Daily Archives: October 12, 2020

Holidays, Religion

Is Christmas Christian?

1 Comment

Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

While most people recognize the Christmas season as the time of year for parties and celebrations, many are unaware it is also the time of year with the highest suicide rate.

In recent decades, many have sought to “secularize” (Actually re-secularize) Christmas by removing from it all references to Jesus Christ and His birth. Here in the United States, legal battles have successfully removed manger scenes from courthouse squares, and have created liabilities that prevent most school choirs from singing Christmas carols with “religious themes”. All while promoting Santa Clause as something to be worshipped as a God.

Millions of evangelicals have been deeply troubled by these trends. Feeling that they are in a battle with hostile secular forces that seek to eliminate everything that points to Christ and the Bible, they want to “reclaim” Christmas from the secularists. while not realizing that it rightly belongs to the pagans and secularists in the first place.

Millions more are simply turned off or offended by the crass commercialism associated with the Christmas season. Christmas has become a sales gimmick in the modern westernized world. Christmas-related sales are the key component of yearly profit margins for most retail sales operations. That is why, by the beginning of November, familiar Christmas music blares from the public address systems of malls across North America. Retailers are trying to get the public “in the mood” to begin Christmas shopping (Spending) early.

Decrying the commercial exploitation of the holiday season—and deeply bothered by efforts to remove all reference to God and the Bible from public life—many well-meaning Christians are demanding that Christ be put back into Christmas. The secularists, they claim, have hijacked a sacred Christian holiday for their own ends.

Western society is increasingly described as “post-Christian,” and secular elites have been dubbed “the new pagans.” In such an environment, should Christians join together to somehow reclaim Christmas? In a society that is more and more disconnected from God, can this disconnect be healed by encouraging more references to Jesus Christ during the Christmas season?

What approach does God want His people to take regarding Christmas? Is Jesus Christ, in fact, “the reason for the season?” You may be shocked to learn that Christmas is actually not Christian in its origins! For centuries before Jesus Christ’s birth in Bethlehem, December 25 was associated with decorating evergreen trees, exchanging gifts and carousing at parties and celebrations.

How did Christmas become the primary “Christian” holiday? Is it—and can it ever be—Christian at all? You can search the New Testament from start to finish, and you will never find a reference to any sort of Christmas celebration. Moreover, you will never read of a religious service held to commemorate the birth of Jesus.

But if the first Christians did not celebrate Christmas, then why did they not do so? When and how did this celebration achieve such prominence on the calendar of professing-Christian churches?

What Is The Origin Of Christmas?

Did you know that there were Christmas celebrations in Rome long before there were any in Jerusalem? How could a holiday that most associate with Jesus Christ of Nazareth have its origins in Babylon and Egypt many centuries before His birth? And how could such a holiday come to be so widely accepted as Christian?

To help us understand, we can look at the word “Christmas” itself. It means “mass of Christ,” and has its origins in the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet even Catholic sources acknowledge that Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church, and that it does not have apostolic origins. Notice: “Christmas (i.e. the Mass of Christ), in the Christian Church, the festival of the nativity of Jesus Christ… As late as 245 Origen, in his eighth homily on Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ ‘as if he were a king Pharaoh.’ The first certain mention of Dec. 25 is in a Latin chronographer of A.D. 354, first published entire by Mommsen.… [December 25 was] a Mithraic feast and is by the chronographer above referred to, but in another part of his compilation, termed natalis invicti solis, or birthday of the unconquered Sun” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., article: “Christmas”).

The New Testament makes certain key dates plain; for example, it tells us that Jesus Christ died on the day of the Passover. Yet Scripture does not mention the date of Jesus’ birth, and does not recount any Christians celebrating His birthday. In fact, the Bible associates the celebration of birthdays with the practices of heathen kings, and never mentions such celebrations in a positive light. This is why Origen—one of the early “Fathers” of the Roman Church, writing in the third century—was shocked at the very idea of celebrating the Savior’s birthday.

