Prejudice against women can be traced back to the very origins of humanity, rooted in misunderstandings about free will and individual responsibility—both male and female. However, this flawed understanding, which later translated into restrictive rules imposed on women, intensified during the Babylonian exile with the formation of rabbinism among the Hebrew people. It was later consolidated in New Testament texts and has continued into our own time.
The Babylonian exile (586–538 BCE) was a pivotal moment in Jewish history. With the destruction of the Temple and the loss of the sacrificial system, Jewish spiritual life was reorganized around the Torah and new practices. This period also marked the beginning of stricter restrictions on women—not as a result of divine mandates, but under the influence of the customs of the time and the Babylonian cultural context.
When the first human pair lost their status of authority and power over God’s creation due to disobedience to His Voice, they also lost the balance within their relationship as a couple—a balance that had been sustained by a harmonious order of power. The authority they lost referred primarily to spiritual creation. Once they were transformed from spiritual beings into physical ones, God granted them authority over the earthly affairs of the planet. However, this original equality—given by divine mandate to both man and woman—was later invalidated by rabbinic and New Testament interpretations that distorted God’s original command to both.
A passage from the Book of the Life of Adam and Eve illustrates this shift in perspective:
“While they were praying, Adam lifted his eyes and saw the stone and the roof of the cave that covered them. The cave prevented them from seeing the heavens and the creatures of God. (The same has happened to us ever since: our physical eyes became veiled, unable to perceive the spiritual world to which we no longer belonged.) The account continues: Adam began to weep when he saw this, and striking his chest with great force, he fell to the ground as though dead. Eve, seeing him, sat beside him weeping, convinced that he had died. Then, in great anguish, she lifted her hands toward God and pleaded for mercy and compassion, saying:
‘O God, forgive my sin—the sin that I have committed. Do not remember it, nor turn against me. For I have been the cause of Your servant’s fall in the Garden, and of our condemnation in this land. We have passed from light into darkness, from the house of joy into this prison.’”
These words spoken by Eve, filled with anguish, must be understood literally. By choosing to submit to the authority of the transgressing angel—by following his voice instead of God’s—the first human pair entered into a spiritual commitment with the Adversary of God. This commitment is broken only through reconciliation with God. Eve clearly expresses that she perceived the earth as a literal prison, in direct opposition to the paradise in which she had lived before. This world is not our natural home; we are here as a result of that transgression.
Eve continues her plea:
“O God, look upon Your servant who has fallen in this way, and restore him to life so that he may weep and repent of his transgression, committed through me. Do not take his soul at this moment; allow him to live so that he may repent and do Your will, as before his death.”
This passage shows how Eve assumes a disproportionate sense of guilt, believing herself to be solely responsible for Adam’s transgression. Her prayer reflects concern for his spiritual well-being, fearing that he might die without repenting. However, God corrects this misunderstanding by reminding them of their individual responsibility:
“You have transgressed by your own free will, and you went out of the Garden in which I had placed you.”
For God, both were guilty of breaking the covenant because both were free beings.
This reminder of freedom and personal responsibility underscores that neither Eve nor Adam was destined to act as they did; rather, they made conscious choices that led them to transgression. Adam’s willingness to follow the voice of his wife in what she proposed—namely, to violate the Covenant because, in his eyes, she presented a better offer than God’s—was done without objection, in full exercise of his free will and personal choice.
In both the Genesis account and the Book of the Life of Adam and Eve, Adam’s personal responsibility for the transgression is not stated explicitly. However, both texts highlight his passive attitude toward the events that unfolded, as well as his tendency to blame Eve for the fall. This posture is evident in the Book of the Life of Adam and Eve, where his reaction after being expelled from the Garden is described:
“And Adam wept bitterly and struck his chest because he had been cast out of the Garden, and he said to Eve: ‘Why have you brought upon me, upon yourself, and especially upon our descendants, these plagues and punishments?’”
This fragment reflects a perspective in which Adam avoids fully assuming responsibility, transferring it almost entirely onto Eve.
In the New Testament, a different view appears from that of the older biblical writings regarding responsibility for the transgression. Here, culpability falls primarily on the man—Adam—rather than on Eve. According to this interpretation, sin and death entered the world through one man, and likewise, resurrection from the dead comes through one man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Within this exegesis, Eve is removed from the scene as the one responsible for the transgression. For if she were responsible, then—according to this same logic—everything attributed to Adam and Christ would also need to pass through her. Nevertheless, in the author’s historical context, women lived under the interpretation of a curse derived from Eve’s action in Genesis, an interpretation that persists into the New Testament writings and continues to this day.
