Did Paul say he was Chief of Sinners?

[Ovedya]

Well, it's important to remember that the word "save" used in that verse is a verb.

Yes, in that verses, and I think just about everywhere else it's used in the New Testament. However, that does not mean that Paul's intention in this passage was to inform the believers that He was the chiefest among those who are being saved. Again, my concern is that you are adding something to what Paul is saying, or assuming something from this passage, that just is not there. I think that you could reasonably argue that, because of Paul's former trespasses, he considered the work of Christ in his life to transform him from his former person into a new creation to be quite remarkable; I think you could also do that with other passages in the Bible, like Phil. 3 for example.

However, I don't see that Paul really ever considered himself to be above the work of Christ in any other believer. The argument that he makes with regard to his sufferings is usually such that he points to the grace, mercy, and patience of Christ in dealing with such a wretched person. So when Paul talk about being a pattern he is not saying, "Follow after me," he is saying, "Look at the work of Christ in my life as an example of how gracious, merciful, and patient He is."

This passage in 1 Timothy is basically saying two things: First, that there are those in the church who, without understanding the full weight and function of the law, are attempting to teach the law to the believers in the church. Second, that Paul, having been zealous for the law, and blameless, still functioned to oppose God's purpose and economy, without knowing it - in ignorance. But God, being rich in mercy, grace, and patience, worked through Paul to produce something glorious and honorable to Himself. So the end result of God's work in Paul was that Paul - a former blasphemer, persecutor of the church, and insulting person - was made to give glory and honor to God.

So there is a definite contrast between Paul's former life, which was steeped in religious zealotry and misguided ignorant persecution of the church, and calling himself the foremost among sinners, and the end result of God's work in him. Between verses 14 and 17 there is a "But." That indicates a definite change, a contrast. By saying that Paul considered himself to be foremost among those being saved essentially you are taking away that contrast between the former and foremost sinning Paul and the latter "being transformed" Paul.

[Ovedya]

I forgot to answer your question here:

Alright, well let me ask you a question . . . When Paul says "of whom" who is he referring to in that verse?

In verse 15 Paul was referring to sinners - those that sin. This word actually is and adjective, which means it describes the word "whom." Paul's ussage of the word here follows his description of those for whom the Law was constructed, the sinners, in verses 9-10, and even 13.

It's also quite remarkable, by the way, that Paul argues that the function of the Law is to bring clear knowledge of sin (v. 9; Rom. 3:20). However, Paul, being under the Law, a follower of the Law, and being zealous for the Law, still committed sins against Christ's Body. These facts were made known to our brother through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[yomotalking]

Although my eye strings are nearly breaking in half trying not to stare, but I have to give in, and see your name......ahem....first poster.....

[Rukkus]

Ovedya, what do you think of my rewrite of that section (post 10)? Can you find anything specifically wrong by quoting it and then pointing it out? I really want to get to the bottom of this.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Rukkus

[Guest jusme]

HMMMM

Let's not get too twisted around the axle.

It appears to me that Paul is stating that he was the worst sinner, the most notorious, to get saved.

We can get carried away with the tenses here, but it is like if Hank Aaron were to say, Jesus Christ came into the world to save home run hitters, of whom I am chief.

The statement is true, though it refers in the present tense to a record established based on activity entirely in the past.

One cannot make a reasonable case that Paul continued in the same sort of sin of persecuting the church, and blaspheming after he was saved.

And these were the sins he listed in the context, and elsewhere as qualifying him for the title of the chiefest sinner whom Jesus had saved (at the time of writing)

And the pattern, I suppose is referring to the fact, that we can all consider the patience and mercy that God showed to Paul, and see that no one is so vile that their sin is too great for God's grace.

Anyone who tries to justify continuing in sin is sinning. And it doesn't matter what justification they give. If they read what paul writes (ephesians and colossians, especially, also galatians, especially chapter 6) they would know better.

[Rukkus]

Jusme

Thank you for the response. But, did you find anything specifically wrong in my article? If so, could you point it out and tell me why?

[Rukkus]

Alright, I think I'm gonna call this one quits.

Just a note though . . .

If I come on here asking for biblical correction, and you leave before the conversation is finished, I take that as meaning that you had no more objections. Now, on the other hand, if you leave the conversation with an objection that you failed to make while we talked, then the responsibility is on you to tell me. I'm a brother in Christ seeking correction. If you deny me that, then that isn't my fault, it's yours.

