Let me start with one of the verses in the Bible that provoked me to begin thinking about annihilationism.

It is, in fact, the most well-known verse in the Bible, John 3:16. Read it slowly. Try to ignore any preconceived ideas you may have about it, and see what happens. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Did you see it? The contrasted consequences of believing and not believing in Jesus are possessing eternal life versus perishing. When I think of something perishing, I think of it coming to an end, not continuing forever. The word perish never implies a state that is continual or ongoing, much less a state that is eternal. The Greek word translated perish in John 3:16, apollumi, is often translated in the New Testament as "destroy," which again implies a coming to an end. Whoever believes in Jesus will not be destroyed, but willlive forever. That is precisely what Jesus said. The fact that "eternal life" is contrasted with "perishing" in John 3:16 seems to further underscore the finality of perishing. The two alternatives are polar opposites. John 3:16 really doesn't present the alternatives of living forever in hell and living forever in heaven, even though it is often interpreted that way. This is not the only place in the New Testament that we are told that the unrighteous will ultimately perish or be destroyed. Consider Jesus' warning to His disciples recorded in Matthew 10:28: Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy [apollumi] both soul and body in hell (emphasis added). Note the contrast. People can kill bodies but not souls. That is, when someone kills another person, the soul of the deceased continues to live. God, however, can destroy both body and soul so that neither continue to live. That sounds like annihilation. Once you begin to seriously consider what John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 are actually saying, other verses in Scripture begin to catch your attention, especially those that speak of the ungodly one day perishing or being destroyed. For example, consider Jesus' words recorded in John 10:27-28: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish [apollumi] (emphasis added). Notice again the contrast is between eternal life and perishing. If, however, even the unrighteous never perish, but live eternally in torment, we'd have to wonder why Jesus made such a promise that His sheep would never perish since there is no possibility of anyone ever perishing. We'd have to wonder why He didn't say, "I give eternal life in heaven to them, and they will never suffer eternal torment in hell." Peter penned: The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish [apollumi] but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. Again, this begs the question: If the unrighteous live forever in a state of perpetual torment, why would Peter write that God wishes that no one perish but that they all come to repentance when in fact none will ever perish? Consider Matthew 7:13-14, taken from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction[apoleia, a Greek word derived from apollumi], and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it (emphasis added). Again, the contrast is between "destruction" versus "life." Taken at face value, one would conclude that those who choose the broad way will be destroyed (annihilated), but those who choose the narrow way will not be destroyed, but live. How about Philippians 3:18-19, where Paul writes of the ungodly: "They are enemies of the cross of Christ,whose end is destruction" [again, apoleia] (emphasis added). If the enemies of Christ are tortured eternally, why would Paul have said that their end would be "destruction"? As the late respected, evangelical scholar John Stott wrote, "It would seem strange...if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; and...it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing." But what about those scriptures that speak of "eternal punishment"? For example, Jesus warned in Matthew 25:46 that the unrighteous, will "go away into eternal punishment." First, we don't want to make the mistake of murdering scores of scriptures in order to save one. So we need to look for ways to harmonize all the scriptures we've been considering with what appears to contradict them in Matthew 25:46. And it isn't really difficult. "Eternal punishment" doesn't necessarily have to describe the eternal conscious tormenting of a person who lives forever. Annihilation is an eternal punishment. The unrighteous person is annihilated, never to exist again, forever. That is an eternal punishment. Jesus said the unrighteous would suffer "eternal punishment," not "eternal punishing." Take note that Scripture also speaks of "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2). No one interprets that to mean there will be a judgment that will continue eternally. Rather, everyone interprets it to mean there will be a one-time judgment, the outcome of which will be eternal. So when Paul warns that the unrighteous "will pay the penalty of eternal destruction" (2 Thes. 1:9), he may not be writing of an incomprehensible oxymoron, that is, an unending destruction, (since all destructions ultimately end). Rather, he may well be writing about something we can easily understand, namely, a one-time destruction of people that becomes a permanent, eternal state. After the souls of the unrighteous are destroyed eternally, there is no hope of their resurrection. That is annihilation. Annihilationism is definitely a minority belief among Christians. Most of us believe that the unrighteous will be tortured forever in the lake of fire. Yet I would bet that most of us would prefer not to believe that. We must, however, stick with what the Bible teaches whether we like it or not. May I again state that the doctrine of the nature of hell is one upon which sincere followers of Christ can disagree. It is not a doctrine that is central to the Christian faith (see the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed), nor is it a salvation issue. Jesus will not be saying to the sheep on His right, "Inherit My kingdom, because your doctrine about the nature of hell was correct." I'm certainly not crazy enough to think that I'm going to persuade everyone to the view to which I'm leaning. Iam crazy enough, however, to think that we should love one another, because Jesus commanded us to love one another, and love is what marks us as His true disciples (see John 13:34-35). John solemnly warned that those who don't love their brothers are not of God but of the devil, and that love marks us as having passed from death to life (see 1 John 3:10-15). Differing is understandable, but when Christians divide over different views on the nature of hell, it is tragic. Annihilationism is not an "official doctrine" of the ministry of Heaven's Family, and it isn't held by the majority of our staff members. Yet, because they love God and His Word (and me), they are interested in hearing what I have to say. Whatever the outcome of our biblical investigation, we won't be dividing.

