Romans 3:23, is "All" an absolute?

Strong in Him said:

Eve was tempted - Adam chose to disobey.
Eve was not given a command directly by God; Adam was.

Click to expand...

This is implying that the one law only pertained to Adam. This is not correct. Though God gave Adam His command directly, this law was given to Eve as well. For example, God gave the 10 commandments directly to Moses however, all of Isreal was under that same law. Be blessed.

Maria Billingsley said:

This is implying that the one law only pertained to Adam. This is not correct. Though God gave Adam His command directly, this law was given to Eve as well. For example, God gave the 10 commandments directly to Moses however, all of Isreal was under that same law. Be blessed.

Click to expand...

I never said that it didn't apply to Eve. But she did not hear the command from God for herself. At least, she could have done but if so, it wasn't important enough to record it.
Which means she can only have heard about it from Adam - and she can't have heard correctly, because when the serpent said "DID God say .....?" she repeated it incorrectly.

That's what I meant.
Eve got God's command second hand; Adam knew what God had said and what God wanted, and chose to disobey.

Strong in Him said:

I never said that it didn't apply to Eve. But she did not hear the command from God for herself. At least, she could have done but if so, it wasn't important enough to record it.
Which means she can only have heard about it from Adam - and she can't have heard correctly, because when the serpent said "DID God say .....?" she repeated it incorrectly.

That's what I meant.
Eve got God's command second hand; Adam knew what God had said and what God wanted, and chose to disobey.

Click to expand...

You will need to quote where Eve repeated God's law incorrectly, I am not seeing that. Thanks !

Fidelibus said:

I have been contemplating starting a thread for a while now on this Scripture passage. Conversing with a couple other posters recently on a different thread about this very topic decided my reason for doing so. My reason being is, when it comes to the belief of Catholics like myself, and our belief and defense of the sinlessness of The Blessed Virgin Mary, most non- Catholics Protestants, post Romans 3:23 (Among a couple others) immediately saying "No, Mary was not sinless, for it says right here in Romans 3:23, (KJV version) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." When pressed on it, the result is pretty much unanimous among Sola Scripturist/Bible only believers. That being, yes...... when this passage says 'all' in Scripture, it absolutely means 'all' have sinned, yes 'all' is an absolute, without question, all means all!

So,,,, I am putting the question out there to my fellow Catholics and our Protestant, Bible only believing brethren ...... Is the word 'All" in Romans 3:23 an absolute, does 'ALL' absolutely mean "ALL"? I say no....... 'all' in Romans is not an absolute.
Looking forward to all (no pun intended he-he) responses.

Have a Blessed Day

Click to expand...

Three options:

(1)
In the broader context, Paul in Romans 1 proves the group 'Gentile' are sinners then in Romans 2 proves 'Jew' are sinners therefore Paul proves ALL (both groups Jew & Gentile) are sinners. Nowhere in the context is Paul speaking of specific individual but groups. Back at that time, they saw all mankind in one of two groups, you were either a Jew or non-Jew therefore Jew and Gentile made up ALL mankind. So when Gentiles sinned (Rom 1) and Jews sinned (Rom 2) then ALL have sinned.

This would be like Joel's use of 'all'......"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;...." Joel 2:28. This use of all here cannot e ued in an absolute, unrestricted sense for the SPirit is not pured out upon each and every person nor upon animals which have flesh. The fulfillment of this prophecy of Joel begain in Acts of the Apostles 2 when the Holy spirt fell upon the Aostles to which Peter says of that event "But this (HS falling upon Apostles) is that (Joel's prophecy) which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" The Holy Spirit fell upon the Apostles in Acts 2 and the Aposltes were Jews. The Holy Spirit then later fell upon Cornelius a Gentile, therefore Joel's prophecy fulfilled with the HS falling up ALL (Jew & Gentile) flesh.

(2)
Romans 4:15
1 John 3:4
Romans 7:8-9

From the above verses, the way the Bible defines sin is there must be a law that exists (Romans 4:15) that law then must be transgressed (1 John 3:4) by an accountable person (Romans 7:8-9). Therefore when Paul say ALL have sinned then he is referring to those who are of accountable age and have chosen to sin. Christ could have sinned but chose not to. Infants and those boen with severe mental disabilities are not accountable, sin is dead to them (Romans 7:8-9). The language Paul uses in Romans 3:10-18 does not describe Christ nor infants (infants cannot use their tongues for deceit, curse or have feet swift to shed blood, etc.
"For all have sinned" with 'have sinned' showing personal culpability in sinning.

(3)
https://www.inthebeginning.org/newtestament/romans/allhavesinned.pdf

22 - Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 - Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

The above link (a bit of a technical read) seems to take the following approach to Rom 3:23:

The 'for' of v23 is an explanatory preposition giving further explanation to v22. The "all" of v22 refers to believers. Therefore the antecedent of "all" of v23 is the "all" of v22 which is believers. And it is ALL these believers to whom v24 refers to being justified. Therefore the "all" of v23 refers to believers who are being justified. Paul then would be informing all believers (with no distinction between Jew or Gentile) who are being justified that they were once sinners themselves.


