Monday, July 27, 2009

In Defense of Mary's Sinlessness: Part 1


First, I must acknowledge that there is no explicit verse that directly settles this issue. At the same time, I don't think that an explicit verse is necessary to prove that something is scriptural. I think that if a doctrine is implied in Scripture or logically follows from what we find in Scripture, and if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes it, then that belief can be considered scriptural. I think most people agree with me on that point, but it bears repeating, especially when considering the Marian dogmas. When it comes to Catholic beliefs about Mary, people tend to place demands on the evidence they will accept that are way more stringent and unyielding than the demands that they place on their own beliefs. And when it comes to Mary's sinlessness, there is a great deal of evidence.

The Devil and the Woman

The best place to start is at the very beginning, with the words of God to the serpent after it has been exiled from the Garden of Eden:
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
The passage is called the Protoevangelium (or "first gospel") because it is the first time in Scripture where we see the promise of a Savior for mankind. While, literally, the woman in question is Eve, many scholars admit that Mary fulfills this prophecy. After all, it is her seed, Jesus Christ, who will crush the head of the serpent, defeating Satan with His own Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

But, this passage also says something about the woman. It says that God will place "enmity" between her and the serpent. Enmity is a state of animosity and direct opposition. The woman and the serpent are utterly at odds with each other. They are mutual enemies. What's more, the serpent cannot conquer her, no matter how hard he tries. We see this enmity played out in the Book of Revelation where, again, the woman and the serpent (this time, a full-fledged dragon) are at odds with each other:
Rev 12:13-17 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
As much as the devil wants her, he cannot have her. Why? Because the woman has been spared by God. When I see all this play out, I am left to wonder: If the "woman" is in fact Mary, how has enmity been placed between her and Satan? How has Mary been spared by God? Could it be that God preserved her from the stain of original sin? Could it be that she is "the woman" who the devil could not have?

Beyond the plain fact that she is the mother of the offspring that will crush the head of the serpent, further support for identifying Mary with this "woman" is seen in Elizabeth's words to Mary in Lk 1:42 and Jesus' own way of addressing Mary in John's Gospel. I would like to take each one in turn.

In Lk 1:42, Elizabeth addresses Mary with words once spoken to Jael and Judith in the Old Testament. Compare this verse with Judges 5:24 and Judith 13:18:
Lk 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Judges 5:24 "Most blessed of women be Ja'el, the wife of Heber the Ken'ite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.

Judith 13:18 And Uzziah said to her, "O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to strike the head of the leader of our enemies.
What's interesting about Jael and Judith is that both women are declared the most blessed above of all women. Why is this? Because in faith and courage they warded off enemy armies hostile to Israel. How did they do this? By literally dealing a mortal blow to the head of the commander of each army. Jael "put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen's mallet; she struck Sis'era a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple" (Judges 5:26). Judith, as we have just seen, was guided by the Lord to "strike the head of the leader of our enemies" (Judith 13:18).

Now, Elizabeth is declaring Mary to be "blessed among women." Yet how can Mary stand in line with Jael and Judith, of whom similar statements were made, unless she too dealt a crushing blow to the enemy? If Mary is the "woman" from Gen 3:15, then we know exactly how she did this: by bringing forth the offspring that would bruise the head of the serpent.

Jesus' own words of address to His mother are important here, too. In John's gospel, Jesus only refers to Mary as "woman." At the beginning of His ministry (cf. Jn 2:4), He says to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me?" (or, more literally, "Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" [DRB] or "Woman, what does that have to do with us?" [NAS]). On the Cross, upon the culmination of His saving work, He addresses her again: "Woman, behold, your son!" (Jn 19:26). In this, interesting parallels emerge between the "woman" who is the mother of Jesus and the "woman" of Gen 3:15 and Rev 12:
  • Just as the "woman" appears in the books of Genesis and Revelation, at the beginning and the end of "the Word" (the written Divine Revelation of God), so too does Mary, the "woman", appear at the beginning and end of "the Word" Jesus Christ, the final word of the Father.
  • The apostle John, a symbol of the Church, becomes the son of the "woman" Mary just as all those who "keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" are the offspring of the "woman" from Rev 12 (cf. vs. 17).
It is easy then, based on this and on Jesus' clear identity as the "offspring of woman" who will "bruise the head of the serpent" in His destruction of the works of the devil (cf. 1 Jn 3:8), that Mary is the "woman" from Gen 3:15 and Rev 12, of whom the sting of death could not take hold and the poison of the serpent could not infect.

