Heaven, Hell and Everything in Between (Part 3)

Let's go to the Lord in prayer. Father, thank you for the opportunity we have to be here this morning. To have this shelter from the cold and from the rain. Most importantly, to have the opportunity to come and to learn about you and to worship you.

Lord, I pray that you would bless this time as we look into what your word says about heaven, hell, the issues that people have raised about other possibilities. Father, I pray that you would keep us focused on what the Bible says and rightly interpreting it.

That we might be encouraged to look forward to all that you have for those who love you and are called according to your purpose. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen. Well, I have to tell you, I have been excited to look at heaven, to look at the different things.

I've recently, last night I was reading more, typing up a bunch of stuff about purgatory. And you might say, well, what's the point in learning about, you know, universalism, annihilationism, purgatory?

Because people all say they're Christians. A lot of people say they're Christians and they all have different views of this. And it's helpful, I think, for several reasons for us to wrestle with it. But the number one thing I want us to come away from over and over again, as we look at heaven, hell and everything in between, as I've titled this, is to be encouraged to live for today, to live in this moment.

Living in Light of Eternity

A few months ago, I preached in 2 Peter talking about how the Lord literally could return at any moment and how we ought to actually anticipate that. We ought to eagerly look forward to it. And I think the same is true of heaven.

If you understand that life is a vapor, that every single breath you take is a gift from God, you'll learn not to value so much this life. And if you are fixed on heaven, if you think God has saved me, Jesus Christ died for me, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and because of that, I am someday going to be in heaven forever, then the trials of this life are what?

They are exactly as Peter described it. They are momentary afflictions. They're just a little blip in light of eternity. And so as we seek to understand these things, and it's important, too, because so much of this is creeping into the church.

And as we will turn to purgatory in a week or so, you know, when you think about how many Catholic neighbors you have, I mean, the fact that the church does not only teach, the Roman Catholic Church, when I say the church, I mean the Roman Catholic Church, when the Roman Catholic Church not only teaches purgatory, but if you don't believe in it, that's okay, it's optional.

They don't do that. What do they say? If you don't believe in purgatory, you are cursed, you are anathema. Anyway, last time we talked about universalism, the idea that every single person eventually will go to heaven.

We've talked about various aspects of, you know, people having visions, or near-death experiences, alleged near-death experiences, where they said they saw a bright light and all those kind of things.

And it's interesting that they come back and they say, you know what, everybody's going to make it. Well, this morning we're going to look at annihilationism. Who can explain what annihilationism is? Sounds bad, doesn't it?

I mean, hey, if your team annihilates the other team, that's pretty good. You know, on the other hand, if you were annihilated, not so good. Yeah, Daniel says it's the idea that, you know, some people will get to heaven.

And other people, well, they won't make it to heaven, but the good news is they'll just cease to exist. I thought we might start this morning with the words of Jesus, and give us a good starting point to at least consider this.

Jesus on Destroying Both Soul and Body in Hell

Let's look at Matthew 10, verse 28. Does anybody not have the handout, by the way? I'm sure probably some of you don't. I left, I think I have some copies in the front office. Would you just check, Scott, could you check on, yeah, Eric, on top of the mailboxes?

Matthew 10, 28 will be on page 13. But this isn't in the notes here. I was just reading this this morning and thought this is pretty appropriate. Jesus says, Sounds like a decent argument for annihilationism.

What do you think? That's not the only test we go to, I agree with that. Who is able to destroy? It doesn't say will, okay. Yes, Charlie? Okay. Charlie says that they're essentially destroyed because they're not fulfilling their ultimate purpose of being united with God in heaven.

Other thoughts? It does have the sense of ongoing destruction, an excellent point, Pam. It's an infinitive, which you wouldn't know just by looking at that, but it is. It does have that sense. Any other thoughts?

How about this one? This is just, what's the point he's trying to make here? What's that? You should be afraid of God and you should not be afraid of man. That's his point. And I think to say, well, wait a minute, what he's really actually saying is that annihilationism is correct, is to miss the point entirely.

And there's one other little problem with that. What is the purpose of hell if everybody gets annihilated? And it does say able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Why send people to hell? So what?

It's just like they come in and they go out. They come in and they're destroyed. They come in and they're destroyed. Why not just take care of it? I mean, there really is no concrete pro-annihilationism argument there.

