditional atonement; rather, He pleads the merits of His actual, accomplished sacrifice.

Jobes develops a carefully structured grammatical and theological argument by highlighting the parallelism with 1:7 and 1:9, building on Derickson’s syntactical insights:

“The parallel structure of 1 John 2:1 with 1:7, 9 confirms that ‘Jesus Christ… the hilasmos for our sins’ is parallel with ‘the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin’ (1:7) and ‘to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1:9).” (loc. 1906)

This extensive parallelism demonstrates that hilasmos cannot be semantically reduced to potential provision or hypothetical satisfaction. The term refers to objective, guilt-removing action, producing actual cleansing (καθαρίζει, 1:7, 9) from sin and unrighteousness. The cleansing language of 1:7 and 1:9, now linked with the sacrificial language of 2:2, establishes that Christ’s work accomplishes definite, objective results that address both the guilt and pollution of sin.

Jobes undertakes detailed lexical analysis to establish the precise meaning of hilasmos within its Septuagintal and broader Hellenistic context:

“The word [hilasmos] occurs six times in the LXX (Lev 25:9; Num 5:8; Ezek 44:27; Ps 129:4; Amos 8:14; 2 Macc 3:33) to refer to the removal of guilt achieved by the ritual practices of Israel’s ancient priesthood.” (loc. 1890-1891)

She carefully navigates the semantic debate surrounding the term by differentiating its usage from common pagan understandings:

“In distinction from the Christus Victor view (Christ’s death as victory over supernatural powers of evil) or from the view that Christ’s death appeases God’s anger (cf. Rom 1:18), John’s writings present Christ as a replacement for animal sacrifice in the temple.” (loc. 1896-1898)

While Jobes resists narrowly defining hilasmos as mere “propitiation” (in the simplistic sense of appeasing divine anger), she affirms that it achieves actual atonement—and does so within the Jewish framework of substitution and priesthood, not through Greco-Roman sacrifice mythology. She meticulously traces how the Hebrew concepts of כִּפֻּר (kippûr, covering) and כֹּפֶר (kōfer, ransom) stand behind John’s usage, whereby guilt is addressed through substitutionary means and divine-human relationship is restored through objective satisfaction.

This lexical and theological precision aligns Jobes’s interpretation more closely with Reformed categories of definite atonement than with moral influence theory or hypothetical universal provision models. She emphasizes the objective transaction that occurs through Christ’s sacrifice, addressing the actual guilt of sin before God’s justice through substitutionary means—not merely creating potential for salvation contingent upon human response.

The Meaning of “World”: Universal Scope Without Universal Salvation

Jobes devotes extensive analysis to the interpretive crux of the passage: what precisely does John mean by “not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world” (οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου)? She acknowledges the rhetorical force and syntactical emphasis of this construction, but directly challenges the common universalist misinterpretation:

“John’s further statement that Christ is the atoning sacrifice not only for the sins of John and his readers but also for the sins of the whole world is sometimes used to support the idea of universalism—that is, that everyone in the world will be saved by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, apparently whether they know it or not. But such a thought ignores both the historical context of the book and the particular use of kosmos in the Johannine corpus.” (loc. 1932-1935)

She then conducts a thorough examination of kosmos throughout Johannine literature (Gospel and Epistles), demonstrating that the term is almost never neutral, purely geographic, or merely descriptive:

“World in John’s writings is often used to refer not to the planet or all its inhabitants, but to the system of fallen human culture, with its values, morals, and ethics as a whole. It refers to humanity collectively, but primarily as organized in opposition to God and his revelation.” (loc. 1936–1939)

This negative valence of kosmos appears consistently throughout John’s writings, where the term carries moral and spiritual significance:

“It is almost always associated with the side of darkness in the Johannine duality, and people are characterized in John’s writings as being either ‘of God’ or ‘of the world’ (John 8:23; 15:19; 17:6, 14, 16; 18:36; 1 John 2:16; 4:5).” (loc. 1939-1941)

Jobes meticulously documents how this theological dualism shapes John’s understanding of salvation. The kosmos represents the entire system of human rebellion against God, encompassing all nations, ethnicities, and cultures that stand in need of redemption. Christ’s atoning sacrifice addresses this universal condition of fallen humanity, not by automatically saving everyone, but by providing the only efficacious remedy available to anyone, anywhere.

In examining the specific construction “whole world” (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου), Jobes notes that the adjective ὅλος (“whole”) emphasizes comprehensiveness and totality. However, this totality must be understood qualitatively rather than quantitatively—referring to the universal scope and applicability of Christ’s sacrifice across all human boundaries, not numerical exhaustion of every individual without exception. This usage parallels similar expressions in the New Testament (e.g., Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6) where “whole world” indicates global extent without implying universal participation.