So basically what I'm saying is that I get alot of you guys high tailing it out of here when I respond to what you say. But I would suggest you offer as much biblical insight as you know, and if after that, I still don't accept it, just say so. Just say, "Rukkus, I've told you all I know to tell you. I hope it was helpful." Don't get all bent out of shape and leave without saying anything

Anyway, I'll stop by to see if anyone else posts anything . . .

Thanks again

[Ovedya]

Alright, I think I'm gonna call this one quits.

Just a note though . . .

If I come on here asking for biblical correction, and you leave before the conversation is finished, I take that as meaning that you had no more objections. Now, on the other hand, if you leave the conversation with an objection that you failed to make while we talked, then the responsibility is on you to tell me. I'm a brother in Christ seeking correction. If you deny me that, then that isn't my fault, it's yours.

So basically what I'm saying is that I get alot of you guys high tailing it out of here when I respond to what you say. But I would suggest you offer as much biblical insight as you know, and if after that, I still don't accept it, just say so. Just say, "Rukkus, I've told you all I know to tell you. I hope it was helpful." Don't get all bent out of shape and leave without saying anything

Anyway, I'll stop by to see if anyone else posts anything . . .

Thanks again

Brother,

I think that I initially came off as being a little bit harsh in my first response here. Having read the thread in which you were debating thepoint of sinlessness, I honestly thought that you were again trying to promote this same thing. I sincerely apologize for that. I need to learn to take each thread by themselves, instead of assuming that there is a certain agenda or goal.

In any case, I think that the point you are trying to make is valid, and I think there is support for in the Scriptures. However, I also think that your point might have been better supported from other passages, instead of this one. Although I understand that there are many things we can "dig out" from the Scriptures for the building up of the Body of Christ, I also think that it's important to try and stay "on point" with what the writers were trying to impart.

That matter of salvation from sin is an important one to discuss in the church. And the matter of the two aspects of our salvation is definately a vital one. We have been saved, and we are being saved, and eventually we will be saved.

Much grace,

~O

[Rukkus]

Ovedya said . . .

Brother,

I think that I initially came off as being a little bit harsh in my first response here. Having read the thread in which you were debating thepoint of sinlessness, I honestly thought that you were again trying to promote this same thing. I sincerely apologize for that. I need to learn to take each thread by themselves, instead of assuming that there is a certain agenda or goal.

In any case, I think that the point you are trying to make is valid, and I think there is support for in the Scriptures. However, I also think that your point might have been better supported from other passages, instead of this one. Although I understand that there are many things we can "dig out" from the Scriptures for the building up of the Body of Christ, I also think that it's important to try and stay "on point" with what the writers were trying to impart.

That matter of salvation from sin is an important one to discuss in the church. And the matter of the two aspects of our salvation is definately a vital one. We have been saved, and we are being saved, and eventually we will be saved.

Much grace,

Well thank you. I'm sincerely not trying to promote anything other than what the Bible says. No agendas, just trying to get to the truth. It's a big mistake for people to read 1Tim 1:15 and come to the conclusion that Paul was saying he was chief of sinners. Paul makes reference to sinners who are delivered from their sins. I don't believe Paul stayed a sinner, for the simple fact that in that verse itself it says that Jesus came to deliver them out of their sins (ref Matt 1:21). If it read "Christ Jesus came into the world to leave sinners the way they are, of whom I am chief." Then you could conclude that Paul was saying he was chief of sinners, with no deliverance. But as I say in the article, the fact that Paul references sinners that are being delivered from their sins . . . . Makes all the difference in the world.

p.s. This article is for our "IIOpinions" page in which we talk about commonly held beliefs of the church that are not actually supported by scripture. The reason I brought up this particular article, is because just recently we had someone contact the ministry and make all sorts of accusations about how we were wrong on this article, but before we could respond to them, and pinpoint where they were coming from, they left and stopped talking to us. So I ventured onto these discussion boards to see if I could get someone to pick up where this person left off, so that I could see if there was something that truly needed to be corrected in the article.

Thanks

Edited October 11, 2005 by Rukkus

[yomotalking]

I honestly do not see the reason for such an nargument.

Paul said he was the Chief of sinners.

Ok.