Synoptics Section 281

The Resurrection Question in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20

Rendering the Caesar the things that are Caesars, and so now we are in 281. Each time we turn the page we get closer and closer to 287. I'm not looking forward to that. I may just skip over Matthew 24 to say go find the tapes from Pastor fries discussion of that from 18 86 something like that.

I don't remember what it was. Before my time actually didn't even hear that. I just know that he went through Matthew and So of getting into the getting into the tough stuff, but still got some other things to work through before we before we get there.

Got less than 100 pages left though most of that's new though very little of that's going to be something we Covered before so we'll see we'll get there someday, and we won't know what to do. No, no no no.

We'll definitely do. Another another book or something at that point. But in section 281 which is Matthew chapter 22 verses 23 through 33 If you don't have a synoptic mark chapter 12 and Luke chapter 20.

Are the parallel passages? This is the question about the resurrection? Very Very similar all the way across. There is one interesting Difference. I'll look at here in a moment, but we'll read Matthew's version.

Matthew chapter 22 the same day Sadducees came to him who say there is no resurrection and. And they asked him a question saying teacher Moses said If a man dies having no children his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.

Now there were seven brothers among us the first married and died and having no children left his Wife to his brother so to the second and third down to the seventh. It's called the law of leverage marriage.

Was particularly relevant to the days when land was possessed within family units particularly. After them all the woman died in the resurrection therefore to which the seven will she be wife. For they all had her, but Jesus answered them you are wrong.

Because you know now the scriptures know the power of God for the resurrection and I marry nor given in marriage. But like the angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead have you not read what was said to you by God?

I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not God the dead of the living. And when the crowd heard it. They were astonished at his teaching. I note two interesting things about Luke's account.

In Luke's account you Do not have the specific assertion you are wrong. Instead you have the sons of this age. Marry and are given in marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age into the resurrection from the dead.

Neither marry nor are given in marriage for they cannot die anymore because they are equal to Angels and our sons of God being sons of the resurrection. But of the but that the dead are raised even Moses showed in the passage about the bush where he calls the Lord the God Of Abraham the God of Isaac and God of Jacob.

He's not God the dead the living for all live to him. Mark then puts the statement at the end. He thought the guy that living you are quite wrong. And then notice that Luke has and some of the scribes answered teacher you have spoken well.

Whereas Matthew just notes the general astonishment of the crowd. Which would have followed from some of the scribes saying something similar to that as well. Though the scribes may have not been Sadducees at this point.

And we're just sort of applauding the refutation of the Sadducees. It's hard to say now once again, I know that most of us are aware of this but The Sadducees Noticed it was the Pharisees and the Herodians who came to Jesus in chapter 22 verses 15 through 22 and then now it's the Sadducees who come and pick up from that point and And The there were some fundamental differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Probably on a General theological basis we would have much more sympathy for the Pharisees Than for the Sadducees as far as their view of Scripture and theology is concerned however. Both groups had at this point become very deeply infected with authority problems.

The Sadducees were the political authorities and the Pharisees had a lot of the Religious authority as far as the control of the people was concerned and the Sadducees Denied the resurrection and you notice that say that there is no resurrection.

That is a raising of a physical body. We just we just had to get started George. I'm sorry. We we're not sure where we are because you weren't here, but we we sort of looked over there rather forlornly and just saw the big hole in the space-time continuum there and Took a wild guess.

So we're We're set. We're somewhere in section 281. We're thinking but if you know if we're wrong about that, please let us know so that we you know I'd hate to get to the end of the synoptic have to start them all over again Just because we skipped about two verses.

Yeah, we skipped a section. That's our over again The Sadducees. Some say the Sadducees had issues in regards to the canon of Scripture that's actually The well, it's commonly said not as easily proven.

There are some who said they limited the scriptures only to the Pentateuch, but I I think that that is While commonly said not necessarily easily proven. But clearly this Section and I I know that I've preached on this section in the past or at least use it as a sermon illustration at the very least.

This section Clearly presents one of their favorite arguments as clearly an argument they had used in various contexts to seek to Refute the Pharisees and I guess having seen the Pharisees refuted they figured this has always worked this has always gotten people into a muddle and so let's use it again and I I note in passing that that is something that is very common I note amongst false teachers is to have pet arguments.

