Genesis 2:23

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. х hapa`am (H6471)], this time, is emphatic (cf. Genesis 30:30; Genesis 46:30). It signifies 'now indeed,' 'now at last,' as if his memory had been rapidly recalling the successive disappointments he had met with in not finding, amidst all the living creatures presented to him, any one capable of being a suitable companion to him. Dr. Pye Smith renders it: 'This is the hit.' 'And though such a translation,' says he, 'may appear strange, and even common, it appears necessary for the preservation of rigorous fidelity. The word properly means a smart, bold, successful stroke, and is used to signify hitting the precise time of any action or requirement. In this first and primitive instance it is equivalent to saying, This is the very thing that hits the mark; This reaches what was desired.'

She shall be called Woman, for she was taken out of man, [Hebrew, 'ishaah (H802), the feminine of She shall be called Woman, for she was taken out of man, [Hebrew, 'ishaah (H802), the feminine of 'iysh (H376); equivalent to aneer (G435), man, and andris, woman, in Greek; vir and virago in Latin; man and maness, or she-man, in English.] It is observable that in this exclamation the man does not call himself by the name "Adam," which God had applied to him as expressive of his origin from the ground, or as denoting, according to Umbreit, that he was the microcosm of the world, the lord and master of the earth, who comprehended it in his own form; but by the word 'iysh (H376), a creature of worth and importance - i:e., in comparison with the other animals. 'Some have urged that these and other names need not be considered original, since they may have been translated into the Hebrew. But that the author at least regarded them as original Hebrew words, and did not permit to himself any meddling with them, appears from the following considerations:

(1) The etymologies adduced are opposed to such an opinion, inasmuch as the given interpretations of the proper names are intelligible only on the supposition that these words themselves are Hebrew. These names, with their meaning, form an essential element in the history, and hence, the credibility of the latter stands intimately connected with that of the name and its signification.

(2) Where names had been altered or translated, we find the practice of noting this carefully observed in Genesis (cf. Genesis 14:7-8; Genesis 23:19; Genesis 28:19); and from this we may infer that the other proper names are conscientiously retained in the Hebrew idiom; otherwise analogy would have led to the name which had been transmuted into Hebrew being given in its original form (Havernick).

It is useless to inquire whether the first man had any special configuration of frame, in consequence of which he could spare the abstraction of a rib from one of his sides; or whether God, before closing the wound, substituted another bone for the one that had been removed. Such enquiries proceed more from idle speculative curiosity than a desire or expectation of useful information; and the instance under review belongs to a class of incidents which is likely to be, and, in point of fact, has frequently been made occasion of foolish wit and profane cavil by infidels. So strange and grotesque an account, it is alleged, wears upon the face of it the air of a fable; and it is too weak an invention to impose on the credulity of men. But once admit the Bible to be the Word of God, and with the references which are repeatedly made in the body of it to this primeval transaction, not only all difficulties in admitting its credibility are dispelled, but it is perceived to have been designed, in the mode of doing it, to teach several great and important lessons.

Even with regard to the fact itself, where is there anything to justify the sneer of unbelieving ridicule? What is there in the narrative to create doubt, or to reflect on the wisdom of the Almighty Maker. In any circumstances, the creation of woman-so entirely different from the creatures of any existing class-must have required the exercise of supernatural power; and admitting a miracle to have been undoubtedly performed, any singularity in the manner of performance is a matter of secondary consideration. The One who formed Adam from the dust of the ground could have as easily created him directly, and by the mere exertion of that plastic power which brought the material universe at first out of nothing. But He chose to conduct the formation of man in a particular way, suitable to the purposes of human instruction-a way well fitted to impress him generally with a lesson of humility, in knowing that he can boast of no higher origin than the irrational creatures around him.

In like manner, the creation of woman was no less the direct and immediate handiwork of God; and if He chose one out of the infinity of possible ways in which Almighty power and wisdom could have reared that beautiful fabric, what are we to do, but with devout admiration exclaim, "Even so, Father; for thus it seemed good in thy sight." But the Creator chose one particular mode which his unerring wisdom knew to be the best; and by that mode also which he adopted in the creation of woman it was His design to teach truths of great interest and value. In no other creatures was there any natural connection between the pairs. They were all, indeed, "of the earth, earthy;" all formed of the same material elements; but, previous to their actual appearance, no two individuals of any class were united by any bond of relationship, however slight, to each other. But, in regard to the human race, Eve's being formed from a rib of Adam indicated their being of one flesh; and their being made of one flesh was intended to point out the special character of the nuptial bond, as not only very close and intimate, but one of mutual tenderness, affectionate endearment, and identity of interests.