The Ark of the Covenant

Another indication of Mary's sinlessness can be found in the parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant from the Old Testament:
  • Lk 1:28, 31, 42, 45, 48 (DRB) and Psa 93:5: Mary was a house of the Lord, and the house of the Lord is forever holy.
  • Lk 1:35 and Exo 40:35: God overshadowed Mary just as He overshadowed the ark.
  • Lk 1:39 and 2 Sam 6:2: Both Mary and the ark arise and go to Judah.
  • Lk 1:41 and 2 Sam 6:16: David leaps with joy at the presence of the ark, just as John leaps at the presence of Mary.
  • Lk 1:43 and 2 Sam 6:9: What David says at the coming of the ark is almost exactly what Elizabeth says upon the coming of Mary.
  • Lk 1:56 and 2 Sam 6:11: Both Mary and the ark reside for 3 months in their new locations.
  • Heb 9:4 and Jn 1:1; 6:51; Heb 5:4-5: Just as the ark of the Old Covenant contained the word of God on the stone tablets, the manna from heaven, and the rod of Aaron the great High Priest, so did Mary contain Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God, the Manna from Heaven, and the great High Priest.
If that weren't enough to establish Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, there is a very interesting word from Lk 1:42 that further confirms this. Notice that when Elizabeth saw Mary for the first time, Elizabeth "exclaimed" with a loud cry. This seems hardly worth noting until you look at the Greek word that Luke decided to use here. ἀναφωνέω,v (transliterated: anaphoneo) is used only once in the entire New Testament and it's right here in Lk 1:42. Its presence in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) is likewise sparse, appearing only five times. Why is this important? Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch explain:
[E]very time the expression is used in the Old Testament, it forms part of the stories surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. In particular, it refers to the melodic sounds made by Levitical singers and musicians when they glorify the Lord in song. It thus describes the "exulting" voice of instruments that were played before the Ark as David carried it in procession to Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:28; 16:4-5) and as Solomon transferred the Ark to its final resting place in the Temple (2 Chron 5:13). Alluding to these episodes, Luke connects this same expression with the melodic cry of another Levitical descendant, the aged Elizabeth (Lk 1:5). She too lifts up her voice in liturgical praise, not before the golden chest, but before Mary. (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, "The Gospel of Luke," pg. 21).
But what does "Mary as Ark" have to do with her sinlessness? Don't forget: the tablets, the manna, and the priestly rod that were contained in the Ark were the holiest of all Jewish relics and represented the very presence of God to the Jewish people. As such, the container or "ark" that held them had to be made of the purest and most perfect materials. The ark itself was considered so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it, lest they die (cf. 2 Sam 6:7; 1 Chron 13:9-10).

Just as the contents of the old covenant ark demanded a perfectly pure container, so does Christ, not as a matter of strict necessity (God could have took on human flesh from any woman) but because His holiness demands and deserves it. By preserving Mary from sin, God has prepared her to be the pure Ark of the New Covenant.

The Salutation of Gabriel

With this section, I am attempting to synthesize information taken from the following articles:

Now, let's turn to the Angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary:
Lk 1:28 (RSV-CE) And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"
The Greek word that is being translated as "full of grace" here is κεχαριτωμένη (transliterated: kecharitomene), the perfect passive participle of χαριτόω (transliterated: charitoo), which denotes grace. Some versions translate kecharitomene as "hail, thou that art highly favored," but that doesn't really capture the full meaning of what the angel Gabriel is saying here.

