Does "all" in John 12:32 refer to drawing all God's wrath?



Revelation knowledge of the scriptures is an awesome thing. I believe we were wrong of our interpretation of John 12:32. Here’s why…The word “men” was added by the translators to try to help us understand the passage better.( mistake). The word “men” was not in the original manuscripts. Here is what the verse looks like without “men” being added:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.

John 12:32: This verse has been spiritualized to say that Jesus’ death will draw all men unto Himself. This verse taken in context is talking about the type of death that Jesus would die (v. 33). The lifting up is speaking of being lifted up from the earth and suspended on a cross in crucifixion. The Jews understood that Jesus was speaking of death (v. 34).

This is a very clear reference to Jesus being crucified and reveals the extent to which Jesus knew His Father’s will. In John 18:32, John says that the reason the Romans were involved in the death of Jesus was because of this prophecy about the method of His execution. Crucifixion was the Roman style of execution.

Take a look at verse 31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 12:31: This verse is referring to the fact that the sins of the world were about to be placed on Jesus and He would suffer our punishment and take upon himself the full wrath of God for our sins.

Conclusion: If we read these verses in context ( without the added word “men”) it is teaching us that Jesus would take upon himself the full wrath of God by crucifixion. It has nothing to do with drawing all “men” to the cross.

11 Reasons Why I'm not an Evangelical Universalist
I'm leaving.... but...


And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. KJV

Notice the brackets around [men]. This is to show us that word was added by the translators. Not in the original manuscripts.

and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me. Darby translation.

The Darby translation is the only one that translated it the correct way.


We sense your excitement. But it’s best to understand your opposition before stating your argument - be as critical of your own argument as you are of your opponent’s. Look for obvious holes - and either fill them before the attack or discard them as useless assertions.

Useless 1: “Not in the original manuscripts” Really? You don’t know that, nor can you know that.

Useless 2: “The Darby translation is the only one…” That’s a huge red flag that the translation is missing the mark or done in a way to fit his agenda, personal beliefs, etc. of an individual without scholars or other experts to correct him. I wouldn’t trust Darby to translate a phone book.

Useless 3: ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.’ You did not compare your assertion with other verses - in this case, the same author in the same Gospel using the same word to mean drawing men.

Your argument is shot down…you are still not doing the hard work of research and study. ‘Revelation knowledge’ is what lazy people rely on.

If you come back and say ‘the Holy Spirit revealed this to me’ I won’t have the least problem NOT believing that it was the Holy Spirit. You’re LAZY.



Look for yourself…you will not find the word “men” in the Greek manuscripts. Is it possible to respectively show me where in John 12:31-33 where you think I’m wrong? Thanks.


Another useless, lazy assertion. Get back to us in 10 years after studying ancient Greek and traveling the world to see these manuscripts - or quote some SCHOLARS after doing some hard research.

You want respect? Then don’t lie to us! You lied when you said the word was not in the original manuscripts. It’s an obvious lie and I have never accused anyone of doing that here before - but you deserve it.

Your ‘revelations’ are not an excuse to LIE.



Here you go: I have attached below the manuscript.



speaking as someone who has been on the receiving end of your ire, because I was super-detailed in my Greek exegesis: you’re the one speaking too hastily here.

BAaron is correct: the word ‘men’ does not appear in an manuscript (or appears so rarely in manuscripts so late in other languages–like for example English :mrgreen: – that it isn’t worth anything in trying to assess the autographic form). When I look up commentary from people who HAVE spent lifetimes traveling the globe studying Greek manuscripts, this is what they say, too.

There are other ways to answer this argument, which is certainly a much better attempt than what BAaron has been in the habit of trying. You hinted at some of those yourself; and people have started doing so in another thread, the comments to which I will be soon migrating here (before adding my own).

Keep in mind though, BAaron, that there is no telling how many people have currently put you on their ignore list, so if you don’t get much response…

(Note: I don’t like calling people by an alphanumeric nom de plume unless there’s a nifty reason why the number is important; and I strenously doubt that “Aaron37” is actually your real name (with the “37” as part of it). So since you were once registered as “Born Again”, I’ve combined BA with Aaron to distinguish you from the other Aaron. Also, I think it sounds kind of cool. :slight_smile: )


Well, I can’t migrate comments from one thread to another (I forgot about that), so for consolidation here are the relevant posts from that other thread (so far):

I don’t intend to do the work of other posters for them; so just be aware that there is a parallel conversation going on about this topic in this thread here.



