“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” (Genesis 2:23).

I. Introduction

Genesis 1:1–2:22 unveils the sovereign and orderly work of God in creating the heavens and the earth. In six days, God forms and fills creation, culminating in the creation of mankind—male and female—in His image and entrusting them with dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26–28). Chapter 2 then retells the creation account with a particular focus on humanity, zooming in on the formation of man from the dust (Gen 2:7), his placement in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8), and his moral responsibility regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16–17). Recognizing that it is “not good” for man to be alone (Gen 2:18), God determines to make a helper fit for him. The animals are brought before Adam to be named, demonstrating his authority and intelligence, but none are found suitable as a corresponding companion (Gen 2:19–20). God then causes a deep sleep to fall upon the man, removes one of his ribs, and from it fashions a woman, an act of divine craftsmanship that establishes the origin of human companionship and marriage (Gen 2:21–22).

Now we turn toGenesis 2:23, which stands as a climactic declaration in the creation narrative. It is the first recorded speech of man in Scripture, and appropriately, it is a doxological utterance: a poetic exclamation of recognition, joy, and theological insight. Upon beholding the woman, Adam immediately perceives her origin and nature. His words not only affirm their shared substance—”bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”—but also introduce the divinely sanctioned category of “woman,” whose very identity is derived from the relational and ontological reality of being formed from man. In a world that had just witnessed the parade of animals that failed to correspond to Adam, this moment is not merely emotional, it is revelatory.

This verse functions both as a personal recognition and a theological proclamation. Adam’s spontaneous poetry conveys that the woman is not a separate species or a subordinate creature, but a part of himself, made from his own substance, and thus equal in essence. At the same time, she is distinct: not another man, but woman, formed not from the ground, but from man’s side. This is not incidental; it is fundamental to biblical anthropology and theology. The language of Genesis 2:23, concise yet profound, establishes the foundational truths of identity, kinship, and the covenantal structure of marriage. It forms the hinge between the divine act of forming woman (v. 22) and the theological institution of marriage (v. 24), linking creation with human relationships and God’s design for society.

In a single verse, the Bible presents a deeply integrated view of humanity: male and female, one yet two, equal yet ordered, united yet distinct. Genesis 2:23 is not merely the joyous exclamation of the first man; it is inspired Scripture, divinely preserved to teach successive generations what it means to be human in God’s world.

II. Bone of My Bones: The First Recorded Human Words

A. When Man First Spoke

The simple phrase “And Adam said” introduces the first recorded human words in all of Scripture. Before this point, we have heard only the voice of God commanding, creating, blessing, and forming. Now, for the first time, man speaks. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Human speech, in this inaugural moment, is not used to name animals, express need, or assert independence. It is used to respond to divine revelation with recognition and joy.

The phrase structurally signals that Adam’s utterance is intentional, not incidental. The Hebrew verb amar, rendered “said,” is often used in formal or declarative speech throughout the Old Testament.¹ When God “said,” creation occurred (Genesis 1). When Adam “said,” he was not creating in the divine sense, but he was interpreting, responding, and affirming the work of God. His words, recorded in poetic form, are not reactive improvisation, they are revelatory in their own right. They express not merely emotion but understanding.

That the man is referred to here as “the Adam” (hāʾādām) is also meaningful. It recalls his identity as the one formed from the ground (ʾădāmâ, Genesis 2:7), emphasizing his creatureliness even as he speaks profound theological truth.² He is not speaking as a god or autonomous being but as one who has received life and knowledge from his Creator. As such, his first words are not directed toward God, nor toward himself, but toward the woman, demonstrating that humanity is inherently relational and communicative, oriented toward communion with others as a reflection of divine image-bearing (cf. Genesis 1:27).

The narrative context reinforces that Adam’s words are prompted by divine initiative. God brings the woman to the man (Genesis 2:22), and it is in response to this gracious act that Adam speaks. His speech is not prescriptive—it does not create the woman’s identity—but it is descriptive and declarative, naming what God has made and recognizing the correspondence between them. In this way, Adam models proper human speech: grounded in revelation, shaped by gratitude, and aligned with reality.

It is also worth noting what Adam does not say. He does not ask, “What is she?” or question her origin. His speech carries no hint of suspicion, fear, or competition. His first words are words of recognition—he sees her as part of himself—and thus his speech becomes the foundation of human fellowship. The tone is exultant, not utilitarian; he rejoices in the work of God and names the woman not as property but as partner.

From the very first human sentence in the Bible, we see that speech is a sacred gift meant to align with God’s truth. Adam’s declaration sets a pattern for all subsequent human speech: it ought to affirm what God has done, name what God has given, and celebrate what God has called good. In a world where words are now often twisted to obscure reality or deny divine design, Genesis 2:23 begins with a man who speaks in full harmony with God’s work. That alone is profound and tragically rare in the chapters to come.

B. Adam’s Exclamation of Unity

The phrase “This is now” conveys a profound sense of arrival, recognition, and emotional intensity. The Hebrew particle happaʿam means “this time” or “now at last,”³ implying a contrast with what came before. After Adam’s encounter with the animals—none of which were a suitable counterpart (Genesis 2:20)—this exclamation marks a climactic moment of joy and satisfaction. The structure and tone of the phrase suggest not only recognition but revelation: Adam perceives that this newly presented being uniquely corresponds to him, both in nature and in purpose. The construction invokes a sense of climax, relief, and wonder, suggesting that Adam’s search has now reached fulfillment.⁴

This exclamation is not merely an emotional outburst; it is a theological proclamation. The phrase “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” functions as a Semitic idiom for close kinship and shared identity.⁵ The idiom appears elsewhere in Scripture to express blood relation or covenantal allegiance (e.g., Genesis 29:14; 2 Samuel 5:1), but in this context, it affirms something even deeper: ontological unity. The woman is not a separate kind of being, nor a lesser creature. She is from man, of man, and with man, equal in substance, dignity, and humanity.