And, again, I would argue that the main point he's trying to make is, you guys are worried about people. Don't worry about people. Worry about God. God is the issue. I'll never forget an Easter morning service at Grace Community Church, sunrise service.

We like to go to the early one, mostly because one of us had to work all night the night before church. I won't mention any names, but it was me. And it was great to be there. What was it, like 7 o 'clock, whatever, 8 o 'clock, whatever.

I think it was 8 for the early service. And MacArthur says one morning, and, you know, just kind of, you could just see him just reaching out and giving everybody, 3 ,000 people a hug all at the same time.

He said, let me tell you, your biggest enemy in life. He goes, you know who that is? He goes, you might think it's, you know, somebody that you know. You might think it's your boss. You might think, da, da, da, da.

He says, let me tell you who your enemy is. God. And everybody's just like, ah. Fear God. Great message. Well, page 13 of the notes, false view of heaven as the only end for souls surviving this life.

Okay, that would be a wrong view. That everybody who survives this life is going to go to heaven. Everybody else is going to be wiped out. In other words, those who don't get to heaven will be wiped out.

Cease to exist. Not go to hell. And then I cite, this is an article by J .I. Packer. Evangelical annihilationism in review. That's a cheerful name for an article. Let's just take a summary review of evangelical annihilationism.

Say that three times real fast. Quoting Packer here, the first argument is of necessity and attempt. In other words, he's saying, you have to do this. You have to explain that eternal punishment in Matthew 25 -46, where it is parallel to the phrase eternal life, is not necessarily endless.

Let's look at Matthew 25 -46. In other words, you have to take some of Jesus' teaching and kind of say, well, wait a minute. Does it really mean this? And tweak it a little bit. Matthew 25 -46. And who has that?

Go ahead. That seems to be a problem. I mean, if you're an annihilationist and you say, well, you know, eternal punishment, but the righteous do eternal life. Well, that seems to be the exact opposite.

And that's what he's saying. So they have some explanations. Thus the phrase, point number one there, thus the phrase everlasting punishment is comparable to everlasting redemption and everlasting salvation, both scriptural phrases.

The lost will not be passing through a process of punishment forever, but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. So they're not exactly comparable because people who go to heaven are with God and they're with him forever, but people, they say, who go to hell are punished one time with the full wrath of God, which they cannot withstand, and there's an ongoing result, and that ongoing result is their annihilation.

J .I. Packer response. Though this assertion is constantly made by annihilationists, who otherwise could not get their position off the ground, don't hold back, tell us what you think. It lacks support from grammarians and in any case begs the question by assuming that punishment is a momentary rather than a sustained event.

While not perhaps absolutely impossible, the reasoning seems unnatural, evasive, and in the final assessment, forlorn. And when I think of forlorn, what do you think? I think sad. I just go, here's the point.

Annihilationists say, you know what, God is so angry with the wicked that he destroys them and then they don't spend eternity anywhere, they're just done. I think that misrepresents God's wrath. How much does he hate sin?

How big of a deal is sin to God? How much does God hate sin? How about enough to punish his son for it? Can't even look upon it. Pam. Excellent point. If God's love is infinite, why shouldn't his hatred towards sin be infinite?

God has established his standard, people fall short of that standard, and God's just going to go, okay, couple stripes, I'm done with them, they cease to exist. What kind of message would that be? Folks, I have some bad news for you.

If you don't meet God's standard, you don't receive Jesus Christ as your savior, then guess what, you're going to cease to exist. Ooh, that's scary. Charlie. That's a great point. God desires to display all of his attributes.

So what does that mean? I think Piper, I'm going to paraphrase Piper here, Piper says the best thing that God can possibly do is what? Display all of his attributes all the time. In their full glory. Is one of his attributes holiness?

Is one of his attributes justice? If sin has infinite offense against God, if that's what it represents, then how is infinite offense against God paid for by annihilationism, by ceasing to exist? And again, even if we look at Matthew 25, 46, we see eternal punishment.

Punishment that continues on and on and on. So that's their first argument, that they have to kind of uncouple eternal punishment from eternal life. It's not really eternal punishment, it's just punishment that happens once and has eternal results.

Second argument is that once the idea of the intrinsic immortality of the soul, that is, that it has to go on forever, they say is set aside as a platonic intrusion. By the way, what does platonic mean?

In a relationship, what does it mean? Platonic just means your friends. It's just a platonic relationship. What does platonic mean in this sense? It means it's derived from Plato, the philosopher Plato.