Through this detailed semantic analysis, Jobes establishes that John’s language about “the whole world” does not support universalism, but rather emphasizes the cosmic significance and universal applicability of Christ’s atonement across all human divisions—precisely the interpretation advocated by the historic Reformed tradition.

Historical Context: Against Parochial Deities

Jobes provides crucial historical-cultural context that illuminates the polemical significance of John’s universal language. She meticulously reconstructs the ancient religious worldview against which John’s claims would have been understood:

“In the ancient world, the gods were parochial and had geographically limited jurisdictions. In the mountains, one sought the favor of the mountain gods; on the sea, of the sea gods. Hermes was the god of travelers; Apollo the god of music and prophecy; Asclepius the god of healing. Ancient warfare was waged in the belief that the gods of the opposing nations were fighting as well, and the outcome would be determined by whose god was strongest.” (loc. 1932-1936)

This localized understanding of divine power permeated the ancient Mediterranean worldview. Deities were fundamentally territorial, with power and influence confined to specific geographic regions, ethnic groups, or spheres of human activity. This cosmic parochialism created a fragmented religious landscape where salvation itself was understood as locally bound. The God of Israel was frequently misinterpreted by surrounding cultures as merely another national deity rather than the universal Creator and Lord of all nations.

Even within some strands of Second Temple Judaism, salvation could be conceptualized in predominantly ethnic terms, with Gentiles requiring proselytization and adoption into Israel to access the covenant blessings. Against this theological particularism, early Christianity proclaimed a message with radically universal implications.

Jobes explains how John’s language about Christ as the hilasmos “for the whole world” functions as a deliberate theological polemic against these localized conceptions of deity and salvation:

“Against that kind of pagan mentality, John asserts that the efficacy of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is valid everywhere, for people everywhere, that is, ‘the whole world.’ The Christian gospel knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, national, or cultural boundaries.” (loc. 1936)

This universal scope represented a revolutionary theological claim in its ancient context. Christ is not presented as merely another localized deity offering limited benefits to a particular people group. Rather, His atoning work transcends all human divisions—addressing the universal human condition of sin and rebellion against God.

The historical context Jobes recovers helps explain why John would emphasize both the universal scope of Christ’s atonement and its exclusive efficacy. In a culture where deities were specialized and limited, Christ stands as the singular, universal solution to humanity’s fundamental predicament. This historical background illuminates why “the whole world” in John’s usage refers primarily to extensive scope (all types of people everywhere) rather than intensive universality (every individual without exception).

The Exclusivity of Christ’s Atonement

Building upon her analysis of kosmos and the historical context, Jobes offers a comprehensive theological interpretation of what John means by Christ being the atoning sacrifice “for the whole world.” She affirms a universal scope without universal salvation—what Reformed theology historically terms the all-without-distinction interpretation:

“The more likely interpretation is the universal scope of Christ’s sacrifice in the sense that no one’s race, nationality, gender, socioeconomic status, educational background, cultural heritage, or any other human trait will keep that person from receiving the full benefit of Christ’s sacrifice if and when they come to faith.” (loc. 1936–1938)

This understanding recognizes the universally sufficient nature of Christ’s atonement while maintaining its particularly efficacious application to believers, consistent with the broader Johannine emphasis on faith as the instrumental means of appropriating salvation (John 1:12; 3:16-18; 5:24; 1 John 5:1, 5, 10-13).

Jobes’s conclusion resonates profoundly with Calvin and the broader Reformed tradition:

“Rather than teaching universalism, John here instead announces the exclusivity of the Christian gospel. Since Christ’s atonement is efficacious for the ‘whole world,’ there is no other form of atonement available to other peoples, cultures, and religions apart from Jesus Christ.” (loc. 1940-1942)

This statement encapsulates the paradoxical nature of Christian universality—it is precisely the universal scope of Christ’s efficacious atonement that establishes its exclusivity as the sole means of salvation available to humanity. The atoning sacrifice of Christ simultaneously excludes all alternative paths to reconciliation with God while including people from every nation, tribe, and tongue within its redemptive scope. This theological formulation aligns closely with other New Testament affirmations of Christ’s universal yet exclusive efficacy (Acts 4:12; John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5-6).

To underscore this historically Reformed understanding, Jobes quotes directly from Calvin’s commentary:

“Therefore, under the word ‘all’ he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world.” (loc. 1941-1943)

This quotation from Calvin captures the essence of the Reformed interpretation—Christ’s atonement extends across all human boundaries, gathering the elect from every nation, while not automatically or hypothetically applying to every individual. The universal scope of “the whole world” refers to the comprehensive extent of Christ’s redemptive work among all peoples, not its application to all persons without exception.

