All does not appear to mean quite literally all...


#1

[quote=Mark 1:5]The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
[/quote]

Did every single person in the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem literally go out to be baptized by John the Baptist?

The whole province was emptied of people who went to the Jordan River and they were all baptized-- all the infants, and every elderly individual too?

Should I read this passage another way that does not literally indicate all people?


#2

It just means that people from all over the province (stressing that, rather than only being people from a smaller radius) went to get baptized.


#3

That’s what I’m thinking too. :slight_smile:

I guess the reason why I’m asking this is because sometimes ‘all’ does seem to mean literally ‘all’ whereas sometimes ‘all’ seems to be used generally for ‘many people’.

For example, I would read this passage here…

[quote=1 Corinthians 10:1-3]For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food.
[/quote]

…as an example of where ‘all’ really quite literally means ‘all’ as in ‘every single person’.

In other words, sometimes all really does mean ‘all’ and sometimes ‘all’ means many people.

I would understand 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 is speaking of literally all the people.

I would understand Mark 1:5, however, as metaphorcally speaking of a large multitude of people from the region,

Having noted this, then I come to a passage which many protestant groups point toward…

[quote=Romans 3:22-24]This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
[/quote]

…as meaning that quite literally all people have sinned except Jesus.

As a Catholic, I understand this passage from Romans 3:22-24 in the same sense as Mark 1:5 and do not accept that this passage means that literally all people have sinned. Mary is totally 100% sinless for example.

But I can see why protestants and other groups would come to the conclusion that Romans 3:22-24 should be understood in the sense of 1 Corinthians 10:1-3. Even we Catholics agree that Mary’s totally sinless nature is totally by God’s grace for example.

We at least do agree with protestants that no one is saved without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice-- and even people without sin would not have been saved without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. In fact, if Jesus has not made his atoning sacrifice on the cross, even Mary would not have been protected from sin.

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_conceived_without_sin_immaculate_conception.htm

I guess I’m trying to find some middle ground here between the Catholic and Protestant view…


#4

Good luck with THAT… Protestants can’t even come to much of a consensus amongst themselves. :wink:

Before someone bursts in with “Catholics disagree with each other too!!” I’m speaking of the fact that Catholic belief is set in which teachings are open to debate and which ones are the “essentials”. A Catholic who disagrees with any of the essentials (dogma) cannot in good conscience call himself a “Catholic”.


#5

It might help to find something that discusses the actual original word in the different cases. I don’t know about “all” but it is not infrequent that there will be several words in another language that might be translated as a single word in English, but carry different nuances of meaning in the original language. I’m afraid I can’t help with this one, but I am sure there is someone around here who can :slight_smile:


#6

Always look at the context how a word is used, Mr. Ex.

The cross of Christ saves sinners from their sins. The Bible teaches nowhere that it “protects” anyone from sin. If one was “protected” from sin there would be no need for the cross in the first place. Why would Christ die for the "just?"1 Pet 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;In the case of the Romans passage, you can take that “all” literally. Yes, ALL did sin. Including Mary. Afterall, she was a descendant of Adam.


#7

Three words are used to denote all.

Will present them from the general to the extreme.

pas (3956)
πᾶς
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

the next word is more restrictive: You will recognize it more readily

holos (3650)
ὅλος
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

And the most restrictive?

hapas (G537)
ἅπας
hap’-as
From G1 (as a particle of union) and G3956; absolutely all or (singular) every one: - all (things), every (one), whole.

All have sinned uses the 3956 as well as Mark 1:5.

over here kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

doing a search on the word “all” brings up only one word:

**all = όλοι
oloi ** which is the holos word.

Doing a search with the ancient Greek check box selected yields only one word as well:

**all whole every = άπαν
apan **which is the hapas word, the most strictest. Neither search provided the pas word.


#8

Hi, Pop
First of all I have to disagree with your interpretation of scripture, which fits your belief system, and in all reality detracts from the power of God. So the question needs to be asked can God do whatever he wants or do you limit him? Surely he can create a new sinless Eve if he wants, would’nt you say. As far as the word all ],your conclusion does not follow the premise of whom Paul was talking to and about in Romans. In reality and all probability speaking to just that community pointing out we are all sinners, there was no reson for him to point out that Mary was sinless. I don’t think in all reality we can put Mary in the same boat with us. Well anyway the whole thing comes down to the Catholic Church being the Authority to loose and bind. Without some kind of authority my ego will certainly get in the way.