Adam’s statement also carries implications for covenantal and embodied identity. In biblical anthropology, the body is not an accidental shell but integral to the person. To be “bone and flesh” is not merely to share physical components but to share existential solidarity. The woman’s formation from Adam’s side establishes the basis for the “one flesh” union of marriage (Gen 2:24), and Adam’s recognition is the first articulation of that sacred bond. His words are not a possessive claim but a joyful affirmation of correspondence: she is of him, like him, and for him.

Victor Hamilton suggests that Adam’s language carries both strength and vulnerability, noting that in Hebrew, “bone” may connote strength, while “flesh” often denotes weakness or frailty.⁶ If so, the phrase becomes a subtle acknowledgment of the full spectrum of human nature—strength and fragility, glory and limitation—shared between man and woman. Far from diminishing the woman’s status, this poetic idiom elevates her as the one who mirrors man’s nature in totality. As such, the woman is not merely a helper by function but a partner by nature.

The declaration also models how biblical speech should be used: to name rightly, to affirm identity, and to rejoice in God’s provision. Adam’s first recorded words are not utilitarian or self-centered, they are doxological, giving glory and praise to God. He does not define the woman according to her usefulness, nor does he assert dominion. Instead, he recognizes her value as one crafted by God and joined to him in an unbreakable bond of unity. In a culture that often reduces identity to performance or autonomy, Genesis 2:23 reminds us that identity is rooted in origin, relationship, and divine design.

C. Naming, Identity, and Covenant Recognition

The phrase “she shall be called Woman” marks a moment of profound theological and anthropological significance. This act of naming carries deep biblical resonance. Throughout Scripture, naming often reflects discernment, responsibility, and relational knowledge. It signifies the recognition of a person’s role or nature within God’s created order (cf. Genesis 17:5; Isaiah 43:1).

Unlike Adam’s naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19–20, which demonstrated his authority over creation, the naming of the woman is relational rather than hierarchical. There is no command or dominion implied here. Rather, the phrase “she shall be called” signals joyful recognition of her shared essence and distinct identity. Adam is not imposing a role upon the woman; he is affirming her nature as his corresponding counterpart: like him, but not identical to him.

The Hebrew term for “woman,” ʾiššāh, is presented as a counterpart to ʾîš (man). The text makes a deliberate phonetic and theological association between the two, even though modern linguistics suggests the words are not etymologically related.⁷ The point, however, is not philological precision but covenantal symmetry: just as the woman was taken from man, so her name reflects their unity and mutuality. The echo between ʾîš and ʾiššāh poetically reinforces that they are bound in identity and calling, while also maintaining distinctiveness.

This naming, then, is neither an assertion of ownership nor a designation of inferiority. Rather, it confirms the woman’s status as one who corresponds to the man in substance and mission. This moment sets up the theological foundation for marriage as a covenantal union between differentiated but equal partners. She is not named as a servant, a rival, or an extension of man, but as his complement and equal in bearing the image of God (Gen 1:27).

Still, some interpreters, like Gordon Wenham, argue that the act of naming may suggest a form of headship, especially in light of Adam later naming the woman “Eve” (Gen 3:20). Wenham writes, “Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman… indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative.”⁸ While this perspective has exegetical support, it must be carefully balanced: headship in Scripture is not equivalent to superiority. Instead, it reflects God’s design for order within relationships, not a hierarchy of worth. The woman’s naming in Genesis 2:23 should be interpreted first and foremost as an act of recognition, grounded in joy and covenant, not in hierarchy or control.

In sum, when Adam says, “She shall be called Woman,” he is not exercising dominion but giving voice to a theological truth: the woman is like him in nature, distinct in personhood, and essential in calling. The naming act becomes a cornerstone of biblical anthropology, highlighting that human identity is not self-constructed, but revealed through relationship, origin, and divine design.

D. Derivation, Dependence, and Covenant Design

The final clause of Genesis 2:23—“because she was taken out of Man”—offers an explanatory foundation for both the woman’s name and her relational identity. The conjunction “because” introduces the causal basis for the preceding declaration: she is called woman because of her origin from man. The verb “was taken” emphasizes passivity: the woman did not take herself from the man, nor did Adam act to initiate her formation. She was taken by God, signifying divine initiative, sovereignty, and intentional design.

This passive construction is not incidental; it theologically underscores that the creation of the woman is an act of gift and grace, not human invention or effort. The man neither earns her nor crafts her. Rather, God acts unilaterally and wisely, creating her from the man’s side and presenting her as a counterpart perfectly suited for communion and covenant. Her derivation from man’s own body affirms not only shared substance but mutual belonging, a unity that will be codified in the “one flesh” language of Genesis 2:24.

Critically, the text avoids portraying the woman’s derivation as a mark of inferiority or dependence in value. Though she is taken from the man, she is not less than the man. Rather, she is derived from him so as to be corresponding to him, equal in essence, distinct in personhood. She is not taken from the earth, as man was (Gen 2:7), but from him, forming an entirely unique category of creaturely correspondence.

This derivation is not merely anatomical; it’s also theological. It supports the covenantal nature of marriage, which is not grounded in societal convention but in created reality. Because she comes from his flesh, the act of marriage reunites what was originally one. This foundational truth undergirds the biblical understanding of exclusive, monogamous, heterosexual marriage: a reunification of differentiated but fundamentally unified persons.