Of course I imagine it could become something common against someone as the truth as well you find an argument that Works real well for you repeat it over and over again one should even one when one has what one considers to be a Good argument should not let rest upon one's laurels.

For Example I I think John chapter 6 is a Irrefutable presentation of God sovereignty and salvation the perfection of Christ as Savior the inability of man the perseverance of the Saints irresistible grace.

I mean, it's just It's just I think it's irrefutable but I Still sort of it's almost a hobby of mine collect the weird and odd interpretations of John chapter 6. Sort of like people who collect you know matchbox cars and things like that I suppose.

But I just collect the weird and odd interpretations of John chapter 6. Because I I don't want to just Go well. I've got that text figured out. That's it. There's nothing more to said about. I like to hear what other people have to say.

I've never found a consistent interpretation of that text. It doesn't teach those things but I like to hear what what other people have to say and if I didn't do that and some of the weird and odd would catch me out and would Cause me to have to you know think about things.

Maybe in a situation where it wouldn't be the best thing. I mean I Frequently have to answer these questions on the fly and for a large audiences, so It's something that you know I try to focus upon clear the Sadducees had Not ever gotten an overly meaningful response to this.

Sometimes people find arguments to be useful because They're so obtuse that to untangle them in a meaningful fashion takes so much time and in arguments something it takes time is. You know works for your side if it takes the other guy.

Five times longer to answer your question than it does for you to ask the question. Well, that's great in a debate. My Roman Catholic opponents will do this all the time. What you can always tell when Roman Catholic is feeling uncomfortable in debate because they'll default back to.

Well, I can't answer that about what that Pope said, but how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? It's sort of like Way off into the woods someplace and and they just figured that that this is one of my best arguments.

How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew and I know I know Matthew. Matthew because the church tells me so well actually the church doesn't and The papal Biblical Commission has said we don't know who wrote Matthew, but hey that's another issue.

It normally sounds real good and and gets gets people's attention off of what's actually going on it's a little bit of a distraction type thing and. So you cannot you know this I just run into folks who do this all the time back just yesterday evening I posted a video.

I Was listening to a debate of a man. I'm gonna be debating in Brisbane, Australia in a couple weeks. Well October whenever that is anymore you get to my age. That's a couple weeks. You know I was telling somebody I've got an invitation to go suffer for the Lord at a Bible conference in Hawaii and and I'm more than happy to accept the invitation.

But honestly since they can only really do it in the spring I'm already booked next spring and so it's gonna have to be 2013 and there was a guy in Hawaii that was saying oh man that that's far down the road.

And I said that ain't far down the road. That's I you know when you're young 2013 sounds like a long time from now. It's my age 2013. Well, I hope I have enough time to repair. It just comes so fast, but I'm gonna be debating a guy down Brisbane in October and I Was listening to a debate he did against another Christian apologist, and I was listening to this this argument.

He made it three different times and eventually. The other guy did get around to dealing with at least partially and it's it struck me again that it was it was so easy for this guy to throw out this claim and.

And you know you can make the claim. I played the clip where he asked the question. I think the clip was 46 seconds long all right, so it took him 46 seconds to throw this out. I think the video is 13 minutes long.

Now I gave some background so but I would say that to thoroughly answer the question. Put it to bed. Say no, you're completely wrong about the assertion. You're making here. Probably the fastest I could have done it would have been about three and a half minutes.

So 45 seconds to throw it out there three and a half minutes to answer that's why I really think Christians, especially should be extremely suspect of The normal type of public discourse we have in our land today.

Sound bites rarely communicate truth very clearly and Yet one of the things that really concerns there's a lot of days I'm not going to take a lot of time on this there's a lot of days coming out that and Given that I'm a gadget geek this I'm speaking to myself here, but Our attention span our ability to concentrate upon any one thing is Collapsing.

It is so easy for example I might be looking for something online, and it's how many of you and some of you I realize Don't do much online. Okay, but you're in the minority anymore you're looking for something online and Half an hour after you start.

You all of a sudden catch yourself. And you still haven't gotten around to doing the one thing you're gonna do as soon as the screen comes up there's an email or there's a link to follow or you know you throw the search in you want to do at Google, and you see something over here, and oh shiny thing and and You know say we And you're just you're and and half an hour later.