Please call me Aaron37 or Born again, not BAaron. I welcome all who respectively can show where I’m wrong. Ran is a perfect example of some of the arrogant, rude behavior that has been displayed against me. You would personally ban me for some of the things that has come out of his and others mouth. Anyway, I look forward to respectful rebuttals.


Thanks Jason! Those comments did belong here I guess.

I’m losing it.

Jason: Keep in mind though, BAaron, that there is no telling how many people have currently put you on their ignore list, so if you don’t get much response…

Tom: Is it working then? Great.

Bye-bye Baron.



I’m sticking by my guns on this one. I’ll give you another example: over and over again, people have given him thoughtful responses to his posts and his standard (repeated) reply is that they haven’t addressed or answered his argument - and completely ignores their response. (That’s lying - because they have answered him. He may be lying to himself - but it’s for all to see.) Fine. We could call it denseness - but what would he learn from that label?

I see Tom is getting suckered into the merry-go-round. Wheeeeeeeee! Have fun.



Respectively rebut where I’m wrong in John 12:31-33 and we will figure it out together.


Actually, we wouldn’t. But it would add to your being near a ban; just as it adds to his.

Do you mind “BA”?–I didn’t and don’t mean BAaron as being derisive (as I said, I thought it sounded like a cool way to consolidate both nom de plumes), and I don’t understand why you would be specifically attached to Aaron37 per se. Have you explained somewhere what’s important to you about the “37” and I missed it?

I mean “Born Again” by “BA”, by the way. It just saves me a little time from typing it out (as with any abbreviation, like J for Jason).



37 is my age. Aaron37 would be just fine.


I tried that already. Your argument has been trashed, but you won’t deal with the trashing. Instead, you come back with these bs posts (as above) as if nothing has happened. I tried ‘respectful’ with you - you ignore’ respectful.


I didn’t say you shouldn’t. I said you answered too hastily yourself. Tom’s reply, overall, was better.

I think I can say with some assurity that I am aware of his previous behavior on this. :wink:

I can also say with utmost surety that he isn’t the only person in this thread who has done such a thing. By which I mean, he is not the only person in this thread whom I have answered in thoughtful detail only to have that person come back with shallow repetitions and even total thematic revision of what I have said while completely ignoring the details I went to a lot of trouble to provide (including for rebuttal purposes where that might be appropriate)–and even complaining about me answering in detail.

But, be that as it may. If you don’t want to give him a thoughtful detailed reply, then don’t give him any reply. Or give him a shallow snarky one, but don’t be surprised if admin/mods lose patience with all people lowering the quality of discussion on this site and take action accordingly. Sauce for the goose will be sauce for the gander.


I don’t deny that! I’ve gotten ticked. But you are making a BIG mistake by humoring him. He can play the ‘innocent martyr for truth’ to the hilt. He knows exactly what he’s doing and getting exactly the reaction he wants. He’s 37 for pete’s sake! I honestly thought he was more like 17 years of age. That’s one hell of a bubble he’s been living in. We’re getting played here…


So, first the text critical details:

The early date and spread of {panta} (‘all’ generally) is actually about equivalent to the early date and spread of {pantas} (‘all persons’ as the difference is usually understood in Biblical Greek). Metzger admits as much in his textual commentary for the 4th edition of the UBS Greek Testament (which at this time is still the latest revision). The editorial committee, which weighs in a very wide and broad poll of rationales on text-critical topics from all across professional NT scholarship, decided to weigh {pantas} a ‘B’ on what amounts to grounds of internal coherency with Johannine usage elsewhere in the text; even though Metzger also admits that it is entirely possible (and even just as probable than otherwise) that scribes amended an original {panta} to {pantas} thinking it was an earlier transcription error for exactly the same reason.

He also, notably, admits that part of the board’s rationale was that an original {pantas} might have been changed early and widely to {panta} due to a proportionately widescale and early belief in a cosmic reconciliation!–more particularly, scribes may have been conforming the verse to the usage in Col 1:16-17. This of course would weigh quite the other direction insofar as a belief about this in GosJohn could be established on other grounds!

As it happens, even though I do think a belief in universal reconciliation can be evidenced or adduced from GosJohn, I tend to agree with the UBS board that {pantas} makes better sense in relation to other Johannine statements. (More on this later.) But then again, I don’t really consider an original {pantas} in this sentence to count against universal reconciliation of all sinners, either–much the contrary. (More on that later, too.)