When the early Roman Church established a festival to celebrate the Messiah’s birth, it timed that festival to coincide with an existing pagan festival celebrating the birthday of the sun god. By co-opting existing pagan rituals and customs, the church sought to win the pagan masses to its idea of Christianity, allowing converts to continue to practice familiar customs—just calling them by different names.

The “mother and child” motif in religion was well known in the ancient pagan world. The ancient Babylonians and Egyptians worshipped a “Madonna” whom they revered as the “Queen of Heaven”—a title that the Roman Church would apply centuries later to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In Egypt, Isis was the mother and Horus was the child. In Mesopotamia it was Ishtar and Tammuz.

These stories trace back to Semiramis and Nimrod, in the early years after Noah’s flood. Nimrod was a mighty hunter (see Genesis 10–11), and led mankind’s rebellion against God at the Tower of Babel. Nimrod was one of the chief architects of the human civilization that began at Babylon, and that spread around the world as people migrated to repopulate the earth after the great flood.

The real origin of Christmas goes back to these ancient times, before it was carried forward by an apostate “Christian” church. The winter solstice—the day with the shortest daylight in the northern hemisphere—was anciently associated with the birth of the sun god. It was a time of festivity. Called Saturnalia by the Romans, this holiday was a time very reminiscent of our modern Christmas, when gifts were given, hostilities ceased, civic functions were suspended and parties were held. “It was usual for friends to make presents to one another; all animosity ceased, no criminals were executed, schools were shut, war was never declared, but all was mirth, riot, and debauchery” (Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, article: “Saturnalia”).

Jesus Was Not Born In Winter!

“Christmas” festivities are not just “pre-Christian”—dating to pagan worship of the sun god—they in fact have no connection to the date of birth of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. How do we know this? While the Bible does not explicitly tell us the exact day of Jesus’ birth, it gives us clear evidence of the approximate time. From Scripture, it becomes obvious that winter is the one season in which Jesus could not have been born.

Luke tells us that on the night of Jesus’ birth, the shepherds were still keeping watch over their flocks in the field (Luke 2:8). In ancient Israel, the rainy season began after the Feast of Tabernacles (which generally occurs in early October). By November, when the weather was turning cool and wet, the shepherds had already brought their flocks in from pasture and were keeping them in winter quarters. Shepherds were no longer spending the nights in the fields with the sheep, as they had done from the beginning of spring through the early fall season.

Another vital piece of evidence is overlooked by most. From Luke 1:35–36 we learn that John the Baptist, born to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, was approximately six months older than Jesus. We are told that John’s father, Zacharias, was an elderly priest officiating in the temple, burning incense on the altar when an angel appeared to tell him that he and his wife would have a son who would prepare the way for the Messiah (vv. 8–17). We know approximately when the angel made this announcement, because we are told that Zacharias was “of the course of Abijah” (v. 5, KJV).

What was the “course of Abijah”? Centuries earlier, in the days of King David, there had been many priests. King David divided them into 24 “courses” (or groups) that served by rotation in the temple (1 Chronicles 24:1–19). The course of Abijah was the eighth of the 24 courses, and would normally have done its first week of service around the end of May. As Pentecost, the second of the three great pilgrim festivals, came the week after the eighth course served—and all 24 courses served during each of the three festival seasons—Zacharias could not have begun his return home until after the first week of June, or thereabouts. If John the Baptist was conceived shortly after his return home, near the middle of June, his birth would have been nine months later—around mid-March. Jesus, who was six months younger, would thus have been born soon after mid-September. This, of course, would have been while the shepherds were still staying with the fields at night with their flocks (Luke 2:8).

Consider also the traditional image of the three wise men who, together with the shepherds, are commonly represented standing in the stable to celebrate the newly born Messiah.

The Bible nowhere says that there were three wise men, and it makes clear that they did not come until at least a few weeks after His birth—by which time Jesus and His parents were living in a house (Matthew 2:11). We are told that these Magi came from the east. In first century parlance, this usually meant that they came from beyond the Euphrates River (which was then the eastern border of the Roman Empire). East of the Euphrates was the Parthian Empire, home to many remnants of the ten tribes of Israel who had gone into Assyrian captivity more than seven centuries earlier.