For one, to translate charitoo as "favor" instead of "grace" is really to give a bare minimum translation of the word. Ultimately, kecharitomene is derived from the word χάρις (transliterated: charis): charis --> charitoo --> kecharitomene. The KJV translates charis as "grace" over 83% of the time. The KJV NT Greek Lexicon defines charitoo as "to make graceful, to peruse with grace" as it's primary meaning. When the favor is divine favor, "grace" is the better translation.

Various well-respected and scholarly reference works confirm this understanding. For example:
  • "Charitoo can mean to Grace as in Luke 1:28 and Eph. 1:6, provided we understand that this grace is endowed by God..." [The Pocket Word Study of the New Testament, Atlanta Ga., Bernard & Brothers publishing, 1982, pg 348]
  • "Charitoo...Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to" [Lexicon To The Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc.Pg. 1739]
  • "Charitoo: Grace. To Grace.. as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28,... as in Eph. 1:6 were believers are said to be "accepted in the beloved" i.e., objects of Grace" [The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc. Pg. 1471]
  • "Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek kecharitomene a perfect passive participle of the verb Charitoo (only here and Eph. 1:6)... Abbott- Smith defines Charitoo as follows: endow with charis i.e. 1. (a.) to make graceful; (b.) to endure with Grace (i.e. Divine favor)" [Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle Pg. 52]
  • "...Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to" [Lexical Aides To the New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc., p. 966]
  • "Charitoo. . . kecharitomene, full of grace, Luke, i. 28 (RV. in margin, endued with grace) " [Greek- English Lexicon to the New Testament, by W.J. Hickie M.A, 1945, p. 208]
  • "Charitoo: to bestow grace upon, Lk 1:28 Ep 1:6" [The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, by Wigram - Green, 1982, p. 915]
  • "28. kecharitomene... to bestow grace" [A Linguistic Key To The New Testament, copyright 1970, printed by Zondervan Publishing House, edited by Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. Vol. 1, Pg. 140]
  • "Charitoo. . . to endue with grace... : Lk 1:28, Eph 1:6" [A Manual Lexicon of the New Testament, by G Abbott- Smith D.D, D.C.L., 1929, p. 480]
  • "Charitoo: akin to A., to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious... Luke I:28 'Highly favoured' (Marg., 'endued with grace')" [Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (unabridged edition), by W. E. Vine, printed by Riverside Book and Bible House, Pg. 424]

You get the idea. Now that we know that charitoo is better understood in this instance as "grace" and not simply "favor," we must now consider what the perfect passive participle would mean.

The website, which provides instruction on the Koine Greek of the Gospels, tells us (here) in the section "Grammatical Voice of Verbs" that the passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence is being acted upon (instead of performing the action, which is the active voice). Further down on this same page, in the section on "Verb Tenses" we learn that the perfect tense indicates that this action was completed in the past, with results that continue into the present and are in full effect. The action is the giving of grace. So, kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charitoo, would literally mean, "you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace." Blass and DeBrummer's Greek Grammar of the New Testament says [emphasis mine]: "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

This is the single instance in all of Scripture where the verb charitoo is used in this way. There is a completeness here with a permanent result. There is a fullness and a perfection to the grace that Mary has received. She wasn't given grace like we are given grace. She was filled with grace, completed in grace, perfected in grace, and this fullness of grace persisted, it continued up to and through the present.

Put aside your presuppositions for a moment and just look at the evidence. This is amazing what has happened here! Note that sin and grace are opposed (Rom 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5,8). Where there is fullness of grace, there is no room for sin. That's why we claim that Lk 1:28 points to the sinlessness of Mary.

Something else that is interesting about this word kecharitomene is that it is in the vocative case. tells us (here) that the vocative is "the case of direct address. It is used when one person is speaking to another, calling out or saying their name, or generally addressing them." In other words, Gabriel is literally calls Mary "full of grace" as if that were her name.

