What is the difference?

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by npetreley:
QUOTE]Jesus said he would draw ALL to Himself. You want to put the word "mankind" in there, but it's not there. Others want to put the word "peoples" in there, but it's not there. The fact is, this verse is not explicit the way either side wants it to be.

On the contrary Nick, I think there are very good grounds for understanding this to mean men without distinction as opposed to men without exception.

At v.20 we se the entrance of foreign travellers from Greece, who are seeking after Christ (v.21).
The message gets passed on from Philip to Andrew and then to Jesus that these Gentiles are seeking Him.

Now remember the time at which this happened. This was the lowest point in Christ's earthly life. The covenant nation had rejected Him. In a few hours they would be baying for His blood and would gladly watch as He was crucified. But we see the entrance of these foreigners who were being drawn to Him. As we read the passage, it seems strange at first that Christ seems to make no response to them at all, until we read v.32, and realize that they were still very much on His mind.

To say "all must mean ALL mankind" simply shows that we have been treating God's word like a box full of disconnected verses instead of an intelligent narrative.

- Paul

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
On the contrary Nick, I think there are very good grounds for understanding this to mean men without distinction as opposed to men without exception.

At v.20 we se the entrance of foreign travellers from Greece, who are seeking after Christ (v.21).
The message gets passed on from Philip to Andrew and then to Jesus that these Gentiles are seeking Him.

Now remember the time at which this happened. This was the lowest point in Christ's earthly life. The covenant nation had rejected Him. In a few hours they would be baying for His blood and would gladly watch as He was crucified. But we see the entrance of these foreigners who were being drawn to Him. As we read the passage, it seems strange at first that Christ seems to make no response to them at all, until we read v.32, and realize that they were still very much on His mind.

To say "all must mean ALL mankind" simply shows that we have been treating God's word like a box full of disconnected verses instead of an intelligent narrative.

- Paul

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my intent. I meant the verse itself is not explicit. It doesn't say "all peoples" in the Greek or "all men" in the Greek.

I agree 100% with your analysis of the context, though. That's the same problem Arminians have with 2 Peter 3:9 - they fail to look at the context of the verse containing "any" in order to answer the question "any of whom?"

I particularly like your description "treating God's word like a box full of disconnected verses instead of an intelligent narrative". Well put.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Skandelon said
Ian, it says "IN CHRIST" which qualifies the "all" in this verse.

OK, try these then, Rom.5: 18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

I actually don't have a real problem with the posslbility of the interpretation that "all" could mean "all" kinds, or whatever. I'm just pointing out the possiblities.

In Romans 5 you will notice that it says the "FREE GIFT CAME TO ALL MEN," but it never says that all men recieve the gift. A gift could come to someone without their receiving its benefits. It results in justification, but only for those who receive it.