All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the university mountain, but there in the sand-pit at kindergarten. These are the things I learned:

• Share everything.

• Play fair.

• Don’t hit people.

• Put things back where you found them.

• Clean up your own mess.

• Don’t take things that aren’t yours.

• Say you are sorry when you hurt somebody.

• Wash your hands before you eat.

• Flush the toilet.

• Warm cookies and milk are good for you.

• Live a balanced live — learn a little and think a little and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day a little.

• Take a nap every afternoon.

• When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.

• Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the yogurt carton: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.

• Cats and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the yogurt carton — they all die. So do we.

• And then remember your first reading book and the first word you learned — the biggest of all — LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule (treat the others as you would like them to treat you) and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take one of these items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or your government or your world, and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all — the whole world — had cookies and milk at three o’clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankets for a nap. Or if all governments had a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are — when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

(From “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”, by Robert Fulghum)

AMALEK — ENEMY OF ISRAEL — A FACT SHEET

* Amalek was a grandson of Esau; thus his descendants would be related to the Edomites:

“Esau’s son Eliphaz also had a concubine named Timna, who bore him Amalek. These were grandsons of Esau’s wife Adah… Korah, Gatam and Amalek… the chiefs descended from Eliphaz in Edom” (Gen 36:12,16).

* Probably an earlier reference to the Amalekites was simply a reference to the country which they later inhabited, since of course they did not exist as a nation at all during the time of Abraham:

“Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazazon Tamar” (Gen 14:7).

* Amalek was a nomadic nation dwelling in the Sinai Peninsula:

“The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan” (Num 13:29).

“Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt” (1Sa 15:7).

* Amalek was the first tribe to fight against Israel after they left Egypt with Moses:

“The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands.’ So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning… Aaron and Hur held his hands up — one on one side, one on the other — so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’ Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, ‘For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation’ ” (Exo 17:8-16).

* For its bitter and implacable hatred of Israel, Amalek was absolutely cursed by God:

“Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!” (Deu 25:17-19).

* At later times, the Amalekites allied themselves with various other enemies of Israel, including the Canaanites…

“Early the next morning they went up toward the high hill country. ‘We have sinned,’ they said. ‘We will go up to the place the LORD promised.’ But Moses said, ‘Why are you disobeying the LORD’s command? This will not succeed! Do not go up, because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the LORD, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.’ Nevertheless, in their presumption they went up toward the high hill country, though neither Moses nor the ark of the LORD’S covenant moved from the camp. Then the Amalekites and Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and attacked them and beat them down all the way to Hormah” (Num 14:40-45).

… and the Moabites…

“Getting the Ammonites and Amalekites to join him, Eglon [king of Moab] came and attacked Israel, and they took possession of the City of Palms [Jericho]” (Jdg 3:13).

… and the Midianites:

“Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites. Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country” (Jdg 6:1-3).

Were the Amalekites afraid to take on Israel single-handed?

* King Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekites utterly.

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’ ” (1Sa 15:2,3).

Although he destroyed most of them, some remained alive.

“Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. He took Gag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword” (vv 7,8).

Saul had intended to keep alive Gag their king, but Samuel slew him:

“Then Samuel said, ‘Bring me Gag king of the Amalekites.’ Gag came to him confidently, thinking, ‘Surely the bitterness of death is past.’ But Samuel said, ‘As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal” (1Sa 15:32,33).

The AV has: “Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD.” Samuel — in his role as “priest”, and bent on total obedience to God’s directive — cut him up in pieces like a whole burnt offering for the altar!

Apparent Contradictions?

1. Amalek was “utterly destroyed” by Saul (1Sa 15:21), but some remained to David’s day (1Sa 27:8,9).

2. David left none of the Amalekites alive (1Sa 27:8,9), but some remained a bit later (1Sa 30:1,2). And a handful remained even later yet (1Sa 30:17,18).

