Gill’s exegesis (or is it eisegesis?) makes “the world” equal “the elect,” but on what grounds he does this are not given. It is a purely gratuitous exercise, and dishonest, as Machen would say. By the “sin of the world,” is not meant the sin, or sins of every individual person in the world, says Gill.. So according to this exegesis “the sin of the world” does not mean “the sin of the world” after all. Had John said this in 1:29, confusion in understanding basic English would not have occurred. We would have been clear that the world, as we understand it, was not meant.
Leon Morris understands the Cross in its comprehensiveness. John is referring to the totality of the world’s sin, rather than to a number of individual acts. Individual acts are carried out by individuals, therefore, John is not referring to individuals either. His reference is to “the sin of the world” in its totality. Christ’s death on the Cross is “completely adequate for the needs of all men.”