“It is to God himself that we owe the removal of God’s wrath.”
Download discussion questions: 1 John 1:5-2:6
Jump to beginning of 1 John Discussion Group Blog
Jump to Introduction to 1,2,3 John
John continues the opening portion of his letter with a series of contrasts between what we say and how we behave. He uses those alternating statements to lead up to one of the most powerful descriptions of Jesus in the Bible.
Counterfeit Claims
John’s doctrine about our relationship with God is, as one person described it, “mind-blowing.” Part of the power of his teaching comes from his literary skill which we can also appreciate. Verses 5 through 10 of this first chapter are marked by what was noted earlier,
a constant circling around the basic issues, coming at it from a variety of angles, developing now this aspect and now that aspect, balancing one statement with another to clarify what is and is not entailed…[1]
John “circles around” three times to “if we say” (vv. 6,8,10), and each time he responds with contradictory evidence. As one member of our group observed, John goes “deeper and deeper.” Counterfeit claims are exposed by actions and attitudes.
-
- “Walking in darkness” (v. 6b) disproves a claim of fellowship with God.
- Claiming to have no sin (vv. 8a, 10a) is an attitude of self-deception (v. 8b) and even an attempt to prove God wrong (v. 10b).
We asked, “Why would someone claim to be without sin (vv. 8a, 10a)?” Someone suggested that a person who had improved in character or had overcome a particular sin might think that such progress was enough. Or a person could base that sinless claim on a comparison, “I’m not as bad as he is,” or “At least I don’t act like she does.” A specific list of behaviors (“don’t smoke, don’t dance, don’t chew…”) can be a convenient and attainable standard while ignoring more subtle relational sin (envy, bitterness, criticism). John makes it clear that such claims to sinlessness are dishonest regardless of the cause.
A Shift of Focus
One person noted a shift in John’s focus with his affectionate words, “My little children” (2:1). Up to that point his attention is directed toward words and behavior of his (unnamed) audience: “If we say…, if we walk…, if we confess….” and toward the implications of different evidence (“we lie…, we have fellowship…, we deceive ourselves….”).
Now John puts all the attention on the initiative of God in Christ as our Advocate, as the righteous One, and as our propitiation. When the hypothetical discussion of sin and fellowship becomes intensely personal (“my little children”), John turns the spotlight away from our actions and onto the all-sufficient work of Christ.
Most of our remaining discussion centered on the word “propitiation.” Someone commented that this was the kind of word that some pastors use to demonstrate how scholarly they are. The irony is that propitiation is a glorious reality, and we need to see its practical moment-by-moment impact on our Christian life. What a missed opportunity if professional prestige takes priority over pastoral ministry.
Propitiation is essential to understanding and living the gospel. Someone in our group said that without the verse on propitiation, the letter of 1 John would be very discouraging even with the repeated emphasis on cleansing and forgiveness (1:7, 9).
Forgiveness of sin is at the heart of the gospel. All Christians understand that. However, the practical reality is a continuing sense of God’s displeasure even as we celebrate His forgiveness. Forgiven, yes, but surely He must still be angry about our repeated failures. Our natural response is to appease Him: I need to pray more, or read the Bible more, or witness more, or memorize more verses. I need to show God how sorry I am. I need to get back into His good graces (an ironic misuse of the word “grace”!).
John’s words (as well as the rest of God’s Word) testify against our emotional default reaction of penitence or “making it up” to God. Prayer or Bible reading or other spiritual disciplines may indeed be good for our spiritual formation, but they don’t affect God’s loving attitude toward us. Providing propitiation through Jesus is itself an act of God’s affectionate attitude toward us.
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)
God the Father is both the initiator and the recipient of Christ’s propitiatory work. The Father sent the Son specifically so that the Son’s blood (1:7) could remove the cause of the Father’s righteous wrath.
