Troublesome Topic: I CORINTHIANS 6

IN WHAT WAY SHALL WE JUDGE THE WORLD?

First of all, Jesus will be the judge of everyone in the world, but His righteous followers shall somehow participate in that judgment. We are never told how we will do that. Some suggest that our lives will serve as condemnation of those who did not follow Jesus. Others say that we will simply accompany and surround Jesus as He judges, approving of His verdicts because our experience has taught us how to know the difference between good and evil. Yet another suggestion is that Jesus will judge through us, His faithful followers, by granting us some of His authority.

OPTION ONE

The first answer, that the comparison between our testimony and theirs will serve as a type of judging, fits well with the reality that the Jesus’s right to judge is based on His actions, i.e. His vicarious death followed by a miraculous resurrection (e.g. Acts 17:31). This same terminology is used occasionally of the wicked, i.e. the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of Nineveh, and the queen of Sheba will all judge, condemn, the ones Jesus was talking to or about. In these cases, they will not be co-regents with God, they will not be given authority; they will simply serve as comparative examples based on the fact that their lives, though wicked, were better lived than the lives of those Jesus was talking to or about who should have known better. Thus, there is a sense in which the word “judging, and judgment” can be used of one’s example without any authority attached to the person.

While this interpretation fits regarding the right to judge, it does not adequately match this passage which is addressing actual judging between two individuals in a real-world setting. In reality, one of the problems that makes this passage difficult is that the comparison is not a close one regardless of which interpretation you choose. One is a practical, earthly matter of little consequence in which human judges, either in the church or in the world, must render a decision, the other is a judgement of global scope with eternal consequences.

But that is also where the beauty of this passage lies. We do not know the details of how this will work out, but we take by faith that it will be worked out.

OPTION TWO

 Option number two is that we will simply accompany and surround Jesus as He judges, approving of His verdicts because our experience has taught us how to know the difference between good and evil. This interpretation is a possibility here in I Corinthians 6, but it is a bit weak. It does not directly connect to the conversation Paul was having with the Corinthians about why they refused to judge disputes that came up within the congregation. It does not fit at all when we see other passages that mention thrones and believers, such as the twelve disciples, sitting on them and ruling (see Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30, Daniel 7:9-10 & 26-27).

OPTION THREE

The third interpretation offered is that Jesus will judge through us, His faithful followers, by granting us some of His authority. We will be His co-regents.

This interpretation has stronger evidence to support it, but it must be balanced carefully. Jesus is clearly presented as the Judge. He alone has the authority and the right to judge individuals, nations, the world, the angels, everything. In ancient times, the Queen Mother was often seated on a throne that was brought in for her (it was not a permanent fixture) and she gave her advice to the King who would make the final decision. Therefore, the simple mention of thrones, especially if it says the thrones were brought in or set up, does not necessarily mean permanent authority. True co-regency, the joint rule of a father and son, did mean permanent authority, but there were also temporary cases of authority granted for short periods of time or specific occasions. 

There are several places in the Bible which indicate that God will share His authority with us. Whether it is always true co-regency or if some of them refer to temporary co-ruling, we cannot be sure. What our participate will look like we cannot say with certainty. What we do know is that said co-ruling will be under the authority of God.

HOW WILL WE JUDGE ANGELS?

We do not know how we will judge the angels. The same explanations apply here that were used regarding judging the world. The same truths are also true here – that Jesus is the true judge and that we do not deserve being raised to a higher level of authority.

Where I disagree with Heiser the most regarding this passage is that he assumes that we will be divine. Being elevated to judge between the faithful and rebellious angels, or to judge the actions of the angels as faithful or rebellious, will not prove anything about our nature; it will not prove that we are divine, as Michael Heiser supposes. It will not prove that there is a council of the gods and that we will be part of that council. It will only prove God’s undeserved grace and kindness toward us.

SUMMARY

Three things are self-evident:

1) Our ruling or judging will have some connection to our faithfulness to God while on this earth. That does not mean we were perfectly faithful. It means that we accepted what Jesus was offering us and after that, when it came to the issue of guilt, God would look at us and see Jesus instead. Whatever our role in this matter looks like, it will never be separated from our spiritual life here on earth. Not that we earned it in the true sense of the word “earn”, but we did our small part, and God did the lion’s share of this thing called redemption.

2) Whatever our role in judging the world will look like, we are not worthy of such a role. This is true even though I just said that our ruling or judging will have something to do with our faithfulness to God. It will happen only because God has raised us to a level of honor we do not deserve and given us a level of authority that we did not earn. 3) The glory will all go to Jesus. He deserves all the glory, we deserve none. He has all knowledge and power and authority. If He chooses to share some of that authority with us, it will not be a statement about us, it will be a reflection on Him, His knowledge, His grace, and His redemptive work in our lives. Our pronouncement of judgment, if that is what we will do (and that is debatable), will be worth very little; it will be Christ’s statement of judgment that will be worth paying attention to.

WAS PAUL USING SARCASM OR ASKING A QUESTION?

Yes!

In the context of this passage, either sarcasm or a question would be a way to further communicate that they were way off base by doing what they were doing.

The tribunal being discussed here would be one tasked with looking into matters of this life, not eternal matters. This describes a court under the authority of the Roman government.

The point about the tribunal would usually point away from the church. But whoever the people were who were “despised, considered nothing” were in the assembly, in the church, not outside the church.

The use of the subjunctive form of the verb “have” indicates something that is not real, but is supposed, hypothetical, or wishful thinking.

All these together give me the freedom in my paraphrase column to create a hypothetical situation which Paul used to drive his point home to the congregation at Corinth. It also allows for an English rendering that clears up an otherwise challenging Greek statement or question.

WHY DID PAUL INCLUDE THIS STRANGE QUESTION?

Everyone knows that a local congregation of believers could never set up their own court and hope for it to have legal authority; Rome would only recognize the courts it had established. But Paul’s point to them was this, “If you could do such things to settle simple matters pertaining to daily-life stuff, would you appoint judges you could not trust? Judges who follow their own whims? No, you would not. But that is what it is like when you take your case to a judge who is hostile to the principles of Christ!”

SUBMISSION TO A CHURCH LEADER

Paul was saying that people who decided to follow Jesus needed to be willing to allow spiritually wise and discerning leaders within the local church body to resolve disputes between them. They had to be willing to submit to any reconciliation that such a leader decided upon and submit to any discipline that he imposed upon them. A refusal to allow the church leader to do this was more than disrespectful to authority, it was disrespectful to the God of the universe who granted such authority, and in the future will grant even more authority.