Theologically, then, the woman’s derivation “from man” anchors key truths:

• Marriage is rooted in creation, not culture.
• Male and female are complementary, not interchangeable.
• Unity is based on shared substance, not mere contract.
• Distinction does not imply subordination, but design.

Considering this, Genesis 2:23 is not merely a biological note or etymological explanation. It is a doctrinal cornerstone: a statement that reveals how human relationship, gender identity, and marital union are all grounded in God’s creational wisdom. When properly understood, the woman’s origin from the man is not a symbol of hierarchy but of harmony.

E. Foundations of Human Relationship

Genesis 2:23 stands as a theologically rich and literarily exquisite moment in the creation narrative. In a single verse, Scripture introduces the first recorded human speech, the naming of woman, and the basis for human relational identity. Every element—from the poetic form to the carefully chosen vocabulary—serves to elevate the significance of this moment as more than anthropological observation or emotional response. It is a divinely inspired affirmation of the unity, correspondence, and covenantal purpose between man and woman.

At the heart of the verse is a paradoxical beauty: sameness and distinction held in perfect harmony. The woman is formed from man’s own body, making her of equal substance and essence, yet she is brought forth in a distinct manner and given a distinct name. This reveals not sameness in role or function, but a complementarity that reflects divine intentionality. Such a framework affirms both ontological equality and functional differentiation, two truths often separated or distorted in contemporary discourse on gender.

Moreover, the verse’s theological implications extend beyond gender and marriage. It models a worldview in which human identity is not self-constructed but divinely given. Adam does not invent meaning or define the woman from a position of power. Rather, he responds to God’s initiative with insight, gratitude, and joy. In doing so, he demonstrates that speech—at its highest use—is a vehicle of recognition and worship. Genesis 2:23 thus provides not only a foundation for marriage, but a model for how humanity is to relate to God, to one another, and to the created order.

In an age marked by confusion over identity, autonomy, and the nature of love, this verse calls us back to the clarity of creation’s design. It proclaims that male and female are neither interchangeable nor hierarchical but relationally bound and mutually honoring. The poetic structure is not merely aesthetic; it reflects the reverence with which this truth should be received. Genesis 2:23 is not a relic of ancient patriarchy but a window into divine wisdom: revealing that difference does not imply deficiency, and that covenantal union flows from shared origin and purposeful distinction.

Ultimately, this verse forms a vital hinge in the biblical narrative. It joins the act of formation (Gen 2:21–22) with the institution of marriage (Gen 2:24), grounding the moral, spiritual, and theological foundations of human society in the very order of creation. To rightly understand Genesis 2:23 is to stand at the threshold of understanding who we are, how we were made, and what we were made for.

III. Assessing Feminist and LDS Reinterpretations of Genesis 2:23

Genesis 2:23 records the first human words as a poetic act of recognition. Read in its literary flow (2:21–24), grammar, and pre-Fall setting, the verse grounds the “one flesh” union in created correspondence, not in power. Two modern reinterpretations challenge that reading. Feminist revisionism treats the verse as a patriarchal redaction, deconstructs the ʾîš/ʾiššāh pairing as an oppressive binary, and recasts naming as domination. LDS teaching, by contrast, extends the creational union into “eternal marriage” and couples it with exaltation to godhood. We’ll assess both interpretations against the verse’s poetic structure, causal logic (“because she was taken out of man”), the canonical witness (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6), and biblical monotheism (Isaiah 43:10).

A. Evaluating Feminist Reinterpretations of Genesis 2:23

Under the umbrella of feminist revisionism, interpreters advance several distinct attacks: (1) a source-critical demotion of Genesis 2:23 as patriarchal redaction; (2) a gender-theory rereading that treats ʾîš/ʾiššāh as an arbitrary or oppressive binary; and (3) a power-analysis of naming that construes Adam’s words as an act of domination. What unites these approaches is a hermeneutic of suspicion toward the text’s plain, pre-Fall portrayal of recognition and unity.

1. Source-Critical Demotion (Patriarchal Redaction)

Some argue that Genesis 2:23 (and the surrounding pericope) was shaped or inserted to underwrite male hegemony, appealing to putative redactional layers and to the man’s “naming” as literary proof of power.

However, the verse’s elevated, tightly integrated poetry and its rhetorical function as a hinge to 2:24 cut against a late ideological insertion. Within the narrative’s internal logic, 2:23 is necessary: it interprets the woman’s formation (2:21–22) and grounds the “one flesh” union (2:24). Major commentators note that the naming formula here is a public recognition, not a coercive decree; the text’s own grammar and poetics bear the theological freight without recourse to redactional scaffolding.⁹

2. Deconstruction of Gender Complementarity

Others deem the ʾîš/ʾiššāh pairing a patriarchal construct, proposing either an androgynous hāʾādām prior to a later, gendered bifurcation, or a symbolic reading that dissolves created sexual differentiation.¹⁰

However, the text’s paronomasia (ʾîš/ʾiššāh) is literary theology: it signals correspondence-in-distinction, not hierarchy-in-value. The woman’s origin “from man” (mēʾîš) explains her designation “woman” and provides the rationale for “one flesh” (2:24). Jesus treats this creational differentiation as normative and good (Matthew 19:4–6), not as a mythic scaffold to be transcended. Standard lexical and syntactic analysis confirms that the wordplay communicates matched nature and fitted partnership rather than arbitrary social construction.¹¹

3. Naming as Power

A frequent claim is that Adam’s naming necessarily encodes dominance, making 2:23 a performative assertion of rule over the woman.