Jobes’s analysis thus navigates between two theological extremes: a particularism that would limit atonement to a single ethnic group or culture, and a universalism that would render faith unnecessary by automatically applying Christ’s redemptive benefits to all regardless of response. Her exegetically grounded conclusion affirms both the universal scope and exclusive efficacy of Christ’s atonement—a position that aligns remarkably with historic Reformed orthodoxy despite not being written from an explicitly Reformed confessional standpoint.

Johannine Dualism and Theological Framework

Jobes’s analysis draws particular strength from her systematic attention to the characteristic Johannine dualism that structures not only this epistle but the entire corpus of Johannine literature. This dualistic framework, with its sharply differentiated spiritual and moral categories, provides the essential hermeneutical context for properly interpreting Christ as the hilasmos “for the whole world.”

Throughout John’s writings, humanity is consistently portrayed as divided into two mutually exclusive spiritual categories:

“People in John’s writings are regularly characterized as belonging to one of two mutually exclusive spiritual realms: they are either ‘of God’ or ‘of the world’ (John 8:23; 15:19; 17:6, 14, 16; 18:36; 1 John 2:16; 4:5).” (loc. 1939-1941)

Jobes meticulously documents this pattern across the Johannine corpus:

1. In John 1:10-13, the kosmos neither knows nor receives the Logos, while those who do receive Him are given authority to become children of God.
2. In John 3:16-21, God’s love for the kosmos is expressed through the giving of His Son, yet a division occurs between those who believe and those who do not, those who love darkness and those who come to the light.
3. In John 15:18-19, Jesus tells His disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”
4. In John 17:9, Jesus explicitly says, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.”
5. Later in 1 John itself, the author writes, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15).

This pervasive dualism shapes the epistle’s soteriology and ecclesiology. Those who have experienced spiritual rebirth—being “born of God” (1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18)—are transferred from the realm of darkness and death into God’s kingdom of light and life, though they remain physically present within human society and geography (John 13:1; 17:15).

Jobes elaborates on this theological framework:

“That dualistic framework is essential for understanding the statement in 2:2 about Christ as the atoning sacrifice for ‘the whole world.’ The phrase must be interpreted in light of John’s consistent representation of the world as that spiritual realm opposed to God, from which believers have been delivered, not as a simple reference to the totality of humanity without qualification.” (loc. 1942-1945)

The Johannine understanding of salvation involves transfer from one spiritual realm to another—from being “of the world” to being “of God.” This transition occurs through faith (1 John 5:1-5), which is the instrumental means by which the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice are appropriated. While Christ’s sacrifice addresses the universal human condition of rebellion against God (represented by the kosmos), its saving benefits are applied particularly to those who believe.

This theological framework provides the interpretive key for understanding Christ as the hilasmos “for the whole world”—it emphasizes the universal scope and exclusive efficacy of His atoning work across all human boundaries, while maintaining the necessity of faith for its application to individuals. The theological structure of Johannine thought reinforces exactly what Reformed theology has historically affirmed: that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe—the elect from every nation, tribe, and tongue.

Conclusion: Reformed Consistency

Jobes’s exegesis ultimately affirms:

1. The efficacy and objective nature of Christ’s atonement, accomplishing actual cleansing
2. The Jewish sacrificial framework behind hilasmos, not Greco-Roman appeasement mythology
3. The ethnic and geographic inclusivity of “world,” rooted in the ancient contrast between local deities and the universal God
4. The exclusivity of Christ’s atonement—He is the only hilasmos, for anyone, anywhere
5. The Reformed understanding that “all” refers to all without distinction, not all without exception

In short, Jobes confirms the Reformed claim: 1 John 2:2 declares the actual, substitutionary atonement of Christ, applied to the elect from all nations, not a hypothetical satisfaction for every individual without exception. Her reading harmonizes with the immediate context of 1 John, which consistently emphasizes the reality of divine-human fellowship conditioned upon walking in the light (1:7), confessing sins (1:9), keeping commandments (2:3-6), and loving one another (2:7-11)—all expressions of genuine faith.
This reading not only preserves the theological integrity of hilasmos, but also magnifies the assurance and peace found in Christ. For those united to Him by faith, there is no wrath left to fear, no guilt left unatoned. The cross did not merely offer to remove sin—it did. And it did so for all God’s people, everywhere.

John writes these words not merely to clarify doctrine but to provide comfort: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father…” (1 John 2:1). The same Christ who shed His blood to cleanse us from every sin now stands at the right hand of God, interceding for us on the basis of that finished work.

This is the pastoral strength of the Reformed reading. It does not sever Christ’s death from His intercession, or His love from His power. It proclaims a Savior who actually saves—fully, finally, and forever.