3. The last remnants of Amalek were completely destroyed in the days of Hezekiah, 250 years later (1Ch 4:41-43).

4. … OR WERE THEY? The great enemy of Israel in Esther’s day (250 years later again) was Haman “the Agagite” (Est 3:1,10; 8:3,5; 9:24 — cp “Agag” king of the Amalekites: 1Sa 15).

Questions

• “Their king [Israel’s} will be greater than Agag; their kingdom will be exalted” (Num 24:7). Who is “Agag”? Is “Agag” a title? or a name?

• “Then Balaam saw Amalek and uttered his oracle: ‘Amalek was first among the nations, but he will come to ruin at last’ ” (Num 24:20). In what way is Amalek the “first” among the nations? And does Balaam mean that they will be the “last” to come to ruin?

• ” ‘Come,’ they say, ‘let us destroy them as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more.’ With one mind they plot together; they form an alliance against you — the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, of Moab and the Hagrites, Gebal, Ammon and Amalek, Philistia, with the people of Tyre. Even Assyria has joined them to lend strength to the descendants of Lot” (Psa 83:4-8). Is this a prophecy of the Last Days? And if it is, does this mean that there are still “Amalekites” around today?

• “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him… This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” (Eze 38:2,3). “Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth — Gog and Magog — to gather them for battle” (Rev 20:7,8). Is this Last Days “Gog” related to the “Agag” of the Amalekites?

There are three very expressive Greek words which are very difficult to differentiate.

Ekplesso seems to carry the idea of bewilderment (“foolish”: Ecc 7:17).

Existemi suggests wits paralyzed. It is the word used by the family of Jesus to describe his eccentric behavior: “he is beside himself” (Mar 3:21).

Ekstasis (related to the preceding) is a trance (Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17). Thus it pictures those who are “pop-eyed” with astonishment.

All of these are used with ref to the amazement provoked by Jesus. It is, of course, to be expected that people’s surprise at witnessing his miracles should call for vigorous dramatic description. But it is itself surprising that the teaching of Jesus should have created as big a sensation as his wonderful works.

His parents were amazed to find their twelve-year-old boy talking without embarrassment with learned doctors of the law (Luk 2:48). The multitude who heard the Sermon on the Mount, the crowd in the synagogue at Capernaum, and his townsfolk in the synagogue at Nazareth (Mar 1:22; 6:2), the Passover pilgrims hearing his disputation with scribes and Pharisees (Mat 22:33) — all of these listened and stared with astonishment. There is one special example of shock to the Twelve by what the Lord taught — “how hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of heaven… easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” (Luk 18:24,25).

When it is considered how sensational so many of the Lord’s miracles were, one is left wondering why the astonishment of the beholders is mentioned in certain particular instances: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mar 1:27: these people at Capernaum were always being surprised, but not converted); the palsied man let down through the roof (Luk 5:26: the same synagogue); the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mar 5:42: Capernaum again); the blind and dumb man (Mat 12:22: Capernaum!). The fisher apostles were just as flabbergasted by the miraculous draught of fishes (Luk 5:9: at Bethsaida-Capernaum), as they were later at their Lord’s walking on the water and stilling the storm (Mar 6:51). Two other miracles creating outstanding bewilderment were the healing of the epileptic boy (Luk 9:43) and that of the deaf and dumb man (Mar 7:37). Last of all there was the final cleansing of the temple — or was it the Lord’s unabashed proclamation of a temple thrown open to all nations (Mar 11:18)?

The resurrection of Jesus was the supreme occasion for astonishment, yet this is mentioned only twice. The women encountering the angels “trembled and were amazed” (Mar 16:8). And the two on the way to Emmaus told how infectious this amazement was: “Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre….” (Luk 24:22).