You're sitting there going why did I sit down here in the first place and and and It's not the old person disease that I have that I will sit there and and I bring up a browser. And I sit there and stare at the screen and go what was I gonna look for again?

Because that's that's just short-term stuff. That's just that's just me. But it's the it's the bouncing all over the internet before you finally get back and realize you still haven't gotten done. Which you're supposed to have gotten done when you started type of a type of thing our our ability to concentrate and stay on task is diminishing massively in Comparison to what people used to be able to do in fact I have to wonder you know Spurgeon had a rule I Think I've told you all Well some of you weren't here, but I don't know about three years ago I had the opportunity of preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London which is Spurgeon's Church at the School of Theology there and I Was told by many people Friends and people I didn't know That there's a rule at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and that is since Spurgeon said You do not preach more than 40 minutes.

You do not preach more than 40 minutes, and I had that rule very strongly enforced for me. Because when dr. Peter masters the pastor the church introduced me to speak. There's a clock they have a clock embedded in the pulpit and There's a start stop button on it and as dr. Masters leaves the pulpit he hit the button and Guess how long the clock is set for 40 minutes.

Now I knew about that before I got up there, so it wasn't like you know, but in fact I attended service. There's services there. I think the Sunday night beforehand, and I had kept I sort of You know when Peter masters is preaching and he had gotten done like 38 minutes and 49 seconds or something like that.

You know nearly a minute. You know right so. Yeah, you you you get done when you're when you're supposed to get done. I wonder if Spurgeon's today would go 40 minutes with modern folks better cut it down to 10.

You know because their their mind is going to go So fast that it's that it's not even funny. It is it is Something to to note that we have that kind of thing going on and and I think it impacts us. It really it really does impact us.

I'm not even sure how I got to this point so I can get back to where I was in the text. So see how that works and you didn't get in, but you all followed me just fine like oh very comfortable doing this yeah, all right.

Anyhow so those sad you see is route in the bulrushes of Moses, and what's going on there, okay, all right? So they present the argument. I was talking about types of arguments that people use and the problem is that To give meaningful answers to a lot of things.

It Takes time and it takes laying foundations and it seems that in our society today once you try to start doing that you lose people and. So the simplistic answer wins the day. And it may be an answer that brings absolute total disaster to the society.

But it's what wins the day it shouldn't be the way with Christians. We should be patient. We should be Zealous to do the work that is necessary to think through things in a meaningful fashion. We should not be glib and shallow in our thought.

You know there is that phrase in in Paul's writings. We have the mind of Christ now. What does that mean? It doesn't mean we all think the same way it doesn't mean we all react the same way. We have different personalities.

It doesn't mean we all spend the same amount of time studying this idea thing but I think that there there is something true in the fact that we are called to think God's thoughts after him it is our great privilege as Regenerate individuals to have a desire to do so instead of being in the state of rebellion against God and constantly suppressing his knowledge.

Now we want to submit to God and we want to view the universe as God would have us to see it with him at the center and if that's the case then we should Really have a a godly desire to think In a way that honors God's creation God has created in a particular order in a particular way.

That's why I think I think the idea of a Christian scientist not in the religious sense, but a Christian who studies God's creation that is that makes perfect sense because to glorify God by by Studying and understanding his handiwork and seeing that the tremendous complexity and order and all the rest of these things.

There could be tremendous joy in in that kind of thing and I think I think when we Look at scripture and see its exhortations to us to think in a disciplined manner. Discipline normally, it's a negative word for us.

I I need to discipline my children. But it's a positive word in the New Testament we are to be disciplined and it's and and in all of our lives. Including in the way we think the way we react we are to control our emotions.

You know when I when I see people who just are you know, one little thing happens and it is explode, you know, it's like Okay. There's to be discipline in all of our lives and I think in the way that we we think and how we react the world as well and you'll notice that Jesus's responses to these questions that are clearly.

These guys these guys aren't coming to him asking honestly. He knows that he knows what fills their hearts. He knows they're trying to trip him up and His responses are insightful. Straightforward they are.

I love it. You're wrong. You don't understand the scriptures are the power of God where I love it. Totally politically incorrect response, but that's how he responds. That's how he he reacts to this and He's not he is Totally in control of his emotions and his mind and of the situation and That's something we should be working toward as well in our in our own lives.

