Bible Seminar | Rev. Ira. D. Mangililo, Ph.D.

 

Throughout the history of biblical interpretation, women have often been positioned as the ones who brought sin into the world. This understanding is primarily built on the traditional interpretation of Genesis 2-3, which popularly portrays Eve, as the first woman, as the cause of the fall of mankind. Consequently, women are seen as inferior to men, negatively stigmatised as a source of temptation, deemed unfit to lead, and subordinate to male authority. These views not only influenced theology, but also sustained patriarchal structures in society for centuries.

 

Creation: Balance and Relationality

In the Book of Genesis there are two versions of creation: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. The first narrative (Genesis 1:1–2:4a), which is believed to originate from the Priestly (P) tradition, describes creation in an orderly structure over seven days. In this narrative man is created last as the culmination of God's work, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).

 

The primary emphasis is ontological balance and equality. There is no gender superiority or inferiority; masculinity and femininity exist together as reflections of God's image. Many feminist theologians therefore take Genesis 1:27 as the theological basis for gender equality.

 

But the second narrative (Genesis 2-3), which comes from the Yahwist (Y) tradition, is more anthropological and etiological, focusing on the dynamics of human relations, the origins of hard work, suffering, and conflict. Karl Mayer calls it a story that explains the origins of human life and relationships, rather than gender hierarchical structures.

 

Human Creation and the Adam - Eve Relationship

Phyllis Trible, a biblical feminist theologian, challenges the notion that women in the second narrative were created as subordinate or secondary beings. She asserts that הָאָדָם (ha’adam) was not originally male, but meant “human” or “creature of the earth”, without sexual distinction. Sexuality only emerged after God created woman as עֵ֫זֶר (ezer: helper/companion). The word ezer never has a connotation of subordination; in the Old Testament it more often refers to God as the helper of the people (e.g. Psalm 33:20, 70:6). Thus ezer denotes an equal partner, not a domestic servant.

 

The creation of woman through the rib does not indicate inferiority, as the material of man's creation (clay) is just as rough and just as inferior. The division of הָאָדָם (ha’adam) into אִישׁ (ish: male) and אִשָּׁה (ishah: female) is an act of God that creates a relational mutuality: complementarity, not domination.

 

Adam's exclamation "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh" is an expression of joy, not a legitimisation of power. Naming is not an act of control, but rather an acknowledgement of relationship.

 

The fall of man in Genesis 3: A Shared Decision, Not a Woman's Responsibility

Centuries of Western theological tradition placed Eve as the cause of sin. The views of figures such as:

Tertullian: “Eve was the devil's gateway.”

Thomas Aquinas: women are “failed men.”

The Book of Sirach: “it is because of a woman that sin begins.”

 

These opinions build an ideological foundation that women are more emotional, weak, and easily deceived. But a critical textual reading shows differently. In Genesis 3:6-7, Adam is present with Eve and listens to the conversation with the serpent. Eve does not tempt Adam; she simply gives him the fruit and he chooses to eat it without pressure. Both characters show a rational way of thinking, considering options, and are equally free in making decisions. The fall of man is therefore not the result of unilateral manipulation, but of a mutual transgression that destroys the relationship of mutuality.

 

The fatal error occurred after eating the fruit, when Adam and Eve blamed each other, causing a fracture of solidarity and trust.

 

Serpent Symbolism: External Temptation or Internal Rationality?

Sydney Dekker interprets the serpent in Genesis 3 not as a literal demonic figure, but rather as a symbol of human consciousness and rationality. An internal process that drives humans to question, weigh and choose. Thus, the conflict of the fall is part of human moral maturity, and the event of eating the fruit is not simply a rebellion, but an exercise in freedom of will.

 

This interpretation shifts the focus from blaming women to looking at universal human ethical struggles.

 

Punishment as a Relational Consequence, Not a Gender Curse

The consequences Adam and Eve received (Genesis 3:16–19) reflect the reality of human life after relationships are broken, not a divine hierarchical structure. The statement "he shall rule over you" should be read as a description of the patriarchal reality resulting from sin, not God's normative mandate.

 

Body, Food, and Salvation

Socially, women are often associated with eating, lust, the body, and sexuality, leading to stigmas such as idealised bodies, controlled sexuality, and emotional labels. But feminist theologian Martha D. points to a radical transformation through the actions of Jesus. In Holy Communion, Jesus provides bread and wine, giving his body and blood to be eaten. The act of eating becomes the door to salvation, not sin. Jesus washes the disciples' feet, taking on the servant position culturally attached to women, and through that lifts the dignity of women.

 

Eve is blamed for eating, but the disciple is commanded to "eat". In the end, food is restored to be a means of grace. Thus, the female body is no longer a means of humiliation, but a means of salvation and a symbol of the restoration of creation.

 

Theological Reflection:

Through an honest reading of Scripture and its history of interpretation, it is clear that there is no theological basis for declaring women to be the source of sin. The fall of man was a mutual choice of Adam and Eve, and gender dominance came about as a result of sin, not God's design.

 

In Christ, women's dignity is restored and equality is established. The church, then, is called to revisit theologies that wound, abandon legacies of oppression that marginalise women, and return to God's restorative vision: complementary relationships, liberating equality, and respect for every human being as the image of God. The task of theology is not to maintain structures of injustice, but to be a message of liberation. Healing the wounds of history and building communities that reflect the kingdom of God.