Regarding Robertaf’s comments about Adam and Eve, I’d like to offer an insight.
Most people think Eve sinned first. But I believe Adam’s sin was precisely concurrent. He saw her being tempted, and he said nothing to defend the truth and to call on her to do what he knew was right. His was a sin of omission. A failure to even try to lead and exhort in the face of an impending evil.
There could be any number of reasons why he acted that way. I can imagine him feeling tempted himself, but whether less bold or more cunning, thinking, “Hmmm, let’s see what happens to her.” Was he actually letting her be the guinea pig? Or perhaps he was just afraid to offend and question her judgment or oppose her will?
The bottom line is that he should have done everything he could have done to stop her…perhaps even including using physical restraint. But from the Genesis account, it appears he passively went along with her decision, essentially condoning it, and thereby incurred the sin on himself, too.
This may have something to do with the leadership issues we are talking about with regard to the directive that women should be submissive to their husbands.
There is a very scholarly article by Robert Sungenis on this question at
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris–dignitatem6.htm on this issue.
One of the most fascinating points it brings up, for me, is the parallelism of Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 3:16.
In pronouncing to Eve the effects of original sin, God says in Genesis 3:16 “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
According to Sungenis, the Hebrew word here for desire includes idea of “desiring to control” her husband, so the passage may be read as she will desire to rule her husband but he shall rule over her.
“Prior to sin, Eve’s motives would be untainted by a desire to usurp Adam’s authority, and thus she would naturally assume her designated place as wife, helper and subordinate. Sin, however, would tempt her to see otherwise. Projecting this into the future, we can safely say that whenever we see women assuming authority over men and seeking to supplant them as God’s rulers, it is due to sin.”
The same phrase is used in Genesis 4:7 when God says to Cain: “sin is crouching at the door and its desire is toward you, but you shall rule over it.” Here we see that sin’s desire is to rule over Cain, but God tells Cain to rule over sin. Sungenis:
"Thus, Genesis 4:7 helps explain the relationship in the Hebrew grammar between the “desire” and the “ruling.” In this light, the consequence of Eve’s sin is not that Adam would suddenly be put in authority over Eve. It was just the opposite. Adam was already in authority over Eve and sin would tempt her to desire to rule over Adam. But God would frustrate her desire and see to it that Adam maintained his God-given rule over her. If God ever relaxes that rule, it is not because He wishes women to be liberated from their husband’s rule, but because He is allowing sin to multiply for the purposes of judgment (e.g., 2 Thess 2:7-11), as we saw was also the case in Israel (Isaiah 3:12). "
In the context of what I said above about Adam’s sin in failing to stop Eve, an additional interpretation is that God is instructing women to not seek to dominate their husbands but is also admonishing men to stand up for what is right, even if doing so may upset their wives. Obviously, wives should also refuse to do evil or remain silent in the face of a husband intending or doing evil. But perhaps, in the nature of things, or at least in an echo of original sin, there is a tendency for women to seek to dominate husbands and for men to remain silent when they should instead be bold.
I offer no answers, but I do believe it is something to meditate upon.