Pondering Propitiation
The word John uses for propitiation (ἱλασμός, hilasmos)[2] is only found twice in the New Testament, both times in this letter (2:2, 4:10). Related forms of the same root word are used a few other times (Luke 18:13; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17, 9:5).[3]
Even a word group used only six times in the New Testament is the subject of debate among some translators.[4] Does hilasmos mean “expiation” (NABRE, RSV) or “propitiation” (ESV, KJV, NASB)? Some versions avoid that dilemma by the translation “atoning sacrifice” (NIV) or “sacrifice that atones” (NLT), etc.
Words associated with ἱλασμός [hilasmos] have been the focus of spirited debate for decades. The central question is whether here and in other NT passages containing the ἱλασ- word group (Luke 18:13; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17, 9:5; 1 John 4:10) biblical writers are talking about “expiation” or “propitiation.”[5]
That writer goes on to point out that the “distinction is of considerable importance.” The translation “atoning sacrifice” is legitimate; the Greek Old Testament (LXX) used the ἱλασ- group for Hebrew words for atonement.[6] But that translation avoids the New Testament theological significance.
Theological and Practical Propitiation
As someone in our group brought up, the translation as “expiation” or “propitiation” is a key difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of what Jesus did on the cross. “Expiation,” used in Catholic translations,[7] is more limited than propitiation.
Expiation properly has a thing as its object. We may expiate a crime, or a sin. Propitiation is a personal word. We propitiate a person rather than a sin…. If we are to think of our relationship to God as basically personal we cannot afford to dispense with the concept of propitiation…. If sin is a thing, and can be dealt with as a thing, blotted out, cast from us, and the like, then we may properly talk of expiation. But if sin affects man’s relationship with God, if the relationship with God is the primary thing, then it is difficult to see how expiation is adequate.[8]
Indeed, expiation is not adequate as evidenced by the need for penance and Purgatory as related doctrines in Roman Catholic theology.
Propitiation, on the other hand, is more all-encompassing, including expiation, the “covering” or “removal” of sin, as well as the removal of God’s wrath and the restoration of the relationship with Him.
Others point out that atonement seems also to involve propitiation, the turning away of wrath by an acceptable offering. It does not merely expiate in the sense of dismiss; it propitiates in the sense of averting God’s punishment in a substitutionary way.[9]
The significance and importance of propitiation is not always sufficiently understood and valued by modern believers who minimize doctrine.
Older English versions translated hilasmos in 1 John either as “propitiation” (e.g., KJV) or “expiation” (e.g., RSV), neither of which is easily defined and understood by the average person today. Propitiation is something done to win the favor of a, usually angry, god, spirit, or person, whereas expiation is directed toward nullifying an offensive act … that has caused a breakdown in a relationship. However, the terms are not always used with clear distinction by modern authors, and more importantly, the Greek word does not clearly indicate the degree of nuance that is sought by modern theologians.[10]
Pagan Propitiation
Even if the Greek word “does not clearly indicate the degree of nuance” between expiation and propitiation, the relational reconciliation aspect is clear. In Greek and Roman mythology, the anger of the gods “is also one of the most prominent characteristics…. The idea of wrathful gods is one of the basic factors of the majority of religions.”[11] The word group for propitiation was used in those non-Christian religions. Pagan usage indicates the word is particularly applied to reconciliation of the relationship with an offended deity.
When the word ἱλασμός appears in pagan writing (e.g. Plutarch), it clearly denotes an offering made by worshipers to “propitiate,” or placate, the anger of the gods… whom they have displeased.[12]
Old Testament Propitiation
In addition, the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (LXX) includes interesting examples of the ἱλασμός (hilasmos) word group for relational reconciliation.