(I'm neither Protestant or Catholic)

Maria Billingsley said:

You will need to quote where Eve repeated God's law incorrectly, I am not seeing that. Thanks !

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:16-17
Genesis 3:3.
Eve added the words "and you must not touch it". She also specified that the tree was in the middle of the garden, whereas God had said "the tree of good and evil."

Strong in Him said:

Genesis 2:16-17
Genesis 3:3.
Eve added the words "and you must not touch it". She also specified that the tree was in the middle of the garden, whereas God had said "the tree of good and evil."

Click to expand...

Not to touch only reiterates God's law as being more binding. As far as location, Adam pointed out exactly where the tree was located. All helpful and direct.

Butterball1 said:

https://www.inthebeginning.org/newtestament/romans/allhavesinned.pdf

Click to expand...

Good info. Thanks for the post. A few observations:

- I agree that "all" in Romans 3:23 is specifically tied grammatically and in context to what William Ramey says in the linked article. FWIW, I've subscribed to his diagrams for quite some time and have asked him grammatically based questions on one or more occasions. For language oriented students, his ministry is pure gold IMO.

- With that said, there seems clearly to be an implication built into Paul's lesson. If all who believe have sinned, then have not all who have not believed also sinned? It cannot be that only all who have believed have sinned, even though this is specifically what Paul is discussing. Christ seems a very well documented and understood exclusion, especially since He was not born in Adam. Children being born in Adam into universal sin and death also doesn't seem that complex.

Butterball1 said:

From the above verses, the way the Bible defines sin is there must be a law that exists

Click to expand...

And this is always one for discussion about God's Law. Most who study His Law see clear implications of it being in place before God wrote on stone and Moses codified it. God is talking to Cain about sin in Genesis 4:7, and:

"because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:5 NKJ)

RE: Adam:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12 NKJ)

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification." (Romans 5:16 NKJ)

Maria Billingsley said:

Not to touch only reiterates God's law as being more binding. As far as location, Adam pointed out exactly where the tree was located. All helpful and direct.

Click to expand...

No, the words "and do not touch it" were not said by God to Adam.
I am certain that the serpent approached Eve because it knew that Eve had not heard God's word for herself and so could be persuaded to doubt it. We don't doubt something that we KNOW to be true.
Paul says that sin came into the world through Adam. Adam had received God's word and command, knew that it was from God and knew it to be true - yet he disobeyed it. I think, myself, that Adam took God's words " you will die" to be literal and immediate - and when he saw that Eve didn't die physically after eating the fruit, he went ahead himself.

Either way; Eve was deceived; Adam wilfully disobeyed.

GDL said:

Good info. Thanks for the post. A few observations:

- I agree that "all" in Romans 3:23 is specifically tied grammatically and in context to what William Ramey says in the linked article. FWIW, I've subscribed to his diagrams for quite some time and have asked him grammatically based questions on one or more occasions. For language oriented students, his ministry is pure gold IMO.

- With that said, there seems clearly to be an implication built into Paul's lesson. If all who believe have sinned, then have not all who have not believed also sinned? It cannot be that only all who have believed have sinned, even though this is specifically what Paul is discussing. Christ seems a very well documented and understood exclusion, especially since He was not born in Adam. Children being born in Adam into universal sin and death also doesn't seem that complex.



And this is always one for discussion about God's Law. Most who study His Law see clear implications of it being in place before God wrote on stone and Moses codified it. God is talking to Cain about sin in Genesis 4:7, and:

"because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:5 NKJ)

RE: Adam:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12 NKJ)

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification." (Romans 5:16 NKJ)

Click to expand...

Hi,

I do not necessarily agree with option 3 but I put it out there. How do we get from the context as to who are those that v24 speaks about that are being justified? Are the ones being justified the ALL of v23? The ALL of v22? Do both ALLs of v22 and 23 refer to the same people?

From the context of Romans chapters 1-3 Paul is proving both groups Jews and Gentiles are sinners "without distinction". In Romans 3 Paul turns his attention specifically to the group Jew (Romans 3:1-2) showing they were not better than the Gentile (Romans 3:9) as they tho't they were. It COULD be in Rom 3:22-24 Paul is proving to the believing Jews they were once sinners just the Gentiles therefore ALL (both groups Jew and Gentile) are sinners "without distinction".
Again, just speculation on my part on option 3.

Strong in Him said:

No, the words "and do not touch it" were not said by God to Adam.
I am certain that the serpent approached Eve because it knew that Eve had not heard God's word for herself and so could be persuaded to doubt it. We don't doubt something that we KNOW to be true.
Paul says that sin came into the world through Adam. Adam had received God's word and command, knew that it was from God and knew it to be true - yet he disobeyed it. I think, myself, that Adam took God's words " you will die" to be literal and immediate - and when he saw that Eve didn't die physically after eating the fruit, he went ahead himself.

Either way; Eve was deceived; Adam wilfully disobeyed.

Click to expand...

