Featured Objective consideration of John 12:32

20 ¶ And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.
23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27 ¶ Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

There are two popular interpretations of John 12:32:

1. All men without exception
2. All men without distinction

If we allow the facts of the immediate context, its grammar, word meanings determine the proper application, which one would be confirmed and which would be denied?

A. Contextual Factors:

1. This conversation was introduced by some Gireeks/Gentiles seeking to follow Christ - vv. 19-22.

2. Verses 23-33 is Christ response to Gentiles seeking him and how his death related to that request.

3. Verse 33 gives the contextual reason for the words in verse 32, to show how he would die. Thus being lifted up refers to His death by the cross.

4. The Cross occurs at a historical point in time and verse 32 is conditioned upon first being lifted up to die.

5. Grammatically the term translated "all men" is found in the anarthous construction which can be legitimately translated "all men without distinction."


B. All without Exception Application

1. This interpretation would demand that all human beings from Adam to the very last human being will be drawn to Christ because of the cross.

2. However, history is full of civilizations prior to the cross and in our own day where missionaries have gone and found that none living in that generation or the previous generation ever heard of Christianity, much less of Christ and the cross. This undeniable fact repudiates that "all" demands all humans without exception who have ever lived from Adam to the last human born.

3. At best this interpretation must be reduced to mean only "all" where the gospel is preached and known which denies it means "all without exception."


C. All without Distinction

1. This fits the facts of the immediate context - Greeks/Gentiles seeking Christ.

2. This fits the possible grammatical interpretation of "all" as "all without distinction."

3. This fits the facts of the overall context as John 4 and Acts 10 clearly demonstrate the Jews had no dealings, could not even enter the house much less eat with a Gentile as they regarded them unclean. Thus the Jews restricted salvation to the Jews only.

4. This fits the previous exposition by Christ in John 6 where not all men without exception are drawn to Christ as there are "some" explicitly stated that were not drawn - Jn. 6:64-65.

5. This fits the preivous exposition by Christ in John 6 and the limited use of "all" in regard to whom the Father gives to come to Christ (Jn. 6:37-39).

6. This fits the prevous exposition by Chirst in John 6 in regard to the meaning fo the term "draw" as it is always used in the Greek New Testament as effectual in bringing something to the one drawing.

7. This fits the previous exposition by Christ in John 6:45 and the Old Testament quotations which limit "all" to the covenant children of God (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8, 10).

CONCLUSION:

Objectively, the interpretation of "all" as "all without distinction" fits the immeidate and context perfectly whereas the "all without exception" does not fit any of the immeidate context or overal contextual factors in regard to drawing or the cross.

Now, can my opponents deal with my examination of John 12;32 objectively or will they simply resort to ridicule, RJP, personal attacks, distractions, etc.??? If I was a betting man (and I am not) I would bet they will resort to these cultic tactics.

 

And what did Andrew and Philip ask of Jesus????? Here let me spell it out for you since you obivously don't want to read the context in full:

21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

Now, what do you think Philip told Andrew about? What do you think both Philip and Andrew told Christ about? Do I have to spell this out to you or can you read the question asked in verse 21??

So, your position denies the gentiles were included prior to the cross, right? Are you not saying this was his "plan"? Hence, your own position denies the word "all" means all without exception from Adam to the last man born correct? So your position is really saying ALL RACES or all kinds without distinction.

 

What did Jesus say would draw? Did he say the gospel would draw? No! He said "the Father" would and he said "I will" but not one word about the gospel!

Your position asserts the gospel is NEVER without the Father and the Son working with it but please find any instrumental means in Genesis 1:3 AS THIS IS THE TEXT USED BY PAUL TO EXPLAIN HOW THE LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE IS PRODUCED IN THE HEART OF THE LOST!

You can't find any intermediate, any instrumental means in Genesis 1:3 and neither is there any instrumental means used IN THE HEART where this light is CREATED (Eph. 2:10a). This inner creation of light DOES NOT OCCUR EVERY TIME THE GOSPEL IS PREACHED as this internal knowledge IS SALVATION and ETERNAL life (Jn. 17:3) restricted only to "as many as" the Father gives him (Jn. 17:2).

However, where is your response to all the points listed in my exposition?????

 

It attacks YOUR KIND of response! YOUR KIND of response is incompetent and a personal attack on the writer of the OP becuase you do not deal with the evidence presented but make sly underhanded slicing comments and then presume to take the high road when you are really acting like a worm crawling in the very manure you are charging others.

 

I spelled it out in small words for you so that you could see your interpretation is contextually worthless, inaccurate and mere eisgetical wishful thinking. Anyone can read verse 22 and see Greeks came to the Philip and asked specifically if they could see Jesus. No genius is required to grasp that just second grade reading level. Verse 23 directly speaks of Philip telling another disicples and then both coming to Jesus and telling him. It does not take a rocket scientist to see they are telling him precisely what the Greeks ask them about. Your interpretation simply denies the obvious. If you wish to be incompetent then so be it.

If you want to have a rational discussion I am all for it but don't expect anyone to accept such an irrational interpretation when they have the very thing you are denying spelled out in black and white in verses 22-23 and then charge me with ignoring the context (which you did).

 

When I have to put up with total incompentence as with your responses, and repeated eisgetical tactics all the time, it gets tiring.

You only enter a discussion to do the very thing you are doing here. Not to deal with the issues but to make personal attacks. Anyone with two grains of common sense can see that Bob and some others simply paste and repeat over and over the same verses no matter how many times they have been COMPETENTLY exposed as false. Anyone with two grains of common sense can see that personal insults, distraction and RPJ's are the common MO of many on this forum including yourself. You just don't like being called a spade when you are a spade. If you don't like my posts then go some place else and spout your hypocrisy.

 

Skandelon, you are one of the few on this forum who actually attempts to respond to OP's in a rational scholarly manner. I give you credit for that.

However, you know full well, there are some on this forum who make absolutley no attempt to be rational or reasonable, that continue to simply paste and repeat the same absolute nonsense that has been exposed and thoroughly repudiated. Instead, they habitually respond by slander, RPJ, distraction, personal attacks, attempts to derail the OP and ridicule. I have asked them to stop playing such childish games and either attempt to make an intelligent response or go somewhere else.

Well, I don't play such childish games and I don't sit still and just take it over and over and over again - I call a spade a spade. That is precisely what I have done and nothing more and what I said is the absolute truth.

To those who respond reasonable and rational so do I. This is a Biblical principle that even God applies:

25 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;
26 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.

We are to be followers of God, right (Eph. 5:1) or is His example an improper example to follow? (Before any responds "but you are not God" let me assure you I never claimed that but I only claimed to FOLLOW God's example).

If I were guilty of what they are doing I could not speak but you know that I do not deal with OP's or objections in that manner. I deal with them straightforward, honest and many times too thorough for many to read, but I never respond to anyone's serious post by those tactics - never! However, with those who do respond this way, I simply spell out their little game as I did above and that is what gets me into trouble with the forum police.

 

If I did not address what you actually stated in your first point under #1 then what kind of response do you want. You admit that I did respond in a "long winded replies."

If you already AGREED TO what I said, it was not in the post I responded to. If you are refering to another post, then I admt, I did not see that post. I will look back and see if I can find it.