(Incidentally, it’s amusing for me to watch Metzger and/or the board groping for some reason to get away from having to tacitly admit early and widespread UR tendencies, by appealing instead to the possibility that {pantas} was changed to {panta} thanks to “Gnostic speculation”. True, the spiritually elite secretive and exclusionary Gnostic groups wouldn’t want a verse to read that all persons would be drawn to Christ; and might on the other hand be comfortable with the notion that all creation will be resolved back into God, undoing the tragic ‘fall’ of creation at all in the sense of several Eastern religions and philosophies–which {panta} might on the surface be read to mean. But that these avowed secretive and minimal-initiate groups would be substantially responsible for such a widespread and early alteration across many public familes of GosJohn copies, especially at a time when the authorities responsible for making public copies were constantly isolating Gnostic groups even further, is proportionately improbable.)

The upshot is that I’m good to go either way, {pantas} or {panta}, on external text-critical criteria (which is about even either way). I’ll show later why I think {pantas} might be the better choice contextually with other key portions of GosJohn (i.e. on internal criteria). But for now, I want to point out (a) it is not in fact externally secure which word was originally used; and (b)the word ‘man’ is not in fact explcitly used in the Greek text.

This other fact, that the word ‘man’ (or ‘person’, anthropos) is not explicitly used in the Greek text, doesn’t necessarily mean translators are wrong to include ‘men’ or ‘persons’ in the English translations. As Tom (TGB) has correctly said, if {pantas} was original, then the implication would colloquially be “all persons” compared to {panta}. There might be other grounds for ignoring the personal quality of the word, but those would need establishing. Alternately, a translator might choose a more general ‘all’ (as if panta not pantas–assuming the translator goes with pantas of course!) in order to leave open interpretative possibilities based on context. But then, those would have to be established, too, on good grounds, rather than only staying with a more indistinct meaning.

You suggested (or rather declared by revelation or something) that {pantas} (the masculine plural term) must refer to judgment, such that the meaning of 12:32 would be that if Christ is ever raised up He would be drawing all judgment of the Father onto Himself.

Actually, there are several universalists on the board (RanRan himself being one of them, if I recall correctly) who would agree that Christ has suffered all punishment from the Father upon Himself–and therefore there will be none for anyone else! i.e., there are universalists who appeal to this idea precisely as a main ground for their universalism. For myself, I think the notion runs against any coherent trinitarian theism, among several other problems (including proper textual attestation). But in any case the grammar couldn’t mean that here: as Tom has (again) pointed out (though very rudely so), the masculine plural {pantas} doesn’t remotely fit the singular feminine {krisis}! The plural neutal {panta} wouldn’t fit much better, either.

One could, strictly speaking, appeal to bad grammar as the explanation; but the strength in favor of the idea otherwise would have to be very strong, and such a defense would not be based on the actual data but only offered as an explanation despite the data. (If an argument from bad grammar could be made on the basis of an underlying Aramaism being retained, especially since Jesus is speaking here by report, that would be stronger–at least by being an argument from bad grammar, even if only hypothetically so, instead of an argument that the grammar must be bad there. But to say the least, you haven’t made that argument yet. :wink: )

Another issue, though perhaps relatively minor, is that (as has often been noted) the verb {helkuso} has the connotation of dragging, a rather stronger term than drawing. This would fit universalistic arguments elsewhere to the effect that scriptures indicate the final reconciliation won’t be easily done for some people but requires extreme effort by God (including in and as Christ). I am not aware of any non-universalist anywhere, though, who would even argue in principle (much less from scriptural testimony) that the Son had to drag the Father’s punishment from Him with maximal effort on the Son’s part! Perhaps you would care to be the first in my experience to do so? (That would be an interesting strategy and tactical set, at least. :mrgreen: )

Of much more importance, as some respondents have already mentioned (though rudely and not in as much detail as they could have done), the verse should be compared to very similar statements by Christ (and/or the Evangelist in inspired commentary) in GosJohn, where possible, as these may help clarify the meaning of what is being said.

