In much of Leviathan, Hobbes accepts the story of Adam's original sin: "Adam, if he had not sinned, had had an eternal life on earth" (CH. XXXVIII). But earlier, when confronted with the problem of evil (a problem that shakes "the faith, not only of the vulgar, but of philosophers and, which is more, the saints, concerning the Divine providence"), Hobbes very slyly, first, puts the denial of original sin in the mouth of Christ ("Neither hath this man sinned: nor his fathers"). Second, after re-affirming the meaning of the doctrine of original sin, he points out that humans are now in the same mortal position as animals, who could never sin. The implied argument is straightforward: if animal mortality is the result of no sin, why would the human kind be? (Elsewhere Hobbes also points out that immortals would overpopulate Earth.) Okay, with these thoughts in mind, we can now turn to Hobbes' audacious re-interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve:
To these places may be added also that of Genesis, "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee thou shouldest not eat?" For the cognizance or judicature of good and evil, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as a trial of Adam's obedience, the devil to inflame the ambition of the woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautiful, told her that by tasting it they should be as gods, knowing good and evil. Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them God's office, which is judicature of good and evil, but acquired no new ability to distinguish between them aright. And whereas it is said that, having eaten, they saw they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that place as if they had been formerly blind, and saw not their own skins: the meaning is plain that it was then they first judged their nakedness (wherein it was God's will to create them) to be uncomely; and by being ashamed did tacitly censure God Himself. And thereupon God saith, "Hast thou eaten," etc., as if He should say, doest thou that owest me obedience take upon thee to judge of my commandments? Whereby it is clearly, though allegorically, signified that the commands of them that have the right to command are not by their subjects to be censured nor disputed. (Ch. XX).
This passage occurs in a chapter entitled, "Of Dominion Paternal and Despotical." Yet, just a few pages before the quoted text Hobbes had explained that even though dominion by "generation" is called "paternal", maternal dominion is the norm in state of nature. For, in the absence of a contract, "the dominion is in the mother." In fact, in the passage God's (assumed) dominion is clearly not despotic. But if one were tempted to read the whole passage as an instance of God's "paternal" dominion, that is, to equate God's creation with generation, then the biblical God -- but not Hobbes' God -- becomes (ahum) maternal. Okay, let's leave that aside.
In Hobbes' telling, Eve has both an aesthetic engagement with her world (the "fruit already seemed beautiful") and she has a soul inflammable with ambition. Now, earlier in the Leviathan we had learned that ambitious souls are among the exceptions to the reasonable folk who can be tamed by fear of death. And, indeed, Eve is pointedly included in having taken up "God's office" and judging God's handiwork lacking in (shall we say) perfection. Ambition for (godlike) sovereignty is also an ambition for immortality ("Sovereignty, in the intention of them that make it, be immortal"--see also Spinoza, TTP, ch 4). Like Milton's Eve, Hobbes' Eve is no stay-at-home-mom.
Now in this version of the story Hobbes makes no mention of banishment or punishment. We are, however, told the moral of this story ("commands of them that have the right to command are not by their subjects to be censured nor disputed") and a reader might easily think that Hobbes assumes that good Christians will simply fill in God's punishment--and so an obedient Christian should, if his sovereign commands it. But if we take the stated moral literally, then in virtue of Eve's censure we learn that the Biblical God, in fact, never had "the right to command"! That is the "meaning is plain:" beauty loving, (unreasonably) ambitious Eve is much like other successful usurpers in Hobbes. God's laws focused too partially on "Adam's obedience."