However, in 2:23 the passive “shall be called” (yiqqārēʾ) signals public acknowledgment, not unilateral ownership. The speech is poetic recognition—“bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”—and occurs before the Fall, where domination is introduced as a curse (Genesis 3:16, “he shall rule over thee”), not as a creational ideal. When Adam later names the woman “Eve” (3:20), it is within a fallen context; 2:23 must not be retrofitted with post-Fall dynamics. It’s important to distinguish recognition (2:23) from fallen rule (3:16), while also observing that Scripture elsewhere frames any form of marital headship in terms of self-giving love, not coercion (Eph 5:25–33).

In sum, feminist revisionist strategies tend either to subtract (by redactional suspicion) or to dissolve (by gender deconstruction) what the verse positively asserts: a creational unity-in-distinction, joyfully recognized and theologically normative.

B. Eternal Marriage and Exaltation in LDS Teaching

In official Latter-day Saint teaching, a man and woman who are “sealed” in a temple marriage may continue that marital bond eternally and, through exaltation, “be gods” in the world to come. Doctrine and Covenants 132 explicitly links eternal marriage with becoming “gods” who possess “a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”¹² The Church’s Gospel Topics essay, “Becoming Like God,” frames exaltation as the telos of covenant life, with eternal family relationships at its center.¹³ The 1995 “Family Proclamation” similarly situates marriage and family within an eternal scheme.¹⁴

LDS interpreters point to the creational union of man and woman as a template that persists beyond death: if the first marriage is divinely instituted in creation, then—so the argument goes—its ideal form is realized in eternity. On that reading, Adam’s recognition (“bone of my bones… flesh of my flesh”) anticipates an everlasting, deifying union continued through temple sealing.

However, Genesis 2:23 establishes a covenantal, bodily union (“one flesh”) that structures the current temporal created order. Several biblical passages resist an eternalization of the marriage bond:

1. Eschatological horizon. Our Lord teaches, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30; cf. Luke 20:34–36). Jesus grounds His correction in the nature of the age to come, not merely in the marital status of a single case. The New Testament consistently reorients ultimate union toward Christ and His Church (Eph 5:31–32), not toward the perpetuation of earthly marriage in glory.
2. The identity of God. Biblical monotheism excludes any ontology of exalted creaturely “gods” alongside or after the one true God: “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10, KJV; cf. 44:6–8). Exaltation to deity stands at odds with the Creator–creature distinction that runs from Genesis through Revelation.
3. The grammar of the passage. Adam’s statement is recognition, not apotheosis. The causal clause (“because she was taken out of man”) explains correspondence-in-distinction; the naming formula (“she shall be called Woman”) publicly acknowledges created identity. The poetic celebration binds Genesis 2:23 to 2:24 (“one flesh”), anchoring marriage as a creation ordinance ordered to earthly kinship and procreative community, not to postmortem divinization.¹⁵
4. Covenantal consummation. Scripture locates the fulfillment of marriage typology in Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride), not in the eternal self-extension of human couples (Eph 5:31–32; Rev 19:7–9). The sign gives way to the reality: the covenant that endures forever is the new covenant in Christ’s blood, not the perpetuation of Adamic marriage beyond the resurrection.

Genesis 2:23 beautifully affirms creational unity, bodily correspondence, and covenantal companionship. It does not teach—or imply—post-resurrection marriage or creaturely ascent to godhood. In the biblical storyline, marriage is temporal, typological, and good; God alone is eternal, uncreated, and worthy of worship. Salvation, glorification, and our everlasting fellowship are secured “in Christ” (Rom 8:29–30), not in the eternalization of human marriage.

C. Summary

Genesis 2:23 functions as recognition, not rule: the passive “shall be called” signals public acknowledgment, and the ʾîš/ʾiššāh wordplay communicates unity-in-distinction rather than hierarchy. The verse is integrally linked to 2:24, where the “one flesh” union orders this present creation; it neither installs domination pre-Fall nor anticipates post-resurrection marriage. Jesus confirms the creational binary and its marital consummation (Matthew 19:4–6), while also teaching that marriage does not continue in the resurrection (Matthew 22:30). Moreover, the Bible’s uncompromising monotheism excludes creaturely ascent to deity (Isaiah 43:10, KJV). Thus, feminist strategies that subtract the text’s plain sense and LDS claims that extend marriage into deifying eternity both move beyond what the verse affirms. Genesis 2:23 instead offers a timeless pattern of covenantal companionship—creational unity, mutual recognition, and differentiated harmony—sufficient for human flourishing in God’s good world.

IV. Poetry Anchored in Creation: Refuting Skeptical Criticisms

Genesis 2:23 is often challenged on two fronts: first, as a supposed post-exilic literary device crafted to advance a later agenda; second, as a purely allegorical emblem of human solidarity rather than a record of God’s act in space-time. Both claims falter when the verse is read in its immediate context (Gen 2:21–24) and within the canon. The poem’s vocabulary and wordplay (ʾîš/ʾiššāh) are organically tied to the narrative sequence that precedes and follows, functioning as the hinge that explains both the woman’s origin and the “one flesh” union. The scene’s pre-Israelite horizon, the etiological rationale of 2:24, and the narrative’s wayyiqtol¹⁶ chaining all point to history interpreted by poetry, not poetry substituting for history.

Equally, the text’s symbolism does not erase its referents. Scripture frequently embeds verse within prose at decisive moments to mark, interpret, and memorialize God’s deeds; Genesis 2:23 fits that pattern. The New Testament then treats this creational moment as normative and historical: Jesus grounds marriage ethics “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:4–6), and Paul’s Adam–Christ typology presupposes a real first pair (Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 15:45–49, KJV). In short, the passage is symbol-laden history: exalted speech wedded to concrete event.

