Cheryl Schatz

Now concerning Mark’s further comments about my “wrong” conclusions:

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’.

You mean Mr. Hess? Again he is going with the standard comp exegesis of this passage. Not all egalitarians get this part right because we haven’t been forced to rethink the position. This is why I am asking comps and egals alike to rethink what the text actually says instead of just accepting tradition.

It seems that the view that only Adam was banished is unique to Cheryl’s blog, and therefore must carefully be watched.

It would be pretty hard to prove that my view is unique. However let’s suppose for argument sake that this is true. Does this make the argument false? Or is the argument false when it is proven so from the passage? Truth will always stand the test and a false view cannot stand the test. I am very willing to put my view to the test. Unfortunately you have not yet done any damage to the view, but you have done a fair bit of damage to the teaching that Jesus is the last Adam and not the last Adam or Eve. I can hardly believe the consequences of your view and I honestly don’t think that you have thought this one through for it touches Jesus unique position in conjunction to the first earthly man.