Alright, I'll admit it: the title of this article feels a little click-baity. Truth be told, I did that intentionally. I also wasn't entirely sure which grouping to put this article under: it sort of belongs under Word Studies because it centers on the exegesis of a couple Greek words. However, it also belongs under somewhat of a cultural study. Yet then again, since I am writing a response against what I believe to be a dangerous and immoral practice, we could likely say it falls on Apologetics and Daily Life, as it has potential to impact people in numerous ways. But at the end of the day, I have filed this under Language and Word Studies for the aforementioned reason. I digress.

Recently, I was sent an article by a Mr. Charles Dowell, who operates the website StraitwayTruth and runs a church of the same name. A quick once-over of the many posts on both the website and the Facebook page demonstrated much material to me that is, sadly, reminiscent of my Messianic Cage Stage days. Much conspiracy and sensationalism dominate their materials. 

The article in question - which I will link to below for honesty's sake - is essentially making the assertion that when 1 Timothy 3:2 states that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" it actually means the man must have at least one wife. The author claims it really should be understood as "a first wife" among many possible wives, not a restriction to a single wife.
​
Now normally, I would ignore such a site and move on. After all, it doesn’t really affect me, and honestly there isn’t enough time in a day for me to craft decent responses for some of these issues and teachings. However, a friend of mine reached out to inquire about an issue concerning the Greek text of 1 Timothy, as it is referred to by Mr. Dowell in his article. The article in question – if you wish to review it – can be found here. In short, it is a brief treatment of 1 Timothy 3 as it relates to polygyny, a practice which Mr. Dowell readily encourages. (Red Flags, anyone?)

I do not intend to respond to each and every point made in the article, as some are non sequiturs or are otherwise unrelated to the topic and the passage being addressed. However, I wrote up this brief response since I was specifically asked about the Greek of the passage, and I figured since I’ve written this much already, why not re-format it a little and make an article about it. After all, it may help someone else navigate this issue in the future. So that said, here we go.

The aforementioned article hinges on three primary points relating to polygyny, in particular from 1 Timothy 3:2. It does not contend with the definitions of ανηρ (man / husband) or γυναικος (woman / wife), so I will set those aside for now.

It hinges firstly on utilizing μιας (mias) as either an indefinite article (a / an) or the ordinal number, “first.”

Secondarily, it also hinges on the claim quoted in the article, “Thus if we cannot find a prohibition of polygyny up to this point in the teachings of the inspired text, we are in trouble (hermeneutically speaking) finding it here.” That is, since there is no “thou shalt not be a polygamist” from Genesis to 1 Timothy so far, then it must not be an actual prohibition.

The third and final point of the article is one of an appeal to authority or example of notable Biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and others. I will address these in order. 

This is the author’s second presupposition on which the argument is built. This is a half-truth, however. There is no “thou shalt not have multiple wives” in the Torah. Or anywhere else in the Scriptures (albeit, I do have a friend who says there is, and you can read his take on it here). The simple reality is, God knew the Israelites would have multiple wives. The same goes for slaves, God knew they would have slaves. They were an ANE people, of course this would happen. The Torah’s commands regarding polygamy – and slavery – are to limit its practice and mitigate abuses of power in both situations (more on this in a future article, somewhere down the line).

It is worth noting that it is even explicitly forbidden for kings to take multiple wives for themselves (Deut. 17:17), which should be very telling as well (especially if we are supposed to be a Kingdom of Priests | Kings and Priests).
​
By the time we come to the NT, we do in fact get a prohibition on polygyny from Yeshua Messiah Himself. On the topic of divorce – which specifically pertains to marriage as a whole – Yeshua says the design from the beginning was for the two to become one flesh. This is evidenced by the archetypes of Adam and Eve. God did not create multiple wives for Adam to marry, He built only Eve. Nor did God design that Eve should be an equal and opposing power (ezer kenegdo) to multiple husbands. The statement is made that they, being two (not three, four, five, etc.) should become one flesh (Matt. 19:5, Gen. 2:24). It is worth noting the word here from the LXX is μιαν, once again implying the two should be one to the exclusion of others. Meaning, Adam should be one with Eve, not one with Eve, and then also one with Martha, and then also one with Lilith, etc.
If we are concerned only with having a “thou shalt not” in the Torah, then perhaps we can allow polygyny. But we know, emphatically, that it is contrary to God’s design. It is no different than claiming that watching pornography is acceptable since the person viewing it is not physically engaging in the acts themselves (I have seen believers make this very excuse). If our theology has us searching for loopholes, chances are, we’re already in the wrong. 

This one is faulty on multiple levels. But I would counter this simply by rhetorically asking if the author could point to someone, anyone, who is specifically mentioned as having multiple wives and it not being connected by Scripture to something going wrong.

Abraham had one wife, but it was due to his taking of Hagar (Gen. 16:1-6) that we get the issues with Ishmael that plagued Israel for centuries (Gen. 21:8-14). Jacob’s house was in constant strife because of his multiple wives (Gen. 29:31-35; Gen. 30:1-13). The rivalry between the mothers of his children no doubt played a large part of Jacob's favoritism to Joseph, which also no doubt led to much animosity between Joseph and his brothers (a fact which Joseph himself calls evil in Gen. 50:20).

David’s house was filled with strife as well. After all, one of his sons raped one of his daughters (2 Sam. 13:1-14), and then her brother murdered the guilty son (2 Sam. 13:23-33), and then violated his father's concubines (2 Sam. 16:20-23), and tried to stage a coup (2 Sam. 15)…shall I go on?

Gideon’s entire lineage was cut off except for one son, because his son of one wife hated all the others (Judges 9:1-6). In fact, the author of Judges even makes the point in Jdg. 8:30 to specifically link the "problem child" Abimelech to the fact that Gideon had so many wives.

Solomon’s infamous idolatry is specifically connected to his multitude of wives (1 Ki. 11:1-8) – not only the fact that they were foreign – and this, once again, relates to his breaking of Deut. 17:17. It is debated whether Moses himself had multiple wives or not, as it is likely that he had one wife who was called by multiple names, or possibly two subsequent but not simultaneous wives (though we do not know for sure), but even his household received backlash because of his marriage (Num. 12:1-10) nonetheless.