A. Answering the “Late Fiction” Charge

Some higher critics label Genesis 2:23 a post-exilic literary device—crafted by priests or redactors to promote an idealized view of marriage, nation, or temple—rather than a record anchored in primeval history.

Several features of the text itself cut against this “late fiction” reading. First, the verse is an embedded poem whose vocabulary, cadence, and wordplay (e.g., ʾîš/ʾiššāh, “man/woman”) are tightly integrated with 2:21–24; it is not a detachable slogan but the hinge that explains both the woman’s origin and the “one flesh” union that follows. The causal logic (“because she was taken out of man”) grounds the name and the union in creation, not in a later sociopolitical agenda.^17,18 Second, the horizon of the passage is deliberately pre-Israelite: no covenantal, national, cultic, or monarchic markers appear. Instead, what we meet is a universal anthropology—man, woman, garden, marriage—suited to all humanity, not a narrow exilic program.¹⁹ Third, the etiological function (“therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother,” 2:24) does not negate historicity; Scripture often gives true historical acts and their abiding rationale. An etiological sentence explains why a real pattern endures; it does not prove the event was invented.²⁰

Genesis 2:23’s poetic form fits how ancient Israel preserved high-value speech: memorable, compact, and performative.²¹ As a unit, 2:21–24 exhibits narrative economy and theological precision that argue for intentional composition rather than ad hoc stitching. The verse’s universal scope and pre-Fall setting make it an apt foundation for marriage ethics well beyond Israel’s later institutions, precisely the opposite of what a narrowly exilic redaction would be expected to produce.

Later biblical authors treat Genesis 2:23–24 as normative ground, not malleable folklore. Jesus appeals to creation (“from the beginning”) and pairs Genesis 1:27 with 2:24 to define marriage (Matthew 19:4–6), and Paul cites 2:24 as a creational reality that also bears typological weight (Ephesians 5:31–32). This consistent, cross-canonical use assumes the passage’s foundational status, not a late, agenda-driven origin.

The “late fiction” thesis is often tethered to versions of the Documentary Hypothesis that remain contested and increasingly nuanced. Even scholars who posit sources now speak in terms of literary shaping and final-form theology.²² Whatever one’s view of composition, the unity, placement, and function of 2:23 within Genesis argue that we are dealing with carefully preserved primeval history presented in exalted speech, not an after-the-fact mythmaking exercise.

Far from being an anachronistic insert, Genesis 2:23 is poetry in the service of history: a compact, Spirit-breathed confession that explains why human marriage is a creational ordinance. Its literary artistry supports, rather than undermines, its historical claim, anchoring human fellowship in God’s first gift and setting a timeless pattern for life in His world.

B. Answering the Allegory-Only Reading of Genesis 2:23

Advocates of a non-literal or primarily allegorical reading contend that Genesis 2:4–25 (and 2:23 in particular) was composed first and foremost to teach meaning through symbol, not to narrate an event in space-time. Within that broad claim, several strands often appear:

1. Social-ethical allegory. The verse is read as a parable of human solidarity: “bone of my bones” becomes a metaphor for the interdependence of society or the covenant people, not a statement about the first woman’s origin. The movement to “one flesh” (2:24) is taken as a symbolic charter for social cohesion and loyalty, rather than a historical explanation for marriage.^23,24,25
2. Archetypal/psychological reading. Drawing on depth psychology (clinical and theoretical approaches focused on the unconscious, mental activity that shapes feelings, motives, and behavior), some treat Adam and the woman as archetypes (e.g., reason and intuition, self and other, conscious and unconscious). On this view, “taken out of man” dramatizes internal differentiation within the human psyche; the exclamation expresses the integration of complementary traits rather than the recognition of another historical person.²⁶
3. Wisdom or liturgical didacticism. Others place the passage in an instructional or worship setting: a crafted story used in Israel’s pedagogy to commend prudence, fidelity, and household order. The elevated poem (“This is now bone of my bones…”) functions like a memorized refrain for communal recitation, signaling its intent as catechesis, not chronicle.²⁷
4. Etiology without event. Some classify the unit as a pure etiological tale: it provides a story-shaped rationale for practices (“a man shall leave his father and his mother…,” 2:24) with no historical claim implied—the “because” of 2:23 is explanatory fiction that grounds custom in meaning rather than in a past occurrence.²⁸
5. Compositional artistry over reportage. Finally, literary critics note the embedded poem, heavy paronomasia (ʾîš/ʾiššāh), and carefully staged presentation (2:22) as marks of artifice. These features, they argue, signal crafted symbolism; the text’s “truth” lies in theology and poetics, not in factual recounting.²⁹

Proponents of these interpretations point to the chapter’s heightened style and lack of modern historical markers, the prevalence of symbolic naming and etiologies in Genesis, the use of figurative readings in some Second Temple and early Christian writers, and modern genre theory that distinguishes mythic or sapiential narrative from historiography. In sum, the allegory-only position sees 2:23 as literary symbol about unity and complementarity, not a record of the first human pair.

An accurate reading of this passage recognizes thatScripture’s symbolism here is not a substitute for history but rises from it. The verse is a crafted poem embedded in a prose narrative that presents concrete sequence, agents, and divine action.