Women are reproached and restricted from roles performed by men because the prevailing understanding inferred that through her, sin and death entered the world by giving the fruit of disobedience to her partner. For this line of thought, woman is a being relegated to a secondary position of obedience to man, excluded from participation in humanity’s destiny, because “her head is the man, and the head of the man is Christ.” Consequently, social restrictions—such as behavior in church or involvement in public affairs outside the marital relationship—are forbidden to her, based on this interpretation of the early events in Genesis.
Thus, according to this exegesis, the married woman is placed under two “heads.” But this is not what God declared after the fall. God told both the man and the woman to fill the earth, subdue it, and exercise dominion over it. He also said to both:
“You have transgressed by your own free will, and you went out of the Garden in which I had placed you.”
Responsibility for the transgression and its consequences belonged individually to both. Through the actions of both, evil and death entered into humanity. Likewise, the destiny of the world belongs to both man and woman. For this reason God created Eve as a suitable helper for man—his complement as a partner, not only in marriage but also in the affairs of life.
Here, the word “helper” (from the original Hebrew, ezer kenegdo) carries a profound meaning. Ezer is translated as “help” or “aid,” but it does not imply inferiority; in many Old Testament passages it refers to God’s help toward humanity, implying strength and support, like a pillar. Kenegdo literally means “corresponding to him” or “facing him,” suggesting a relationship of equality, complementarity, and reciprocity.
Thus, the Genesis narrative shows how Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent, avoiding direct responsibility. Genesis records:
“The man said to God, ‘The woman You gave me to be with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.’ Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’”
This pattern of evading responsibility remains observable in human nature today.
When the transgression occurred, God explained to the woman the consequence of her action:
“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Some versions render it as: “You will seek to control your husband, but he will control you.” From the interpretation of these words arose additional problems for women.
In Hebrew, the word teshuqah is translated as “desire” or “longing” and also appears in Genesis 4:7, where sin’s desire to dominate Cain is described. This has led to interpretations suggesting a power struggle between man and woman after the transgression. The word yimshol, from mashal, means “to rule” or “to have dominion.”
A careful analysis of the Hebrew text reveals that these expressions do not represent a divine command, but rather a description of the natural consequences of disobedience. The phrase “he will rule over you” does not imply God’s approval or desire for this change in the man–woman relationship, but describes how a wrong choice introduced imbalance into what was originally a relationship of equality and harmonious collaboration.
Likewise, the expression “your desire will be for your husband” suggests an emotional inclination or dependency that did not exist prior to the fall—what today might be described as an unhealthy attachment marked by insecurity or excessive dependence. This dependence can also be understood as the origin of a struggle for control within the relationship, marking the beginning of a dynamic of power and competition between man and woman. The text thus does not describe a curse imposed by God, but the natural consequences of poor human choices within relationships.
What is observed in Genesis as a “punishment” for the transgression implies a competitive relationship between the partners. The causes of this struggle include several negative factors in the bond—imbalanced roles, misunderstandings, ego and pride, cultural and social expectations, confusion about the purpose of the relationship, among others. This negativity that fell upon the couple has nothing to do with the woman’s authority in the affairs of life or in the governance of the world.
However, in the New Testament, this is interpreted as male dominance over women—not only within marriage, but across all areas of social, economic, and governmental life. Within this mindset, restrictions and limitations are viewed as penalties or sanctions for the woman’s action, echoing Adam’s words: “Why have you brought upon me, upon yourself, and especially upon our descendants, these plagues and punishments?”
In Genesis, regarding Eve, what we find is not an act of divine curse, but a description of the natural consequences of human transgression. Humanity’s disconnection from God brought suffering, imbalance, and distortion into relationships—not because God imposed it as deliberate punishment, but because it was an intensified consequence of the fallen condition. This suffering is not God’s desire, but the result of separation from His perfect design. Clarifying this point is essential so as not to attribute to God actions or intentions contrary to His loving and just nature.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that neither Adam nor Eve was directly cursed by God. The explicit “curse” is directed solely at the serpent, and God tells Adam that the ground would be cursed because of his choice. This reinforces the idea that God does not curse His human creatures—created in His image—but rather describes the conditions under which they will now live as a result of their decisions. God is not the cause of human suffering; He is the resource to overcome it.