And so we have the story that's given. As I said, it's based upon the Leverett law in the Old Testament the idea that sense Family offspring land ownership are all related to one another there in the promised land.

That's the having of a of a son to whom to pass on the land is extremely important if that doesn't happen, then the land can start becoming aggregated in the possession of just certain individuals and Injustice takes place and so on and so forth.

And so you had the Leverett law and you had seven brothers and I've often sort of Humorously pointed out that I don't know about you by about number brother three or four. I would have been heading out of town with Jonah.

You know, there's something something going on here, but it's obviously meant to be primarily hypothetical and The question is really meant to be an argumentum ad absurdum Absurdum. Taking a concept out to its its logical but absurd Conclusion as an argument against the thesis in the first place the thesis here being that there is a resurrection and if there's a resurrection the hidden unspoken assumption, which Jesus does deny in the in the argument is Seem it to see.

I was listening. It's been a while, but I I enjoyed that logic class. I Took logic from mr. C. I didn't get a chance to take it in my undergraduate works. I took it afterwards and very very useful. I I still have the textbooks back.

I was looking at one yesterday interesting. Anyway, there's a there's an unstated assumption to the argument that Jesus is is going to bring out that is the assumption is Well, if you're married in this life then the same Relational filial relations that existed in this life will be transferred lock stock and barrel without change without amelioration without emendation into resurrection and Jesus does not allow this to stand.

You see how clearly he refused it in Luke 2034 the sons of this age married are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection of the dead now the Mariner are given marriage.

So here you have one of those texts that introduces us to the Eschatological phraseology that changed my eschatology. I was raised as a dispensational premillennialist as most people in my background were having no idea what its history was and it was listening to.

An eschatology is I have tried to work up a Passion study here and I can't. I have tried and tried and tried and I just can't there are just some things I just go, you know what? I'm gonna leave that everybody else to fight about because I you know.

Most folks find that far more interesting. Than a lot of the things I find interesting, okay, you know, I mean I'm interested in Al-khimdi is apologetic against the early Muslims. Okay, and most people most human beings in fact 99 .9998 of all human beings on the planet are not interested in something like that.

But a large much larger percentage are very interested in eschatology, in fact, you know who's more interested in eschatology than even the folks on the channel between 20 and 22. You know who's even more interested in eschatology the Muslims.

I didn't know this I was at a scholarly confab a couple of years ago and they had a real big name in to To speak and one of the things he talked about really well-known World-class scholar on things Islamic things he talked about was Islamic eschatology and the fact that you can go to book bazaars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and places like that and you will just find rooms full of Islamic works on eschatology, I mean Iran, oh my goodness.

That's what's scary about Iran. If you want to know what's really scary about Iran What's really scary about Iran is that Shiite eschatology? Makes How Lindsay look like he is a Valium addict? Okay. I mean He is just Mellow, I mean he is he he's he's asleep in comparison to Shiite eschatology and these folks are looking for the Mahdi and What's really scary is people like Ahmed it I've surely believe the Mahdi is coming and the Mahdi is going to come with the world's most unstable and they're getting nuclear weapons.

Oh fun. Oh Yee-haw. Oh good grief. So that's that's that to me makes me go. Yeah Lord come quickly. But what what got me to Switch my eschatology to a nice you know people talk about on millennialists and there's the optimistic on millennialists and then there's the pessimistic on millennialists.

Now I've never met a single on millennialists that said yeah, I'm a pessimistic on millennialist. What do you expect somebody yeah, I'm pretty pessimistic myself, I mean I might fit in that category in Scottish you know, so it's early, you know, it might work for me, but but What made me switch was a study of this phrase this age and the age to come.

Because To be honest with you. Dem's the only age is there be in other words in Jesus's eschatology. There's this age and then there's some type of radical change and you've got the age to come and In this age, you've got the tares and the wheat and the church and you've got regular marriage situations age to come resurrect.

Nope, not that. It doesn't seem to be anything about the age come and then the little sort of mini age and then you know and then there's half of a mini age and Then there's a millennium and then there's finally Not this is not there you've got the age needs come and that's it.

It's just that straightforward and it was a Lecture series by dr. Nichols back at the old Trinity Ministerial Academy that listen to that one. I Think that man's got it. I I have no interest in arguing about with anybody.

