Replies

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html

Actually if the word “all” could only mean “each and ever individual without exception,” then it would end up proving even more than what the Protestant would want it to. Since Jesus is fully human it would have to mean that He also sinned, but this is obviously false. Cf. Hebrews 4: 15. Once a person accepts an exception to the word “all” it then becomes impossible to prove that there are no other exceptions by simply quoting this same verse. The word “all” is to be understood in the collective sense rather than in the distributive sense to ever individual. In the collective sense it applies to some of all types, and allows for some exceptions.

Webster’s New International Dictionary second edition unabridged 1934, page 67, gives as the seventh definition for the word “all” as “Nearly the whole of; nearly every one of; - used hyperbolically; as, all men held John as a prophet.”

Luke 1:5-6
“… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.” NAB

However, if one assumes that the word “all” does not allow for exceptions then, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who observed “all” the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, are exceptions to “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23. However, if this person maintains that Zechariah and Elizabeth must have sinned in some way then he is forced to accept that the word “all” in Luke 1: 6 is to be understood so as to allow for some exception. Either way the word “all” must be allowed to be understood in the collective sense and permitting some exceptions. With that demonstrated it is no longer possible to maintain that the definition of the word “all” in Romans 3:23 never allows for exceptions.