1. Genre Signals of Historical Narrative

Genesis 2:4 opens with a tôledôt (“These are the generations…”) frame; the passage proceeds with wayyiqtol narrative (“And the LORD God formed… planted… took… brought…”) marking real-time sequence and causation. Named actors, temporal progression, and causal logic (“because she was taken out of man”) function as historical discourse markers, not free-floating symbols.^30,31,32

2. Geographical and Social Concreteness

The wider unit situates Eden with geographical detail (2:10–14) and closes with an etiology for marriage practice (2:24). In Scripture, etiologies commonly interpret real events and their abiding significance; they need not imply fabrication.³³

3. Poetry Inside Prose Memorializes Events

Biblical writers frequently weave short poems into prose narratives at moments of high significance. This literary pattern—often called prosimetrum—does not signal unreality; it functions to mark, interpret, and memorialize decisive acts of God. In Genesis 2:23, the narrative’s sequential verbs (“formed… brought…”) crest in a compact poem. The shift to verse serves as a rhetorical spotlight: the first human words are preserved in elevated diction precisely because they crystallize the meaning of what has just occurred.³⁴

1) Salience and signal. Verse inside narrative flags a turning point. As in Exodus 15 (after the sea crossing), Judges 5 (after Sisera’s defeat), 2 Samuel 1 (after Saul and Jonathan’s death), and Jonah 2 (from the fish), the narrator pauses the story to let a memorable, recitable text fix the event’s theological sense in the community’s mind. The poem becomes the “headline” by which the episode is remembered and rehearsed.

2) Interpretation, not mere ornament. Embedded poems are interpretive keys, not decorative add-ons. They compress doctrine into art: Exodus 15 interprets deliverance as Yahweh’s kingship; Judges 5 frames victory as covenant faithfulness. Likewise, Adam’s verse interprets the presentation of the woman as correspondence and unity—a theological reading of God’s act—rather than leaving the scene as bare reportage.³⁵

3) Commemoration and transmission. Poetry’s parallelism and rhythm aid public memory. Israel’s history is repeatedly taught and re-taught through songs, laments, and oracles embedded in story (e.g., Deuteronomy 32; 1 Samuel 2). Genesis 2:23 functions similarly: the first couple’s bond is given a liturgical form that can be voiced, learned, and carried forward as the rationale for “one flesh” (2:24).

4) Performative recognition. Many embedded poems are performative speech-acts—blessings, oaths, laments, or confessions—that both say and do something in the story world (e.g., Noah’s oracle in Gen 9:25–27). Adam’s poem is a recognition formula: by publicly naming the woman “Woman,” he acknowledges identity and relation in a way that stabilizes communal practice (marriage) that follows.³⁶

Poetry within prose does what monuments do in space: it fixes memory in form. Adam’s exclamation is elevated speech about a real act of God, crafted to ensure that the meaning of that act—created correspondence ordered to one-flesh union—would be sung, cited, and lived. The verse’s beauty is an index of its weight, not a warrant to dissolve its historicity.

4. Symbolism vs. Allegorization

Symbolism in Scripture adds significance to what God has actually done; it layers meaning onto real persons and events. Allegorization, by contrast, treats the narrative chiefly as a cipher and replaces the historical sense with an abstract idea. Genesis 2:23 is rich with symbol, but its symbols arise from—and depend on—the concrete act of God forming the woman and presenting her to the man. The verse’s beauty is not an escape from history; it is theology sung over history.

Genesis 2:23 employs symbol without erasing fact. The paronomasia ʾîš/ʾiššāh (“man/woman”) communicates correspondence-in-distinction through sound and sense,³⁷ yet it does so about two real human beings. The kinship idiom, “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” is a known Hebrew formula that conveys shared nature and covenantal nearness; its force presupposes an actual counterpart, not a psychological archetype. Even the causal clause—“because she was taken out of man”—grounds the poetry in event, explaining both her designation and their unity in terms of what God has actually done.

The New Testament confirms that biblical writers draw typology, not free-floating allegory, from Genesis 2–3. Typology presumes real history and then shows how earlier persons and events prefigure later ones. Thus, Paul can call Adam “the figure of him that was to come” (Romans 5:14) and contrast the “first man Adam” with the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45–49); he can also argue from the order of creation: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Likewise, when Paul cites “they two shall be one flesh,” he unveils a “great mystery” that concerns Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32). In every case, theological meaning rests on the reality of Adam and Eve and the fact of their union.

Reading symbols responsibly requires several guardrails. The literal sense supplies the referent: symbols interpret what the text asserts happened; they do not void it. The canon provides control: later Scripture cites Genesis 2:23–24 as normative for doctrine and ethics, not as pliable metaphor (cf. Matthew 19:4–6). Ethical entailment also matters: the symbol issues in concrete practice—“one flesh” (Gen 2:24)—which signals that we are dealing with creational reality, not an illustrative fable.³⁸ Even the literary fit of the passage supports this: the verse’s poetic features function as a theological gloss on a narrated act, not as a signal that the act is fictive.

This distinction carries real doctrinal weight. If Genesis 2:23 is reduced to allegory, the creational grounding for human nature, sexual differentiation, and marriage evaporates. Read as symbol-laden history, it provides a durable foundation: a real man and a real woman, joined by God’s design, whose union both is what it says—“one flesh”—and signifies what it points to: Christ and His Bride.

5. Canonical Appeal Assumes a Real Past

In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles treat Genesis 2:23–24 not as pliable metaphor but as the foundational record of how God ordered human life “from the beginning.” When questioned about marriage and divorce, Jesus explicitly joins Genesis 1:27 to 2:24: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female… For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh… What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4–6; cf. Mark 10:6–9). His ethic depends on the reality of what God actually did in creation; the authority of His conclusion turns on the event’s historicity, not on a free-floating ideal about human solidarity.

Paul’s appeals are of the same kind. In 1 Timothy 2:13–14, he reasons from sequence and occurrence—“For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”—arguments that only carry weight if formation and deception refer to real events. In 1 Corinthians 11:8–12 he again draws on Genesis: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man… Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Here origin (“of”) and interdependence (“in the Lord”) are held together; practice in the churches is grounded in what happened at creation, not in later social constructs.