So what their argument is, is that this is Greek philosophy seeping into an understanding of the Bible. Second century exegesis, that's what it is. Exegesis to draw out of the text. So they're saying this is Greek philosophy infiltrating, as it were, our understanding of the Bible.

But Packard goes on, but this improves on inspection not to be so. For evangelicals, the analogy of Scripture, which as our brother was talking about, look, we don't take our theology out of one verse when it contradicts all of what Scripture says.

That means we've done something wrong with our understanding of that one verse and we have to go back and figure it out. And that's what it means. It means the inner coherence and consistency and power to elucidate its own teaching from within itself.

In other words, Scripture doesn't contradict itself. Let's just break it down and make it simple. There are many Scriptures that cannot be fitted into this scheme of annihilationism. They just don't work.

They don't fit. He then goes on to cite several of them. Let's look at Jude 6. We're on page 14 now. Jude 6, or as some would prefer, Jude 1, verse 6. How many chapters in Jude? One. So Jude 1, verse 6 is not really all that valuable.

I'm not saying the verse isn't valuable. I'm just saying, you know. Let's read that. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, he has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.

What would be the point in holding them in bonds for judgment if they were just going to go out of existence? There would be absolutely no point. Let's look at Matthew 8, verse 12. Go ahead, Daniel. Sure.

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around him, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as examples in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

So there you have it. Eternal fire. That's the idea of God's wrath forever and ever and ever being visited upon those in hell. I mean, true or false, I don't preach and I don't teach when I share the gospel with somebody, when I evangelize someone and when I proclaim the truth to someone.

I give them the bad news. Why? Because I want them to be afraid? Yeah. Well, it's true, right? I mean, if you have no sense that, wait a minute, I could actually go to hell, then why would I ever want to repent?

But there's more to it. I mean, did Jesus talk about hell? Yes. He talked about hell more than he talked about heaven. People need to understand the true state of their condition so that they can have their eyes open.

They need to hear the truth. They have to have the bad news before they hear the good news. I have good news for you. Okay? I don't really think I need any good news. I'm okay. Well, you're not okay. And they need to understand that their condition is perilous.

Matthew 8, verse 12. Has anybody got that? Matthew 8, 12. Go ahead, Casey. But only for a moment. It just doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. The idea would be of ongoing weeping, of ongoing gnashing of teeth, of ongoing suffering.

Who else teaches annihilationism? Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, these are good things to know when people come to your door. I mean, it's just wrong thinking. Here in 8, 12. That's a fine question. What kingdom is it referring to?

The Hebrew nation, physical heirs of Abraham. Those who don't believe. In other words, another way to say this is not all of Israel is Israel. Not everybody who's physically born into the line of Abraham necessarily is saved.

Again, look at what Packer says there. He says, It signifies a state of deprivation and distress, but not of destruction in the sense of ceasing to exist. Only those who exist can weep and gnash their teeth, as those banished into the darkness are said to do.

Again, you know, I've heard people make jokes about hell. I mean, people who don't understand the true nature of it. You know, you hear maybe a rock and roll star saying, I want to go to hell because that's where all my friends are going to be.

That's where the party's going to be. No. Weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, not party. Packer goes on, Nowhere in scripture does death signify extinction. In other words, ceasing to be. Nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea found in, whatever the guy's name is, Gilabod and others, that the second death of revelation means or involves cessation of being.

That whole idea is unbiblical. Let's look at Luke 16 verses 22 to 24. And who has that as I try to tuck my cover back in my Bible? Luke 16, 22 to 24. Bruce. Okay. So whether this is a parable or whether it's a description of an actual situation, clearly Jesus is depicting a life after death without pleasure in suffering.

And what does the man ask for? He asks for some comfort, but he asks for something else too. What does he ask for? Later on in the passage. Send someone to my brothers that they might believe, that they might avoid this place, basically.

Why? Because he was just going to cease to exist? Because after a while he was going to get out and go to heaven? No. No, there's never that idea of, you know, this is like, you know, you do 60 days county, and then you're good to go.

You know, you just check in with your probation officer. That's not hell. And that's not the justice of God. Let's move on. Point number four, in 2 Thessalonians 1 .9, Paul explains or extends the meaning of punished with everlasting destruction.

