DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE SAINTS WILL JUDGE THE WORLD?

In 1 Corinthians 6:2 it says: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world…?" The Greek word in that verse for "world", is from kosmos. The meaning of kosmos can include the world and everything in it, and it can also extend to include everything in the universe. And the word for "judge" there, is from krino, which has to do with putting on trial, determining guilt, and passing sentence. Krino is in the future tense, so in the future, the saints will have the authority to put everything in the universe on trial, determine guilt, and pass sentence. So let us look at the saints as judges.

There is an old legal principle that a judge can not judge his own cause. In other words, if the outcome of a case affects him, he should not be allowed to judge the case. If a corruptible judge had to try either a friend or an enemy, he may be unfairly influenced by his relationship with them. He could be a biased judge, which would mean justice could not be guaranteed. But if that judge were incorruptible, justice definitely would be guaranteed, as there would be nothing that could corrupt him.

So what about the saints? Will their judgements ever be corrupted? If they are to judge everything in the universe, including angels, will their judgements be biased? If a saint were to judge a demon, and that demon had harmed him in the past, (remembering that the demons have been to war with the saints), could that saint be unfairly influenced against the demon?

Where these questions are concerned, the credibility of the saints as judges hinges on the questions: Will they be capable of corruption, or will they be incorruptible? Remember, God tells us to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), so the incorruptibility of the saints must be provable.

Paul spoke to the saints in Corinth about corruption, when he said, at 1 Corinthians 15:33 "Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good habits.' " The Greek for "corrupts" there is from phtheiro, which can include the corruption of morals. And it is in the present indicative, which tells us that it was happening at the time Paul was speaking. He was telling them that, at that time, the saints were capable of moral corruption - evil company could corrupt their good habits.

Morals have to do with the rightness and wrongness of behaviour, and one aspect of the nature of God is moral incorruptibility. Jesus proved that the nature of God would remain morally incorruptible even through crucifixion, because He had the nature of God. And He later indicated that the nature of the saints would be changed to be at one with Him and His Father, when, at John 17:21,22 He said to His Father:

"that they all may be one (hen - one in nature)…just as we are one (hen again - one in nature)."

So if the saints are to be given a nature which Jesus proved to be morally incorruptible, is that sufficient proof that the saints will be morally incorruptible judges - that their judgements will never be corrupt? No, not quite. There is one more thing that must be proved for that.

You see, if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and The Father are one person - God - then Jesus remaining sinless on the cross proves only that God is incorruptible, not that God can take created beings to incorruptibility.

And if the methods involved in taking created beings to incorruptibility are not tried and tested, there would be no proof that the saints would be incorruptible judges. If this were the case, then whenever a saint passed judgement on a demon, the demon could simply argue that there is no proof that the saint is morally incorruptible. There would be no proof that the saint would not be unfairly influenced against the demon because of past events, as there would be no proof that a created being could be taken to incorruptibility.

It is God's principle to prove all things, and if He has not provided proof that a created being can be successfully taken to incorruptibility, then the demon would have a legitimate argument against God's conduct. God would have entrusted judicial authority over the universe to people, without proof of their moral incorruptibility.

If someone has a legitimate argument against God's conduct, it means He is not beyond reproach. One of God's instructions is for us to be beyond reproach: therefore, by implication, God too has to be beyond reproach. Paul said at 1 Timothy 6:13,14 (NASB) "I charge you in the presence of God…(v 14) that you may keep the commandment without stain or reproach…" The Greek word for "reproach" there, is from anepileptos, which has to do with having nothing that can be taken hold of as grounds for a charge against you. If God did not provide proof that a created being could be successfully taken to incorruptibility, that would be something that anyone being judged by the resurrected saints could use as grounds for a charge against Him; His conduct would not be beyond reproach. He would have entrusted judicial authority to people, without the proof that those people can not be corrupted. However, if He does provide this proof, then such a charge would be without basis, and God's conduct would be beyond reproach.

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are created beings, then there would be adequate proof that the methods of taking a created being to incorruptibility do actually result in incorruptibility. And if the saints were to be taken up to the same state of incorruptibility, using the same methods, then God could irreproachably give them the authority to judge the universe, safe in the proven knowledge that they will never be corrupted, and therefore can be trusted to judge the universe righteously.