-
- When Jacob fears the approach of his brother Esau, he wants to “appease [LXX ἐξιλάσομαι] him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me.” (Genesis 32:20)
- To avert a plague that was afflicting the Israelites, Aaron “put on the incense and made atonement [LXX ἐξιλάσατο] for the people… and the plague was stopped.” (Numbers 16:47)
- As a general proverbial principle,
“A king’s wrath is a messenger of death,
and a wise man will appease [LXX ἐξιλάσεται] it. (Proverbs 16:14)
Covering Sin, Removing Wrath
John’s use of hilasmos makes it clear that the meaning includes both the offering that covers sin (expiation) and the means of removing God’s wrath (propitiation).
We should not think, though, that Christ persuaded an angry Father not to destroy us. The Father sent the Son to accomplish propitiation. John says, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Leon Morris writes, “It is to God himself that we owe the removal of God’s wrath.”[13]
The early church leader Irenaeus (d. circa 201) described the reconciling result of Christ’s propitiation in restoring a relationship with God.
In the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become the Mediator between God and men; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned.[14]
God’s attitude toward us is friendship, not anger.
The Impossible Task
When we take on the impossible burden of placating God, we minimize the work of Christ. We imply that His life and death were insufficient, and we need to complete His unfinished work.
Propitiation means we don’t need to invest the effort and time and energy looking for ways to remove God’s anger. That already happened at the cross. Instead, we can concentrate that effort, time, and energy on loving and serving others, just as John instructs us later in his letter.
But What About…?
While our time exploring propitiation was very profitable, this passage in 1 John contains pointers to other issues that can raise questions. As we have seen in numerous other passages (in Hebrews, in James, in the letters of Peter and of Jude), verses or phrases or even words taken out of context can be misunderstood or honestly misinterpreted or even intentionally misrepresented.
As part of “a defense for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15), it is important to consider questions in the trusting and safe atmosphere of a group of believers. That kind of discussion will make us more prepared and less alarmed when faced with such questions or critiques by skeptics.
Some of the possible questions from this passage (1 John 1:5-26) could include the following:
-
- 1 John 1:7 mentions “walk…fellowship…cleanses.” How are those three actions related? Is John indicating a sequence or an order? Could that be interpreted that the cleansing by the blood of Jesus depends on our “walk”?
- 1 John 1:9 describes cleansing following confession. How is our cleansing dependent on our confession? Or is it?
- 1 John 1:9 mentions forgiveness of sins and cleansing from unrighteousness. Are these the same thing? Or how are they different? Is John saying the same thing two different ways, or is he making a distinction?
- 1 John 2:1 says that John is writing “these things that you may not sin.” How does the beginning of the letter (our chapter one) help us not to sin?
- 1 John 2:2 says Christ’s propitiation is for the sins of “the whole world.” We discussed that John used “world” to describe people of every social status, race, ethnic group, etc. How do we know that?
- 1 John 2:3-4 gives the standard for genuinely knowing God as keeping His commandments. Is this an absolute? What if we don’t keep His commandments perfectly? What commandments?
- 1 John 2:3 describes “knowing we know” Him. How does this relate to our doubts?
- Throughout the passage, John uses several phrases to describe a relationship with God: fellowship with Him (1:6), know Him (2:3), love of God (2:5), in Him (2:5), abides in Him (2:6). How do these combine to give us a deeper and richer understanding of what that relationship is intended to be?
These questions (and any others in our group) should provide a fruitful discussion at our next meeting.
[1] Walter Moberly, quoted in Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 38.
[2] https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hilasmos
[3] https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hilaskomai
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hilasterion
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%202%3A2
[5] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 77.
[6] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 78.
[7] https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1john/2
https://biblia.com/books/rsvce/1%20Jn%202.2
[8] J. D. Douglas, Organizing Editor, “Expiation” in The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970),405-406.
[9] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 78.
[10] Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 79.
[11] Colin Brown, ed., “Anger,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 107.
[12] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 38.
[13] Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Essentials of Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2025), 415.
[14] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.17.1; quoted in Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Essentials of Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2025), 416; emphasis added;
cf. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103517.htm#:~:text=friendship