Let's look at 2 Thessalonians 1 .9. I was actually interacting with somebody this week who, you know, basically said, well, Paul didn't know what he was talking about. I just thought, man, oh, man. You know, Jesus, we can listen to him.

Paul, he just didn't know what he was talking about. That's fascinating. I mean, you cannot argue with someone like that. In fact, I encourage people not to argue over Scripture, but just to present Scripture and let the Holy Spirit do the arguing for you.

2 Thessalonians 1 .9, who has that? Pastor Dave? I mean, there just really is, and again, you know, there's no warrant in Scripture for this kind of idea of going out of existence, and yet we have someone as formidable a mind as John Stott saying, yes, annihilation, I can speak.

Annihilationism is, in fact, a biblical concept. It's not just anybody, and he's not the only one. For those of you who weren't here a couple weeks ago, I think this is all basically an attempt to kind of save God.

I mean, it sounds funny, and I don't mean to make it sound funny, but people want to protect God from accusations. They're concerned about Him. An Arminian might say, you know what? I don't want anybody to say that God's not fair, so I'm going to say that God doesn't really force His will on anyone.

God is too much of a gentleman to do that. God doesn't really elect anyone. He kind of chooses those who choose Him, and, well, that's nice, but that's not what the Bible says. In this case, they're trying to protect God from these ideas of being unjust in that, well, gee, somebody only did X sin or Y sin or whatever, and they don't really deserve eternity in hell.

Maybe they only deserve to go out of existence. Just because they didn't believe is no reason to send them to hell forever, and that's kind of a simplistic explanation, but there's this idea that God is an ogre if He demands infinite ongoing punishment for sin, and I guess it would be really terrible if God said, I'm going to grant you eternal life, and then it was only a couple days.

That would be okay. Perfect life with me, but, you know, it's only a weekend, and then you're done.

Charlie, when were you born?

Charlie says, he's talking about before he existed, it didn't hurt him. He had no ill feelings. So what is the punishment of returning to a state of non-being? And so on the flip side, what is the compulsion for coming to Christ?

Why not just live as you please now, and you know that God's just going to obliterate you anyway, so what's the problem, Daniel? And that's exactly right. Daniel points out, you know, if you present somebody a scenario where you say, listen, your car is out there, you get hit by a drunk driver, your wife is seriously injured, your child is killed, and the judge says, well, you know what, he had a few too many to drink, and who among us hasn't, you know?

That is probation. That's how I see it. We'd be outraged. And yet somehow we think that God should have a lesser standard than we do. Pam? Well, they do have different standards, but they certainly would say that they want to live rightly because they want to have eternal life even here on earth, which is where they believe they're going to go.

But, you know, almost every cult, and I'll get to you in a second, Bruce, almost every cult does what? They lower the standard of God's justice. Mormonism has three levels of heaven, and you know what?

Adolf Hitler made the lowest level. And you know why he made the lowest level? Because allegedly he was faithful in his previous life. He didn't side with Satan and the demons. I mean, you're talking to a former Mormon here.

And, I mean, you just listen to that and you go, how is that possible? How could Mao, who killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people, and Stalin who killed 20 million people, and Pol Pot who wiped out between one quarter and one third of all of his countrymen, how could these people possibly be in heaven?

Well, they were faithful in their preexistence. Really? Good for them, you know? It's just a bizarre idea. So they get to spend eternity in comfort in spite of all the sin. But, you know, that's not even the point.

I mean, I remember when I was an unbeliever, I would think these things. I would think, you know, there has to be a God, but it's only for, only so that the really bad people like those guys and child molesters who can really get what they've got coming to us.

I didn't really think about me. I wasn't that bad. I didn't do horrible things. Just ask me. All these things, and again, I don't think John Stott is an unbeliever. And he's not the only one who teaches this.

He's just the biggest name in evangelicalism who's taught this. I think it is ultimately an attempt to kind of try to protect God, to cushion the blow of God's holiness, Bruce. And such a great point.

I'm going to stretch your analogy a little bit further because it's like we are that man, only we haven't just punched a drunken man in the face. We haven't just punched the president in the face. We've punched God in the face repeatedly.

And then the whole idea, the expectation that at the end God's just going to say, well, you know, let bygones be bygones. No big deal. That's exactly wrong. If, again, if annihilationism were true, then God's standard would be a lot different.

And certainly I think he could make it clear in his word. Instead of Jesus spending so much time on hell, he'd say, listen, believe or you'll cease to exist. You'll miss out on a lot of good things. But that's not what he says.