Because the Bible is composed of books written by human beings, it reflects both spiritual inspiration and earthly influence. By “earthly inspiration,” I refer to cultural customs and human traditions that, although recorded in Scripture, were mistakenly elevated to the status of God’s Word or Law. These traditions do not represent divine will, but human practices. One example of this duality is the biblical description of the virtuous woman, which is shaped by both spiritual principles and the cultural influences of its time.
In the Old Testament, we find a detailed description of the virtuous woman that reflects a model of balance and shared responsibility within society. This portrait highlights not only her spiritual qualities but also her active role in family and community economics. However, as we move into the New Testament, we observe a significant shift in how women are perceived and restricted—revealing a cultural and theological transformation shaped by the traditions of that era. This comparison allows us to reflect on how historical and cultural circumstances have shaped narratives about women.
Indeed, the virtuous woman described in ancient biblical texts is portrayed as a businesswoman who manages not only her enterprises but also her household and family:
“She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sees that her business prospers, and her lamp does not go out at night. She is generous to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. She is clothed with strength and dignity and does not eat the bread of idleness.”
This portrait could describe a modern woman—strong, hardworking, and independent. Her relationship with God and her dedication to work give her confidence about the future. Whether married or single, she is capable of sustaining herself, celebrated for her strength, dignity, and leadership.
In contrast, the virtuous woman of the New Testament is valued more for her limitations than for her capacities. In these texts, woman is recognized as equal in spirit, but not in the physical realm—reflecting an interpretation that keeps her under the supposed physical curse of the transgression. This is incoherent and unjust, because reconciliation with God frees us from any curse, placing us under blessing rather than under limitations imposed by human traditions.
The rules established for women in the New Testament are authoritarian and deeply tied to the cultural practices of the time. They do not arise from the freedom of the Spirit of God. For example, in Ephesians it is stated:
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church.”
This text reflects the patriarchal context in which it was written, where men exercised authority over women.
This perspective was not exclusive to the Hebrew people; it also characterized other ancient cultures, such as Babylonian and Chinese societies, where women were conditioned into states of submission under male authority. These norms reflect a historical continuity of practices that shaped gender dynamics across many societies.
In 1 Timothy, for example, we find further instructions regarding women’s roles:
“I desire that younger women marry, bear children, and manage their households.”
Here, the author prescribes a defined role for women, consistent with the cultural expectations of the time. He also adds:
“Women should adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good works.”
In this society, appearance and behavior are treated as signs of virtue. Yet God said to Samuel:
“Man looks at outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
This is a classic example of customs or traditions within the Bible—what Jesus referred to as nullifying the Word of God when He said:
“You set aside the commandment of God in order to hold to the tradition of men.”
Finally, in Timothy we read:
“Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
It is the author of Timothy who does not permit women to teach, viewing it as a sign of domination over men.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians it is stated:
“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.”
It must be clarified that the “law” referenced by Paul does not refer to the Torah, since no such prohibitions against women exist there. Figures such as Deborah, Miriam, and Huldah played significant roles that contradict the notion of complete female silence. These rules, though presented as spiritual guidance, in fact reflect the social and cultural customs of the time in which they were written, perpetuating a vision of women subordinated to men.
In Paul’s time, rabbinic tradition (not the Torah) restricted women’s participation in teaching and public leadership. Once again, the author prohibits women from speaking in congregations. Although not stated explicitly, this prohibition is understood to be based on the belief that such speech would signal female dominance over men—a belief rooted in the earliest interpretations of the transgression, where woman was blamed for causing man’s fall.
This narrative perpetuates the idea of endless guilt, which then justifies the censorship of women. However, as stated earlier, if this so-called “curse” were real, woman is liberated from it through reconciliation with God. This liberation not only breaks imposed guilt but also frees the marital relationship from the dynamic of competition and struggle over dominance. In a relationship grounded in spiritual harmony, there is no place for such conflict.
Eve’s initial reaction—blaming herself for the consequences of a decision shared with her husband—allowed man to adopt a convenient pattern of excuses, avoiding full responsibility. While he acted selfishly, she devalued herself, reinforcing the false belief that guilt rested solely on the woman. This imbalance and lack of honesty in assuming individual responsibility planted the seeds of what eventually became discrimination against women.