Did Paul say he was Chief of Sinners?

[Rukkus]

SuperJew said . . .

This is why i don't like Strong's. First off, "I am" is not a word in Greek, it is two words (like in English) of ego eimi. If Paul wanted to say, "I was" then it would have been written ego emen (the imperfect indicative form), however that is certainly not the case. He clearly uses the present, meaning that it is taking place in the present world.

Well, as I said, that same word is used in the NT but translated past tense . . . But I'm going to look more into this.

As for you attempting to pull context, doesn't work. This is where I got the past, present, future idea. Who Christ came to save. The word "save" here is sozo, however when placed inside the sentence and given the context it is spelled sosai. This indicates that Paul meant it to be understood in the Aorist tense. While most translations have the Aorist as a past tense, this is inaccurate. For one, it's impossible to translate it into English, the idea simply doesn't correlate into our language and there is no perfect way to translate it. In essence, Paul is saying it was a work that was started (where we get our past tense) but does not indicate an ending for it (which can mean it is ongoing).

Well, I'm going by what can actually be read in the Bible. When you reference the Greek, you're getting off into something that you need to verify with sources, because I'm not going to take your word for it.

In essence, the context screams that Paul was the worst of sinners and still is the worst of sinners (at least in his mind, it doesn't make it true, simply that Paul was using hyperbole to prove a point).

Well, people read different things into the context, I'm just referring to the text itself.

This corresponds with various verses talking about the frailties that Paul had, specifically the giving into things that he did not want to do.

Well, I don't know about it corresponding with various verses concerning Paul's infirmities. I would say it doesn't. Like 1Cor 4:4. And in another place he says he has wronged no man. As far as giving into things he didn't want to do . . . That's Romans 7, in which is described a man who is carnal, sold under sin, and without the Holy Spirit dwelling in his flesh (read verses 14, and 18). But then one chapter later clearly shows that he has been set free from that law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), by the power of the law of the Spirit of Life. And that there is a way by which you can destroy the works of the flesh, through the Spirit (verse 13). People quote Romans 7 like Paul spent his whole life there. But all you gotta do is read one more chapter, and you see the outcome isn't bondage to sin, but freedom from that law of sin and death.

[christdw]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc. The question is Did Paul call himself the Chief of Sinners? The answer is, unequivocally, NO. He never referred to himself as the "chief" (or the "foremost" or anything else) of sinners. He says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost."

The foremost what? That is the question.

The passage, itself, is ambiguous. We can't determine with 100% certainty what Paul is the foremost of. So, when that is the case, we must use clearer passages to explain ambiguous passages.

A very clear passage occurs in Romans 8. Here, Paul is talking about walking "in the Spirit," and walking "in the flesh." Walking in the flesh is another term for being in the "sinful state," or, a "sinner." After laying out both sides of the "flesh" and the "Spirit," Paul says this in Romans 8:9: "However, you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you."

Therefore, Paul is clearly saying that a Christian is NOT in the flesh, he is NOT in the sinful state, but rather, he is in the state of the Spirit.

It's not like, when we became a Christian, that our flesh nature still existed, and there was slapped a spirit nature on top of it. Our flesh nature was crucified (Galatians 5:24), and we are now a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17).

Does that mean we still sin? Yes, of course! But for Paul, to be a "sinner" and to be a "saint" is not based on our ACTIONS, it is a state of being; a nature; a domain. And when we became a Christian, we had a "new birth," and we left our old nature behind, and adopted a brand new one, that of being in the Spirit, or being a "son of God" (Romans 8:14). Can a son of God be a son of God AND a sinner? No. It's a contradiction (1 John 3:9).

So, while we might SIN, our SIN no longer DEFINES US. In those instances, we can be seen as a "saint who sins."

With that, we turn back to 1 Timothy 1:15. While it could be argued, from the grammar of the text, that Paul is calling himself the "chief of sinners," it is observed that (1) he never actually says that, and (2) the rest of scripture (these references, and others, which Rukkus has given) clearly show that Paul no longer considered himself in the sinful state.

THEREFORE, another interpretation on this passage is necessitated because scripture is so clear elsewhere.

And that is why Paul is not calling himself the "chief of sinners," he is calling himself the "chief of former sinners who have now been saved." And this does not mean that Paul is bragging here, as has been suggested; instead, it means that he realizes how low he was--how big of a sinner he was--and therefore, the ENORMOUS gap that Christ made up when He saved Paul. Paul is not exalting himself above anybody; rather, he is putting himself below all, by saying that he was displayed the most mercy because he was formerly so bad.

This is a quote from another page on this topic that I find very insightful:

One of the great delusions of the day is, that one may be a Christian, and at the same time be a sinner. Never did the devil hatch up a greater soul-deceiving lie. Even the expression,

[Leonard]

Thank you, Rukkus: Your own hermeneutical gymnastics (not to say 'contortions') argue more powerfully against your view than anything I could possibly write!

