Last night I was having a conversation with my pastor and some pacifists about the morality of the death penalty, and one of the pacifists responded that it would be immoral for an evangelical to kill anyone before they had a chance to accept Jesus as their Savior. I responded half-jokingly that God could just raise them from the dead in the End Times and they could repent then. They looked at me like I was crazy, and that bothers me. It seems to me entirely clear that, if the Biblical narrative represents God's way of acting, then we can think of what God did with Israel and the gentiles in the OT/NT sequence as an example of how God will act to save his people within our lifetimes (OT) and when we are raised (NT). Stated another way, I think my acceptance of Jesus as Savior empowers me with eternal life that has already begun, continues through death as my soul is "held in the Hand of God" in heaven, and on through to the general resurrection. Presumably, anyone who did not accept Jesus would have the opposite fate (eternal separation from God forever). However, that's not the picture we get from the NT. If that were the case, then Jesus would come only for the Jews, and the early church would continue preaching only to the Jews right up to the end of the nation (destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD). So if God's way of acting in restoring the Kingdom involved not just the Jews, but inviting in some subset of gentiles as well who had never heard of Israel's god, then it makes sense to me that after the general resurrection, and before the final judgement, there will be a certain number of people who never accepted Jesus in their lifetime, who had been separated from God for a near-eternity in death (possibly in "Hell"), who could be raised and invited to join in with God's people. (I think Revelation itself is based on this scheme, with a similar understanding of Israel's whole national history being a "roadmap for the End Times", with the first and second Jerusalem destructions corresponding to the "first & second death".) Am I missing something? Is there a flaw in this logic somewhere?