So Eve sinned before eating of the tree? She doubted as well as extened God's law into legalism?This is a sin. This analogy creates a conundrum.

Maria Billingsley said:

So Eve sinned before eating of the tree? She doubted

Click to expand...

No; the serpent made her doubt that she had heard/understood God's word correctly.
Doubting is not a sin.

Maria Billingsley said:

as well as extened God's law into legalism.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that?

Maria Billingsley said:

This is a sin.

Click to expand...

The sin was that she ate the fruit. She could have questioned the serpent, she could have asked Adam what God had said - as he was with her, Genesis 3:6.
She did neither; she saw that the fruit was good, and ate. Then she gave some to Adam, who knew what God had said, and he ate too.

Maria Billingsley said:

This analogy creates a conundrum.

Click to expand...

It's not an analogy; it's what happened - Read Genesis 2 and 3.

Strong in Him said:

No; the serpent made her doubt that she had heard/understood God's word correctly.
Doubting is not a sin.



What do you mean by that?



The sin was that she ate the fruit. She could have questioned the serpent, she could have asked Adam what God had said - as he was with her, Genesis 3:6.
She did neither; she saw that the fruit was good, and ate. Then she gave some to Adam, who knew what God had said, and he ate too.



It's not an analogy; it's what happened - Read Genesis 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

What I mean is , if Eve "added" to God's law by claiming that she could not touch it that would mean either she lied to the serpent or Adam lied to her. This is the conundrum.

Strong in Him said:

No; the serpent made her doubt that she had heard/understood God's word correctly.
Doubting is not a sin.



What do you mean by that?



The sin was that she ate the fruit. She could have questioned the serpent, she could have asked Adam what God had said - as he was with her, Genesis 3:6.
She did neither; she saw that the fruit was good, and ate. Then she gave some to Adam, who knew what God had said, and he ate too.



It's not an analogy; it's what happened - Read Genesis 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

Ah maybe I see now where our difference is. I belive doubting is a sin. To doubt God's law is most certainly a sin. Now temptation is a whole other thing. It has nothing to do with doubting. temptation and falling prey to it by choosing to do so is weakness of the flesh.

Maria Billingsley said:

What I mean is , if Eve "added" to God's law by claiming that she could not touch it that would mean either she lied to the serpent or Adam lied to her. This is the conundrum.

Click to expand...

I don't see it like that - I think she may not have been listening when Adam tried to tell her.

I think this may have been what Paul was referring to in 1 Timothy 2 when he said "Women SHOULD learn" (they weren't allowed to) "in silence and with submission. .......... For it was Eve who was deceived."
Paul is saying that women should be allowed to learn so they cannot be deceived by false teaching - as Eve was. But they should learn in silence and with submission. My view only, but if Eve had been talking, been distracted or wasn't listening when Adam tried to tell her what God said, that would explain why she got it wrong and the serpent was able to plant doubt in her mind.
As I said, the serpent didn't approach Adam to tempt him. I think he was clever enough to know that had he said "DID God say .....?" to Adam, Adam would have replied, "yes" - end of temptation. But if Eve was at all uncertain about what she had heard, that would have made it a whole lot easier.

Maria Billingsley said:

Ah maybe I see now where our difference is. I belive doubting is a sin. To doubt God's law is most certainly a sin.

Click to expand...

I don't think Eve was doubting God's command - I think she was doubting whether or not she had heard, and understood, it correctly. If she had, I think she would have been able to repeat it correctly to the serpent. I also think that if she KNEW that God her Maker wanted her not to do something, she would have been able to obey it.

Strong in Him said:

I don't think Eve was doubting God's command - I think she was doubting whether or not she had heard, and understood, it correctly. If she had, I think she would have been able to repeat it correctly to the serpent. I also think that if she KNEW that God her Maker wanted her not to do something, she would have been able to obey it.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for engaging!

Maria Billingsley said:

Ok, thanks for engaging!

Click to expand...

I can't remember what we were talking about originally, but anyway.

Butterball1 said:

Hi,

I do not necessarily agree with option 3 but I put it out there. How do we get from the context as to who are those that v24 speaks about that are being justified? Are the ones being justified the ALL of v23? The ALL of v22? Do both ALLs of v22 and 23 refer to the same people?

From the context of Romans chapters 1-3 Paul is proving both groups Jews and Gentiles are sinners "without distinction". In Romans 3 Paul turns his attention specifically to the group Jew (Romans 3:1-2) showing they were not better than the Gentile (Romans 3:9) as they tho't they were. It COULD be in Rom 3:22-24 Paul is proving to the believing Jews they were once sinners just the Gentiles therefore ALL (both groups Jew and Gentile) are sinners "without distinction".
Again, just speculation on my part on option 3.

Click to expand...

Hi back!

Before I say much more, which of your 3 options do you think is/are correct? In 3:23 what is the focus or implied extent of "all" have sinned?

BTW, this brought a smile and it resonates with me:

Butterball1 said:

(I'm neither Protestant or Catholic)

Click to expand...

I'm going to be in & out of discussion, so please bear with me if I'm slow.