However to continue flagellation of the deceased equine beast, I must point out--as I think someone already did here--that Paul even goes on further, to say that "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing." Paul recognizes that left to his own devices, he would be quite the scoundrel, but it is the PURE GIFT OF GOD, that enables us to live above sin.

So I understand both, "Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner," and "Praise be unto God, who always allows us to walk in victory!"

God's MERCY toward us, allows us to walk victoriously above sin.

[apothanein kerdos]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc.

Actually, that's what it boils down to. Your "interpretation" is inadequate because it ignores the fact that Paul was speaking of himself as the worst of all sinners, in the present tense.

[WarMonkeyMan]

Hold up, somebody's going to have to explain this to me.

How exactly did THIS get in Apologetics?

[Masked Chris]

I think Paul wrote that while feeling kind of guilty actully... it sounds out of the blue but it seems to be the tone of the message. It says "here's a trustworthy saying, Jesus came to save sinners, whom I am chief". It seems to have the same additude as if you just stole 5 bucks from your mother and are now feeling guilty about it. "here's a trustworthy saying, Jesus died among a theif, whom I am the worst". I think this is the context of the passage. Paul wasn't the cheif of sinners because sinners have no cheif.... all have fallen short and therefore we are all on the same level. However he must've been feeling guilty... maybe he was reflecting back on his days when he went and killed God's people out of rage.... he must've been thinking "geez... I have such a temper! I killed Christains! I truly am the worst sinner on the planet". Hey? the old saint wasn't perfect. Infact... he says elsewhere that we are nothing but jars of clay that hold a golden message. Jars of clay are ugly... yet they have the potentail to carry something beautiful. Christains are never meant to be glorious... God is meant to be glorious in us. Why wouldn't this include Paul and the other apostles? Just something to think about

[christdw]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc.

Actually, that's what it boils down to. Your "interpretation" is inadequate because it ignores the fact that Paul was speaking of himself as the worst of all sinners, in the present tense.

Ahhh! Again, you're missing the point. The question was, "Did Paul call himself the chief of sinners"? The answer is "no." He said, "...that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost [or chief]."

Look at that. Did Paul call himself the Cheif of sinners. NO. He called himself the "chief." But the "chief" what? He doesn't say.

As I argued, although you could make a point that he is calling himself the Chief of Sinners [period], from other passages in the Bible, it is clear that CHRISTIANS are NO LONGER SINNERS (cf. 1 Peter 4:18, 1 John 3:9, among others). Christians have moved from the domain of being "sinners" to now being "in the Spirit" or "children of God." And being a "sinner" and being a "child of God" are mutually exclusive (again, 1 John 3:9). We still sin, yes, but our sin does not define us; we have adopted a new nature (2 Cor 5:17).

Therefore, it is a contradiction that Paul is saying that he is now currently the chief of sinners and still saved--it cannot be. So, another "intepretation" is necessary. There are a few possibilities. I have suggested that he is saying that he is the "chief sinner that is now, currently saved. Another alternative is that he is talking about his former life "I was the chief sinner"; although he uses the present tense, it is not without precedence for Paul to use the present tense to talk about himself in the past, e.g. Romans 7:14-25 (in this passage Paul is not, as is widely held, talking about his life as a Christian; context clearly shows that this is Paul under the law, without Christ. So when he says, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me," Paul is talking about life under the Mosaic law. Read all of Chapter 7 and 8 of Romans and you will clearly see that is the case; only in recent years has that passage been interpreted as to be the life of a Christian).

Either "interpretation" I presented is not playing loose with the text; for to say that Paul is calling himself the "chief of sinners that has been saved" is no less a valid interpretation than him calling himself the "chief of sinners [period]." After all, as I tried to explain, Paul does not say what he is the chief of; he simply says that he is the chief something.

Dr. Robert Saucy has written an excellent article on the issue of "saint vs. sinner," and in it he talks about 1 Timothy 1:15. He is probably more learned and brilliant than any of us, I suggest you all read it: http://www.ficm.org/questions/saucy%20bib%20sac.html.

God's blessings on you all!

[apothanein kerdos]

[

\Ahhh! Again, you're missing the point. The question was, "Did Paul call himself the chief of sinners"? The answer is "no." He said, "...that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost [or chief]."

Look at that. Did Paul call himself the Cheif of sinners. NO. He called himself the "chief." But the "chief" what? He doesn't say.

Are you serious?

Like, even in English, this is possibly the most plain thing to understand. There is possibly no way you could be serious if you've passed a third grade reading class...and that isn't meant as a put down. Either you're really twisting this scripture to fit some preconceived idea...you lack reading comprehension. There is no alternative.

