πᾶσα (pasa) in Romans 3:20: Adjective Nominative Singular Feminine
πᾶσα (pasa) in Romans 3:20
Textual Witness
The witness reads πᾶσα in Romans 3:20, in the phrase οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ, so the form is part of a universal-sounding subject expression.
How The Form Affects Interpretation
The form pushes the reader toward a comprehensive reading: the verse is not about one case of flesh but about the whole human condition under law.
How To Communicate It
In teaching or translation, this form helps communicate the breadth of Paul's denial and keeps the focus on the sentence's universal scope rather than on a narrow exception.
What Not To Say
- Grammatical form should serve context, not override it.
- Do not make grammatical gender into a theological gender claim.
- Do not claim the form changes the lemma into another word.
What Does The Label Mean?
Adjective: the word qualifies a noun and can express totality, every member, or the whole class in view.
Nominative: the form matches the clause's subject-side grammar and helps modify the noun it stands with in the sentence.
Singular: the form is singular here, so it presents one collective referent rather than a plural set.
Feminine: the form is feminine to agree with the noun it modifies, and this is grammatical agreement, not a theological gender claim.
What The Form Does In This Verse
σὰρξ
The adjective agrees with the nearby noun σὰρξ and together they form the subject idea, 'all flesh,' within the statement that follows. The grammar supports the scope of the claim, but the sentence still determines how broad that scope is.
It marks the noun as comprehensive in force, so the verse speaks of flesh in general rather than a restricted subgroup.
It does not by itself turn the noun into a new lemma, nor does it force a separate theological category apart from the clause.
How Much The Form Matters Here
High: The adjective makes Paul's denial of justification by works of law comprehensive with respect to flesh.
Nominative singular modifier of flesh. qualifies flesh with comprehensive force in the denial statement. Attached to σὰρξ. Governed by agreement with the nominative noun phrase. The form marks breadth, while the clause supplies the claim about justification before God.
How broad is the flesh in Paul's denial? The adjective marks all flesh as included in the statement.
Direct: The form directly supports rendering the phrase as all flesh or no flesh in the negative construction.
The grammar marks the breadth of the noun phrase; Paul's argument defines the theological force of justification and law.
Feminine grammar makes a gender claim: The feminine form agrees with σὰρξ; it does not make a gender claim about persons. all flesh alone defines justification: The adjective marks scope; the clause and argument supply the doctrine of justification.
How The Interpretation Is Derived
The witness reads πᾶσα in Romans 3:20, in the phrase οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ, so the form is part of a universal-sounding subject expression.
The lemma πᾶς regularly means all, every, or the whole, and here it functions as an adjective that qualifies the noun it accompanies.
In this clause, the singular feminine form agrees with σὰρξ and helps present the subject as an all-encompassing class. The grammar strengthens the reach of the statement, but the surrounding contrast with works of law and knowledge of sin carries the interpretive weight.
The verse says that no flesh will be justified by works of law before God, and πᾶσα supports that broad denial by indicating the whole class in view.
This fits Paul's larger argument that human beings cannot secure righteousness by law-keeping, so the form serves the scope of the argument without adding a new idea of its own.
For readers and translators, the form warns against narrowing the statement too quickly. It supports renderings such as 'no flesh' or 'all flesh' depending on idiom, while keeping the universal force in view.
Do not derive a claim that the feminine form teaches anything about gender, or that the adjective alone settles every detail of the clause's logic.