So why even study what the Bible has to say on the nature of hell? There are at least three important reasons: 1.) First, because our Father's reputation is at stake. As I've already said, most of us believe that He will be torturing people for eternity. But may I ask you to think about eternity for a moment and try to grasp the significance of eternal torture? Imagine people writhing in flames, weeping and gnashing their teeth, for a billion years, and after that another billion years, and after that another billion years, and then another, forever, and ever, and ever. If I heard that you were mercilessly beating your dog for ten hours every day, wouldn't I wonder what your dog was guilty of that deserved such treatment? And if I couldn't think of anything, and you were my friend, wouldn't I owe it to you to investigate, in order to find out if the rumor I was hearing about you was true? Because if it wasn't true, I'd want to do what I could to dispel that rumor. So isn't it worth our time to investigate whether or not it is actually true that God tortures people eternally, lest we perhaps be guilty of misrepresenting Him as being someone He is not? Shouldn't we want to makeabsolutely certain that we aren't spreading what sounds like a terrible rumor about Him, something immeasurably worse than someone slandering you about beating your dog every day? Of course, in the end, if we discover that the Bible teaches that God does indeed torture the unrighteous forever, then we'll just have to accept it whether we like it or not. But at least our consciences will be clear that we aren't inadvertently spreading a lie about our Heavenly Father. All of this is to say, we should study the doctrine of the nature of hell because we love God. That should be enough in itself. But I have two more reasons. 2.) It is also important to try to arrive at truth regarding the nature of hell because of the potential comfort it can offer. First, if God is not eternally tormenting the unrighteous, we can finally be comforted that we don't need to question His fairness on the issue. We no longer need to come up with elaborate and sometimes farfetched speculations that can't be found in the Bibleand there are many that I've heardregarding why it is in fact just for God to eternally torment the unrighteous. Let's face it: The reason there are so many explanations why it is just for God to eternally torment the unrighteous is because every thoughtful Christian wrestles with the idea. We all know it is problematic. Second, we can find comfort regarding the eternal fate of the lost, particularly lost loved ones. If they are ultimately annihilated after suffering a punishment that is just, that is "according to their deeds" as Scripture promises (Prov. 24:12; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 20:12-13), it is comforting to know that God won't be tormenting them for the next hundred-trillion years (and then forever) as we worship that same God forever ourselves. Of course, if we discover from Scripture that God will in fact be torturing people for eternity, then we'll just have to abandon those above-mentioned comforts whether we want to or not. We can't allow any of our personal preferences to sway us to adopt an unbiblical view. 3.) Finally, I can think of at least one more good reason for studying the nature of hell, and that is our love for the lost, something that no Christian can debate is an attribute of God and of God's true people. We owe it to the lost to live holy lives, lest we be a stumbling block to them receiving the gospel. Sadly, the church is too often a reflection on Christ rather than a reflection of Christ. And as a result, "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom. 2:24). Similarly, if we truly love the lost, we also need to make sure that the message we proclaim to them is accurate, lest we erect an unnecessary barrier between them and the cross. Before we tell them that God will torture them forever unless they repent, we need to make sure we are accurately conveying the

message of the One who warned, not, "Repent or be tortured eternally!" but "Repent or perish!" (see Luke 13:3, emphasis added). One of the most common objections to Christianity among unbelievers is the apparent gross injustice of, as they often say, "God's roasting people for eternity." Of course, such an objection can be just a smokescreen. Still, we want to overcome their sincere objections or their smokescreens with biblical truth rather than with weak and unconvincing arguments that "explain" why God is actually just when He roasts people for eternity. . But is there anything wrong with asking questions such as, "When the apostles preached the gospel in the book of Acts, did they warn the unsaved that God would torment them forever in hell?" We know that they called their listeners to repentance and at times warned them about future judgment and God's wrath. However, during the many instances of gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts, did the preachers ever mention eternal torment in hell? The answer is no. In fact, there is no record that they ever mentioned hell at all. So when some say that we aren't giving the unsaved enough reason to repent unless we warn them about eternal torment, it seems they are finding fault with the evangelistic preaching of Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul. A Few Early Objections But this is a divisive doctrine! some say. The truth is, doctrine can't divide, only people can let doctrine divide them. Over the past 40 years, I've watched Christians divide over certain doctrines that don't