The soteriological fabric of the canon is also woven to a historical Adam. “By one man sin entered into the world” (Romans 5:12), and “Adam… is the figure of him that was to come” (Romans 5:14). Likewise, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). These contrasts between the first man and Christ the last Adam assume that Adam was not a literary cipher but a historical head whose act had real covenantal consequence. If Adam is only allegory, Paul’s federal argument collapses; if his creation and relationship to the woman are merely symbolic, the typology loses its anchor.

The wider canonical witness further binds Genesis 2 to real time and space. Luke’s genealogy reaches back to “Adam, which was the son of God” (Luke 3:38), and Jude speaks of “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14), treating Adam as a chronological marker within history. The Old Testament’s own genealogies (e.g., 1 Chronicles 1) integrate the primeval pair into Israel’s remembered past, not into a mythic preface. In Ephesians 5:31–32, Paul cites Genesis 2:24 to explain both marriage and the “great mystery” of Christ and the Church; the typology draws meaning from the creation ordinance precisely because it is an ordinance instituted by God in reality.

Taken together, these canonical appeals show a consistent apostolic method: doctrine and ethics flow from what God has done in creation. Jesus’s marriage ethic, Paul’s ecclesial practice, and the gospel’s Adam–Christ typology all presuppose that Genesis 2:23–24 reports a real past. To reduce the passage to allegory is to saw off the branch on which the New Testament sits; to receive it as history enriched with theology is to honor the way Scripture itself argues.

In conclusion, Genesis 2:23 is not ornament for a fable but lyric etched into history, poetry pressed into service to confess what God actually did. Its elevated form fixes in memory the gift of correspondence God established, naming reality rather than inventing it. Far from diluting the verse’s force, the beauty intensifies its claim: creation yields a truth to be received in worship and obeyed in life. In this single utterance, Scripture weds literary splendor to concrete event, so that doctrine rests on deed and confession rises from fact.

C. Summary of Skeptical Criticisms

Genesis 2:23 is neither a late, agenda-driven insert nor a free-floating allegory. Its poetic form is tightly integrated with the narrative flow of 2:21–24, providing the causal logic for the woman’s name and the theological basis for “one flesh.” The pre-national setting, the genre signals of Hebrew narrative, and the use of embedded poetry all support intentional, historical composition. Symbolism here layers meaning onto a real act of God—forming and presenting the woman—rather than replacing it. Because Jesus and the apostles appeal to this text as foundational history for doctrine and ethics, both the “late fiction” and allegory-only readings collapse. Genesis 2:23 stands as lyric etched into creation’s bedrock: its beauty amplifies its claim, anchoring human fellowship and marriage in what God truly did “in the beginning.”

V. From Recognition to Relationship

Genesis 2:23 isn’t just a beautiful line in an old story, it’s a doorway into a different way of living. Adam’s first words aren’t a negotiation or a performance review; they’re a celebration. He recognizes what God has given, says it out loud, and receives the woman as a gift. That posture—seeing rightly, naming rightly, receiving gratefully—still changes homes, friendships, churches, and hearts today.

A. Bone of My Bones in Practice: Habits for Home, Church, and Friendship

If Adam’s first words model recognition and reception, then our relationships should be marked by the same kind of speech. In marriage, that means treating your spouse as a covenant partner, not a competitor. Make a habit of naming God’s good work in one another: call out faithfulness, courage, and growth when you see it. Speak blessing more than critique. Build patterns that embody “one flesh”: shared prayer, shared calendar, shared budget, shared service. When conflict rises (and it will), resist the instinct to win; aim to understand. “Bone of my bones” means you cannot wound your spouse without wounding yourself.

If you’re single, Genesis 2:23 still shapes you. The verse does not say, “This is now the source of my identity,” but, “This is now bone of my bones.” Your identity rests first in being known and loved by God. Let that free you from the pressure to self-define by romance or to despair without it. Practice covenantal recognition in friendships and church life: show up, keep your word, open your table, and let others open theirs. In a world that commodifies people, choose to honor them as image-bearers God has presented to you for mutual upbuilding.

For parents, pastors, and mentors, Genesis 2:23 is a blueprint for the culture you cultivate. Normalize grateful speech at the dinner table. Celebrate reconciliation as much as achievement. Teach children to say what is true and kind about others—“I see God’s gift in you”—so their words become small liturgies of recognition instead of weapons of comparison. And in every sphere—workplaces, neighborhoods, ministries—let your yes be covenantal, not merely convenient. Genesis 2:23 teaches us to see people as gifts to receive, not tools to use.

Thank God for specific people He has “brought” into your life. Ask the Lord to cleanse your speech where it has been transactional, sarcastic, or dismissive.

B. The Second Adam and You

If you don’t already know Christ as your Savior, please know this: Genesis 2:23 points beyond Eden. Adam received his bride from his opened side after a deep sleep; Christ, the last Adam, gave Himself unto death, and “forthwith came there out blood and water” from His pierced side (John 19:34). Adam’s exclamation proclaimed a human union; Christ’s cross creates a new people bound to Him forever. Scripture calls the Church His Bride and says, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32).

Our deepest loneliness is not social but spiritual; we are separated from God by sin. No amount of effort, romance, or achievement can heal that tear. But “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He rose again, and He invites you into a union stronger than death. If you confess “that Jesus is Lord” and believe “that God hath raised him from the dead,” you “shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9–10). In Him, you are received, not as a project but as beloved: forgiven, made new, and joined to a family.