Even in 2 Thessalonians 1 .9 as we read, the idea there is to be punished with everlasting eternal destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord. And that rules out the idea that destruction means extinction.

Why? Because he says, only if you exist can you be excluded from the presence of God. Peterson in his book, Hell on Trial, quotes from John Stott. And this is what he calls the best case for annihilationism.

The following words or following comment on the words, and the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever in Revelation 14 .11. The fire itself is termed eternal and unquenchable, but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible.

Our expectation would be the opposite. It would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence, it is on the smoke, evidence that fire has done its work, which rises forever and ever. In other words, he's saying, listen, there's smoke that rises forever and ever, but that's because the fire has already done its dirty work, its business, bottom of page 14.

On the contrary, Peterson replies, our expectation would be that the smoke would die out once the fire had finished its work, that it would stop. Can you have smoke with no fire? No. That's an old saying, right?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. The rest of the verse confirms our interpretation. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast in his image. There seems to be no answer to this. So at every point, the linguistic argument simply fails to say that some text taken in isolation might mean annihilation proves nothing when other texts evidently do not.

So those are two of the arguments. The third argument is that God, is that for God to visit punitive retribution endlessly on the lost would be disproportionate and unjust. This is exactly what I was saying earlier.

Wright-Stott, here we go. I question whether eternal conscious torment or eternity in hell is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice. Unless perhaps, as has been argued, the impenitence, that means failure to repent, of the lost also continues throughout eternity.

Well, let's ponder that again, or let's ponder that for a moment. What happens to somebody in hell? Are they sitting there going, boy, now that I know the truth, I love Jesus, but it's too late for me.

Is there a change of heart in hell? Daniel says no. What's that? Blasphemy goes on forever. There is a reason why punishment goes on forever. I mean, here's, I mentioned earlier, Piper and this idea of all of God's attributes being the best thing he can possibly do, God can, is to fully display his attributes forever and ever.

If, if the impenitent, the unrepentant, the unsaved are put out of existence, then how does God display his justice forever and ever? He can display his love, his mercy, his compassion, but not his justice.

What happens is those people get the unvarnished wrath of God. They have his presence, but only the presence of his wrath. They don't have the comfort of Christ. They don't have any of the joys of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

They're not in heaven. They're not enjoying that fellowship forever and ever. But the idea that somebody would be in hell and have a change of heart, it's like, you know, the Mormons. Again, I apologize for bringing up Mormonism so much.

It's just the number one thing that I know the best. The idea in Mormonism is that if you've never heard the Mormon gospel, you die and you go to a spirit prison where missionaries come and preach the Mormon gospel to you.

And if you believe, then you go to heaven. So, you know, Hebrews 9 .27 would tell us, you know, that what, yeah, it is appointed. I couldn't think of the first word there. It is appointed to men once to die and then to spirit prison where they get a second opportunity to repent.

This idea that somehow your nature changes by virtue of death, that you die and that you're, all of a sudden you go, oh, wait a minute, you know, it's like NFL. Upon further review, that's not how it works.

Your heart is the same. Packer notes, the uncertainty expressed in Stott's perhaps, maybe this is Peterson still, is strange, for there is no reason to think that the resurrection of the lost for judgment will change their character.

And every reason, therefore, to suppose that their rebellion and impenitence will continue as long as they themselves do. Making continued banishment from God's fellowship fully appropriate. Can any sin dwell with God?

No. His eyes are too pure to even look upon evil. Who knows where that is in the Bible? Habakkuk 1, I think it's verse 8. But leaving that aside, it is apparent that the argument, if valid, would prove too much and end up undermining the annihilationist's own case.

He says that, why? Because you basically will wipe out the justice of God. It would mean nothing. If God's justice, point number one there, if God's justice requires no more than extinction and therefore does not require this, this ongoing punishment, the pain becomes needless cruelty.

And God is thus, in effect, accused of the very fault of which the annihilations are anxious to prove him innocent and to condemn the Christian mainstream for implying that God's not just. Well, if God's justice really does require some penal punishment, pain in addition to annihilation and continued hostility, rebellion and impenitence, God would, on the part of unbelievers, if that remains true after death, there will be no moment, not a single second, at which it will be possible for either God or man to say that enough punishment has been inflicted.

