The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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



I know what propitiation is without reading any article on it. The word propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement, or satisfaction, specifically towards God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to him. 1John 2.2 " And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” An important part of Christ’s saving work includes deliverance from God’s wrath that the unbelieving sinner is under, because Jesus’ atonement on the cross is the only thing that can turn away God’s divine wrath.


I agree with this, and with the rest of what you wrote, BUT I’d also say that until one understands a passage in it’s context, it’s a bad idea to go galavanting around scripture dropping meanings on it.




sigh. :unamused:


I would think that being from a pentecostal background you would be well versed in typologies. Those of such persuasion often tend to see the relevance of the feasts and passover and many other types in scripture.

I’m wondering how it is that you do not realize that John 3 is key to John 12:
As (S)Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must (T)the Son of Man (U)be lifted up;

Looking back at the event, Moses lifted up the sign of sin over Isreal and all who were drawn to it (looked upon it) would not die.

**My point being that just as the serepent being raised over Isreal was drawing people for salvation so it was that Christ raised over Isreal was DRAWING PEOPLEfor salvation. **

I even color coded it for you :slight_smile:
If you do not see this correlation then I’m wondering on what grounds you see passover? Pentecost? Ark of the Covenant? On and on and on…



So Christ didn’t draw all of God’s wrath on the cross - there’s sooooooooooooo much more wrath for soooooooo many people. Honestly, at this point, I’m not sure you understand what you arguing for…


No, that is not correct. Punishment is not wrath. Wrath is wrath. Punishment has a purpose, Jason. Even among his creatures. I realize that both you and BA come from the same background and speak the same language, but really, defend my position accurately or don’t try to defend or describe it at all. (Your exclamation point was noted.)

Frankly, it’s telling how you continue to confuse the two. I find very few direct statements from you (the sign of solid theology) in determining where you stand. Quantity is not quality. That’s not to say I don’t love and appreciate you - but I think your upbringing forces you into positions that are unsupportable without some major league tap dancing on your part. You are good at it.

Some of the direct questions one could ask of any theologian require only a yes or no answer to get a bearing on where that particular theologian stands. So let me ask of both you and your compatriot (BA) - yes or no:

Did Christ redeem mankind?

Your yes or no answer goes here: ___

I’m betting that you or BA cannot answer with a direct ‘yes’ or ‘no’. My bet is that you both squirm, shuffle and tap dance around the question. Prove me wrong.


Jason, I noted in passing your comment on my “rude” reply to BA/Aaron37 about “pantas.”

You’re quite right. I was rude. (I think that was the toking refer comment or his giving new depth to the meaning of the word shallow, or both!)

My bad. I have run out of patience with Aaron37 and let it affect my decorum on the site. My apologies to everyone, Aaron37 included, for kicking the furniture over. I think there are a lot of people on Aaron’s level, i.e., who don’t appreciate all the textual/linguistic/cultural issues that go into reading and interpreting the Scripture in responsible and mature ways. That in itself is nothing to criticize. People can learn if they humbly want to and then put forward the effort. I’d be rude all over again if I said I know that Aaron37 doesn’t possess this desire or readiness to learn. But it sure SEEMS to me that he’s not interested in learning. He SAYS “Show me where I’m wrong” and that LOOKS like open-mindedness, but in truth he’s not prepared to countenance (i.e., he can’t imagine) being wrong about this.

This conversation is not about the text or its grammar in spite of his saying it is. I mean, Jason, what open-minded individual who was sincere (I have to be careful not to be rude) in saying “Hey, show me where I’m wrong” could have any reason to doubt the meaning of “pantas” after your very thorough explanation? But everything you said was essentially i-g-n-o-r-e-d. It was ignored because Aaron37 can’t imagine a possible world in which he’s wrong about “all.” So evidence that works against his view doesn’t have to be ‘thought’ through r-e-a-s-o-n-a-b-l-y. It can be dismissed and one can go back to just pontificating, which is Aaron37’s MO (more rudeness, sorry).

Everyone can be grateful that the choice is not mine I suppose, but it seems to me that once someone has conclusively demonstrated that pontificating is his MO (that’s the important part), no respectful public forum would want to continue extending membership privileges to that person. But that’s just me.

I could be wrong of course about this being Aaron37’s MO. I’m just sharing my gut-level feelings here. And again, I do apologize to everyone, Aaron37 included, for being rude and for my part in bringing the quality of posts down. That’s not my MO either.

Hugs all around,


And no, Aaron37, I’m not unblocking you, so you can save yourself the effort of a reply. But I did want to apologize for my part in bringing down the quality of the board.



I had not realised from your posts that you made a distinction here.

Are you sayng that ‘wrath’ does not have a purpose? How exactly would you define “wrath”?

Perhaps this should be a new topic?



Yeah I was wondering that same thing myself. :slight_smile: I always kinda assumed that God’s wrath and divine punishment were basically synonymous (or at least inseparable), with God’s “wrath” referring to his disapproval of sin manifested in temporal judgments (or punishment) upon the guilty (e.g., Ex 22:24; 32:10; Num 16:46; Deut 29:23, 28; 2 Kings 22:17; Job 14:13; Isaiah 9:19; 13:9; Jer 7:20; 42:18; 44:6; Eze 9:8; 21:31; 22:20). This idea seems to be expressed in Romans 13:1-5 as well.