divide other Christians. What was the difference? The doctrines were the same. The difference was the people and what was in their hearts. All that is to say that the doctrine of the nature of hell will only divide those who allow it to. Thankfully, most of us believe it is not a doctrine to divide over. But no Christian leaders believe in the doctrine of annihilation! some say. That is simply not true. The late John Stott, one of the most influential evangelical Christian leaders and New Testament scholars of the last generation, a prolific author of numerous well-known commentaries and books such as Basic Christianity, openly declared his belief in the doctrine of annihilation in 1988. He eventually admitted he had held that conviction privately for decades. Stott wrote, "I believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment." Over the past few decades, numerous respected theologians and biblical scholars from many streams within evangelicalism have declared their belief in annihilation over eternal conscious torment. Perhaps you have heard of F.F. Bruce, whose more than 40 theological books and commentaries grace many pastoral libraries and who is probably the most well-known Bible commentator of the 20th century. He wrote the preface for Edward Fudge's definitive work on annihilation, The Fire that Consumes. In a letter to John Stott in 1989, Bruce wrote: "Annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages." All of this is to say that there are plenty of respected biblical scholars who embrace the doctrine of annihilation or at least believe it is biblically valid. Of course, there are plenty more who don't, but anyone who says that annihilationism is a doctrine held only by a few Emergent Church pastors is simply mistaken.

Christian teachers have been debating the nature of hell for a long, long time. It was Augustine (AD 354 430), who vigorously championed for eternal conscious torment against the universalist (everyone is saved in the end) views of Origen (AD 185-254). Augustine appealed not only to the standard biblical texts upon which the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is built, but also to a belief that every human soul is inherently immortal, something he learned, not from Scripture, but from the Greek philosopher Plato (429- 347 BC). Of course, reading the Bible while holding to the presupposition that all human souls are immortal leads to the conclusion that everyone will have to live forever somewhere, either in heaven or in hell. Augustine's influence in the medieval church was extraordinary, and it is still bearing fruit today in the doctrines of Calvinism, infant baptism, purgatory, and the eternal conscious torment of the unrighteous, to name a few. It literally would have been a crime to disagree with Augustinian "orthodoxy" for almost a thousand years, during what we refer to now as the Dark Ages. Because eternal conscious torment has been the majority view for 1,600 years, there is immense pressure to "toe the line," and many are afraid to even listen to anyone who suggests something a little different lest they be labeled heretics. Christian leaders who do believe in annihilationism often keep quiet. We should not, however, determine truth by taking opinion polls among Christian leaders. Remember how some low-rung Pharisees once defended their unbelief in Christ by declaring, "No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?" (John 7:48). As we consider the merits of the doctrine of annihilationism, let us not forget who our Leader is. Because this does all come down to one question: "What does the Bible say?" So let's look now at Scripture. Another Common Objection to Annihilation We all know that Jesus once warned: And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:43-48, emphasis added). This passage is understandably often used as proof for eternal conscious torment of the unrighteous (I used it myself in the past). If their "worm does not die," it might stand to reason that those who are affected by those undying worms would be suffering forever. But notice that Jesus speaks both of "unquenchable fire" and "undying worms." Regarding the phrase "unquenchable fire," I've already shown that it does not denote "eternal fire," and even if it did, eternal fire does not presuppose that all that is cast into it is similarly eternal. Likewise, "undying worms" does not necessarily denote "eternal worms." If I said, "That deer carcass along the road was infested with undying maggots," you would assume that I meant, not that the maggots were eternal maggots, but that they didn't die as long as there was a rotting deer carcass on which to feed. Keep that in mind as we continue looking at Jesus' words about undying worms. When Jesus' Jewish audience heard Him warn about the undying worms and unquenchable fire of hell (Gehenna), they did not make the assumptions that we make, for the simple reason that they had heard of those undying worms and that unquenchable fire before. Having heard the book of Isaiah read numerous times in the synagogues throughout the course of their lives, they would have immediately