The Magi arrived at the king’s palace in Jerusalem several weeks after Jesus’ birth, looking for the Messiah. They had seen a mysterious “star” in the east, which had prompted them to make their journey to Judea. Upon hearing from the Magi about the timing of the star’s appearance, and what it portended, Herod ordered the slaughter of all boys in Bethlehem aged two years and younger (Matthew 2:16).

We know from Luke 2:22 that Jesus’ parents presented Him in the temple when He was 40 days old (cf. Leviticus 12:2–4), so they were still in the Jerusalem area when He was nearly six weeks old. Yet the family fled to Egypt, spurred by a warning Joseph received in a dream, immediately after the Magi visited them (Matthew 2:13–14). Clearly, the Magi did not arrive until well after Christ’s birth.

The Christmas Tree:

Clearly, the bible does not agree with this practice and nor should any real Christian, unless you are as upright as a palm tree or a heathen who enjoys vain customs.

jeremiah 10: 1-5:

1.Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 2. Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. 5. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

In the ancient Egyptian tradition, many celebrations occurred around the time of the Winter Solstice, which is the shortest day and the longest night of the year. The Egyptians believed that this was when the sun god, Ra returned in strength. The solstice symbolized a time of renewal and hope. To celebrate, the people filled their homes with evergreen boughs. They chose the evergreen trees because they maintained their color throughout the harsh winter months. Other people groups, including Roman and Celtic cultures, hung evergreens during the Winter Solstice in celebration, and to keep away evil spirits and illness.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Christmas tree was seen as a pagan tradition in the United States. The early Puritan settlers did not accept the tradition because of its cultic roots. In 1659, a law was established in Massachusetts outlawing the celebration of Christmas in the new colonies, with the exception of church attendance. Hanging decorations of any kind was outlawed, especially Christmas trees. As America ventured further from our true Christian roots the tradition became more accepted.

In 1848, the London News published an image of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert with their family celebrating around their decorated tree. This photo and its reprints in America began the modern popularization of the Christmas tree, with its glistening lights, shiny bobbles, and awaiting presents.

The Pagan Origins Of Holly:

In Roman mythology, holly was the sacred plant of the god Saturn, and to honor him at the Saturnalia festival, the Romans gave each other gifts of holly wreaths.

When Christians began to celebrate the birth of Jesus, they risked being persecuted for their new religion, and to avoid detection, they would place holly wreaths in their houses. As far as passers-by were concerned they were celebrating Saturnalia, not Christmas.

The Druid Origins Of Mistletoe:

Mistletoe was revered as a sacred plant by the Celts, the Norse, and the North American Native Americans.

Druids believed that mistletoe could protect against thunder and lightning. Priests would use a golden sickle to cut a piece of mistletoe from an oak tree, catching the branches before they reached the ground. The mistletoe would then be cut into small pieces and distributed amongst the people.

Mistletoe was also recognized as a druidic symbol of joy and peace. If enemies met each other underneath the woodland mistletoe, they were obliged to put down their weapons and form a truce until the following day.

This is where the custom of hanging sprig ball of mistletoe from the ceiling and kissing under it originates from.

Romans Made Laurel Popular:

Laurel or bay leaves were popular with the pagan Romans because the leaves were sacred to Apollo, the sun god.

The ancient Romans used decorative wreaths, made from laurel wreaths as a sign of victory, and it is believed that this is where the seasonal hanging of wreaths on doors came from. They actually celebrated the Murder “Victory over” of Christ Seasonally with the display of wreaths.

In northern Europe, laurel leaves were not commonplace, and instead, evergreen branches were gathered and used to decorate houses at Christmas, either as swags or shaped into wreaths.

Because of the pagan connections surrounding ivy and laurel, early Christians did not use these to decorate the inside of their churches.

Odin The Pegan God:

Despite the fact that our modern-day image of Father Christmas has largely been shaped by a 1930s Coca-Cola advertising campaign, he most definitely has Pagan roots.

Children all over the world are told that Father Christmas developed from St. Nicholas, but those people that follow Paganism know there is more to the story than that. There was a Pagan god named Odin, often depicted as a chubby old man with a white beard who wore a long flowing cloak.