So, come. Lay down the burden of self-invention and the fear of being alone. Bring your sin, your shame, your striving, your hunger to be known. Christ does not offer a program; He offers Himself. Trust Him. Let His word over you be the truest thing about you: accepted, redeemed, and kept. And as His grace reorders your life, let your speech echo Eden again: words that recognize God’s gifts, receive people as He presents them, and rejoice in the covenant love that found you first.

---

1. Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), s.v. “אָמַר.” Available online at Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h559/kjv/wlc/0-1/. ↩︎
2. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), s.v. “אָדָם.” Available online at StudyLight: https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/120.html. ↩︎
3. Skip Moen, “Acting Like God,” Hebrew Word Study, August 15, 2016, https://skipmoen.com/2016/08/acting-like-god/. ↩︎
4. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, vol. 1A of The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1996), 218. ↩︎
5. Ibid., 219 ↩︎
6. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 179. ↩︎
7. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 70. ↩︎
8. Ibid. ↩︎
9. New English Translation (NET), “Genesis 2:23,” translator’s note 68; study note 70, Biblia (Logos), https://biblia.com/bible/gs-netbible/genesis/2/18-24 (accessed August 15, 2025). ↩︎
10. Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2–3 Reread,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13, no. 4 (March 1973): 251–58, https://summerstudy.yale.edu/sites/default/files/02trible_genesis.pdf (accessed August 15, 2025). ↩︎
11. New English Translation (NET), “Genesis 2:23–25,” translators’ notes, NET Bible Full Notes Edition (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2019), in Biblia (Logos), https://biblia.com/bible/gs-netbible/genesis/2/23-25 (accessed August 15, 2025). ↩︎
12. The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013), 132:19–20, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng. ↩︎
13. “Becoming Like God,” Gospel Topics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints, accessed August 16, 2025, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng ↩︎
14. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, General Relief Society Meeting (October 1995), accessed August 16, 2025, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1995/10/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng. ↩︎
15. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 70–71. ↩︎
16. Wayyiqtol refers to a stretch of Biblical Hebrew prose in which the storyline is carried by a chain of wayyiqtol verbs, i.e., the conjunction waw (וַ) attached to a prefix-conjugation (yiqtol) form with characteristic gemination/lengthening (e.g., wayyōmer “and he said,” wayyēlek “and he went”). These clauses mark past-time, event-advancing sequence (the narrative “main line”), typically following a scene-setting clause (e.g., wayhî + time or a nominal/qatal clause). Non-wayyiqtol forms (qatal, yiqtol, participles, weqatal) usually supply background, asides, habituals, or projections, so a “wayyiqtol” is simply a passage dominated by this sequential past form. ↩︎
17. Richard M. Davidson, “Mosaic of Meaning: A Redemptive Reading of Genesis 3:16 in Light of Its Biblical Contexts and Inter-Texts,” Religions 15, no. 10 (2024): art. 1252, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101252. ↩︎
18. NET Bible, translator/study notes on Gen 2:23 (sn 4) and 2:24 (tn 1), BibleGateway, accessed 17 Aug 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A23&version=NET; https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NET. ↩︎
19. Jason S. DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56.2 (2013): 219–47. ↩︎
20. C. John Collins, “Adam and Eve in the Old Testament,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15.1 (2011): 4–25. ↩︎
21. Harry Hagan, OSB, Elements of Biblical Poetry: An Introduction to Its Craft, Language, and Genres (Hosted by PALNI Open Press, 2022), chap. 2, “The Idea of Parallelism,” §2.5 (“Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism”), https://pressbooks.palni.org/elementsofbiblicalpoetry/chapter/2parallelism/ (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
22. Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, “Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory: The Genesis and Goals of This Volume,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1–10, online at https://ub01.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/126792 (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
23. Walter Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2,23a),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1970): 532–42, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43715092 (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
24. Bruce Rosenstock, “Kinship, Incest, and Slavery: A Thematic Constellation in the Triteuchal Political Theology of the Divine Name,” Harvard Theological Review 116, no. 1 (2023): 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816023000019 (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
25. Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (Leiden: Brill, 1994). ↩︎
26. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, “Genesis 2:18–25 from a Jungian and Feminist-Deconstructionist Point of View,” Old Testament Essays 23, no. 1 (2010): 44–65, https://scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v23n1/03.pdf (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
27. John L. McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2–3,” Theological Studies 18 (1957): 541–72, https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/McKenzie-Literary-Characteristics-Gen-2%E2%80%933.pdf. ↩︎
28. Michaela Bauks, “Rhetorical Features and Characteristics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Genesis, ed. Bill T. Arnold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). ↩︎
29. McKenzie, “Literary Characteristics,” 557–60. ↩︎
30. DeRouchie, “Blessing-Commission.” ↩︎
31. Bo Isaksson, “Biblical Hebrew Short Yiqṭol and the ‘Consecutive Tenses,’” in New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, ed. Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 7 (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2021), 228–33, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0250.09. ↩︎
32. Ronald Holmstedt, “Hypotaxis,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2–4, https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/holmstedt_hypotaxishebrew_ehll2013.pdf. ↩︎
33. Brevard S. Childs, “The Etiological Tale Re-Examined,” Vetus Testamentum 24, no. 4 (1974): 387–97, https://doi.org/10.2307/1517173 (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
34. Wenham, Genesis 1–15. ↩︎
35. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 99–117, https://archive.org/details/poeticsinterpret0000berl (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
36. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). ↩︎
37. NET Bible (New English Translation), translator’s note on Gen 2:23, (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A23&version=NET (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎
38. William A. Heth, “The Meaning of Divorce in Matthew 19:3–9,” Churchman 98, no. 2 (1984): 136–49, https://www.churchsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Cman_098_2_Heth.pdf (accessed August 17, 2025). ↩︎