recognized that Jesus was quoting verbatim from the final verses of Isaiah's final chapter. Let's read those verses: "For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me," declares the Lord, "so your offspring and your name will endure. And it shall be from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the Lord. "Then they shall go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind" (Is. 66:22-24, emphasis added). Isn't that interesting? It shows how our own assumptions can sometimes be so wrong. When through Isaiah God said (and we could rightly say, "Jesus said"), "For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched," He was not at all intimating that those affected by the worms and fire would be suffering eternal conscious torment. He was talking about the dead bodies of the unrighteous, corpses that serve as an object lesson to the righteous regarding the fate of those who rebel against God. All who view the corpses of the wicked consumed by worms (maggots feeding on dead flesh) and being burned in flames will understandably be abhorred. And it is not clear if that abhorrent scene will be eternal or temporary. If it is eternal, it will have to be supernatural, or the maggots and fire would eventually have nothing upon which to feed. The passage could be interpreted to be a temporary scene, so that the maggots don't die and the fire is not quenched until all the corpse are consumed. You can be absolutely sure that Jesus, who is really the One speaking in Isaiah 66:22-24, knew that He was quoting Himself when He spoke what is recorded in Mark 9:43-48. And He also knew, as did every Jew in His audience that day, that He was not trying to convey the idea of eternal conscious torment of the unrighteous. Rather, He was conveying to His audience that they needed to be holy if they wanted to avoid being one of those abhorrent corpses that they had all heard about when Isaiah 66 was read in their synagogues. Still, in spite of what Isaiah plainly wrote, some claim that the corpses he describes are actually living people in the lake of fire, since their worms "never die" and their fire is "unquenchable." Even if we grant those worms eternal life and make the unquenchable fire eternal, that fact is that both still feed on corpses, not writhing, screaming, living humans, according to what God said through Isaiah. And it is certainly difficult to imagine the righteous, after spending time worshipping the Lord every sabbath throughout eternity (as Isaiah said), sauntering over to the lake of fire to watch the damned screaming in hellfire, after which they head off for other more pleasant activities. Can you imagine them saying to one another as they walk away: "Oooh, that was just dreadful, wasn't it?" "Oh my, it certainly was. And today I recognized my own mother among the screaming, writhing people!" "Dear me! This gruesome observation makes me want to skip the sabbath next week. Oh well, let's try to not think about it as we enjoy a nice cup of tea together, OK?" I can't imagine our Father God subjecting us to a one-time or a weekly monitoring of millions of people who are weeping and gnashing their teeth in flames. Surely just a glance at the silent corpses of the unrighteous ought to be enough to keep us on the narrow path that leads to eternal life. Again, consider how questionable our assumptions have been about undying worms and unquenchable fire somehow "proving" eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous. So perhaps when we read about

"eternal smoke" (naturally, eternal fires will produce eternal smoke) or the eternal torment of the devil in the lake of fire, we should also be careful making assumptions about how those things prove that the unrighteous will be consciously tormented in hell forever. Especially in light of the fact that there is so much biblical evidence in favor of the unrighteous ultimately being destroyed and perishing, evidence placed in the Bible by the One who warned that He would destroy both souls and bodies in hell (see Matt. 10:28). One Final Scriptural Objection But the Bible plainly states in Revelation 20:10-15 that the unrighteous will be tormented day and night, forever and ever, in the lake of fire! That is a common objection. So let us first read Revelation 20:10-15 to see what it says: And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyones name was not found written in th e book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10-15). Here's my first question: Where does it say in this passage that the unrighteous those who are "thrown into the lake of fire"will be tormented day and night forever and ever? The undeniable answer is that it doesn't say that anywhere in this passage. It is only an assumption. But it stands to reason, some will reply, that if the devil, beast and false prophet will be tormented forever in the lake of fire, never to be consumed, so will the unrighteous who are also cast into that same lake of fire! Why does that assumption stand to reason? Is it reasonable to conclude that, because one thing I throw into a fire is not consumed, everything I might throw into that fire will not be consumed? And is it reasonable to conclude that, because the devil, beast and false prophet (none of which are human beings) are never consumed in the lake of fire, that anything else that is cast into that lake will never be consumed? What about "death and Hades," which will also both be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)? Is it reasonable to conclude that, because the devil, beast and false prophet are never consumed by the flames, that death and Hades will likewise never be consumed by the flames? More specifically, will death, "the last enemy that will be abolished" (1 Cor. 15:26), actually be eternal? As death is cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:14, is the "eternal tormenting of death" what is being symbolized, or is "the final end of death" being symbolized? The answer is obvious. When we read of future kingdom blessings in the very next chapter of Revelation, we learn that "there will no longer be any death" (Rev. 21:4), fulfilling a promise God made through Isaiah hundreds of years earlier: "He will swallow up death for all time" (Is. 25:8). If there will no longer be any death, how can it be correct to say that people will be suffering the "second death" for eternity? So every reader has to admit that there will

