# The chief of sinners? 1 Timothy 1:15



## AThornquist (Feb 17, 2010)

In 1 Timothy 1:15 Paul says that he is the chief of sinners (or 'the foremost [sinner]," ESV). Some have interpreted that to mean plainly what the text says: that Paul really was the foremost sinner. Thus, these interpreters would say, we should not consider ourselves to be the foremost sinner, though surely we are sinners more than we can imagine.

Others interpret Paul's statement to be one of personal humility, only 'viewing himself' as the chief, not concluding it as a matter of fact. The statement would be seen as one of perspective; thus, these interpreters would say, from his own perspective he was the foremost because he only knew the depths of his own sin (insofar as a man can grasp the depths of his sin, of course). He did not know the depths of sin on the part of anyone else. 
Therefore, we too should see that we are the chief of sinners _from our own perspective_. By viewing ourselves as the foremost sinners we demonstrate humility and our need for Christ; we however do not mean that we are in fact the foremost because a) we are not comparing ourselves to other people, only to the Lord's standards, and b) we are finite and have no real knowledge of who the chief of sinners is.


Which view is most accurate? How should we view ourselves?


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 17, 2010)

A) As guilty sinners desperately in need of salvation by the righteousness of another. 
B) As adopted sons, co-heirs with Christ, bearing His righteousness by God's gracious gift. 

There is no need to get too uptight about what Paul meant when he said he was the chief of sinners. We are sinners enough, chief or otherwise, to deserve eternal punishment in Hell for all we are and all we've done. That's as far as I ever worry about going, as it's far
enough to understand where I am in my own flesh. At the same time as I acknowledge and see myself as a dreadful sinner deserving God's wrath, I know that I shall see my Redeemer, and that His righteousness is mine, having atoned for my sin and welcomed me into His kingdom. I don't need to know much more than that, either, in terms of my standing before God.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 17, 2010)

Thank you, Todd. 

My main reason for asking is because a couple of friends and I are reading through "When Sinners Say, 'I Do'" and the author holds to the second view I mentioned above and uses it throughout the book while several people in our group hold to the first. We all agree with what you said but I just wanted to be a little more precise in how I approach that text.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 17, 2010)

Sin isn't a competition, obviously, and of course when you really see the heinousness of your own sin it's difficult to conceive of anything more heinous. Any ratings system would also have to contend with Judas and Annas and Caiaphas, and so forth.

That said, though, the context in 1 Timothy 1 is of Paul announcing that he is a paradigmatic case, an exemplar. What we are to learn is how great God's mercy is, that in the conversion of Paul we may find hope for ourselves.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 17, 2010)

I lean toward saying we really can't rate sinners on some objective scale, deciding which of them God views as the worst. Any sin at all is heinous rebellion, and it's hard to conceive of where an unbiased rating system would even begin. After all, in Philippians 3 Paul says in his former life he was blameless under the law, which hardly sounds like the worst sinner imaginable.

But a subjective, personal look at sin does have a clear starting point: the log in one's own eye. So that way it's easy to see how Paul would consider himself the worst.

So I'd suggest the "humble Paul" approach is certainly valid and probably the best point to take from the passage. This is not to say it's the _only_ valid point. Paul is, at the same time, a great example of God's mercy toward even the hardest cases. Both ideas can be, in a sense, true and valuable to us.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 17, 2010)

Andrew, Albert Martin says something like 'if God can save the chief, He can save all the little Indians', which has been an encouragement to me.

re: taking the passage in the first way, one of my friends was telling us about how her lack of distinction in virtue made her feel that she must be the worst sinner on earth, and then it was almost a disappointment to have to remember that she didn't get that distinction either, because Paul was the chief of sinners. I thought that was rather penetrating of her  (some forms of shame do seem to take a sort of vicious twist of inverted pride in making a person feel uncommonly wicked). It seems reading the other responses, like maybe either way you take it, the passage is supposed to lead us away from any kind of pride in ourselves, but to a sort of humble 'forwardness' (like the quote Rev. Winzer posted yesterday from Samuel Rutherford: it sometimes seems like presumption to ask for forgiveness) of knowing that Christ died for us, bad as we may be?


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 17, 2010)

Thank you all for the input.


----------



## MW (Feb 17, 2010)

The first is obviously the proper interpretation of the passage, but the second is valid as a pious application.


----------