The point being: if we are taking the polygynist behavior of prior generations as an example for us to understand today, then we need to understand it is an example of what not to do.
​
I could go on a bit more, but I believe this should suffice for now. 

At the end of the day, the exegesis offered by the author is very poor. Secondly, the whole promotion of the idea that elders should not only be allowed to have multiple wives, but be encouraged to do so, leads to many issues. Biblical examples of polygyny always indicate strife and discord in one way or another, and an elder in a congregation should be one who is not prone to strife (Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3). 

The moon. It has been a recurring topic of discussion among Torah Observant groups in recent years. Not so much because of its size or shape or composition, but due to its use in ascertaining the Biblical months. That is, which lunar phases should be use to start counting the days of a month? Some argue for a crescent moon (the first visible sliver of a waxing phase); others for a conjunction (an astronomical moment in time when the moon is not visible at all). Yet still others have argued – albeit rarely – for a full moon. Then there are those who reject this lunar observation entirely in favor of a strictly solar calendar. By that I mean, that the moon is not used for determining or setting the months at all, and instead it should be the sun. This would mean a month (in Biblical terminology) would be a set number of days (either 30 or 31, depending on which variation of solar calendar theory one opts for), rather than the 29/30 days alternating found in the lunar calendar.

On the surface, the word is most often found translated – in most places – as “month.” In fact, that remains the general consensus for translation outside Hebraic groups and discussions. Some more recent Bible translations have opted for the rendering of “new moon” here, instead of “month” (this is typically the rendering found in translations favored by Hebrew Roots groups, such as the ISR Scriptures Version and the Hebrew Roots Bible).
​
Now the word חֹ֫דֶשׁ is found some 275 times in the Tanakh. It is usually translated only a couple of different ways depending on the context. For example, in the New American Standard Bible 2020 (NASB 2020), it is rendered as month or months (depending on if singular or plural) some 248 times. That’s 90% of the occurrences of the word. The rest of the time it is rendered as “[new] moon(s).”
​
That’s pretty straightforward in terms of the numbers. But the reason this question comes up revolves not around whether it should be rendered as “month” but whether that month is related to a lunar cycle or a solar one. 

​Now, I’m going to get anecdotal for just a moment. From my observations, this particular issue over whether the solar phase or lunar phase should be used to determine the Biblical month, has arisen primarily because of renewed interest in the writings found at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls. The assumption is normally made that the solar calendar found in texts like 1 Enoch and Jubilees is older and therefore more original than the lunar calendar upheld by the later Rabbinic writings. This is point number 1: that the solar calendar is older and therefore more original (or at least closer) than the lunar calendar. ​One example of a Qumran calendar, often upheld in Hebrew Roots circles, is found in Jubilees 6:29-30:

Just a couple verses later we read:

​And lastly verses 36-37:

It should be apparent by now that the author of Jubilees was not only convinced of the truth of his own calendar, but was also convinced that the lunar calendar observed by his contemporaries was a method of blaspheming and corrupting the appointed times.

Such rhetoric and vitriol are common among the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. One need go no further than the DSS document Misqat Ma’asei Ha’Torah (4QMMT) to discover some of the pointed rhetoric there regarding the profane status of non-Jews simply for being non-Jews. Other DSS documents express disdain or even hatred towards fellow Jews who observed certain things differently (sound familiar, anyone?).
Regarding the calendar, similar such statements as are made in Jubilees are found in 1 Enoch.
​
1 Enoch 72:32:

Once again, the Qumran community seems confident in their solar calendar.

To many people in the broader Torah Observant community, this seems like evidence itself. Many people take 1 Enoch and Jubilees on a canonical level, equating their authority with the 66 books of Scripture. I will argue the contrary elsewhere, but for now, I simply wanted to point out the DSS’s evidence when it comes to ancient support for the solar calendar.
​
One must ask, however, how this could be the case, if the word “month” found throughout Scripture – especially the Torah – is related to the moon. So here comes point number 2. 

​I have already noted how חֹ֫דֶשׁ (chodesh) is most often rendered as either month or moon. We will examine that more in-depth in a moment. For now, I want to try to articulate the second point often raised in support of a solar-based calendar. That is, the claim that חֹ֫דֶשׁ is not even the word for moon. Often, I have heard it asserted that the word for moon as found in Scripture is יָרֵחַ (yareach). To be sure, this is not false. Genesis 37:9, describing Joseph’s dream that the sun and moon and eleven stars bowed down to him, uses the word yareach for “moon.” Similarly, Deuteronomy 4:19 uses it when warning against worshipping the heavenly bodies. Job uses it in 25:5 and 31:26, and the Psalms feature it eight times. In fact, in the NASB 2020, the word יָרֵחַ is translated as “moon” in all 27 of its appearances in the Tanakh (100% of them).

So the question should then be asked: if the moon is yareach and not chodesh, why do we translate chodesh as “[new] moon”? Further, if the Torah is scant on details of the precise method of the calendar (that is, it does not say whether the month is set by the sun or the moon), and we supplement that understanding with 1 Enoch and Jubilees, is it not clear that the sun sets the month?
​
This is where we get to the more in-depth piece of the word study I mentioned a moment ago. The question typically posed is: why does חֹ֫דֶשׁ get associated with the moon? 

The short answer (sorry, here’s a spoiler): because the moon renews every 29-30 days.

Now for the longer answer.

See, the word חֹ֫דֶשׁ belongs to the חדש word-group which includes multiple other words. According to HALOT (the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, the foremost current lexical work for Biblical Hebrew), the given definitions for חֹ֫דֶשׁ are:

1. New moon
2. Month
3. Mating season

That last one is only relevant to the “month” found in Jeremiah 2:24. Now there’s a lot more information in HALOT for each of these entries, but as you can see, the scholarship is virtually unanimous: it’s a reference to the moon (and therefore the month). However, the reason this is the case is because, again, of the word group itself. The חדש word group in general relates to words that convey a sense of renewal. The primary verbal root, חָדַשׁ (chah’dash) is found a number of times, and it means “to make new.” As such, it is normally translated as “renew.” Most often, the word is found in its adjectival form, חָדָשׁ (note the different vowels, chah’dah-sh), and means “new.” The Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew gives the definition here as, “new, i.e., pertaining to that which is recent, new, not old.”[5] This form is also found in the feminine, חֲדָשָׁה (cha’dah-shah) in places such as Jeremiah 31:31, where it describes the sort of covenant that is made with Israel and Judah.

As can be demonstrated not simply by an examination of a handful of occurrences of חֹדֶשׁ, but by a fuller word study of the חדש word family together, it seems plain that the meaning of חֹדֶשׁ is related to a cycle of renewal. This then begs the question: what is it describing as renewed? The sun? The moon? The month (without direct reference to the sun or the moon)?

We could ask the logical question: how does the sun renew? Obviously, it rises and sets every day, and it has a cycle in that sense. But is that what is meant by the “renewal” in relation to the month? The moon has multiple phases and takes multiple days to wax and wane, and a month to renew from one phase to the next. The sun, however, renews daily, and has no phases. If it is day, the sun is shining. If it is night, the sun is not. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Further, the way the word חֹדֶשׁ is used in Scripture demonstrates that it cannot refer to simply a daily renewal of the sun. Take for example, Exodus 12:1-3. The oft-quoted passage opens the Passover instructions and states that, “This month (חֹדֶשׁ) shall be the beginning of months (חֳדָשִׁ֑ים) for you. It is to be the first month of the year to you.” Examine, too, Genesis 7:11 or 8:4, or many other references to other numbered months. The counting of the year is based on the number of months, not the number of days (as it would be on a solar calendar) or the number of weeks (as Jubilees states). In order for the Biblical data to fit, חֹדֶשׁ must be referring to a monthly renewal, which cannot fit with a reference to the sun.

As mentioned previously, the word yareach means “moon” right? So why would there be two words for moon? Not to cause any offense, but I honestly find this question a bit silly. It’s like asking why we need so many different words in English for “bad.” Bad, terrible, awful, dreadful, and I could go on. The point is, we have multiple ways of referring to things just like most other languages. Including Hebrew. If I were explaining something about the moon, and used words like “crescent” and “conjunction” and “lunar” but never used the word “moon,” most people would still understand the topic. So it is in Hebrew as well. Yareach refers to the celestial body floating up in space, what we call the moon. Chodesh refers to the calendrical month as determined by the cyclical phases of the yareach. As such, chodesh does not refer to the moon directly, but only to its use in the calendar. You could even summarize it by saying the chodesh is determined by the yareach.
​
Meanwhile, the number of days in a month is never given in the Torah, or anywhere in Scripture. Nor the number of months in the year. If the calendar were, by design, a 12-month solar calendar of fixed days totaling 364, one need not observe any celestial cycles at all. No need for sighting the moon or calculating the conjunction, no need for observing the tequfah (equinox). It would be set and fixed. Yet there is no such designation in Scripture (though I will admit this is an argument from silence). 

To go a bit further than just probing the logical questions, let us return for one final look at the Qumran calendars. Yes, I mean calendars, plural.[6] While all are in agreement regarding the solar-based calculation of 364 days a year, there were multiple different calendars found among different documents. To me personally, I would have to ask the advocates of such a calendar’s employment for festival dates today: why the one you chose, and not any of the others at Qumran? Why not use the Qumran calendars found with astrological texts (yes, like horoscopes)? Why not use the ones associated with amulets found among the scrolls as well?
​
At any rate, that goes beyond the scope of this article, so I will digress.

In summary, I hope this – somewhat brief – article has answered at least as many questions as it has raised. The Biblical evidence – from a Hebrew language perspective – does not lend itself to reckoning the month by the sun: only by the moon. Some may argue a genetic fallacy, claiming that’s how the Babylonians did it. But one could equally argue the same, as the Egyptians likewise observed a solar calendar since before Israel’s slavery there.[7] Further, many ancient Near Eastern nations observed a calendar based on the moon, and despite Babylonian influence evident in Scripture, the pre-exilic texts of Scripture demonstrate a calendar that is reckoned by the phases of the moon, not the sun.

[1] James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, vol. 2 (New Haven;  London: Yale University Press, 1985), 68.
[2] Ibid., 68.
[3] Ibid., 68.
[4] James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York;  London: Yale University Press, 1983), 52.
[5] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[6] Sacha Stern, “Qumran Calendars and Sectarianism,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins, Oxford Handbooks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 233.
[7] Nigel Strudwick, Texts from the Pyramid Age, vol. 16, Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 13.

As Torah-observant believers, we already understand that Paul would not have been instructing Timothy to teach new believers that the Torah, or the Tanakh as a whole, was not intended for them. Or that they needed to carefully decipher which parts to keep, and which parts to cut out (as in the image above). Yet that message is clearly seen in some popular Christian teaching. Here's a quote from Joseph Prince on the matter: 

It is crucial for every believer, when reading the Bible, to rightly divide the Word, and to clearly separate what belongs to the old covenant of law and what belongs to the new covenant of grace. When people quote Old Testament passages without appropriating the cross of Jesus in their interpretations, they make it seem as though the cross of Jesus Christ made no difference at all, leading to much misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible. (from this article here)

Famed Christian theologian and dispensationalist, C. I. Scofield, even wrote a whole book on the matter, 'Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15) Being Ten Outline Studies of the More Important Divisions of Scripture.' Scofield uses the verse as a springboard to discuss the different divisions and dispensations of God's grace, and how the Scriptures align within the framework of each division. (At least, according to how he interpreted Scripture, and his view on Dispensationalism).

But if that doesn't sound like something Paul, the Jewish Apostle and Pharisee would have in mind, well, don't fret; you're not alone. Here's a few quotes from other commentaries on the matter: ​

Simply put, according to Keener above, Paul already believed his readers (though in particular, Timothy) would be studying the Scriptures. And again, in this way, he encourages and exhorts Timothy to handle the Gospel correctly, and not pervert it with quarrels about words (2:14) or godless chatter (2:16).

The Tree of Life Version thus translates this verse as: 

"Make every effort to present yourself before God as tried and true, as an unashamed worker cutting a straight path with the word of truth." (TLV)

That makes the imagery of it a bit more vivid. And indeed, it is not outside the definition of the Greek ορθοτομεω (orthotomeo), a word occurring only once in Scripture, and usually translated "rightly dividing." Given the wording in the TLV, the footnotes make the connection to Isaiah 40:3, which Paul may or may not have had in mind when he wrote his epistle. 

A voice cries out in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of ADONAI, Make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Isaiah 40:3 (TLV)

Albeit I personally find this less likely, as even the LXX does not use the word. We do find it, however, in places like Proverbs 3:6 in the LXX, where we read, "make her known in all your ways so that it may direct your ways." (Lexham English Septuagint) That is, that it may "make a straight path" for you. (Here, the context being Wisdom).

One more commentary before we summarize, because I think it wraps it all up nicely.

Revisiting our earlier misquotation of the verse, we see pretty plainly that Paul's exhortation that Timothy "rightly divide the Word of Truth" is not about figuring out what's for the Jews, and what's for Christians. It's not about what was the Old Covenant dispensation vs what is the New Covenant dispensation. It's about teaching and preaching the Word of Truth, in truth. Not using it, as I mentioned above, as a weapon against others. Not perverting it to promote our own selfish schemes. And again, as Paul addresses in the verses immediately before and after verse 15, the one who rightly divides the word of truth is not the one who is "quarreling over words" (vs. 14) or engaging in "godless chatter" (vs. 16). Given the greater context, this is referring to teachers and preachers. Verses 14 and 16 could use their own dedicated posts, and perhaps I'll get to that eventually. 

I hope and pray this study has blessed you. If you already held this understanding, well, either treat this as a witness, or pat yourself on the back. ;) 

I myself struggled with this verse on account of how I have heard it taught through the years. 

Shalom to you and yours.

To begin, as always, we’ll look at the word in question in Hebrew. This word is רחם (rechem); a noun translated almost exclusively as “womb.” Its first use is in Bereshiyt (Gen.) 20:18, where it describes the household of Abimelech having all the wombs closed up. Here are a couple verses that utilize this word:

31 Now יהוה saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. – Gen. 29:31

14 Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the children of Yisra’el, and the Levites shall be Mine. 15 After that, the Levites shall go in to do the service of the Tent of Appointment: and you shall cleanse them, and offer them as a wave offering. 16 For they are wholly given to Me from among the children of Israel; instead of all who open the womb, even the firstborn of all the children of Yisra’el, I have taken them to Me. – Num. 8:14-16

This word, rechem, is derived (as Hebrew nouns are) from the verb of the same spelling, pronounced racham. You may know words like “rachamim” such as appears in some Messianic praise music. If you’re unfamiliar, the word racham means “compassion” and if often translated as compassion, mercy, or even pity. Below are some verses that feature the word racham:

19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the Name of יהוה before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” – Ex. 33:19

10 Foreigners will build up your walls, And their kings will minister to you; For in My wrath I struck you, And in My favor I have had compassion on you. – Is. 60:10

It is interesting to note that these words are related for a number of reasons. First, look at the first example from Gen. 29:31. Leah was “unloved” so Elohim opened her womb. Sounds simple. But what sort of action was this on the part of Elohim? Clearly, He looked to Leah and was moved to help her; that is, He had compassion on her.

Just as the heart is the seat of the mind; just as the liver is the seat of honor/glory; just as the kidneys are the seat of the “deepest, most tender emotions,” so too, is the womb an organ that anchors a spiritual (or “soulish” if you will) element of humanity.

If you’re a mother, you know the deep longing and compassion and mercy (and yes, sometimes even pity) that you feel toward your children. Those that you have carried in your womb. It’s a bond that is clearly physical and emotional, but also spiritual. You develop a “compassionate” attitude toward your child while the child gestates within the organ of compassion itself!

At the risk of getting political (then again, shouldn’t we all?), look now towards the modern West. The United States, Canada, the UK, and most of the modern industrialized world has seen a number of revolutions. One of the larger ones has been the “women’s revolution” and in the United States at the very least, the marches are still going strong. One of the major tenets of these “feminist revolutions” has been to increase exposure and access to abortion. I know I can’t be the only one who has seen these women, often celebrities, in the public square. Campaigns such as “shout your abortion” are gaining media attention, and worse, the attention of young, impressionable minds.
But an interesting thing I personally noticed about many of these women. They claim to be proud of having gotten an abortion, and have a cold, perhaps heartless attitude toward the Unborn. Perhaps the words we’ve looked at above will help you understand why.

If you harm the liver physically, you harm the honor/glory spiritually. If you harm the heart physically, you harm the mind. And so on it goes. As we’ve continually examined in this series, the physical parts of the human body are connected with and related to the spiritual parts of the body (as I like to say, the soulish part).

Perhaps – and this is solely my personal theory based on observation of American culture – those who so adamantly brag about abortion, who are so proud to have removed their child from their womb; perhaps the reason they can be so harsh, cold, and unloving toward the unborn, is simply because they’ve damaged their “organ of compassion.” The natural physical and spiritual function of the womb in a woman is to serve as a chamber of growing compassion. So what happens when it is damaged?

As an aside, I realize men are perfectly capable of being compassionate even though we do not have a womb. Just as even someone with a dysfunctional nose can still get angry (see Part 4). But on the whole, in general, we find women more naturally nurturing and more naturally compassionate. I believe this is yet another example of how the Words of Elohim are ingrained not only in Scripture, but in the way He built our bodies.

Be Berean.

Shalom. 

Uploaded 3/26/19.​

Within Torah-observant communities, a persistent debate has emerged regarding appropriate nomenclature for religious instructors. Some advocate for the use of the Jewish designation "Rabbi," while others vehemently oppose it based on a specific Gospel passage. This controversy has frequently led to divisive theological discourse within these communities.

The opposition to this title primarily stems from Matthew 23:8: "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." This pericope has been interpreted by many as an explicit prohibition against the use of such honorific titles in religious contexts. However, this paper proposes that a more nuanced exegetical approach—accounting for linguistic, historical, and contextual factors—offers a more comprehensive understanding of this passage.

To establish a proper foundation, we must first examine the etymology and historical usage of the term "Rabbi." Unlike many religious designations, this term does not appear in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) but emerges prominently in the New Testament texts. In Greek manuscripts, the word appears as ῥαββί (rhabbi), a direct transliteration of the Hebrew רַבִּי.
​
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the term derives from the Hebrew root רַב (rav), meaning "much" or "great," thus literally translating to "my great one" or "my honorable sir." It functioned as an honorific title with which Jews customarily addressed their religious instructors. This interpretation is corroborated by multiple scholarly sources:

• Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon defines it as "a title of respectful address to Jewish teachers."
• Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon renders it as "My Master, a Hebrew word."
• Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines the root word rav as an adjective meaning "much, many, great, abundant, strong," and as a masculine noun signifying "captain" or "chief."

This etymology reveals that "Rabbi" initially functioned as an honorific designation similar to contemporary expressions like "sir" or "madam." A parallel can be drawn with the English "Mister" (Mr.), which derives from the French monsieur ("my lord" or "my master"), originally reserved for the eldest brother of the French monarch before its adoption by the general populace.

The Gospel of John provides internal evidence for the contemporary understanding of the term during the first century CE:

John 1:38 - "Yeshua turned, and saw them following, and said to them, 'What are you looking for?' They said to Him, 'Rabbi' (which is to say, being interpreted, 'Teacher'), 'where are you staying?'"

This explicit interpretive note confirms that within the New Testament context, "Rabbi" was understood and used synonymously with "Teacher" (διδάσκαλος, didaskalos). This provides crucial context for properly interpreting Yeshua's admonition in Matthew 23.

The precise chronology of the term's evolution into a formal religious title remains subject to scholarly debate. Textual evidence from the Mishnah indicates that by the early second century CE, the term was in common usage as a designation for religious instructors. This usage continues throughout the Talmudic literature, which also employs related terms such as Rabban and Rav.

It is noteworthy that the Talmudic literature occasionally employs alternative honorifics as well, including "abba" (father), to distinguish between various teachers, particularly those sharing the same name. For example, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri is designated as "Rabbi Yochanan," while Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai receives the title "Rabban." This usage of multiple related honorifics provides important context for interpreting Yeshua's statements about titles.

When examining Yeshua's statements in Matthew 23:8-10, it is imperative to consider their full context:
"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called guides; for One is your Guide: Messiah."
A strictly literal interpretation of these verses presents several hermeneutical challenges that appear inconsistent with other scriptural passages:

1. Regarding the prohibition against calling anyone "father," Scripture frequently refers to biological and patriarchal figures using this exact designation. In Genesis 44:34, Judah addresses Jacob as his father; in Genesis 27:18, Jacob addresses Isaac as his father.
2. The prohibition extends beyond biological relationships. In 1 Samuel 24:11, David addresses Saul as "father" as an honorific title, despite their non-biological relationship. This established precedent suggests that honorific uses of "father" were acceptable within biblical tradition.
3. The term διδάσκαλος (didaskalos), which Yeshua claims should be attributed only to One Teacher, is used in Ephesians 4:11 to describe multiple individuals designated as teachers within the ecclesiastical structure. This apparent contradiction requires reconciliation.
4. In John 3:26, John the Immerser's disciples address him as "Rabbi" without correction or rebuke, suggesting that the mere use of the title was not inherently problematic within Yeshua's movement.

The key to resolving these apparent contradictions lies in the broader context of Matthew 23. The chapter begins with Yeshua addressing the attitudes and behaviors of the Scribes and Pharisees, emphasizing their hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement. He criticizes not their adherence to Torah, but rather their ostentatious religiosity and their neglect of "the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith" (Matthew 23:23).

Yeshua specifically notes that these religious leaders "love... greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi'" (Matthew 23:7). They "broaden their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments" (Matthew 23:5) to gain public recognition and esteem.

This context indicates that Yeshua's prohibition against the use of the aforementioned titles relates not to the titles themselves, but to their use as instruments of self-elevation and hierarchical distinction within the community of believers. His admonition appears directed at the motivation behind seeking such designations rather than the mere linguistic usage of the terms.

This interpretation aligns with Yeshua's consistent teachings on humility elsewhere in the Gospels. In Luke 14:7-11, He advises against seeking positions of honor, concluding with the principle, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." This thematic consistency supports reading Matthew 23:8-10 as a warning against self-exaltation rather than a categorical prohibition of specific terminology.

The textual, historical, and contextual evidence indicates that Yeshua's admonition in Matthew 23:8-10 should not be interpreted as a categorical prohibition against using titles such as "Rabbi." Rather, it constitutes a warning against seeking titles as instruments of self-aggrandizement and hierarchical distinction within the community of believers.

The historical usage of "Rabbi" as an honorific designation for teachers, coupled with the consistent use of similar honorifics throughout Scripture, indicates that the issue lies not with the terminology itself but with the motivations and attitudes behind its use. When understood within its proper context, Matthew 23:8-10 represents a call to humility and mutual respect among believers, rather than a linguistic prescription.

This more nuanced interpretation resolves apparent contradictions with other scriptural passages and aligns with Yeshua's broader teachings on humility and servant leadership. It suggests that the use of "Rabbi" as a designation for religious instructors can be acceptable when divorced from the pride, self-importance, and hierarchical thinking that Yeshua explicitly condemned.

First, the definition. The word translated as "nose" in Hebrew is אַף (aph). It appears over 270 times in the Tanakh. But it isn't always translated as "nose." In fact, in most Bibles, over 200 of these occurrences are translated as "anger" or "angry." This is because the word aph is derived from the word אָנַף (anaph), a root verb meaning "to be angry."
Here are some examples:

Genesis 2:7 - 7Then YHWH Elohim formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 30:2 – 2 Then Jacob's anger burned against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of Elohim, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"

In both verses above, the word for "nostrils" is actually the same as the word for "anger:" aph. Now this may seem funny to the cursory reader, but a bit of examination and critical thinking shows us why this actually makes perfect sense.

When you're angry, where do you tend to physically "feel" anger, aside from your upper chest? Generally in the nose. This is usually accompanied by a flaring of the nostrils. Further, there is in many creatures (human and animal) a tendency to snort and breathe heavily through the nostrils when angered. So the word to describe anger was used for "nose" given the association between the two. In fact, Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew lexicon gives this very definition for the root verb anaph: "to breathe heavily, snort, to show anger."

This association is further illustrated in the appeasement of anger. Consider the following:

20Then Noah built an altar to YHWH, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21And YHWH smelled the soothing aroma; and YHWH said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done." – Gen. 8:20-21

4‘He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5He shall slay the young bull before YHWH; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head and the suet over the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to YHWH. – Lev. 1:4-9

Both of these sections of Scripture, and many more (particularly throughout the Torah) illustrate for us that certain offerings are "soothing aromas." Now I believe this doesn't simply mean that Elohim likes the smell of a good barbecue (though that may be true as well). No, there is more to the significance of the nose and the aroma than simply that. But first, let's define what "soothing aroma" really means. This phrase of composed of two Hebrew words. They are:

• נִיח֫וֹחַ (nicho'ach); meaning "soothing, quieting, tranquilizing." It is derived from the verb נ֫וּחַ (nuach), meaning "to rest, to settle." It is the word used to describe the ark coming to "rest" atop Mt. Ararat in Gen. 8:4.
• רֵ֫יחַ (rei'ach); meaning "scent, odor, smell, aroma." It is related to ruach, which as most know, means "spirit, breath, wind." The relation being that scents are "breathed in" through the nose.

While rei'ach is pretty simple to understand (a "scent" or "aroma" that is breathed in), we need to look closer at nicho'ach, as it is key to understanding what I'm getting at here. This word literally means "a tranquilizing" or "a quieting" of something. That is, when something is at unrest or is unstable, and is subsequently made to rest, made calm, it is nicho'ach. In fact, the word nicho'ach only appears in this specific phrase, despite being used over 40 times in the Tanakh. The reason this is important is because that is exactly what sacrifices (or more importantly obedience) do to the anger of Elohim.

You see, sin angers the Most High. And rightfully so, as every sin is a breaking of one of His commandments (1 John 3:4). But when the offerings were made at the altar, their purpose was to appease the anger of YHWH through obedience. YHWH does not delight in anger, nor even in the death of the wicked.

Ezek. 18:23 - 23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Master YHWH, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"

Mic. 7: 18-19 - 18Who is an Elohim like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love. 19He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.

He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor does He remain angry forever. And part of this appeasement process is repentance, along with obedience. That was always the purpose of the sacrificial system. A sacrifice without repentance was worthless. Just like a faith in Yeshua without repentance from sin, is worthless. That was the entire message of John: repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. That is why He says:

Psa. 51:15 – 17 - 15O YHWH, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your praise. 16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. 17The sacrifices of Elohim are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O Elohim, You will not despise.

1 Sam. 15:22 - 22Samuel said, "Has YHWH as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of YHWH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams."

The whole purpose of it all, is that obedience to YHWH to begin with, and having a broken and contrite (repentant) heart before YHWH is what He truly desires. Sacrifices are merely one of the ways of displaying and walking out our obedience. The praise of our lips, just as David mentioned above in Ps. 51, is in its own right a sacrifice.

Hos. 14:2 - Take with you words and return to YHWH; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, that we may present the bulls of our lips."

Bulls of our lips? That is, the sacrifices and offerings that we offer as praise.

Heb. 13:15-16 - 15Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to Elohim, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. 16And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices Elohim is pleased.

Sacrifices of good, sharing, and praise please Him. And this, then, leads us to the most important piece of understanding here.

Eph. 5:2 - 2and walk in love, just as Messiah also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to Elohim as a soothing aroma.

Rom. 5:6-9 - 6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Messiah died for the wicked. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But Elohim demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of Elohim through Him.

Through Messiah's offering up of Himself, His blood has saved us from the wrath (anger) of Elohim. Through this offering that He offered in Himself, Yeshua was a soothing aroma in the nostrils of YHWH.

So to conclude, just as anger is seated in the nose (as we see Hebraically from the very language itself), so too is the appeasement of anger. Obedience and the praise of our lips is a "soothing/tranquilizing aroma" that quells the anger of the Almighty. He desires obedience, not merely sacrifice. So let us offer the "bulls of our lips" and our obedience to His word, along with a contrite (broken, repentant) heart, and let us be a soothing aroma in the Assembly.

Just as Paul mentioned Epaphroditus in Philippians 4:18 as being a "soothing aroma" due to his love and work among the brethren, so we too should live in such a way that even when Elohim is angered, our own obedience is seen as a "soothing aroma" to calm the wrath of the Almighty. We saw this in Moses, who repeatedly stepped in between YHWH and the Children of Israel when Elohim sought to destroy them. We saw this in Yeshua, who gave His own life, so that His blood would be the offering to quell the anger of the Most High.

I pray this study has blessed you.

Be Berean. Shalom.

Updated 5/2/2016

Now chances are, you have not given much thought to the specific times (and places) that the Word mentions the liver. To be sure, most people don't know much about how Scripture speaks of the liver, or even why it speaks of the liver. But in this article, we'll dig out a few Scriptures, as well as study the cognates (related words), culture, and context, and see what that yields.

First off, let's break down the word 'liver' in Hebrew. The word is כָּבֵד (ka'veid), and is represented by the three consonants kaf-bet-dalet. These same three consonants, given different vowels, make up the root verb כָּבַד (kaw'vad), which means "to be weighty" (note the only differences being the niqqudot, or "vowel points"). Now this is where it begins to get interesting. We know that, for the typical adult human (barring those with specific medical conditions), the liver is the largest, and indeed heaviest, internal organ in our bodies.[1] So this, then, makes sense why the Hebrew word for liver comes from the word meaning "to be heavy." Here again the concrete and literal nature of the language is ever-present: the word for liver means "that which is heavy" because it is the heaviest organ.

That seems pretty simple and basic enough. Now if you look in a good concordance, you'll find the word liver is used (with the exception of a time or two where it is translated as "heart") 14 times in the Tanakh. Of these, all but three refer to the liver of an animal sacrifice. But we are looking for the meaning beyond just the physical, so we'll look at the other times this word is used.

Lamentations 2:11 - My eyes are filled with tears. My stomach is in torment. My heart is poured out on the ground over the destruction of the daughter of my people— as young children and infants languish in the city squares. (TLV)

Proverbs 7:23 - till an arrow pierces its liver. Like a bird darting into a snare, he never considered his own soul! (TLV)

Ezekiel 21:26 (v. 21 in most English bibles) - For the king of Babylon stands at the fork in the road, at the start of the two roads, to seek divination. He shakes the arrows, consults the idols, he looks in the liver. (TLV)

If you are familiar with Ancient Near Eastern customs (or, indeed, even just the customs of many different ancient pagans), then you may be familiar with haruspicy. Okay, fine, you probably don't know the word, but you may know the practice. Haruspicy is a type of divination performed on entrails and organs of slaughtered animals (or in some cases, humans). Though popularized by the Etruscans and Romans,[2] it was also common for Babylonians and Hittites. Essentially, an animal was sacrificed by a haruspex (practitioner of haruspicy), and its liver was examined. Upon examination, the haruspex looked for signs and messages within the liver that he/she believed would tell them things about a person's illness. For example (a completely fictional account used for illustration), Shalem was a young Babylonian boy, 12 years of age. He became ill, and no one knew why. The healers' medicinal herbs didn't fix anything, so his parents consulted a haruspex (in Babylon, called a Baru). The haruspex (Baru) sacrificed a goat and examined its liver. Due to the condition of the liver (certain vein paths, size, shape, color, etc.), the Baru would believe that it was indicating a certain illness for young Shalem. So, the Baru would advise the boy's parents on which treatment to try, given his interpretation of the data he received from the liver.

Now it can be debated whether this divination ever actually worked or not (I mean, even a blind squirrel, right?), but needless to say it is well-attested in ancient cultic practices. When the prophet Ezekiel mentions it, he is talking about the different forms of divination and sorcery that the Babylonians practiced. Shaking arrows, consulting household idols (Teraphim, a type of shrunken head according to the Targum), and examining animal entrails were all common forms of this type of divination. But let's go back to our word study.

We have already seen how ka'veid means "liver" and kaw'vad means "to be heavy" but what about another members of this word group? Those with a basic vocabulary and understanding of Biblical Hebrew should immediately recognize the word כָּבוֹד(kaw'vod) which means "glory." Here are a couple example Scriptures which use this word:

Proverbs 25:2 - It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (NASB95)

Exodus 16:7 - in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, for He hears your grumblings against the Lord; and what are we, that you grumble against us? (NASB95)

The word for glory in both cases (as well as in nearly 200 others) is kaw'vod. So how is glory related to the liver, and related to something being heavy?

Well for starters, we have already established that the liver is the heaviest organ in the body. We also know that the glory of God has weight. This is most often represented by the word shekhinah. We have heard this term in worship songs, liturgy, sermons, and so on. However, the word shekhinah is actually not found in the Bible at all. Not even once. It is derived from a word that is found in the Bible (sharing the same root as the word Mishkan which means "Tabernacle" or "dwelling place"), but it itself is not. The word does, however, describe the weighty presence of God that dwelt in the Temple, and it was a term well-known in the time of the Second Temple at the latest. The Talmud records that this divine presence was found wherever faithful believers were located. The Mishnaic book Pirkei Avot (ethics of the fathers) records, "Two that sit together and are occupied with words of Torah, have the Shekinah among them." Talmud Sanhedrin 39a also reads, "Whenever ten are gathered for prayer, there the Shekinah rests."

These statements should be very reminiscent of Yeshua's statement in Matthew 18.

Matthew 18:20 - For where two or three have gathered together in My Name, I am there in their midst. (NASB95)

We also note that Ezekiel, in his vision, saw the "divine presence" when it was being drawn away from the Temple.

Ezekiel 10:4 - The glory of the Lord mounted up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the glory. (NASB95)

Ezekiel continues making note of watching the "glory" of YHWH, as he describes its movement from the Temple.

Ezekiel 10:18-19 - 18The glory of the Lord went forth from over the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19The cherubim lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight when they went forth, and the wheels beside them: and they stood at the door of the east gate of the house of the Lord; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. (NASB95)

Ezekiel describes the presence of Adonai as glory (lit. "that which has weight"), and he watched as it withdrew from the Temple, out the door. This must have been a horrifically tragic vision. But leaving eschatology aside, let's continue with our examination of the word glory.

We have established the following, either by direct Biblical proof, linguistic proof, or scientific proof, all of which is substantiated by the other:

• The Hebrew word for liver is derived from the word meaning heavy.
• The liver is the heaviest organ in the human body.
• The Hebrew word for glory is also derived from the word meaning heavy.
• The glory of Adonai was His presence, and could be experienced (whether "seen" in the vision of Ezekiel or simply "felt", it was encountered nonetheless).

Now we understand that glory is heavy, so how does that connect to anatomy? Or more specifically, what is the relation between glory and the liver? Plainly stated, just as the heart is the seat of the mind (see Part 1) and the kidneys are the seat of the deepest, tenderest emotions (see Part 2), the liver is the seat of glory and honor ('honor' being the other word that kaw'vod is commonly translated as). Now go back and re-read the verses from earlier, the one from Lamentations and the one of Proverbs. Taking into account the context of the surrounding verses, you should note about Lamentations that:

• The context is God's anger over the sins of Israel.
• Adonai "has become like an enemy" (Lam. 2:5)
• Adonai "has violently treated His Tabernacle like a garden booth; He has destroyed His appointed meeting place. Adonai has caused the appointed feast and Sabbath in Zion to be forgotten." (vs. 6)

So given this, we can see Jeremiah the prophet, as he writes Lamentations watching the impending doom and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, see as the glory of Israel is poured out. The once honorable city (Jerusalem) has been laid waste. Thus he says in verse 11, "My liver is poured out on the earth." His specific terminology here shows us that he is speaking not of his heart (mind and thoughts), nor of his kidneys (deep emotions), but of his honor, his glory (liver).

Next, in Proverbs 7, we see a familiar chapter to most young men who have ever been warned about the Ways of the Harlot. The entire chapter is about the adulteress, and the many ways she seeks to seduce and draw away the heart of the unsuspecting man. The context from verse 5 on through the end of the chapter shows how the adulteress works. How she waits until her husband leaves, then sits outside, waiting to seduce the young man passing by. Here's verse 22:

He followed her immediately, as an ox goes to the slaughter, as a fool stepping into a noose.

Following the adulteress leads to death. Now this can, in many cases, mean a physical death (I won't go into that). More importantly, however, this implies a spiritual death. Verse 23:

Until an arrow strikes through his liver, as a bird hurries to the snare, and doesn't know that it will cost his life.

An arrow will strike through his liver. Is this literal and physical, or is it metaphorical and spiritual? Perhaps both? I believe the deeper lesson here, is that going in to the lustful attraction of the adulteress leads to a spiritual death. It leads to a destruction of a man's honor, and in turn his glory.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 - 18 Flee sexual immorality! Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which belong to God. (NASB95)

Notice Paul connects sexual sin with a sin against the Temple. If the Temple is the house of the glory (kaw'vod) of God, and we already see from Proverbs 7 that sexual sin destroys the liver (ka'veid) of man, is it safe to assume there is a parallel here? Perhaps I am reaching, but I believe there is a connection between the two. A connection between sexual sins and the loss of glory.

Due to David's sexual sins, his household was severely punished (one son [Amnon] raped his daughter [Tamar]; another son [Absalom] murdered his half-brother [Amnon]; then tried to usurp the throne, then his nephew [Joab] killed that son [Absalom], then Solomon had to kill his brother for the throne, etc.). David lost honor (glory) in his encounter with Bathsheba. Solomon, too, lost honor and glory as a result of sexual sin. Despite having the greatest kingdom, the kingdom of peace, his kingdom was lost soon after his death. Why? He let his sexual sins (he multiplied wives unto himself, as well as concubines) lead his heart astray. He built altars to other gods on the high places.

And so it goes down through history. Sexual sin, I believe, leads to a loss of glory, a loss of honor.

So, in conclusion, we noted that honor and glory are linked to the liver. Just as the mind and thoughts are to the heart, and the emotions are to the kidneys, so is honor and glory to the liver. It is worth mentioning, I think, even if just briefly, that Ezekiel did see the glory of Adonai return to the Temple. Not the same Temple of His day, mind you, but a future one.

In chapter 43 we read, "1Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looks toward the east. 2Behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shined with his glory. 3It was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city; and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4The glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. 5The Spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house." (NASB95)

If we can, let us connect this back to the liver. Of all the internal organs in the human body, the liver is especially known for its regenerative ability. Of all organs, the liver is the only one (in humans) capable of naturally regenerating massive amounts of tissue. As little as 25% can regenerate into a whole liver.[3] (Note: This regeneration is in function, not form. Though the entire liver will not grow back, its function can build back up to 100%. Thus for someone who only has 25% of their liver, it can regenerate its function and end up working as well as a normal sized liver).

Comparing the two, we see that the glory of man can be regenerated as well, just as the glory of Adonai will return to His Temple (again, see Ezek. 43).

And one final point is about the destruction of the liver. We see it far too often in our modern American society, but other countries and cultures have seen it as well. One of the leading causes of liver failure is alcoholism-induced cirrhosis [4]. Now the reason this is interesting (at least to me), is how this relates to the study we have just gone through regarding glory.

If I were to ask you what the opposite of honor is, what would you say? Most people would say "shame." And they would be correct; the opposite of glory and honor is shame and dishonor. So it stands to reason, then, that perhaps the things which damage the liver in the physical, damage the honor and glory in the spiritual.

Habakkuk 2:15-16 - 15“Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink; you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to gaze at their nakedness! 16You will have your fill of shame instead of glory. Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision! The cup in YHWH's right hand will come around to you, and utter shame will come upon your glory!

Drunkenness (alcoholism) brings shame and dishonor. It destroys the liver physically as well as spiritually. We see this with Noah in Gen. 9, when he became drunk and was shamed by Ham. Just as the sins in the physical harm us physically, so too do sins in the spiritual harm us spiritually.

Note: I would not in any way assert that every physicla ailment is because of some sin. Scripture shows this is not always the case. I am merely pointing out that the things which we see demonstrated which damage the organ in question seem to be tied to the very same spiritual sins which cause damage to the spiritual or soul-ish part of the person.

I hope and pray this study has blessed you. Be Berean. Shalom.

Updated 1/26/2022

[1] Tortora, Gerard J.; Derrickson, Bryan H. (2008). Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (12th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
[2] Sarton, George. Ancient Science Through the Golden Age. p. 93.
[3] Häussinger, Dieter. Liver Regeneration. p. 1
[4] National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Cirrhosis​. 2016.

[1] Schmitz, Leonhard (1867). "Iaso". In William Smith. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology 2. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 552.
[2] Online Etymology Dictionary. etymonline.com. Entry lord, n. 2016.
[3] Homer (1998). The Odyssey: The Fitzgerald Translation. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald. Macmillan. pp. lx. ISBN 9781466801479
[4] Lewis, Charlton & al. A Latin Dictionary, founded on Andrews's edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten. "Lar". Clarendon Press (Oxford), 1879.
[5] Grimal, Pierre. L’art des jardins. 1974, pp. 94–95.