be something that is cast into the lake of fire that will be annihilated, and a picture of that annihilation is found in the premier proof text of those who advocate the eternal torment of the unrighteous. Also, take note that, not only does "death" meet its final end in the lake of fire, so does Hades. Another annihilation. May I argue that it is much more reasonable to conclude that humans who are cast into the lake of fire (which was "prepared," not for humans, but "for the devil and his angels"; Matt. 25:41), will indeed be treateddifferently than Satan? Might not the devil, God's arch-enemy from before the fall of humanity, the ruler of the kingdom of darkness and master of demonic minions, who led a rebellion in heaven in an attempt to exalt himself above God, who bears almost infinitely greater guilt for the world's evil and sorrow than any other creature, who for thousands of years has continually tempted every person to sin against God and inspired humanity's most sinister savagery, gross perversions, and abominable wickedness, who has never been offered forgiveness, whose sins Jesus never died foris it not much more reasonable to conclude that Satanwho makes Hitler look like an angelmight not be slightly more worthy of eternal torment than a teenager who lost his life in an auto accident? Do we assume that, because a serial killer is put in a prison and executed, that every criminal who walks through the same prison gates is executed? This leads me to an interesting observation of an inconsistency: Those who believe (as I previously did) that God will eternally torment the unrighteous in hell also believe, without exception, that each person who is cast into the lake of fire will receive different treatment. And well they should, because that is what Jesus taught: And that slave who knew his masters will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more (Luke 12:47-48; see also Matt. 11:22, 16:27). So why do those who rightly believe that every person will receive different punishments in hell based on the principle of justice, at the same time jump to the conclusion that, because God will torment the most evil, abhorrent, vile creature in the universe eternally, He will also torment every unrighteous person eternally? That is a logical inconsistency. Incidentally, Jesus' promise of just punishment for the wicked that I just quotedthe one about the many and few lashes that will be meted outis yet another scripture that supports the idea that the unrighteous will ultimately be annihilated. The phrases "many lashes" and "few lashes" express a duration of punishment. Both come to an end, but at different times. And that is why most annihilationists believe that the unrighteous will be justly punished "according to their deeds" for a time in the lake of fire and then be mercifully annihilated, suffering exactly what Jesus promised destruction of both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28)what amounts to an eternal punishment, as they have no hope of any future. Perhaps that is why it is labeled "the second death" (Rev. 20:14) rather than "the second torment" or "eternal life for the damned" or "deathless death." May I point out another inconsistency that is commonly found among advocates of the idea of eternal conscious torment? They almost universally believe that all the elements of which Scripture speaks regarding hellthe flames, the worms, the darkness, the weeping and gnashing of teethare all symbolic to some degree. The flames represent some kind of emotional and physical torment. The worms perhaps represent pangs of conscience. The darkness represents separation from God, and so on. Every detail of which Scripture speaks regarding hell is given symbolic meaning except onethe detail of the alleged never-ending nature of the sorrows those symbols represent. Consequently, we have symbolic worms thatliterally never die.

But annihilation is no punishment at all! some say. Suffering for a fitting amount of time in the lake of fire and forfeiting an eternal relationship with God and eternal life isn't a punishment? If I told you that by doing "thus and so," you would spend time suffering in the lake of fire, ultimately be annihilated, and thus forever forfeit your relationship with God and not inherit eternal life, wouldn't you consider that to be a threat of a punishment? (In fact, you would readily say that it was an "eternal punishment," because your punishment would last just as long as the righteous will enjoy eternal lifeforever.) We all know that judicial execution is referred to as "capital punishment," because it is indeed a punishment. What makes it a punishment? It is because the condemned person forfeits the remaining years of his life. How much more would eternal annihilation be a punishment, as one forfeits life forever? Jesus spoke of banishment from the future kingdom, by itself, as being a punishment (see, for example, Matt. 5:20, 7:21-23, 25:10-12). If annihilation is not a punishment, doesn't that conflict with what Jesus said? And we certainly don't have to worry about anyone who is annihilated getting off "too easy" before they are justly punished. God has promised to repay every person "according to their deeds" (Prov. 24:12; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 20:12-13).