Yes. But your question is not a simple yes or no answer. Let me explain. Redemption is a process. There are steps in Redemption. In the mind of God it is not Christ who hung on the Cross, but it is the human race. God has redeemed man completely from every result of Adam’s treason through Jesus. Jesus paid man’s penalty. The judgment that was man’s fell upon Jesus.

God has done his part. Now man has to do his part to believe and receive it.( John 1:12) Let me explain. Being forgiven from sin is not enough.Your spirit must change from death to life. You must be born again. You have to be born again or regenerated in your spirit to be spiritually alive. There has to be a transformation of your spirit and that only comes by believing and receiving what Jesus did for you on the Cross. You go from spiritual death to spiritual life when you believe and receive Jesus’ finished work on the cross. ( John 5:24; 1 John 3:14) Once you are born again you have the eternal life Jesus died for you to have. Once you have eternal life the only step left is receiving your glorified body at the resurrection.

Btw, if you reject Jesus you die spiritually dead and go to hell.



I agree. God’s wrath is in his judgment. They are not separate.The wrath of God is simply his intense anger in judgment of sin.



I don’t deny the principle of Christ’s crucifixion drawing people for salvation. John 12:31-33 in context I believe was teaching the judgment that was due to the world fell upon Jesus by crucifixion. Not drawing all men to himself.


The difference should evident - wrath is destructive, punishment is constructive in their purposes.

Christ did not say that EVERYONE would be salted with wrath.

As a universalist, I don’t believe that men redeem themselves EVER or by any means that they can dream up - including believing this or that. We (humanity) go through corrective (constructive) fire because we ARE redeemed. His fire is the universal experience of the redeemed. Who did He redeem? “EVERYONE will be salted with fire.”

And the purpose of that fire that He salts us and everyone else with is_______________?

A thread on this would be fun.


So Christ didn’t actually redeem anyone at the Cross. That belief (or is it disbelief?) is a requirement in your gospel. It’s a strange gospel that requires unbelief.

But faith has nothing to do with redemption. Just as faith has nothing to do with the resurrection. It doesn’t matter if one believes it or not - both are true for all mankind. In other words, one doesn’t have to believe in the resurrection to BE resurrected. The same is true of one’s redemption.

So the Gospel approaches an unbeliever, a pagan, a nasty sinner with the Truth (not more religion): “You ARE redeemed. Believe it.” If neither the messenger nor the hearer believe it - it’s still possible that another proselyte may be made - which is the goal of religion.

Can other gospels be said to advance His kingdom? I wonder. Especially when His kingdom began advancing with this message: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” …and religion piles them back on.

A simple YES is much easier to defend regarding redemption - let the others perform their little tap dance.

We should probably take this to a new thread sometime soon.


Since you don’t believe that Christ redeemed all men, you’re certainly not going to believe that he draws all men.


I don’t deny the principle of Christ’s crucifixion drawing people for salvation. John 12:31-33 in context I believe was teaching the judgment that was due to the world fell upon Jesus by crucifixion. Not drawing all men to himself.

I think everyone understands what you are saying. What you are denying (at least it seems to me) is the parallel that the DRAWING of the sin lifted over Isreal is the EXACT DRAWING of Jesus who is lifted up. You seem to see that the “draw all” unto himself is God’s punishment of an innocent man.

I’m trying to get why you think that the “drawing” in the first is not that of the second. The first is DEF. the drawing of bitten Isrealites to live. As I understand you the second IS not the drawing of MEN that they might live.




you said: You seem to see that the “draw all” unto himself is God’s punishment of an innocent man.

Aaron37: That is exactly what the bible is saying. 1 Cor 5:21 " He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."


Well it’s a bit of a digression so I wont bother with Justice acting unjust.

My point about the typology is that the drawing Isreal to the serpent raised over Isreal is the EXACT same as Christ Drawing Isreal the himself. The drawing is not the punishment placed upon him, but the dragging…

So the drawing/dragging seems to me to perfectly fit with the drawing/dragging done with the serpent over Isreal.



[size=150]Taken from the Timothy Keller thread in Discussion Negative[/size]

Actually it’s simply does not follow. answering “balance of grace and faith” does not address the issue at all. Trying to keep yourself from such a claim cannot be solved by saying “I know the balance”. Actually LFW knows no balance at all. It manufactures the doctrine of Preveneint grace in order to avoid the absolue gambling charges made against it.

No one I’ve ever read agrees with you here. We all read your attempt to show that it’s the judgement but as I pointed out to you in the VERY scripture Jesus alludes to (The serpent being raised over Isreal), it was not about the punishment the serpent took upon itself but RATHER that all bitten and infected Isrealites would be drawn to look upon the one raised over Isreal. EXCETPT this time it’s not just for Isreal IT"S FOR ALL!

You seem to wnat to now say that the drawing of ALL men to look upon the cross is not in the Scriptures but what is there is Moses beating the hell out of the bronze snake while he raised it up??? That is no where in the text.

If you’re going to prove that God did an unjust act of punishing a innocent man then heres what you’ll have to provide:

  1. When does God ever act unjust by doing injustice to a innocent man
  2. The serpent raised over Isreal was not for the bitten Isrealites to look upon.
  3. If all of sin was paid for then why would someone have to pay it again? I dont’ get penal substitution on this point.

Answer those three questions and you’ll at least have my attention on your interpretation.