But that is is what so what got to me was that very phraseology right there? Matthew's version is much shorter for the resurrection and marrying or given in marriage, but are like Angels and heavens that's the presupposition.

Ah, mr. Callahan don't think that. That that is at all within the purview of what is being mentioned only because the point of Jesus's statement is to expose the false presupposition of their argument and that is a Carrying over of of all the relationships we have in this life into the age to come.

I would think that Luke 16 would be more relevant to that. Because the rich man remembers his family relationships and still has feelings and emotions related to them. And Nothing is said about The nature of those who are in the age to come outside of this assertion that they are Incorruptible they cannot die anymore.

They are equal or like to angels in heaven. And that's basically all that is said about that. And then when it goes on to talk about the resurrection of the dead the focus is not upon the nature of the resurrection but upon the fact that God is the God of living not of God the dead.

So I Can't see anything that's there. Have you read someone who has suggested? Okay? I don't see anything that is there that is that it would be relevant to what our Nature is outside of. What what we just mentioned right there?

So I do think we can learn however and I know I've already covered 47 different topics. Yes, sir. I like father like son. That's well, yeah, but that's the problem here that that's the problem here. Because Since it says they neither marry nor are given in marriage the given in marriage would be the state of marriedness.

Marriage is and I really hate to mention this to you right now brother given you're about to get married, but And I know that you know I don't I do not Believe I personally and I can't prove this one way or the other.

I Personally believe that our knowledge Will expand and increase in the age to come in the resurrection not decrease. So I cannot imagine a situation where I would not know my wife that she was my wife.

But my understanding is that The Since we are all united with Christ in the resurrection first and foremost our focus will be upon him and Our knowledge of him and our communion with him first and foremost.

My understanding and I will confess this is when you ask this question I have to sort of sit back and go. You know I sometimes wonder where we get some of this. Sometimes I think it's things you hear at funerals and stuff like that.

I'm not. These are things I would never want to debate shall we say And have to try to prove these things. But my understanding has always been that if our knowledge increases, then I would know Those who were special to me in this life.

But since all the hindrances of sin and imperfection are removed I know that one of the things that binds me most closely to other people in this world is our Common faith and love for Christ and so if in heaven all the hindrances that are removed then I can't imagine the the nature of The relationship that will be mine with all of the elect.

Without any of the the things that get in the way on any of the selfishness and and and Everything else that that gets in the way there would be no reason for jealousy, and there's no reason reason for any of those things and so I Think the reason that you know we want to go well.

I'm really looking forward to being with my wife forever. We don't I don't think we can even begin in this life to understand just how Close and how pure the relationships That will be ours in in eternity will be and I think that's that's why scripture Doesn't really try to shed a lot of light on because I don't know that we can even begin to understand.

I mean I Have not seen ereth not heard. You know and I think part of it is just because You know it's it's it's The the glory of it. But how can our words begin to express it? You know and so I Would be very surprised there isn't the knowledge of the relationships we had on earth.

But I think any of that would pale in comparison to what what we what we've experienced there. Yeah, yeah, that's my understanding. I I would not wish to attempt to try to prove that in a debate type situation.

But yeah definitely. So the the point of Jesus's response, and I knew as soon as I stopped there That was not going to remember what I was about to say before and that's exactly how it's worked. I even made a bookmark.

But unfortunately my my mental browser crashed and my bookmark file has become corrupted, and it's gone. And I my backups not working either so anyway. So the argument that Jesus makes Oh, I did remember it just takes a few moments of babbling and then it comes back.

It's great. I do think we can learn from Jesus's form of argumentation here and You're not going to be surprised that what I'm pointing out is the fact that Jesus analyzes The argument not that he probably hadn't heard it before.

I mean, I'm certain he had probably walked by Various arguments in the street and Had heard this one before but he analyzes the arguments and he exposes the flawed foundation immediately. Now in Matthew he also starts that by saying you're wrong.

Which is which is great, but The the point is he he exposes the flawed presupposition and then speaks the truth showing the consistency of the truthful position and that is I I'm not going to say that I heard someone speak on this passage.

And I saw the way Jesus argues and so that's all about so I did. No, but that is how I seek to engage in debate and to respond to accusations that are made against me and against the faith is. You know, you know people sometimes wonder what are you doing when you're sitting there listening to?