This is important because in the Bible, a person's name often points to an essential element of that person's nature, or the person's defining characteristic. Jacob's name was changed to "Israel" because he wrestled with God. Abram was called "Abraham" because he was to be the father of many nations. Now the angel has called Mary by a different name: kecharitomene. No one in the Bible is so defined by the grace he or she has received that this state of grace becomes that person's name. Yet, so it is with Mary. More and more I think that, as we dig deeper into the meaning of kecharitomene, we find that Mary is a uniquely graced individual.

Blessed Are You Among Women

Elizabeth's words to Mary continue to be important here:
Lk 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
We have already seen how Elizabeth's words echo similar exclamations from the Old Testament and how this confirms Mary's identity as the "woman" of Gen 3:15; Rev 12 and the Ark of the New Covenant. Even with all this, we have yet to exhaust the implications of this verse upon Mary's sinlessness. What I would like to address here is what the phrase, "Blessed are you among women" would have meant to the people of Elizabeth's time and culture.

The Greek here is attempting to express a Hewbrew/Aramaic idiom that Elizabeth is using in response to seeing Mary. The idiom is baruchah att minnashim, "blessed [are] you from women," which is another way of saying, "You [are more] blessed than [other or all] women." Hebrew and Aramaic do not have superlatives, but they do have ways of expressing the superlative sense: for example, "Holy of Holies" means "Holiest." Technically, this phrase in Lk 1:42 is a comparative, but when you have a comparative where one party is an individual and the other party is everybody else, it ends up with the force of a superlative. If Mary is more blessed than other women, then she is the most blessed of all women. It's a grammatical comparative with the force of a superlative.

You may be asking yourself, "Why is this important?" For some reason, most Catholic apologists simply point out that Mary was the most blessed of all women and they never tell the reader what bearing that has upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I think the answer is found once we examine why it is that Elizabeth called Mary, "blessed among women."

The obvious reason, of course, is because Mary, out of all the women who have ever lived, was chosen to be the mother of our Lord. That certainly makes her the most blessed woman there ever was. But, I think there is also another reason. After all, Mary said of herself, "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). Why? "for he who is mighty has done great things [plural] for me" (Lk 1:49). Her unique motherhood would only be one thing. So, what else has God done in her life that has made her more blessed than any other woman?

I think that something else is the unparalleled divine favor, or grace, that He has given her. Within the context of the account of the Annunciation and the Visitation, the Incarnation and her miraculous motherhood is ever present. But, her very real gracefulness is there too. "Hail, O favored one" [or "full of grace"] (Lk 1:28); "you have found favor with God" (Lk 1:30); "My soul magnifies the Lord" (Lk 1:46).

Why else did God choose her above all other women to be the mother of our Lord? What was it about this particular woman that made her suited for the task? Only Catholics have an answer to that question, and we believe that it is found in the words of the angel. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her and caused our Savior to be conceived within her because God had already prepared her for motherhood by filling her with his grace. Thus, she is "blessed among women" not just in her motherhood but in the preparation for motherhood that she received.


Taken together, Scripture provides some very strong indications that Mary's grace-filled life precluded sin. The early Church, through meditating upon these examples and with the guidance of the apostles and their successors, came to understand that Mary was a creature whom God had spared from the stain of original sin and who, consequently, committed no sins in her life. See, for example, the following collections of early Christian witness:

There is really no point in history in which this was not the common belief of all Christianity until the Protestant Reformation, one thousand and five hundred years after the birth of the Church. I realize that some Protestants couldn't care less about that, but to me that is very significant. The mere novelty of the Protestant objection is I think the first mark against it.

In Part 2, I will tackle some of the objections that are often raised against this dogma.

Pax Christi,


  1. Dominic St Pierre9/01/2011 10:43 PM

    Great job putting this article together, it was a pleasure to read. I love it when people get excited about the scriptures and want to write about it for the world to see and learn.