That’s my take on it. I hope this helps …all… a little.

PEACE
ONENOW1


#9

All vs many vs some. This is English. If my understand is correct, in Hebrew and the Aramaic of Jesus’ time, there was not a word for either ‘many’ or ‘some’. The only choice a person had was ‘all’ or ‘none’. Context would be the only indicator of which–all–many–some–was meant and to be understood.


#10

[quote=onenow1]First of all I have to disagree with your interpretation of scripture, which fits your belief system, and in all reality detracts from the power of God…As far as the word [all ], your conclusion does not follow the premise of whom Paul was talking to and about in Romans. In reality and all probability speaking to just that community
[/quote]

My interpretation is not based on any “belief system.” I believe what the Word of God actually states in Rom. 3:23-24, my belief doesn’t require a “system.”

As to whom Paul was referring to is previously covered in Rom. 3:9-10 where he writes, “for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin, as it is written "There is NONE righteous, not even one.

There’s nothing difficult here about Paul’s doctrine regarding ALL mankind and sin. It doesn’t require a gifted, divine perception to understand Paul’s simple words that “ALL sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.” Nor does it take a special core of men with unique insight to understand the simplicity of the very next verse which states, “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

Now certainly many men reject Paul’s teaching here that ALL sinned and that there are NONE righteous, no not one. And as a consequence they also reject his doctrine regarding the redemptive work of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice on their behalf. But the fact that they reject this truth doesn’t mean they didn’t understand it. In fact, the fact that they reject it means they did understand it - they simply don’t believe it.

So the question needs to be asked can God do whatever he wants or do you limit him? Surely he can create a new sinless Eve if he wants, would’nt you say.

Now, the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is truly based on a “belief system.” An extra-biblical one at that. And one MUST also conclude an anti-biblical one as well since Scripture itself explicitly states that “ALL” have sinned. Now it’s your extra-biblical “belief system” (tradition) that rejects this doctrinal statement of Paul’s and inserts an exception. But Paul, in context, makes absolutely no room for any exclusions.

Can God “create” a sinless woman? Absolutely! Would she be Eve? No. There can only be one Eve. Could she be another kind of Eve? Sure, if it was His intent to “create” another humanity altogether and therefore “create” another kind of Adam for this newly created “Eve,” and they, together, did not sin and subsequently bore sinless children. But in that scenario there would be no need for the birth of a Savior, hence no need, either, for a “Mary.”

But the Biblical FACT is Mary, unlike any “Eve” you want to conjure up in your imagination, was not “created.” She, like ALL of us, was “born” into this world. She, like ALL of us, was a descendant of Adam who sinned, and she, like ALL of us, sinned “in Adam” (Adam’s sin caused death to spread to all men, Rom. 5:12), and she, like ALL before us, died.

So you see, “oneto1,” it is you who impose your “belief system” upon Paul, not me. I simply conclude that your extra-biblical Marian “belief system” cannot be true based on Paul’s explicit statement in Rom. 3:23: “For ALL sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.” But I do believe that she, like ALL who personally believe in Christ, was justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. But if she was “justified,” then she, like all of us, sinned. Justification does not apply where no justification is needed.

The idea that Mary was “protected” from sin by the cross is an oxymoron.


#11

this is correct. In the Ancient Greek(what was used to write the New Testament) That can be verified by going here: kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/ and checking the Ancient Greek and doing a search on “Some” or “Many”.

There are 3 degrees or usages of “All” in the New Testament.