It is, therefore, a combination of these two characters, and a liberal sprinkling of Coca Cola advertising that has resulted in who we now call Father Christmas or Santa Claus.

Red And Green Christmas Colors:

The traditional Christmas colors of red and green are complementary colors that represent fertility for the pagan religion.

Pagan derived decorations that are still seen at Christmas time include the green leaves and red berries of holly, mistletoe, ivy and wreaths.

Red and green are the traditional colors for Christmas tree baubles, but in recent years many more colors have become available, often changing yearly with the latest fashions. In recent years turquoise, pink, purple, and orange have been seen on the best-dressed trees to represent the ever changing representation of Pegan fertility IE, sodalities and transgenders.

Celtic Yule Log Mythology:

The Yule log played a major role in the Yule festivities, with a piece of the previous year’s log being saved to start the fire the following year.

Traditionally, it was considered unlucky to buy a log and instead it was harvested from the householder’s land or received as a gift.

Once brought into the house and placed ceremoniously in the fireplace it was decorated with greenery, smothered with alcohol, and dusted with flour before being set on fire. The log would then burn all night, before smoldering for twelve days.

Celtic mythology told the stories of the Oak King and Holly King, with the Oak representing the time from the Winter Solstice to Summer Solstice, and the Holly representing the time from the Summer Solstice to Winter Solstice.

Christmas Caroling:

But where does this tradition come from? You might be surprised to learn that it has its roots in an ancient pagan ritual called “wassailing”. 

There are two traditions of wassailing. The house-visiting wassail is where groups of people go from house to house, wishing their neighbors health and good fortune for the new year. The orchard-visiting wassail is a ritual for waking up the apple tree spirits for the coming spring and to ensure a good harvest in Autumn. 

In the house-visiting wassail, people would prepare some sort of beverage, like cider or “wassail”, a hot drink made of mulled ale, curdled cream, roasted apples, eggs, cloves, ginger, nutmeg, and sugar. It sometimes had a frothy top that earned it the name “Lamb’s Wool”.

The wassail was carried in a large vessel, either shaped like a giant, stout goblet, or like a large bowl with handles on the sides.

Going from house to house, the group of people would sing songs in the hopes of receiving a little food or a few coins. Sometimes, they would challenge the homeowner to riddles or use a combination of wit and persuasion to try to gain entry to the house. If successful, the homeowner rewarded them with food or money.

In thanks for his kindness, the wassailers would offer the homeowner a drink from the bowl or they’d drink to the health of him and his family. Wealthy farmers or lords of manor were often targeted and if they refused to donate or were thought to be stingy, they risked getting their property vandalized

What Difference Does It Make?

Almost every year, newspapers and magazines will publish articles pointing out that Christmas customs originate not from the Bible, but from pagan antiquity. Most readers, when faced with these facts, simply say: “I don’t see what difference it makes,” and continue with their Christmas preparations. Millions of professing Christians insist that, regardless of what pagan practices might lie behind the origin of Christmas, they celebrate the holiday to honor Christ.

Does this make Christmas acceptable to God?

Several centuries ago, Scripture became widely available in English as Protestant believers threw off the shackles of the medieval Roman Catholic monopoly on the Bible. Eager Bible students found themselves wrestling with many issues as they looked into God’s word. One issue was the celebration of Christmas. What conclusion did they reach? According to the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “In 1644 the English puritans forbade any merriment or religious services [on Christmas] by act of Parliament, on the ground that it was a heathen festival” (article: “Christmas”). When King Charles II restored the monarchy, this ban was lifted, but the ban remained in many of North America’s early colonial settlements. Not until the 1840s was Christmas accepted as an acceptable holiday in Massachusetts.

Ask yourself a simple question. Should those who claim to be Christian take the Bible seriously? In Jeremiah 10:2, God declared to His people through the pen of the prophet: “Do not learn the way of the Gentiles.” He went on to state that “the customs of the peoples are futile,” that is, they are utterly empty and useless. God wants His people to follow His instructions, not to look at pagan practices and seek to copy them. What kind of empty, pagan customs was Jeremiah talking about in Jeremiah 10? The specific example in that chapter involved going out into the woods, cutting a tree and bringing it home to set it upright and decorate it (vv. 3–4). Does this sound amazingly like putting up a Christmas tree? It should.

