This is part two of a two-part discussion contrasting the post-Christian’s egalitarian (total equality) and utilitarian roles (whatever works pragmatically best) with the biblical portrait of relationship-operatives between a husband and his wedded wife.  Previously, we saw in Genesis 2-3 what happened when the husband (Adam) failed to be the spiritual guardian of the relationship that he was created to lead.  Continuing that discussion, what happened when the wife (Eve) chose to reverse the roles herself?  What consequences awaited the relationship when the woman acted in a manner that reversed the creation-designed pattern God intended?

In my judgment, Eve gets an unnecessary amount of blame for her actions in Genesis 3.  Yes, she allowed the serpent to approach and to talk to her.  Certainly, she knew what God had told Adam (most of what she repeated to the serpent matched what Adam heard from God in 2:16-17), and clearly, she was responsible for her thoughts in desiring the value of the fruit so that she would be “like God.”  Likewise, she participated in the “blame game” with Adam; therefore, she also stands guilty as charged.  Yet, does she willfully choose to reverse the roles proactively, or does she act the way she does because Adam refused to be the proactive leader that God called him to be?  To some extent, a surface reading of Scripture shows silence on the one hand, but on the other hand, it seems to me that when you read deeply the Genesis 2-3 narrative and see the “life dynamics” present in their actions (or its consequences), it suggests a pattern of “silent absence” on Adam’s part to guard, to protect, to defend, and to watch over his relationship with Eve.  Remember, Adam was physically present with Eve when the serpent came to her, but he chose not to intervene.  His unengaged muteness landed both of them (and us) into the “estate of sin and misery” (shorter catechism answer to question #17). 

Let’s briefly look at Eve’s role and actions in Genesis 2-3 to see her role responsibilities and how they got reversed.

• She had a good idea of how special she was, for GOD presented her to Adam (2:22).  There is beautiful imagery here.  God, the “Father of the Bride” was presenting His special creation—a “help-meet” woman—to the man.  This reveals the wonder and brilliance of a God who wants intimacy with His creation.
• She heard her husband’s words (“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’…”) declaring her origin and identity as one called to come alongside him (2:23).  Upon hearing these words, she would immediately have sensed her place and role in the creation order by God’s goodness.
• In perfect obedience to God with her husband, she enjoyed freedom and no shame (2:25).  The text here is explicit: “BOTH were naked and felt no shame.”  What a picture of innocence and a pure conscience before God and each other!
• She was approached by the serpent, but did not let her husband intervene, nor did Adam take any initiative (3:1).  The age-old question is pertinent: “was it her failure to ask Adam for help, or was it his failure to take the initiative and to defend?”  In my mind, the responsibility lies with Adam; however, Eve could have been an effective “help-meet” at the moment by asking Adam for his help.  But that didn’t happen.
• She acted as the “spokesperson” for the marriage, assuming leadership, and either misunderstood or misinterpreted God’s original commands to her husband, a clear role-reversal (3:2-3).  Obviously, Adam communicated to her much of what God told him, and she parroted this back to the serpent, but she does get one thing wrong: God didn’t tell Adam anything about touching the fruit.  Whether she conjured it up or thought she heard this from Adam became irrelevant when the serpent starting talking to her.  She was on the wrong side by assuming a leadership role before the serpent.
• She did not let her husband help “deliver them from evil” (3:4-5).  The moment the serpent challenged God’s authority before her (“You will not surely die”) was the moment when she should have turned to Adam for help, and he should have stepped in to protect her.  But neither did the appropriate action.  And two wrongs don’t make a right.
• She was deceived and facilitated her own sin, and then her husband’s sin (3:6).  Here the consequences of role reversal: both of them experienced and realized their nakedness, sin, guilt, and shame.
• She heard her husband blame God, then her, for his sin (3:12).  Nothing could be more degrading and demoralizing than to hear someone “pass the buck” for their own sin on someone else.
• She followed suit in the “blame game” with God for her own sin (3:13).  Here, she played “follow the leader” by listening to Adam.
• She learned that enmity (hostility) will mark her relationship with the serpent, along with each party’s offspring towards the other (3:14-15), marking the lines between the saved and the judged.
• She received the curse of increased pain in childbearing (3:16a).
• She learned that her “desire” (the Hebrew word for selfish intent) will continue to undermine, even to overthrow, God’s design for her husband to lead spiritually.  Because of this sin, God declared that he will have to “rule” (suppress) her covetousness (3:16b).
• She received a special name and lifetime role (3:20).  Despite her sin, God shows wondrous grace, and gives her a beautiful identity: the role of a mother.
• She experiences the glory of birth in her God-ordained role (4:1).

Genesis 2-3 presents a clear picture of divine role-identity, and what happens when it is reversed.  So, what came first: “the chicken” (Adam’s silence) or “the egg” (Eve’s pro-activity)?  In Greek thought (Aristotle), the “chicken” was always first.  In Genesis 3, it is no different.