Let's read that again. There will be no moment at which it will be possible for either God or man to say that enough punishment has been inflicted. Why? Because sin continues. Rebellion continues. Well, there may be sorrow because there's going to be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it's not sorrow.

It's not godly sorrow. It's not sorrow that leads to repentance. They cannot change. Here's the idea. I mean, think about this. Can a leopard change his spots? Leopard. Can a leopard get rid of his skin?

Listen, if a person on this earth cannot of their own will say, you know what, I've had enough of my sin, and on my own, apart from God's working in my life, I'm just going to believe, then what would make us think that a person in hell will ever have a change of heart?

There's nothing in Scripture to indicate that. Fourth argument is that the saints' joy in heaven would be marred by knowing that some continue under merited retribution, that people are in hell, and therefore the people in heaven are discomforted by that, that we have less joy.

But this cannot be said of God, as if the expressing of his holiness in retribution hurts him more than it hurts the offenders. Okay? It cannot be said of God, and since in heaven Christians will be like God in character, loving what he loves and taking joy in all of his self-manifestation, in God displaying his attributes, including the display or manifestation of his justice, there is no reason to think that their eternal joy will be impaired in this way.

Let's look at two Scriptures really fast. 1 John 3, 2, which tells us what? Who has 1 John 3, 2? Go ahead, Casey. Okay, we're going to be like Christ. We're going to have the mind of Christ. We are going to be conformed into his image.

It is impossible to believe that when we view sin exactly as God does, that we're going to look on people in hell and think, God, how could you do this? Because we will see it exactly as he does, as the just result for their actions.

Let's look at Revelation 21, 1 to 8. Since I'm already there, having cheated, looked at my notes ahead of time and turned to the page. Let me read that. John writes,. And they shall be his people, and God himself will be among them.

And he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will no longer be any death, there will no longer be any mourning or crying or pain. The first things have passed away. And he who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new.

And he said, Write, for these words are faithful and true. Then he said to me, It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.

He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

There's not going to be any mourning, no suffering, no thoughts of sorrow in heaven. But those who don't go to heaven are going to be in a lake of eternal torment. Kistemarcher writes of Revelation, he says,.

Here's a telling portrait of God's tender mercies extended to the suffering members of his household. Ever since the fall into sin, mankind has shed countless tears. The shedding of tears is the result of anguish, oppression, persecution, sorrow, and death.

Death rules supreme until the final judgment. But that power will have effectively come to an end when God and his people are together. With the departure of death, mourning, crying, and disease also disappear.

None of them have any part in God's renewed creation, which is marked by peace and harmony, joy and mirth, pleasure and delight. Indeed, the first things have passed away, and all things are new. Daniel.

Daniel asks, you know, it appears that there are tears that are being wiped away. So is it possible that we will be, you know, mourning over those, our loved ones who went away? And I would say no for two reasons.

Number one is the first passage will be read in 1 John, but even in this context here, he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will no longer be any death, there will no longer be any mourning or crying or pain.

We will have a different mindset, and I think it's a picture of the ending of tears. They will absolutely come to an end. When he says there will be no mourning, no sorrow, all those kind of things, it's done, it's over.

So I think the actual wiping away depicts a one-time ending of it altogether. So I don't think so. Yeah, Pam. Yeah, Pam says we even have a change of mind now, not because we don't love people, you know, people that have died, and as far as we know, have not known Christ, we're not angry with God about it.

And I think that's true as we mature. But I also think, you know, as we mature, we also understand that we don't ultimately know what has happened to people. We can, I mean, certainly, I mentioned this story before, but I had no reason to think that anybody that I'd ever known in my family had ever been a Christian until, I think I mentioned my grandfather died in 1946, so I hardly knew him.

I didn't know him at all. And, you know, finding letters years later that indicated that he had apparently received Christ before he died of leukemia. And so we just don't know. Particularly for those who have heard the gospel, there's no way of knowing.

We just don't know. But we have to trust God, Charlie. And then Guido. Well, I think their argument would be for some kind of, Charlie asks why would he even resurrect them if he's going to annihilate them.

And I think the argument would be so that he could meet out some kind of justice once for all and then annihilate them. But I don't find that very compelling. Guido. Yeah, I think that's a good question.

How do you reconcile that with the idea that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Go ahead, Peggy. I think that's a good answer. A king can cause his subjects to bow, but it doesn't necessarily indicate an obedience from the heart.