So for example, John 3:14 seems to be about the Son of Man being lifted up like Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so that all might look upon Him and so come to faith in Him. It doesn’t seem to be about Christ being lifted up so that He could thus draw all the Father’s judgment (or crisis) upon Himself. On the contrary, that very term {krisis} is mentioned (either by Jesus or by the Evangelist in commentary) not long afterward in verse 19. And it has less than nothing to do with punishment coming from the Father upon the Son (for whatever reason). Rather, “this is the crisis!–that the light (i.e. Jesus, as in GosJohn 1) has come into the world, and persons love the darkness rather than the light, for their acts were wicked. For everone who is committing sins is hating the light and is not coming toward the light, lest his acts may be exposed. Yet he who is doing the truth is coming toward the light that his acts may be made manifest, for they have been wrought in God.”

This admittedly talks about the choice of sinners to refuse salvation; God’s side of things is to enlighten them in order to lead them to salvation. And that this is evident even in the judging of Christ (as testified to elsewhere), is maintained in GosJohn by the declaration on the one hand that Christ shall be the judge of sinners, yet on the other hand Christ somehow does not judge and did not come into the world to be judging the world but rather to save it. The theological tension can be resolved along this line: that the judgment of Christ is not for its own purpose apart from (or antithetical to) the salvation by Christ, but rather is subordinate to the action of salvation of sinners by Christ.

Relatedly, at John 6:44, what is being “dragged” or drawn to Christ (by the Father this time) is not punishment upon Christ but persons. Which persons?–what is the extent? “All” {pan} that the Father has given to Him; these shall come to Him, and He shall lose none of them but rather shall raise them on the Last Day, nor shall He cast aside anyone who comes to Him. (Which, I would say, is basically the point and the hope expressed in RevJohn 22, with lead-ins from 21, after the lake of fire judgment. But I offer that for illustrative comparison, not as weight for this exegetical reading. Besides which the interpretation of Rev 22 in light of preceding chapters is a whole other huge discussion. :slight_smile: )

Interestingly, the promise of John 6:44 and 12:32 may itself be a callback to Jeremiah 31, where after being wholly destroyed by the Lord’s chastisement unto utter death (15) rebel Israel (or Ephraim, in reference to Absalom the rebel son of David; also “the faithless daughter”) repents, returns and is restored (16-22). Verse 3, which prefigures this, prophecies the Lord appearing to Israel–probably first to loyal Israel here, i.e. those who have survived in v.2–saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.” But the whole point to that chapter as a whole, is that God is not saying this only to loyal Israel but also manifestly disloyal Israel over whom loyal Israel (Rachel) weeps. God’s consolation of her hopeless unconsolability is precisely that He has not forgotten her destroyed rebel children, but is in the process of saving them, too!

At any rate, internal evidence shows there would be good reason to consider {pantas} original at John 12:32 (since in similar places elsewhere in GosJohn Jesus and/or the Evangelist is talking about persons) or to consider {panta} original (since in those places, when ‘all’ is mentioned it is emphatically stronger than {pantas}.) Whereas, there has not yet been presented any coherent internal evidence that {pantas}/{panta} refers to {krisis} – on the contrary, the grammatic evidence is strongly against it.

Still, it was a better try than some other things you’ve done since arriving here, Aaron37, and I appreciate the attempt. :slight_smile: I wish the countercritiques had been less hostile (to start with anyway).



Well, if you would just ignore him, then it would be only MY mistake to humor him, wouldn’t it? :slight_smile:

What I’m most worried about, is that he thinks he has been given a special revelation from God about the meaning of the verse, and that he’s willing to appeal to details so long as that fits his revelation but if it’s shown that the details don’t in fact fit that meaning very well (or at all)–then, well, he had a special revelation about the meaning of the verse. So there: the critique must be wrong no matter what.

I don’t like disrespecting claims of special revelation, because I do believe God leads us to better understand truth. But the field for self-deception can also be quite high. Also, there’s revelation and there’s revelation–revelation isn’t always for the purposes first expected; and I think even Aaron37 would agree that there are revelations which come from somewhere other than God. He may consider himself intrinsically immune from such things, but I don’t consider myself specially immune to such things–I ‘test the spirits’ soberly whenever I get an idea. The idea doesn’t always pan out on closer examination. Not a problem, since I don’t consider myself inerrant (and/or infallible) in the first place. :slight_smile: I incorporate the correction, make adjustments where necessary, and move along.


Hey, I started out being nice - even giving him pointers on testing his ideas before posting. I’ll be nice - I don’t have to ignore him to do that - but I won’t let him play me again. Besides, you’re being a much better role model… :smiley: