Is “Woman” The Product Of A Rib?

On a sister’s YouTube video that I viewed a while back advocating for female preachers, I recall a guy leaving an ignorant comment saying, “Lady, you need to be quiet, you’re just a rib.” My jaw dropped in horror at his sheer stupidity and disrespect. 

Unfortunately, there are others who think this way as well, and translations, many times, can promote these wrong ideas. The claim that women were made from a man’s rib, a narrative we’re introduced to at an early age, creates feelings of inferiority towards women.

The belief that women should be subordinate to men is not new, and those who oppose this idea aren’t part of a “new cultural movement creeping into the church,” as some pastors would have us believe; rather, it is the church that has adopted a distorted culture, which we are seeking to reverse.  

This shift from the truth is rooted not in complete passages or biblical concepts, but in the manipulation of select verses of Scripture. Entire doctrines have been built on these distorted verses that have nothing to do with God’s teachings. 

Eventually, we’ll investigate these Scriptures thoroughly, but for now, we’ll start at the beginning. Is “woman” the product of a rib? Let’s examine the relevant passage to see if we can find any reasons to believe this to be true, or why it could be false.

First, A Little Context

After God created the heavens and the earth, he created a garden and then made a person from the earth to take care of it. After creating the person, God recognized that it wasn’t beneficial for him to be alone. 

Not just because of potential loneliness, but also due to the responsibility of tending to a garden and animals alone, as well as raising offspring independently. Therefore, God decided to make a helper comparable to the person.

So, he caused the person to fall asleep, and as he slept, God took one of his tzalelot and sealed up the place where it was taken. Using the tsela, God created a woman and brought her to the person. 

The person then said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called “woman” because she was taken out of a man” (Genesis 2:21-24). 

To start, the Bible doesn’t specifically say anything about a woman being made from the man’s rib. However, among several possible translations, this is the one English Bible translators seem to prefer. 

As our next step, we’ll examine the word tsela as well as its Greek counterpart to determine why this might be the case.

The Hebrew Word Tsela

The Hebrew noun tsela, (or tzela) translated as “rib” in most English Bibles, is connected to the verb tsala meaning “to curve” or “to limp.” Many interpret this “curve” as referring to a rib, or even DNA, since both have a curved shape.

Some argue that the Aramaic term “ala” in Daniel 7:5, which refers to ribs in the context of a bear’s mouth, suggests that the same term should have been used in Genesis if the author meant to refer to a rib. 

While this is an interesting point, it doesn’t establish any definitive proof, as various individuals choose different words, and authors from different eras aren’t bound to use identical terminology. Thus, further investigation is necessary.

In addition to “rib,” tsela can also mean “side” or “part.” As many others have pointed out, in the rest of Scripture, it’s usually translated in this manner. Here are some examples:

“Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. “ (Exodus 25:12 NIV)

“For the second side of the tabernacle, to the north, make twenty planks (Exodus 26:20 CJB)

He put the carrying-poles for the ark in the rings on the sides of the ark. (Ex. 37:5)

And as David and his men went by the way, Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust. (2 Samuel 16:13 KJV). 

He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of juniper. 16 He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. (1 Kings 6:15-16 NIV) 

His strength is starved, And destruction is ready at his side. (Job 18:12 NKJV)

Trouble is hungry for him, calamity ready for his fall; (Job 18:12 CJB)

There were entrances to the side rooms from the open area, one on the north and another on the south; and the base adjoining the open area was five cubits wide all around. (Ezk. 41:11)

Each of the items that tsela refers to above, act as significant supports for major structures. Their purpose is to hold something upright or keep it together. All of them make up the major structure of something, and without them, it would collapse or not work properly. 

I believe this is where the verb tsala comes into play. If one of these important sides or parts is damaged or removed, the structure will curve, limp, become lame, or fall. As human beings, when something happens to one of our sides, we tend to curve over or limp.

It seems then, that the idea of tsela is something that supports a structure and allows it to properly function. Thus, it stands to reason that the same is true for the tsela taken from the man. It provided him with significant support (Hence, the reason God replaced it with flesh. ref. Gen. 2:21) and allowed him to function as the Lord intended.

So, we wouldn’t be talking about one insignificant bone that anyone could live without, but rather an essential part of the body that helped keep it together and allowed it to work properly. 

We will later discuss whether there is any justification for translating tsela as “rib” instead of various other choices that fit the context. But, for now, let’s examine the Greek word pleura.

The Greek Word Pleura

The Greek word pleura can also be translated as “side” or “rib.” It’s where we get our medical terms pleura and pleural cavity. 

In English, pleura refers to “the delicate serous membrane that lines each half of the thorax of mammals and is folded back over the surface of the lung of the same side.” It lubricates, protects, and cushions the lungs and reduces friction between the lung, rib cage and the chest cavity.

Like tsela in the Hebrew Bible, in the Septuagint, pleura in most cases, is translated as “side.” Additionally, in the New Testament, it is always translated to mean “side,” not “rib.” Take a look at these examples from the NIV version:

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (Jn. 19:34)

After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. (Jn. 20:20) 

25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25) 

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” (John 20:27) 

7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. “Quick, get up!” he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. (Acts 12:7)

Hence, we see that the Greek word pleura doesn’t appear anywhere in the Old Testament or New Testament to mean “rib” except in Genesis 2:21. This reasoning isn’t sufficient, however, to conclude that “rib” is incorrect, since “rib” is a legitimate translation.

Next, we will examine the context, other parts of Scripture, and others’ explanations to determine whether tsela and pleura can be appropriately translated as ”rib” in this lone verse or if “side” would be more accurate. 

What Is The Importance?

The following is a quote often cited by many from Matthew Henry:

“The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

This perspective is somewhat overstated; however, the foundational principles are indeed present, and I fully endorse them. 

Unfortunately, many people don’t see it this way, particularly the idea that a woman being created from a rib, implies equality with men. It’s usually the other way around. 

Throughout history, women have indeed been “trampled upon” by men and perceived as inferior beings or mere assistants to those who supposedly possess a higher authority from God—men. 

These roles are not divinely assigned or supported by Scripture, despite how some may interpret certain passages to make it seem as such. Rather, they are roles that we, as humans, have constructed through cultural and societal norms.

It’s not the original framework that God established for humanity. 

As the idea that women were created from ribs injects feelings of inferiority toward women, we need to be able to justify this claim made by Bible translators before us, as well as present religious “leaders.” 

It is crucial to critically evaluate others’ interpretations and not simply accept their views, especially when they conflict with God’s Word.

So, in light of the fact that the Greek and Hebrew words pleura and tsela do not refer to ribs elsewhere in Scripture, why were they translated as such in Genesis 2:21 instead of the other options? Does this interpretation have any justification? Why should we accept such claims?

So, Why A Rib?

To start, we should recognize that, irrespective of our conclusions, not every woman was created from a rib, a side, or any part of the first adam. The only woman who was literally taken from a man was “Eve”, Adam’s wife. 

The rest of us were formed through the processes of mitosis and meiosis, and from the physical union of our parents. Afterward, we were involuntarily pushed or pulled out of a woman’s uterus. 

Sadly, this clarification is necessary for some, as we’re often led to think otherwise, despite the lack of rationality in the belief that all women come from ribs. Therefore, we now seek to answer the question: was the first woman built from a rib? 

Despite my search, I haven’t found any convincing arguments or evidence that would justify rendering tsela and pleura in Genesis as a “rib.” However, gotquestions.org offers this explanation:

“The phrase for “one of his ribs” could be translated “a part of his side” (NET), but almost every English translation specifies the part as a “rib.””

This is absolutely not a reason. It doesn’t justify anything, and is not worth further consideration. Additionally, Answers in Genesis says:

“It is obvious from these usages, as well as the anatomical ones (in Genesis and Daniel), that it usually means rib or side (or the components of a side or wall). However, context dictates what the word is intended to mean, and in Genesis 2, it clearly means “rib.” Notice the clear wording in the text “took one of his ribs” (tsela) (Genesis 2:21). Moses would not have said “took one of his sides”—this makes no sense. 1 Also, the phraseology used in Genesis 2:21–22, “closed up its place with flesh,” clearly shows an intrusive surgery (into the side) which required an extraction; specifically, a rib was removed, and then a repair of the flesh was performed after the divine surgery. Subsequently, from that rib, the creation of the woman (Eve) takes place.”

If you’re interested, you can read the rest on their website. I won’t use any more space here, but you can see how this entire reasoning is based on opinion. For example, “Moses would not have said “took one of his sides”—this makes no sense.” Why would it not make sense as it makes perfect sense to me and to others? 

The author also asks, “Why would God take an entire side from Adam, when a single rib would do? That is much more logical and less intrusive, and we serve a God of order and logic.” Well, I don’t know; why would he cut out an entire bone rather than a few hair strands and nail clippings? What more could the rib have provided?

Both sources assert that God chose a rib due to its ability to regenerate. Since the rib can regrow in a short time, Adam wouldn’t have to be without it for long. 

This raises a puzzling question: why wouldn’t God simply replace the rib himself instead of making the man wait for it to regrow? I mean—he was already in there. Why not just take care of it then?

Are we to believe that he could create an entire human from a single bone, yet was unable or unwilling to restore this man’s rib that he removed? Now, that’s what doesn’t make sense. At least, not to me it doesn’t. 

Regardless, a translation of “rib” is not justified by these reasons, or any others I’ve found, because they rely more on opinions rather than Scripture or hard facts.

Other Perspectives

Some propose that what God extracted from the man was his DNA, which is an interesting concept. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to grasp why an omniscient and omnipotent God would require a code or set of instructions to create a human being.

It seems to me that such guidance would be more relevant for the cells to understand their functions and how to replicate and construct a person, rather than for God, who already possesses the knowledge of how to do so. 

Furthermore, I struggle to understand how he could have built a person from this code, given that he didn’t utilize dirt, he didn’t “speak her into existence,” and she wasn’t formed inside of a womb (Gen. 2:23). 

So, from where did her flesh originate? How were her bones created? Did Adam have to wait a certain number of years for her to grow, mature and become a woman? What did God do with this DNA? The idea doesn’t seem plausible to me.

Others hold to the belief that the first person was created both male and female and then God split him apart—in half to be precise. 

It sounds absurd, doesn’t it? It certainly would to those who’ve been raised on the conventional story. But when you consider certain phenomena such as conjoined twins, some of whom are connected at their reproductive regions, it’s easier to grasp how this could be probable. 

Furthermore, some men are born with Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome (PMDS), a condition where a biological male develops female sex organs, including a uterus and fallopian tubes, in addition to male sex organs. Thus, the aforementioned idea isn’t as ridiculous as it might sound.

As God created other things to reproduce within themselves, it makes sense that he would also have created the original person to reproduce within himself to make his own descendants. But wouldn’t that have been a lot of work for one person? Till the ground, feed the kids, populate the earth etc?

Regardless of the reasons, God concluded that it wasn’t beneficial for the person to remain solitary. Thus, he searched for a companion among the existing beings. When he found none, God removed a part or side from Adam, which I’ll refer to as his “feminine side,” and filled the void with flesh. Using this part, he fashioned a woman. 

He brought the woman to the man, who declared that she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Unlike any other creature, she was made from the same substance as him, both inside and out. 

Adam named her “wo-man” (ishah) because she was taken from a man (ish). It’s important to note that he didn’t claim she was taken from the earth, nor did he say she was made from a bone that was taken from a man; rather, he emphasized that she, herself, was taken from a man. From my perspective, that includes the whole shebang.

Furthermore, when examining Scripture, I come across instances where God increased a widow’s jar of oil by using oil—not by using any single component from the oil (2 Kgs. 4:1-7). He multiplied barley bread and heads of grain by using barley bread and heads of grain, not kernels and yeast (2 Kgs. 4:42-44). 

Similarly, Jesus multiplied fish and bread by using fish and bread, not fish bones and flour (Matt. 14:13-21). So, why would God multiply mankind using a rib? While he could create a person from a bone, why would he, when he can simply multiply the existing matter, as he consistently did throughout Scripture? 

In any case, this is just my opinion, and I’m not insistent on anything, except for the fact that the woman wasn’t made from a rib.

Various theories exist about what exactly transpired, and what part was used, (including his penis), but the most reasonable and biblically sound interpretation is that God removed a significant part of the person, which included both flesh and bone (Gen. 2:23), to build the first woman. 

When this part is united, or perhaps “reunited,” with the man, they become “one flesh,” signifying a single unit. This union enables them to create a complete human, representing half of the mother and half of the father. Half plus half equals a whole. 

This reasoning supports the notion that God took a side from Adam, suggesting it represents an entire half of him, (whatever that may have looked like) even if the text doesn’t explicitly state this.

Conclusion

The Hebrew word tsela, translated as “rib,” can also mean “side” or “part” and in the rest of Scripture it is translated in this manner.

Except in Genesis 2:21, both Old and New Testament translations of the Greek word pleura refer to sides or parts, not ribs. 

There are no good reasons given by translators or biblical scholars as to why “rib” was chosen instead of “side” or “part.” Therefore, there is no reason as to why this particular instance should be translated as “rib,” except to maybe deduce a woman to a man’s bone. 

As there is no justification for it, it’s probably reflective of the translators’ culture and society. 

God didn’t fashion a woman from a bone, but as Adam testified she was taken out of man and was made of the same stuff he was made of— from both his flesh and bone. 

I’m convinced that she was literally built from a complete side, (which included the female reproductive system) representing her role as an equal ruler alongside him, rather than being concealed like a rib, as society and the church traditionally expect women to be. 

This perspective is supported by Scripture, where both men and women were given the authority to rule over the earth, not just one gender.

Whatever our understanding, what’s clear is that men cannot function without women, and women cannot function without men, since humanity could not exist without either. Women play an equal part because they were likely made from an equal part, not a rib.

Through a physical union, a man and a woman become one flesh with the likelihood  of reproducing, and through a symbolic union, together, they perform the work of the Lord. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

So, united as a single entity— which is humankind—women and men, both single and married, work together, leading and ruling as one, towards their shared purpose assigned by God. 

Let’s get our pride out of the way, and learn to work together in harmony and respect for each other without feeling the need to dictate one another’s actions, so we can get back to the original plan God implemented for humankind.