What Happened to Us in Eden? - Psychology of the FallNäide

CALLED TO LEAD OR CALLED TO CARE?

I am always surprised when I hear some people who hold the traditional view say that Adam was present during the “serpent-woman” conversation scene and failed to fulfill his duty as leader. I wonder if they are fully aware of the implications:

• That would mean he abandoned a supposed responsibility of leadership over her by not interfering in the conversation or by not stopping her from disobeying.
• Neither of those things happened, as far as we know—but notice that the biblical text does not judge Adam for failing to do them. Perhaps because there was never such a thing as a “leadership assignment” in the first place?
• If her act was “disobedience” or “insubordination” (as some describe it), the response of the supposed “leader” should not be to reproduce the very same action—unless he was extremely fragile, or worse, determined to hide behind her when the time came.
• If Adam was present and failed to fulfill his role as family guide, then we are essentially saying—whether we realize it or not, and this has enormous implications—that Adam sinned by omission even before she ate the fruit.
• That would mean his sin came before she even offered him the fruit. By extension, whether he ate it or not would be irrelevant for preserving Adam from the Fall, since he would already have sinned. Eating the fruit would then mean (no small thing) simply sinning again: repeating her sin on one hand, and on the other, committing his own at least a second time. Honestly, I find it very hard to believe people are willing to interpret the story that way.

Everything we’ve seen so far keeps pointing me to God’s call for mutual care between man and woman, woman and man—not to unilateral leadership of man over woman.

In that light, Adam’s absence or presence in the conversation is not “irrelevant”—it still matters—but it does not carry the heavy implications people often attach to the supposed intersection between his presence and a leadership assignment over her.

In what ways does this text speak to you from this perspective? Could it help us be less dogmatic and consider aspects we may not have seen before?