Mark

But what about the banishment dialogue- Gen 3: 22-24

Cheryl believes that the definite article makes it impossible to assume that Eve was banished, but there are a few wrong conclusions here.

1. Let’s begin first with an egalitarian so that this point is not pointed to comps only. Again the egalitarian rebuttal book ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ is helpful. Richard Hass said “Cast out from the presence of God and the opportunity to worship God at all times, man and woman would now have to fill their time with labour to meet life’s basic needs…”. So that it appears again that egalitarians are not even united on this point. In fact, Mr Hass does not even deal with the fact that the passage is dealing with ‘the man’. It is a non-issue to him. The inclusion of the definite article does not seem to make him feel as if the woman is not included in the banishment. It seems that the view that only Adam was banished is unique to Cheryl’s blog, and therefore must carefully be watched.
2. The preceding passage already shows Adams headship. He was created first, Eve was created from and for Adam. Adam was the only one given the prohibition. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed by God first after the fall, and Adam renames his wife after the fall. All this indicates Adam’s headship over Eve therefore the reference to ha-‘adam only further emphasises his headship. Adam is held as the primary responsibility. IN fact the NT clearly teaches the fall of humanity relies on Adam’s shoulders not on Eve’s.
3. The opinion that ‘ha’adam’ must refer to the man alone is not supported by the bible either. For example in Gen 1:27 we read “So God created (the) man in his own image…male and female he created them.” The definite article is included here in the Hebrew yet the intended meaning of the passage is indisputably generic-male and female. Again we have the same issue in Gen 6:1 “When (the) man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to THEM…” Again clearly here the construct ‘ha’adam’ is generic. Therefore the conclusion of Cheryl that the definite article has to only refer to the one man is false. Elsewhere around the discussed passage it is simply not the case. ‘Adam’ (man) with the definite article does not have to mean it is referring to one person. Therefore to conclude that Gen 3:22ff can only refer to Adam is simply false. It is equally possible grammatically that both Adam and Eve are included in the banishment. This is in fact the historical position of the church, supported by Hebrew grammar.
4. Not only that, the reverse can be equally true, namely that when ‘adam’ is used without the definite article it can be used to refer to one man as opposed to the anarthrous use, when it generic.. Gen 5:1 shows us this “This is the book of the generations of Adam (‘adam)…” Note the exclusion of the definite article, but the context reveals that the intention here is not for it to be understood generically. It is referring simply to one man, Adam.

Conclusion
Cheryl’s attempt to prove that the definite article used in ‘the man’ of Gen 3:22ff, has to mean that only Adam is refereed to is wrong. The definite article can be used with the intention of meaning more than one person (Gen 1:27, 6:1), as well as the exclusion of the definite article can refer to one person (Gen 5:1). We must conclude therefore that it is grammatically possible and in fact more likely that when ‘the man’ is used in Gen 3:22ff both Adam and Eve are in view. Therefore both are excluded from the garden, and the use of the definite article further highlights the headship of Adam over Eve.