Another group of correlated words still has to be considered: thambos, thambeomai, ekthambeomai. The last of these, more emphatic than the others, very often implies fear — the women at sight of angels at the tomb (Mar 16:5,6), and, probably, the people beholding the glory in the face of Jesus (Mar 9:15); cp also Dan 7:7, LXX. Then what of Mar 14:33: Jesus “sore amazed” in Gethsemane? This cannot be fear. The use of ekthambos to describe the amazement of the crowd seeing the lame man leaping and cavorting in the temple court (Acts 3:11) shows that fright is not a necessary ingredient of this word. But what was it which made Jesus “sore amazed”? This is one of the lesser unexplained mysteries of the gospels. Thambos and its verb are always associated with fear in LXX, and also, certainly, in the account of Saul’s conversion: “he trembling and astonished” (Acts 9:6), but there is nothing of this in any of the other examples. Indeed in several instances the synoptists take their choice between these and the words considered earlier.

The Man: Amos was a native of the little village of Tekoa, a few miles south of Bethlehem in Judah. He is described as a herdsman (Amos 1:1; 7:14: in two different words which probably mean, respectively, a keeper of sheep and a keeper of oxen), as well as a gatherer of sycamore fruit (Amos 7:14: probably figs); this sounds very much like a lowly farm worker. Many of the metaphors used by Amos in his prophecy reflect this humble background, and the natural surroundings which apparently had a profound effect on him (Amos 1:2; 2:9; 3:4-5; 5:19,20,24; 6:12; 7:1-6; 8:1; 9:3-15). [It is possible that, instead of a humble herdsman, Amos was a cattle-driver or “trader” of livestock, an occupation which might explain his traveling between Judah in the south and Israel in the north.]

The Times: The historical period covered by the reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel is very significant. Jeroboam II (who reigned c 783-743 BC) led a great revival of Israel’s political power, casting off the Syrian yoke from Israel and extending her borders even beyond those achieved by Solomon (2Ki 14:25,28). Simultaneously in the south Judah was “benefiting” from a similar political revival. Uzziah conquered the Philistines and the Arabians, took tribute from Ammon, fortified Jerusalem, and built walled cities for defense of his borders (2Ch 26:6-15). Of course, political developments in a wider field, under the hand of God, were the real explanation. The period 800 to 750 BC was marked by Assyrian involvements to its north and internal struggles in Egypt. This left Israel and Judah with more or less free hands to become, for a short while at least, dominant powers in the land of Canaan. The effects of these “successes” were disastrous in both civil and religious life. Owing to increased control of important trade routes, wealthy classes emerged in the people of Israel. The poor were increasingly oppressed, and the rich lived lives of immoral self-indulgence. Civil justice was corrupted; the spirit of the Law of Moses was abandoned, even while nominal worship of Jehovah flourished. Their God was with them! or so it seemed: had He not given them wonderful prosperity? But it was all a delusion. The “sepulchre” was whitewashed on the outside, but inside were “dead men’s bones”: greed, dishonesty, licentiousness.

Outline

1.	Judgments against the nations: Amos 1:1-2:16
	a)	Introduction: Amos 1:1-2
	b)	Judgment of neighboring nations: Amos 1:3 – 2:3
	c)	Judgment of Judah and Israel: Amos 2:4-16
2.	Three oracles of judgment against Israel: Amos 3:1 – 5:17
	a)	A declaration of judgment: Amos 3:1-15
	b)	The depravity of Israel: Amos 4:1-13
	c)	A lamentation for Israel’s sin and doom: Amos 5:1-17
3.	Two oracles of woe against Israel: Amos 5:18 – 6:14
	a)	Woe against Israel’s perverted religion: Amos 5:18-27
	b)	Woe against Israel’s complacent pride: Amos 6:1-14
4.	Five visions of judgement against Israel: Amos 7:1 – 9:10
	a)	The devouring locusts: Amos 7:1-3
	b)	The flaming fire: Amos 7:4-6
	c)	The plumb line: Amos 7:7-17
	d)	The basket of ripe fruit: Amos 8:1-14
	e)	The judgment of the Lord: Amos 9:1-10
5.	The promise of Israel’s restoration: Amos 9:11-15