    I do have a few comments, i'm glad i read this, it mostly ratifies my decisions in interpretation that have caused me to boycott the catholic faith.
    I have a few fundamental differences in interpretation which change the entire landscape of this doctrine.
    at the moment, i'm not prepared to make an exhaustive rebuttal, however, we can always carryon via email etc if necessary.

    the foundation of this doctrine begins with your interpretation that 'the woman' refers to Mary, mother of Jesus.
    thankfully no man is responsible for teaching me the alternative, which is, the woman represents Israel, the bride of God, as she is depicted with the 12 stars in revelation as you quoted. it is also worth mentioning that it was not only simply an individual that the dragon/adversary/enemy has fought against, but all of Israel throughout the ages.
    there is a harmony in this interpretation that doesn't require any talking into, it simply confirms itself as truth.

    Secondly, i'll admit I am no expert of the catechism and its doctrine of original sin. however, I have looked for it, but continually come up short save for the creeds of the catholic faith that require such a belief.

    which for me are 2 foundation stones to your interpretation that in my understanding have no relevance.

    I was blessed to see and learn of the parallels between the ark and mary, that is incredible! and fascinating.
    Once again however, you decide to take the interpretation past what is conventionally accepted and make her 'the ark of the new covenant'
    its a tickling thought and feeds into the traditional catholic dogma, and i can see how one would be quick to accept and agree. but I cannot.
    perhaps its just me taking it the wrong way, but the ark wasn't the covenant, nor did it have anything to do with its contents at all. the covenant was between the people and God, was written as a witness. if anything the ark itself represents Jesus, who was in the womb of his mother Mary.
    I don't see the need to glorify the container, surely she is to be recognized and esteemed.

    Lastly, its great how you expounded on the word grace and its participle in greek. but you and I both know, to even use a paritciple to qualify anything is just asking for trouble. if it wouldn't stand up in any court, then how does it stand here? sorry bro, but that's just nonesense. i love the passion you have enough to tell you, you must do better!

    if mary was sinless, why didn't she suffice to atone for our sins? why doesn't she have the keys to life and death? why then don't the demons shudden and obey her?
    why the heck the need to even make a matter at all about any of this? does messiah's atonement not suffice? is his authority not the highest? has not God given him a name above every name?
    so who says we even need to spend any time at all discussing the deep things of mary instead of devoting this passion to the purpose and kingdom of messiah?

  2. Dominic,

    I have no problem with saying the "woman" is a symbol of Israel. But, I say that it is also Mary. There is no reason why it can't be both. Symbols in Scripture often point to more than one thing.

    If you want to find where original sin is mentioned in the Catechism, go to the following link and type "original sin" in the search box in the middle of the page:

    As for taking the interpretation past what is "conventionally accepted" I daresay you are the one who has done that. It has been the longstanding tradition of the Church to see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. THAT is in fact the "conventional understanding."

    I agree that the Ark was not the Covenant itself. I never said it was. But, the Ark DID have A LOT to do with what was contained within it. The whole reason why no one was allowed to touch the Ark was because of its contents. It was the contents which dictated that the ark be made of the finest and purest materials. It's simply ludicrous to say that the Ark "didn't have anything to do with its contents at all."

    How does Jesus in the womb of Mary make JESUS the new Ark? That makes no sense. Let me lay it out for you again:

    In the OT, you have an Ark made of the purest and finest materials. Inside it are the symbols of the Old Covenant: the Word of God on tablets of stone, the manna from heaven, and the rod of Aaron, the great High Priest.

    In the NT you have Jesus, who is the New Covenant. He is the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven, the new High Priest. And what was He contained within? The womb of Mary.

    When the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and the Son of God was conceived with her, she became the container of the New Covenant. She became the New Ark of a New Covenant.

    Much like with the OT Ark, Mary is glorified because of what she contained. The angel Gabriel gave her the veneration that is her due when he greeted her by saying, "Hail!" which is the way one addresses royalty. Elizabeth gave Mary the veneration that was her due when she "exclaimed" in the same manner in which the OT Levitical singers rejoiced before the Ark, and when she declared Mary to be more blessed than any other woman. Catholics are merely following their example.

    How in the world is analyzing the participle of a Greek word "asking for trouble"? The voice and tense and case of a word effects its meaning SIGNIFICANTLY. Any serious Bible scholar knows that one must take these things into account if he is to get at the actual meaning of the underlying Greek of the NT. You can't just call this "nonsense" and be done with it. You have to actually PROVE that my analysis of the Greek is erroneous.