Starting with the least restrictive usage:

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

The Above word is what is used in Mark 1:5 and the verse by Paul that says “All have sinned”.

It is pretty general. Context is “Many”.

Now for the intermediate word:

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

The above world is more strict in it’s context.

This verse uses these two "ALL"s:

Mat 4:23 And2532 Jesus2424 went about4013 **all3650 **Galilee,1056 teaching1321 in1722 their846 synagogues,4864 and2532 preaching2784 the3588 gospel2098 of the3588 kingdom,932 and2532 healing2323 **all manner3956 **of sickness3554 and2532 **all manner3956 **of disease3119 among1722 the3588 people.2992

The most strict form of all is this word, which leaves no room for anything context than “ALL” without exception is as follows:

G537
ἅπας
hapas
hap’-as
From G1 (as a particle of union) and G3956; **absolutely all **or (singular) every one: - all (things), every (one), whole.

This is used very sparingly since it is an absolute whereas the other two uses is not.

Here is a verse that uses hapas and you can see why it is absolute in its usage:

Mat 24:39 And2532 knew1097 not3756 until2193 the3588 flood2627 came,2064 and2532 took them all away;142, 537 so3779 shall also2532 the3588 coming3952 of the3588 Son5207 of man444 be.2071

pas is used 1238 times
holos is used 112 times
hapas is used 44 times.

If Paul had intended for us to believe that all have sinned without exception, he would have used hapas. PERIOD.

kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/ check the Ancient Greek ( of which was used ) and search for “Many” or “Some”. It comes up empty.


#12

Hi, Again Pop.

" Apophasis"
The idea that Mary was “protected” from sin by the cross is an oxymoron.

You make quite a case for simplicity Pop. I think the one thing you forget is that God is outside of time, and all things are possible with God. There’s that word all again. Anyway this is God’s plan not your interpretation of it.

1 Tim. 3: 15-16 I write this in hope I may be able to come to you soon, but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in the household of God - that is, in the church of the living God pillar and support of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed.

and of course: 1 Cor. 11:2, maintaining tradition 1 Cor. 10: 8 talking on authority.

and less we forget binding and loosing.

PEACE
ONENOW1


#13

That may be so for some. But some do convert to Catholicism too.

And if we don’t point these things out, then how will they know?


#14

That’s what I was thinking too-- that a different word was being used for all in these different passages of Scripture.

Actually, JoeyWarren’s post really did a good job clarifying this. The distinction he used about how pas was used 1238 times, holos was used 112 times, and hapas was used 44 times was explained very well.


#15

Excellent post. :thumbsup:


#16

I understand this apophasis. The problem with saying that one has to read something ‘in context’ is that there are dozens of contexts in which many different denominations read this-- so who’s context is the correct one?

I understand how I’ve read Mark 1:5 and noted how this could not possibly be read to mean that every single person in the whole Judean countryside (and all the people of Jerusalem) literally went out to be baptized by John the Baptist.

This would be an example of arriving at a conclusion and then looking toward the various denomination’s interpretations of the Scriptures to see which interpretation the Spirirt of the Lord was leading me too-- not the other way around.

As a convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism I had investigated many things before I became Catholic. Admittedly, it would have been impossible for me to check every single detail and check to see if my own interpretation was in agreement with the Catholic faith before I converted. But it eventually came to point where I realized that I strongly agreed with the greater portion of the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Scriptural record even though I was Lutheran in name.

From there, after several months of nervously doublechecking a few things, I eventually entered the RCIA program. I knew I had found the truth at long last-- and I knew that any further questions I had would one day be answered…which is what faith is all about.

I still have questions, but they are becoming more and more infrequent as the Lord’s Spirit reveals more and more each year.


#17

[quote=apophasis]The cross of Christ saves sinners from their sins. The Bible teaches nowhere that it “protects” anyone from sin.
[/quote]

So let me get this straight, you apparently believe that when people do good things, this ‘goodness’ comes totally from their own human effort and has nothing to do with Jesus, right?

No. Of course you don’t believe this.