“For Three Sins, and for Four”: The most distinctive feature of Amos’ prophecy is the eight-fold repetition of: “This is what the LORD says: ‘For three sins of ______ , even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.’ ” (“Three… and four” does not necessarily mean “seven”! In Hebrew, a three-fold repetition suggests finality: ie “I will overturn, overturn, overturn…” in Eze 21:27. So “three sins” would be the fullness of transgression, and “four sins” would be a wretched excess — implying the God had waited far too long to exercise His wrath!) This formula introduces divine statements of judgment about Israel (the northern kingdom) in Amos 2:6-8, and Judah (the southern kingdom) in Amos 2:4,5, as well as six Gentile nations surrounding God’s people:

1. Damascus, or Syria (Amos 1:3-5);
2. Gaza, or Philistia (Amos 1:6-8);

3. Tyre, in Lebanon (Amos 1:9,10);
4. Edom (Amos 1:11,12);
5. Ammon (Amos 1:13-15); and

6. Moab (Amos 2:1-3).

Why these nations? Because, during the general period of Israel’s (and Judah’s) expansion and prosperity, the Jews had allowed themselves to become very much like the idolatrous, immoral nations around them (Amos 3:14-4:2; 6:1-6; 8:11-13). And so the time of God’s judgments upon the Gentile nations would also see severe chastening of Israel and Judah. But there would be this difference: God’s people, or rather a remnant of God’s people, would survive the severe judgments and emerge stronger, their faith having been tested so that they learn once again to trust in the Lord their God (Amos 3:1,2; 9:9).

Coming Judgments: The judgments Amos had in mind were probably those to be brought upon Israel and Judah by the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians. These soon-to-be-powerful nations are not mentioned by Amos at all, but their approaching shadow looms over his message. When they finally came, then the smaller nations, whom Israel had thought they need not fear, rose up against Israel — Syria, Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon joining themselves with first the Assyrian and later the Babylonian against their ancient enemy Israel. The result of God’s judgments was the carrying away into captivity (Amos 5:18-20,27).

The Return: But the promise of Amos was that, after the captivity had run its course, the tested and chastened remnant of Abraham’s seed would be brought back to the Land. The almost unrelieved burden of Amos’ earlier message gives way, in his very last utterance, to a message of hope and renewal (Amos 9:11-15).

Multiple Fulfillments

• Israel’s return from captivity in the days of Ezra and Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, was a near-term fulfillment of this prophecy.

• Amos 9:11,12 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16-18 to support the argument that God intended to include Gentiles among His people. So there was a first-century fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy.

• The chastening judgments of God, followed by the restoration of a humbled people, provide us a pattern by which we might discern developing events in our own day. How might this be? This outline is suggested:

1. Israel prospering in their own land in the Last Days,
2. but surrounded by Arab nations,

3. and practically indistinguishable from them in character and conduct,

4. is subjected to attack by Assyria/Babylon….
5. …and also by Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and the Philistines,

6. loses all it has worked for and accumulated,

7. and is carried away in another captivity,
8. out of which a remnant turns to God and is saved (by calling upon the Messiah!),

9. so that God will bring them back once again to their own Land,

10. this time in righteousness as well as prosperity!

And so, in the near future, for the first time, will Amos’ very last words be truly and completely fulfilled: ” ‘I will plant Israel in their own land, NEVER AGAIN TO BE UPROOTED FROM THE LAND I HAVE GIVEN THEM,’ says the LORD your God” (Amos 9:15).

“In harmony with this [ie, the conditional deferment of the return of Christ] is the significant occurrence of the Greek particle ‘AN’ (Greek ‘alpha nu’) in practically every NT passage which speaks of the time of the Lord’s return. This small and practically untranslatable particle always imports an element of contingency or doubt into any statement where it is included, ‘giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances’ (Edward Robinson — Lexicon).