    Why doesn't Mary suffice to atone for our sins? Because, even though she was without sin, she was still a mortal human being. The only one who can atone for all man's sins is one who:

    A. Is a true representative of mankind, being a human being himself
    B. Is without sin
    C. Can pay the price eternally, for all time, being a divine being.

    Jesus can make that atonement because He fulfills all three qualities. Mary doesn't. Just because she is without sin, that doesn't make her on equal footing with Christ himself. Jesus is divine AND human. Mary received an extraordinary gift of grace from God, but she is still just a human being. No mere human being can atone for the sins of all mankind, no matter how sinless he/she is.

    Why do we "make a matter at all about any of this"? Because it is true, and the truth cries out for a defense. God has indeed given Jesus the highest authority, and a name above every name. That doesn't mean we should look at the Church's teachings about Mary and simply "take it or leave it." If it's true, then I want to believe it, and to defend it against people who attack it. That should be a rule of thumb regarding ANYTHING that is true.

  3. I agree with Dominic on this. I also disagree that there no evidence against Mary's sinlessness. In Luke 11: 27, a woman called out saying to Jesus, ".. Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." Jesus then replies with a rebuke in verse 28 saying to the woman, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." KJV says instead of on the contrary, Yea rather. If Mary was sinless, then why did Jesus disagree?

    Also I was wondering why in Mary's Magnificat, she says in verse 47, "Oh my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless, why did she refer to God as a Savior? This implies that she needed a Savior, right? In verse 48, she calls herself a handmaiden or lowly servant girl and said that God took notice of her which also implies her being nothing significant. I thought being sinless meant she had a high status.

    This is why I agree with Dominic. Why are we putting some much focus on Mary when she herself said that she isn't really significant. She was obviously blessed by God to be chosen as the mother of Jesus but I don't see where she is more than that.

  4. Mary wasn't crucified for me. She also didn't return from the dead after 3 days in the tomb. This type of Mary worship takes the focus off where it belongs........Jesus

  5. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

  6. Anonymous
    Please read your scripture
    Romans 3:23 is only part of a sentence.
    If you really believe that “ALL” means “ALL” in Romans 3:23, and as scripture shows that Romans 3:23 is only part of the sentence, then you have to believe that ALL are also justified (hence saved) as stated in the rest of the sentence (Romans 3:24). Hence you have to say that you believe in universal salvation??

    How does the sentence continue on from Romans 3:23 in Romans 3:24
    “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” (Romans 3:24, 25 ESV)

    If we take scripture as a whole and let scripture interpret scripture, as you say, then if you say that ALL have sinned then ALL are also justified as the word ALL refers to both.
    Converse is also true. If not all are justified, as you say, then not all have sinned.

    So how can you say that ALL means ALL only in the first part of the sentence (Romans 3:23) and not the second (Romans 3:24), which you no doubt do??

    We all have an obligation to study the Scriptures, do we not, so If I may ask, please find others verses written by the same author, to confirm this very odd type of Greek grammatical construct in which a word used in a sentence has different meanings at first part compared to the second part of a sentence, although referring to both grammatically.

    If the author of Romans 3:24 had meant that not all are justified (saved) than I am sure that the Holy Spirit would have inspired him to chose the appropriate Greek word as used in “.....many are called, but few are chosen”.
    Surely such an important concept expressed in the sentence Romans 3:23-24 would not have been left ambiguous by the author to such an extent that you have to split it and have the word “ALL” refer to only the first part.

    Otherwise, you would have to say that the author of Romans 3:23-24 had a very poor understanding of Greek grammatical language construct. This I would find hard to believe.

    So taking the (reasonable) assumption that Paul is NOT teaching universal salvation in Romans 3:23-24, you would have to say that "all" in Romans 3:23 does NOT mean "all".

    George from Aust

  7. I updated all the links in this post. Sorry about the wait!


Related Posts with Thumbnails