Jesus declared: “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Those who wish to use Christmas to worship Christ are faced with a dilemma: do they follow the pattern of worship prescribed in Scripture, or do they cling to cherished customs, regardless of when and how those customs originated? Jesus censured many of the religious leaders of His day because they rejected the commandments of God in order to keep their own traditions (v. 9).

Would Jesus say those same words to you, based upon your actions and your choices?

When the ancient Israelites were ready to enter the Promised Land, they were warned against adopting religious customs from the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 12:30–31). God told them instead to observe all the things that He instructed them, neither adding nor taking away from what He had taught (v. 32).

So, instead of seeking to put Christ back into Christmas, we must acknowledge that He was never there in the first place! Christmas never was Christian! True Christians will give it back to the pagans, to whom it has belonged all along! Instead of borrowing from the world around us, we ought to take our religious customs and practices directly from the Bible. Then we will be worshiping our Creator in spirit and truth, just as He teaches us to do (John 4:24).

Politics, Polygamy, Religion

Christian Polygyny

1 Comment

By Lord Redbeard
“Bold Foundations for Biblical Patriarchy, Masculinity, and Household Dominion”

I. Introduction: Restoring a Forgotten Standard

The modern world shudders at the sound of the word polygyny. Conditioned by feminist propaganda, humanist ideals, and centuries of post-Biblical moral dilution, the Western church recoils from a truth its own patriarchs once walked in freely. But the Scriptures have not changed. The God of Abraham, Jacob, and David is still the same God. The standard of family life that built early civilizations, raised righteous dynasties, and established generational dominion under Yahweh has not been abrogated.

Polygyny—one man, multiple wives—is not a sin, but a structure. Not a deviation, but a design. It is neither lawless nor lustful. It is biblical. It is historical. And it is necessary if the people of God are to multiply, build, and rule in this age of collapse.

This post is not for the timid. It is for men who fear God more than the opinions of modernity. It is for women who long to build homes instead of careers. It is for families that seek to resurrect the household of faith—not as a poetic metaphor, but as a living, breathing embassy of the Kingdom of Heaven.

II. The Biblical Foundation for Polygyny

A. The Patriarchs and Their Wives

To reject polygyny is to reject the very foundation of the covenantal family. Scripture plainly shows that many of the holiest and most favored men of God were polygynous:

  • Abraham, the father of faith, had Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16:3), and later took Keturah (Genesis 25:1).
  • Jacob, the namesake of Israel, had four wives: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah (Genesis 29–30).
  • Moses, the great lawgiver, had more than one wife (Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1).
  • David, a man after God’s own heart, had many wives (2 Samuel 5:13).
  • Solomon, though later ensnared in idolatry, initially ruled with strength from a polygynous household.
  • Joash, Rehoboam, Jehoiada the priest, and others in the Old Testament carried on the practice without rebuke.

What is significant is not simply that these men were polygynous, but that God Himself gave them these wives, or blessed them within this structure. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the Lord says to David through the prophet Nathan:

“And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom… and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

Not only was polygyny not rebuked—it was a gift from God.

B. The Law of God Regulates, Not Forbids

Deuteronomy 21:15–17 offers laws regulating the inheritance rights of the firstborn son from a less favored wife, clearly implying polygyny. Exodus 21:10 commands that if a man takes another wife, he must not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first. Again, regulation—not prohibition.

God is not the author of confusion. If polygyny were sinful, it would be forbidden. Yet no such command exists. The New Testament, too, is silent in its condemnation. Christ condemned divorce (except for fornication), not polygyny. Paul gave pastoral counsel for bishops and elders to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2), not because polygyny is sin, but because the position required focused leadership and clear testimony.

III. Historical Endorsements of Polygyny

A. The Ancient Hebrews

Polygyny was the norm for centuries in Israel. It was seen not as promiscuity but as a mark of divine blessing. A man who could support multiple wives was seen as one who had dominion, wealth, and leadership ability. Wives were not trophies; they were builders of houses, mothers of tribes, and stewards of domestic life.

B. The Early Church Fathers

Contrary to the sanitized narratives of modern Christianity, several early Church leaders acknowledged the legitimacy of polygyny in the Old Testament without condemning it outright. Tertullian, Augustine, and others noted its role in redemptive history. Augustine even wrote that the patriarchs practiced polygyny by divine command or permission.

The universal prohibition of polygyny arose not from Scripture, but from Roman law and Greco-Roman ethics. By the fourth century, the church had become infected with Hellenistic dualism and anti-body asceticism. Celibacy was exalted. Sexual union, even in marriage, was frowned upon. And thus, polygyny, as a fruit-bearing, dominion-driven model, was outlawed by religious culture—not by God.

C. The Reformers and Beyond

Martin Luther acknowledged that polygyny was not inherently sinful. In a letter, he stated:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a man to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.”

Luther even permitted a prince to take an additional wife under specific circumstances.

The Anabaptists, who returned to Biblical literalism, also practiced polygyny in some communities. In the early colonial frontier of America, polygyny was occasionally practiced among devout Christians where demographic imbalance and survival dictated practical, family-oriented solutions.

IV. Polygyny and Dominion

A. Fruitfulness Requires Structure

God’s first command to man was to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Polygyny supercharges this command. In a time when men are outnumbered by women, and many men are unwilling or unqualified to lead, the righteous man should consider it his duty to take more than one wife—not out of lust, but out of love for the Kingdom.

Each godly wife can be a builder of a godly household. Each womb, under righteous headship, becomes a seedbed of the next generation of dominion bearers. This is not about numbers alone—it is about culture, order, and the transfer of wisdom, authority, and inheritance.

B. Rebuilding Generational Houses

The modern world produces sterile units called “nuclear families”—fragile, unsustainable, and often broken. The Biblical household, in contrast, was a multigenerational estate. Polygyny enables the expansion of such households. As each wife builds her own tent within the same dominion domain, the patriarch’s authority multiplies—not by bureaucracy, but by blood and covenant.

Imagine a household with three wives: one managing the kitchen, another schooling the children, a third sewing garments or overseeing trade. Each has a realm. Each has her own children. Each contributes to the economy and expansion of the household. The husband, as patriarch, oversees, shepherds, and provides. This is no harem. This is hierarchy, holiness, and heavenly order.

V. Addressing Common Objections

A. “It’s Not Legal”

Neither was preaching the gospel in first-century Rome. We obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). The legality of a practice under a pagan government is no test of righteousness. Many who say, “It’s not legal,” are silent when sodomy is legalized and Christian speech criminalized. Let us not use Caesar’s sword to measure Yahweh’s standards.

Civil marriage licenses are not required for covenantal unions before God. Righteous polygyny can exist outside of state registration. God sees what man refuses to recognize.

B. “It’s Not Loving to Women”

On the contrary, true polygyny provides covering, provision, and purpose to more women than monogamy alone. In a world filled with fatherless children, divorced mothers, and sexually abandoned women, a righteous man who embraces polygyny rescues—not exploits—the feminine.

Instead of loneliness, she receives community. Instead of aimless careerism, she builds a household. Instead of fornication or state dependence, she thrives under a man’s covenant and God’s law.

C. “It Will Lead to Jealousy”

So can monogamy. Human nature is fallen. But Scripture never makes emotional volatility the measure of obedience. Instead, it demands that men rule well and that women be sanctified in submission. Leah and Rachel struggled, yet they built the house of Israel. Jealousy is to be conquered, not coddled.

Mature wives in a godly home learn to honor each other. They bear different strengths. The fruit of meekness, service, and love among sister-wives can become one of the most beautiful pictures of Christian sisterhood.

VI. Qualifications of the Polygynous Man

A. He Must Be a Patriarch

Polygyny is not for the immature or undisciplined. It is for a man who rules well his house, provides without fail, and understands his spiritual role as priest, protector, and provider.

