Rom. 3:19   Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Perhaps this has been said, but how about this: all the world means all the world, but instead of having the Gentiles in his sights, it is still Israel, as I have been suggesting.

It would work this way: the Gentiles have been shown to be worthy of death, and this is something that every ethnocentric Jew would have agreed with. Thus “all the world” here means that it is not just Gentile mouths that are stopped, but Jewish ones too – contrary to Jewish expectations.

I would imagine that when a Jew heard “all the world” he mentally excluded Israel from that category. Paul uses the same language to reverse the unconscious exclusion.

Paul and his fellow Jewish interlocutor agree that God will judge the world. Good. They agree that normally, there is liability for guilt. Good.

But where do Paul and the interlocutor diverge?

The interlocutor assumes that if anyone is not going to be held liable, it is the one, like himself, who is Torah-observant. And if he is not held liable, Paul’s charge against himself is void.

So Paul says: all the world is liable before God – because [dioti] even those who are Torah-observant will not be justified if (as in the scenario of Ps 143) God enters into judgment with them.

Not sure if that’s clearer for you or not….

Curate, I’ve already established the point from the context. It seems to me the burden of proof is clearly on your shoulders, but you haven’t borne it. In fact, you haven’t even shown it from the passage in John you cite. (Israel is part of the world; Jesus didn’t have to go all over the creation in order to be in the world etc. These observations are only strengthened by the fact that John builds squarely on Gen 1 in the opening verses of his Gospel.)

But again, set John aside. You need to demonstrate that Paul uses kosmos in the way you suggest – ever! – beyond that, you need to show why limiting the term in Romans 3 is preferable, which means that you need to deal with the examination of the context I’ve provided. This contextual issue must not only make sense of theme, but terminology. It seems to me that if kosmos in 3.20 meant only Israel, then it would need to mean that also in 3.6, which would make nonsense of Paul’s form of argument.

The references to Acts are not really germane (other than with the thought in Rom 4), as our discussion here has to do with kosmos. I’m well aware that ge can refer to either the earth as a whole or the “land,” i.e. Israel.

I do stand by the Romans 4 reading, though; and I also suggest Paul is building squarely on the Genesis promises that Yahweh would bless all the families of the earth (LXX ge) in Abraham. If the families of the earth are in Abraham – a point made even clearer in Galatians 3 – then Abraham inherits the earth through them. Moreover, with reference to Romans 4, “the promise” is specified in v 13 that Abraham and his seed would be heir of the ge; in vv 16-17, “the promise” is guaranteed to all Abraham’s seed – not only to those who are from Torah, but also all those who share Abraham’s faith; this is directly parallel to what Paul has already said in 4.11-12. In sum, “the seed” which receives the promise is not only circumcised Israel, but uncircumcised Gentiles who believe.

What should read “land” is made into “earth” a different referent!

I wonder if world/Israel is parallel with earth/land in places. Hmm.

Have a look at John 1:10:  He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

The world that the Lord was in was Israel, and only Israel. As far as I can tell he did not go to England and build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land. :) Neither did he preach to the Gentiles, but to his own, who did not know him.

In short, all I am suggesting is that in Rom. 3:19 Paul is speaking of those who are under the law, Israel, and that in this context world means Israel just as it does in John.

Now, the promise of the kosmos to Abraham in Ro 4 seems at first glance to support my thesis, since at no time was he promised the planet, but just one bit of it. Tom Wright goes with your reading there, but it niggles at me.

Thanks again for this.

Bear with me, please because I’ve a horrible feeling that I’m just being a bit thick. But am I understanding you rightly to say that these are the referents?

1) those in law – Jews
2) every mouth and the whole world – Jews and Gentiles, the lot
3) flesh – Jews and Gentiles, the whole lot
?

If so, then it’s still the logic that escapes me.

a) the logic of hina in this would be less, “so that …” than “so that, with what we already know we’d now be in a position to conclude that … “. Am I reading you correctly?

b) and the logic of dioti is … what? After all, if in the example you give, you insert dioti: “All people shall die dioti no people will escape dying by extraordinary medical measures” then how does that work?

Apols if I still haven’t heard properly what you’re saying and many thanks again for taking time on this.

Blessings

David