“For instance, all the Synoptists include it in connection with the statement, ‘There be some of them which stand here which shall not taste of death till (‘AN’, it may be) they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.’ [Mat 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 8:52] So also every NT quotation of Psa 110:1 ‘until (‘AN’, ever) I make thy foes thy footstool’. [Mat 22:44; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:35; 1Co 15:25; Heb 1:13; 10:13] Specially forceful is the following: ‘Ye shall not see my henceforth, till (‘AN’, the time whenever that may be) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord’ (Mat 23:39).

“Other passages which by the use of the same word suggest that the time of the Lord’s return would be dependent upon some unspecified contingency are: Mat 10:23; 12:20; Luke 19:23; 1Co 4:5; 11:26; Jam 5:7; Rev 2:25” (WRev 269).

Along these same lines, BDAG has: “AN [alpha nu] is a particle peculiar to Greek… denoting an ASPECT OF CONTINGENCY, incapable of translation by a single English word; it denotes that the action of the verb is dependent on some circumstance or condition; the effect of AN upon the meaning of its clause depends on the mood and tense/aspect of the verb with which it is used.”

ADAMIC CONDEMNATION AND THE LORD’S INVOLVEMENT IN HIS OWN SACRIFICE

The following outlines the beliefs of JJ Andrew concerning the state of man after the fall, our Lord’s involvement in his own sacrifice and being in Adam and in Christ. Quotations are from “The Blood of the Covenant”.

