1 Timothy 1:15

For this (rule), even in his own person, the apostle has laid down. For, when affirming that Christ came for this end, that He might save sinners, of whom himself had been the "first," what does he add? "And I obtained mercy, because I did (so) ignorantly in unbelief.

Moreover, Paul says in the epistle to Timothy, even though he himself had later become an apostle of Jesus, “this is a faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” For some unknown reason he [Celsus] forgot or did not think of saying anything about Paul, who after Jesus established the churches in Christ.… Why then is it outrageous if Jesus, wanting to show mankind the extent of his ability to heal souls, chose infamous and most wicked men and led them on so far that they were an example of the purest moral character to those who were converted by them to the gospel of Christ?

What the apostles received, they passed on without change, so that the doctrine of the mysteries (the sacraments) and Christ would remain correct. The divine Word—the Son of God—wants us to be their (the apostles') disciples. It is appropriate for them to be our teachers, and it is necessary for us to submit to their teaching alone. Only from them and from those who have faithfully taught their doctrine do we get, as Paul writes, “faithful words, worthy of complete acceptance.” With them we are back to ground level, because they did not become disciples as a result of what they heard from others. Rather, they were eyewitnesses and servants of God the Word, and they handed down what they heard directly from him.

"This is a faithful saying," he says. But why is it to be believed?

This appears both from what precedes and from what follows. Observe how he prepares us for this assertion, and how he then dwells upon it. For he hath previously declared that He showed mercy to me "a blasphemer and a persecutor"; this was in the way of preparation. And not only did He show mercy, but "He accounted me faithful." So far should we be he means, from disbelieving that He showed mercy. For no one, who should see a prisoner admitted into a palace, could doubt whether he obtained mercy. And this was visibly the situation of Paul, for he makes himself the example. Nor is he ashamed to call himself a sinner, but rather delights in it, as he thus can best demonstrate the miracle of God's regard for him, and that He had thought him worthy of such extraordinary kindness.

But how is it, that he here calls himself a sinner, nay, the chief of sinners, whereas he elsewhere asserts that he was "touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless"? Because with respect to the righteousness which God has wrought, the justification which is really sought, even those who are righteous in the law are sinners, "for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Therefore he does not say righteousness simply, but "the righteousness which is in the law." As a man that has acquired wealth, with respect to himself appears rich, but upon a comparison with the treasures of kings is very poor and the chief of the poor; so it is in this case. Compared with Angels, even righteous men are sinners; and if Paul, who wrought the righteousness that is in the law, was the chief of sinners, what other man can be called righteous? For he says not this to condemn his own life as impure, let not this be imagined; but comparing his own legal righteousness with the righteousness of God, he shows it to be nothing worth, and not only so, but he proves those who possess it to be sinners.

The favors of God so far exceed human hope and expectation, that often they are not believed. For God has bestowed upon us such things as the mind of man never looked for, never thought of. It is for this reason that the Apostles spend much discourse in securing a belief of the gifts that are granted us of God. For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. "This is a faithful saying," he says, "and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, "It is a saying to be believed."

It is no humility to think that you are a sinner when you really are a sinner. But whenever one is conscious of having done many great deeds but does not imagine that he is something great in himself, that is true humility. When a man is like Paul and can say, "I have nothing on my conscience," and then can add, "But I am not justified by this," and can say again, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners of whom I am the chief," that is true humility. That man is truly humble who does exalted deeds but, in his own mind, sees himself as lowly.

They may choose to read, “It is a man’s saying, and worthy of all acceptation.” We are content to err with the Greeks, that is to say, with the apostle himself, who spoke Greek. Our version, therefore, is, “it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation.”

There was no reason for Christ the Lord to come, except to save sinners. Eliminate diseases, eliminate wounds, and there is no call for medicine. If a great doctor has come down from heaven, a great invalid must have been lying very sick throughout the whole wide world. This invalid is the whole human race.

We heard the blessed apostle Paul saying, “The word is human and worthy of total acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” So it’s a human word, and worthy of total acceptance. Why human, and not divine? Without the slightest doubt, unless this word were also divine, it would not be worthy of total acceptance. But this word is both human and divine in the same sort of way that Christ himself is both man and God. So if we are right in understanding this word to be not only human but also divine, why did the apostle prefer to call it human rather than divine?… So the aspect he chose was the one by which Christ came into the world. He came, after all, insofar as he was man. Because insofar as he was God, he was always there.

“For all have sinned,” either in Adam or by themselves, “and are deprived of the glory of God.” Consequently, the whole human mass ought to be punished, and if the deserved punishment of damnation were rendered to all, beyond all doubt it would be justly rendered. This is why those who are liberated from it by grace are not called vessels of their own merits but “vessels of mercy.” But whose mercy was it but him who sent Jesus Christ into this world to save sinners, whom he foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorified? Hence, who could be so advanced in foolish insanity as not to render ineffable thanks to the mercy of this God who liberates those whom he has wished, considering that one could not in any way reproach the justice of God in condemning all entirely?

Pay attention to the apostle Paul, “The word is faithful and worthy of total acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.” He said, “of whom I am the first.” How was he the first? Weren’t there so many Jews who were sinners before him? Weren’t there any sinners before him in the whole human race?… So what’s the meaning of “of whom I am the first”? That I am worse than all of them. By first he meant us to understand worst.… Remember Saul, and you’ll discover why. Isn’t he the one who wasn’t satisfied with only one hand to stone Stephen, and who took care of the coats of the others? Isn’t he the one who persecuted the church everywhere?… So he it is who was the number one persecutor. There was none worse than he.

What was foreknown about the malice of Jews and what was properly decreed regarding the passion of Christ were very different and quite contrary. For the will to murder did not proceed from the same place as the will to die. Nor did their heinous crime and the Redeemer’s patience arise from a single spirit. Our Lord did not himself cause the wicked hands of his attackers to be laid on him, but he permitted this. He did not force what was going to happen actually to happen simply by foreknowing it. Yet it was for this purpose that he had taken on flesh, so that it might happen. Finally, so disparate were the motives of the Crucified and of those crucifying, that what was undertaken by Christ could not be abolished, what was committed by those others could indeed have been put to a halt. He who came “to save sinners” did not deny his mercy even to his own murderers, but turned the evil of godless people to the good of believers.

This is a short psalm, but it annihilates the boundless wickedness of pagans who believe that the glory of the heavenly majesty could not have descended to the humility of suffering. How foolish they are. For their thinking is confounded by the Source of the world’s realization that it has been freed! As Paul says, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.”

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

The saying is trustworthy, that is, the spoken word is true. "You will know from me," Paul says. "of whom I am the foremost." And yet elsewhere he says, "According to the righteousness which is in the law made blameless." (Philip. 3:6)

How then does Paul call himself sinful and the foremost of sinners? And we say that righteousness from the law, when compared with that from faith, is not only not righteousness, but also the first sin. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) In this comparison, it has also been used elsewhere, where it says: "For even that which has been glorified has not been glorified in this part, because of the surpassing glory." (2 Cor. 3:10)