Your opponent speaking or it's during cross-examination and you're listening to you know. You're you're you're thrown a question. You only have you don't have any time. I mean in a debate Dead air is is admission of not knowing what in the world you're talking about basically in most people's minds.

So, what are you doing during that time and For me when I hear an argument like this It's almost a visual thing I don't know how to describe this but one but when I hear an argument it's almost like I can see it and I can see what its constituent parts are and what the foundation is and I just have the ability to hear What the unstated assumptions are?

Now that ruins a lot of sermons to not around here, but Listening on on radio or something like that. It there's a lot of sermons a lot of people go. Wow, that's great I'm just going really honestly Didn't catch that, you know so it runs a lot of kind of stuff, but It is it is vitally important.

The Lord catches this and the first thing he corrects is Unstated false assumption that is marriage now Carries over lock stock and barrel into the resurrection is that the resurrection is just simply earthly life part two more light.

Or something like that it's not and so he corrects that error and Then States and that's the resurrection dead. Have you not read was said you by God? I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and out of Jacob.

He is not the guy the dead but the living. Now Luke gives us a specific reference to the Moses text. And most of you are aware that I have So strongly emphasized this verse. That's why I'm not really strongly emphasizing it today.

Because most of you know this but I I've preached entire sermons. I preached a Third of a sermon in Colorado on this very text just two weeks ago three weeks ago. However long ago it was When I was up there and I emphasize the language and as the resurrection dead have you not read What was said to you by God and normally when you say have you not read? you would expect the next part of the sentence to be something along the lines of what was written or If it was what was said to you you would have to be did you not hear What was said to you?

But that's not what it says. Have you not read what was said to you by God? Now I'm the God of Abraham the God of Isaac. I did that's what that's what Yahweh says to Moses at the burning bush and so Jesus Places these words in history.

God said these at a point in time in history to Moses so much for Moses being a Allegory or anything else is so popular amongst people today. He places this in history and he says notice that Jesus says the God says I Am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac God of Jacob Abraham Isaac Jacob were dead at this point in history.

And so if he is the God of those people then they haven't ceased to exist. God is not the God of the dead but of the living and so there is a resurrection. Yes, obviously he's not talking about the eschatological resurrection.

But the fact that these individuals have not ceased to exist and the Sadducees felt that they just ceased to exist that they were the ancient equivalents of What groups do we have today? There's all sorts different groups believe in soul sleep or annihilation or whatever else it is.

The fact the point is that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are in the presence of God and they are going to continue in the presence of God and It wasn't so much that the Sadducees did not feel that there was could be a day of judgment as they felt that it is not a a literal resurrection day that is going to be faced in in the future and so his point Notice it says Luke where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and God of Jacob now.

He's not God the dead but of the living for all live to him. So what does that mean? Well, I don't think Jesus is trying to locate the resurrection in the past that wouldn't make any sense. What he's saying is all are alive to him there is a continuing existence of these individuals seen as well in the in the amount of transfiguration and.

Therefore what is resurrection? Well, like I said, what is resurrection? It's the joining of the spirit of the body. So they're there. Yeah. Well that the problem is they don't believe they don't believe in anastasis because what is what is anastasis.

They believe in a recreation based upon The accuracy of the memories of God, but there's no meaningful connection between what was and what is Anastasis that which died coming to life again, not that which died being remembered by God and recreated in the future point.

I mean, there's no there's no Jew Orthodox or unorthodox Who would use the term anastasis at that time. But would ever come up with what Jehovah's Witnesses have come up with in regards to that. So much so than regards resurrection of Christ as you may know some of them even speculated that Jesus' body is Was dissolved in the gases or is kept as a memorial someplace in the universe to Jehovah's love or something like that but that's not what a resurrection meant and That that's clearly seen and seen in Acts chapter 17.

Because when did the when did the Greeks immediately Reject what Paul was saying as soon as he talked about the resurrection of the dead. They were duelists. Salvation was being freed from this physical body not getting back into it.

So. But that's actually a good good question because The point here is not the resurrections in the past. But the fact that those who have died are alive in God's sight guarantees that there will be a Rejoining of that spiritual entity with a physical body, which is the only meaning resurrection could possibly have.

And so that's a that's a good thing to point out. So I'll have a few more comments and make a note few more comments at end of section 281. But you're gonna have to make sure to you know, be here right?