The second term used by John of Jesus is “righteous.” Indeed, it is this word rather than either “advocate” or “propitiation” which is emphasized. In what sense is it used? It is possible that John is referring to that judicial righteousness which the Father has applied to believers on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself for them, the meaning usually given to the term by Paul, as in Rom. 10:4: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” But this is unlikely for several reasons. First, it is awkward to understand the word in two senses in such a short space (in 1:9 of the Father and in 2:1 of the Son), which we must do if this interpretation is adopted. Second, the idea of the sufficient grounds of our Lord’s advocacy is adequately developed in the clause which follows, which tells us that he is “the propitiation for our sins.” So it is not needed here. Finally, the dominant idea in these verses is not that of justification on grounds of the righteousness of Christ. Rather it is of Christ’s advocacy on the part of the believer who has sinned. For these reasons it therefore seems best to take the word as describing, not the legal righteousness which Christ has and is, which is offered to us in the Gospel, but rather the righteousness of His character which governs the nature of His advocacy for us.
Not all advocates are like this, as any who have been to court know. Often they are unjust. Many times they serve their own interests rather than those of their client. Some use technicalities to escape the law’s just censure. Jesus does not work in this fashion. Rather, He is faithful to our cause and presents the case faithfully and with perfection.
Finally, John calls Jesus “the propitiation for our sins,” adding, “and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Instead of the word “propitiation” the RSV has the term “expiation” at this point, thereby following a rather modern trend in biblical interpretation. The word “propitiation” was used extensively in ancient pagan writings of the appeasement of an angry god by offerings. It thereby had the sense of “placation” or “mollification.” And, of course, in these circles the idea of propitiation was admittedly very debased. But some scholars say that propitiation is incompatible with the Christian revelation of the character of God. According to the Christian revelation, God is not an angry God, so these scholars maintain. He is gracious and loving. Moreover, it is not God who is separated from us because of sin, but rather we who are separated from God. Or again, it is not He who is to be propitiated, but ourselves. According to such thinking, propitiation is therefore to be referred, not to what Jesus has done in reference to God, but rather to what has been done by Christ for our guilt. This has been “covered,” “disinfected” (so, C. H. Dodd) or “expiated” by his death; hence, the RSV translation and others. Those who adhere to such views note that, strictly speaking, the Bible never makes God the object of the propitiation.
But this is not the whole of the matter, as sympathetic as one may be with the concerns of such critics. In the first place, while it is true that we must not throw the Christian concept of God into the same barrel with the capricious and petulant character of the deities of the ancient world, at the same time neither do we want to forget His just wrath against sin, in accordance with which sin will be punished either in Christ or in the person of the sinner. Here the whole scope of the biblical revelation must be taken into account.