Even your own source states:

Does this true but rather bleak perspective make the identity of the believer a "sinner" as well as a "saint" so that he or she is actually both? Interestingly, although the New Testament gives extensive evidence that believers sin, it never clearly identifies believers as "sinners." Paul's reference to himself in which he declared, "I am foremost" of sinners is often raised to the contrary (1 Tim 1:15). Guthrie's comment on Paul's assertion is illustrative of a common understanding of Paul's statement and what should be true of all believers. "Paul never got away from the fact that Christian salvation was intended for sinners, and the more he increased his grasp of the magnitude of God's grace, the more he deepened the consciousness of his own naturally sinful state, until he could write of whom I am chief (pro,tos)."12

You didn't read this article before posting it, did you?

The following commentary is also something that Saucy woudl have been aware of (hopefully so) considering it was mostly contributed to by DTS professors:

In fact it was just for this purpose

[christdw]

First of all, Apothanein, you were insulting and that was uncalled for. We are trying to have a debate; there is no need to put someone down--that is not keeping with the spirit of this board, nor in how we should deal with Christian brothers and sisters. And simply saying "that wasn't meant as a put down" does not give you a right to say what you want.

Second of all, yes, I did read that article before I posted it--thoroughly, several times. That article expresses a point that I was making, which is crucial to the interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15--Christians are no longer sinners. We have moved from the realm of being a "sinner" to now being a "child of God" or "in the Spirit," and that is the point Dr. Saucy makes in that article. Therefore, based on that conclusion, it does not make since that Paul would be calling himself, in his current state, i.e. at his time of writing 1 Tim. 1:15, the "chief [of sinners, period]."

There is no contradiction between what Dr. Saucy says and what I have said. I have come to the conclusion that Paul is referring to himself as the "chief [of sinners that is now, currently, saved]." (Read my entire post if you do not believe me.) He is not calling himself, in his present state, the chief sinner. Many people recall that verse and say, "Look! Paul calls himself the chief of all sinners." My argument is that Christians are no longer sinners, so Paul is not simply referring to himself as the "chief sinner" in his current state now, as a Christian; he is referring to himself as the chief sinner that has left the realm (or domain) of being a sinner, and has moved into the domain of being a "son of God," "in the Spirit," or, simply, "saved."

Or, as Dr. Saucy puts it when he sums up his view on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Thus the apostle was not applying the appellation 'sinner' to himself as a believer, but rather in remembrance of what he was before Christ took hold of him."

Do you see an contradiction between that and what I presented? I do not. I have simply put it this way: Paul is referring to himself as the "chief [sinner that is now, currently, saved]."

Aponthanein, you misrepresented me in the quote that you used, and took what I said out of context. That was merely my introduction; in it, I was pointing out that Paul did not precisely say what he was the chief of. He simply called himself the "chief." As I said, many people quote 1 Timothy 1:15 and say "Paul calls himself the 'chief of sinners.'" My point in the introduction is to say that, when you say that, you are misquoting 1 Tim. 1:15, because the verse does not say "I am the chief of sinners." Paul calls himself the chief. But, literally, he does not refer to himself as the "chief of sinners," but rather "among whom, I am the chief [period]."

I'm not suggesting he is calling himself the "chief parking lot attendant" or the "chief host at Appleby's." Obviously, the "whom" limits what he is calling himself to what he previously said. But, taking into account the fact that Christians are no longer "sinners," the verse could be understood as something like this: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the chief [sinner who has now, currently, been saved]"--and, therefore, he is no longer a "sinner." Because, as I've said many times, and as Dr. Saucy has so eloquently illustrated, Christians are no longer "sinners."

I am not trying to push any warped view of the scripture, and to accuse me of that is one of the highest insults I can receive, and, I believe, one of the highest insults a person can level on someone. As a "pastor-in-training" I take 2 Timothy 4:1-5 as a solemn charge. I joined this board to have a spirited discussion on scripture and theology. I would hope that we could all be mature in our debates and not resort to leveling insults All of us should be more careful before we blindly accuse someone as twisting scripture, as that is a serious charge.

God's blessings on your day.

[Ovedya]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc.

Actually, that's what it boils down to. Your "interpretation" is inadequate because it ignores the fact that Paul was speaking of himself as the worst of all sinners, in the present tense.

Ahhh! Again, you're missing the point. The question was, "Did Paul call himself the chief of sinners"? The answer is "no." He said, "...that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost [or chief]."

Look at that. Did Paul call himself the Cheif of sinners. NO. He called himself the "chief." But the "chief" what? He doesn't say.

Forgive me for saying so "christdw" but that is the most inane argument I think I have ever seen. Simple grammar proves you wrong. The word "whom" points to the word "sinners."

The rest of your agument is simply invalid. You are reasoning that the Scriptures say something because of your preconceptions. So you are not reasoning at all within the boundaries that the Scriptures set.

And frankly, I don't care what "Dr. Saucy" says about it. If he's arguing the same, then he's wrong as well.