You believe (as do I) that good works proceed via the power of God’s grace. You probably also believe that God’s grace can be either preventive or redemptive (I know I believe this).

In other words, God’s grace can both prevent people from sinning and redeem people after they’ve sinned too.

[quote=apophasis]If one was “protected” from sin there would be no need for the cross in the first place.
[/quote]

God’s grace, whether this grace be preventive or redemptive, proceeds from Christ cruxified on the cross apophasis.

For example, Acts 20:32 points out that God’s grace can build us up and give us an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. In 1 Corinthians 3:10 Paul himself notes how by the grace God had given him, he laid a foundation as an expert builder-- and someone else is building on it. This is even more prononced in 2 Corinthians 9:8 where the Scriptures say that God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

These are examples of preventive grace, the means by which God prevents people from sinning.

Likewise, however, according to Romans 3:24, we are also justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:5-7 captures this very well when it says he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In Jesus we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace. This can be seen in Ephesians 2:4-5 too…

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

These are examples of redemptive grace, the means by which God redeems people after they’ve sinned.

Both forms of grace proceed from Christ on the cross.

[quote=apophasis]Why would Christ die for the “just?”
[/quote]

Because the just would not have been “just” without Christ’s dying on the cross.

All grace, preventive or redemptive, proceeds from Christ’s death on the cross.

[quote=apophasis]In the case of the Romans passage, you can take that “all” literally.
[/quote]

So you believe that little babies have sinned? How about the mentally disabled?

I’m sorry but I disagree with you.

And if you believe that little babies cannot be baptized because they have not sinned, then you do not actually believe that babies can sin– and that means that even you do not believe that “all” have literally sinned either.

In other words, I think you disagree with yourself.

Yes, ALL did sin. Including Mary. Afterall, she was a descendant of Adam.

I think JoeyWarren has done an excellent job dismantling your presumptions about the passage found in Romans 3:22-24. I kind of figured something like this was the case already, but I wasn’t sure until now.

Anyway, thanks for the contributions.

Isn’t it fun when we compare our belief systems to see where we agree and disagree?

It’s kind of like finding redemptive analogies in all the different layers of meaning within the One Gospel message as expressed by dozens of different Christian denominations.


#18

Thank you. My own search for the truth of Scripture lead me to investigate the underlying Greek. Moreso when I came acrosss scriptures such as “All have Died”. Pop’s rejection of Mary’s sinless state is nothing more than as others have put it even Protestants: “A Protestant Over-reaction” meaning that if the meaning points to Catholicism then it must not be the correct meaning, so one has to search for an alternative meaning.


#19

You’re sort of all over the place on this, Mr. Ex. The cross of Christ has no power to cause someone to be “immaculately conceived.” The purpose of His crucifixion was to be a substitutionary sin-sacrifice:Heb. 9:28 "…so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him."It’s purpose was to divinely deal, once for all, with sins that were committed, not to prevent sins from ever being committed.

The cross cannot prevent anyone from sin, or sinning. It’s preventive power is not in the obstruction of sins but the forgiveness of them, and thereby preventing the believer from facing divine judgment, eternal damnation:John 3:14-18 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


#20

Pop’s

Gen. 3: 20, The man called his wife eve because she was the mother of all living.

                         Physical mother ]

Luke. 1: 35, and the angel of the Lord said unto her. The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you. The child to be born will be called Holy the Son of God.

  [as the cloud overshadowed the ark of the covenant ]

Rev.11: 5, She brought forth a child, one who is to rule [all ]nations with a rod of iron, but her child was brought up to God.

                       rod of iron= Jesus]

Rev. 12: 17, The dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on her offspring; on those who keep the commandments of God, and bear testimony to Jesus: an he stood on the sand of the sea.

                 the womans offsping= christians ]
                            Spiritual Mother]

there’s a lot to be said of the Eunich’s need of tradition and the imagination The Holy Spirt endowed us ALL with !

Search for the truth and it will find you eventually.

Peace
OneNow1


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.