I.	Adamic Condemnation — two aspects of Sin.
	(a)	Physical — transferred to all Adam’s descendants because they were in his loins when he was condemned. JJA says that we are not guilty of this offense, but we must be justified from it. “Just as Adam’s descendants were in his loins when he partook of the tree, so they were in his loins when he was judged and condemned… The descendants of Adam were condemned before they were born… Owing to this fact, all men are liable as soon as they are born to be cut off by death” (BOC 5). JJA said that the apostle Paul calls this condemnation (that all men are born under) “the Law of Sin and Death”. Adam, because of his sin, had incurred a violent death. Since all his descendants sinned in him, they deserve, whether actual transgressors or not, a violent death in execution of the “Edenic Law” (BOC 24). “All under it are, by birth, ‘children of wrath’ and as long as they continue under it they are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’; everything that they do is the offspring of sin, and is itself sin, for ‘the plowing of the wicked is sin’ (Pro 21:4); God is angry with them ‘every day’ (Psa 7:11) ; and if they died under the Law of Sin and Death, they die under the wrath of God from which there is no escape” (BOC 29). Sacrifice (shedding of blood) is necessary to take away sin in its physical and moral aspect. If this sin is not removed then the gates of the grave are closed. (This is the key step in reaching the point that only the baptized will be raised.) “Sacrifice is as essential to take away sin in its physical, as in its moral aspect; a violent death is the punishment due to the one as well as to the other; physical sin is as powerful to keep closed the gates of the grave as is actual transgression” (BOC 7).
	(b)	Moral sin — acts of transgression which deserve punishment. These acts incur the same wrath and punishment from the Father as the physical sin that we are born with. See quote above.
II.	How did this affect Christ and his involvement in his own sacrifice?
	(a)	Because Christ was a descendant of Adam he was born with the same physical sin (sin-in-the-flesh) that all Adam’s descendants are born with. Christ therefore suffered the same consequences. See the quote above from BOC 29. He possessed sin physically but not morally. His death was required to take away / cover this physical sin that he was born with.
	(b)	Christ’s death justified him from this condemnation. Had he not shed his blood, the Law of Sin and Death would have kept him in the grave. “Christ was, by his shed blood, justified from the condemnation under which he was born, therefore those who are sprinkled with his blood at baptism are then justified from the same condemnation. That is, the divine disfavor under which they were born and which continued until the time entering water is then taken away” (BOC 27). “It was not possible, according to the ‘Law of Sin and Death’, for Christ to be freed from Adamic Condemnation without the shedding of his blood, and after this event ‘it was not possible’ according to the ‘law of the spirit of life’ for the grave to retain him… when he came out of the grave he was ‘justified from sin’, though still flesh and blood, and he was immortalized as a result of that justification” (BOC 26).
	(c)	The sacrifice of Christ was the payment of a penalty. This penalty was the violent death that Adam deserved but did not pay. “Adam was threatened with death on the day that he sinned, but God by an exercise of mercy, provided an animal on which was inflicted the literal death incurred by Adam. But to be of any service in the ablution of death, it had to be substituted by a sacrifice of a higher order” (BOC 7). “If Adam had obeyed he would have fulfilled the righteousness of God, and would have experienced the blessing implied in the Law by not dying. But having disobeyed the penalty of the Law must be inflicted. If it had been carried out on Adam there would have been no human race, and as a consequence no sinners to save. But God in his mercy provided a descendant of Adam on whom to execute the penalty” (BOC 24). That violent death was inflicted on Christ, and was the result of the Father’s anger. “As all his descendants ‘sinned’ in him (Rom 5:12), they deserve, whether they be actual transgressors or not, a violent death in execution of the Edenic Law” (BOC 24). “(Christ), though free from personal transgression, submitted to that which was the inevitable result of his Father’s anger against sin, physically and morally, thereby exhibiting the perfection of righteousness. After passing through the ordeal he was able to say from experience, ‘the Lord’s anger endureth but a moment: in his favor is life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning’ (Psa 30:5)” (BOC 25).
III.	In Adam/ In Christ
		JJA believed that one came out of Adam and into Christ at baptism. He saw the terms as identifying a change in legal relationship (not necessarily in moral relationship). He saw this legal change as having the power to bring one out of the grave for judgment. “When does this take place? At Baptism. In what sense do believers pass out of Adam? In the same sense that they pass into Christ. Is it accompanied by a physical change? No; the change is one of relationship. What is the immediate effect of this? They are imputed with the righteousness of Christ rather than the disobedience of Adam. What is the effect in relation to the future? That death as a result of Adam’s disobedience cannot prevail over them. When, therefore, the relationship of any toward that offense is altered their relationship toward its consequence is altered. In what way? By keeping them from entering the grave? Not necessarily; but, should they enter, by bringing them out” (BOC 30,31). ” ‘In Adam all die.’ Who are they? Those who have not been transferred out of Adam and into Christ. ‘In Christ shall all be made alive.’ This is a totally different class. Although they die due to Adam’s sin they do not die in Adam. Having been washed and justified they die in Christ, and while in the grave they are ‘dead in Christ’ and because Christ rose, they will rise. He rose through the ‘blood of the covenant’ and they will rise through the same” (BOC 32). “The Ecclesia, or called out assembly, is composed not only of the few chosen but of the many called. Against none of these will the ‘gates of Hades prevail’; for Christ will use the ‘keys of Hades’ to release them from the grave, because as the church of God he hath purchased them with his own blood. But, against those who, since the establishment of his ‘church’, have not entered therein, ‘the gates of Hades’ will prevail” (BOC 31).

Summary

1. All men are born deserving a violent death because of Physical Sin (sin-in-the-flesh) inherited from Adam.

2. Not only do they deserve death, but God is literally angry with them. Everything that they do is sin.

3. This Physical Sin is as powerful to keep the gates of the grave closed as moral sin.

4. Because Christ was born with physical sin he was alienated in like manner from his Father. Christ’s death provided a justification from the sin he inherited from Adam.

5. A violent death was the penalty incurred by Adam for disobedience. That penalty could not be carried out or the human race would have ceased to exist. Therefore God slew animals instead, and Adam and Eve lived. The animal sacrifice had to be supplemented by one of a higher order. This was accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ, who paid the penalty Adam rightfully should have paid.

6. In Adam and In Christ describes a legal relationship that changes at Baptism (one passes out of Adam and into Christ). When one comes into Christ the consequence of Adam’s sin is changed, so that if they die they will be brought out of the grave.

(Adapted from Gary Burns)