A man must not enter polygyny to gratify the flesh but to build the Kingdom. He must know each wife, care for her, shepherd her heart, and guide her children. His authority must be matched by wisdom and discipline.

B. He Must Be Just and Merciful

The polygynous man must show no partiality. He must be a man of order, ensuring that each wife is properly honored, provided for, and disciplined according to God’s Word. He is not a king for luxury’s sake, but a servant-king who models Christ’s care for His Bride.

VII. Women Who Thrive in Polygyny

A. Builders, Not Competitors

The woman suited for polygyny does not see her life through the lens of feminist rivalry. She sees her fellow wives as sisters in the household of God. She does not war for attention. She builds. She multiplies. She rules her children and her duties with grace and strength.

B. Women of Faith and Vision

The polygynous wife must walk by faith, not by the approval of the world. She understands that being covered by a righteous man is better than pursuing the emptiness of careerism or dating culture. She is a woman of vision—one who sees herself as part of a dynasty, not just a romance.

VIII. Polygyny in a Time of Collapse

The Western world is dying. Birthrates are collapsing. Marriages are failing. Feminism has turned women into men and men into cowards. But in the midst of the ruins, the righteous household can rise.

Polygyny is not a trend. It is a tool—a weapon in the hand of the patriarch to rebuild what was destroyed. It allows the righteous to shelter more women, raise more godly children, and multiply in a land that worships death.

IX. Conclusion: Rise and Build

The day is coming when Christian men will be forced to choose between cultural comfort and biblical obedience. The future will not belong to those who play by the world’s rules. It will belong to those who build households of strength, vision, and dominion.

Polygyny, rightly ordered under God’s law, is not merely permissible. It is powerful. It is not just ancient—it is anointed. And it is not optional for those who truly seek to multiply the household of faith and stand against the tide of collapse.

Let the righteous rise. Let the households expand. Let the patriarchs build.

“Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.”
—Psalm 128:3

Health, Religion

What Does The Bible Say We Should Eat?

8 Comments

What Should We Eat?

The dietary laws about “clean” and “unclean” meats are among the clearest instructions found in the Bible. For thousands of years these laws have been a striking mark of identity separating God’s people from the world (Leviticus 20:25–26). Consequently, for centuries, these same instructions have been a source of controversy and confusion among various religious groups who all claim to get their beliefs from the same book—the Bible. Some have felt that “these laws express God’s will” and as such are wise, reasonable, and beneficial dietary regulations revealing God’s care for the health of His people. This public health focus of those dietary laws was espoused by Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages in Spain and many other notable scholars However, other theologians have openly referred to the Leviticus dietary guidelines as meaningless, repulsive, arbitrary and irrational ideas that originated in primitive superstitions and not in the mind of God. These theologians have confidently asserted: there are no logical explanations for many of the guidelines—that health was definitely not their purpose; that it is a waste of time for Christians to study this section of Scripture. They have asked, What has all this to do with religion? Some have even stated, “The Scriptures do not claim that health is a factor in the dietary laws, though possibly hygiene was a by-product. Yet God said His laws were for our good, prolonging our lives (Deuteronomy 5:29, 33; 10:13). His dietary ordinances were not arbitrary. Their purpose was to benefit us. That being so, why would God later inspire a New Testament that supposedly shows “Christ repealed all the Leviticus regulations on unclean meats and practices” ? Why would an all-wise Creator function in such a contradictory manner? If you have ever pondered such questions, perhaps it’s time you really looked into the subject to determine for yourself what the real truth of the matter is.

Prove All Things:

The God of the Bible challenges each of us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV). The answers could change your life and immensely impact your health! The Scriptures reveal several important reasons for the dietary laws. In Exodus we learn that God chose the nation of Israel for a special purpose (Exodus 19:5–6). Interestingly, the dietary laws were designed to make the Israelites distinct from other nations. Why? God told Moses, “I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore distinguish between clean beasts and unclean…. And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine” (Leviticus 20:24–26). God chose Israel for the purpose of becoming a model nation—a light and example to the world. “Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?” (Deuteronomy 4:6–8). God separated Israel from other nations so the results of His laws could be clearly seen by the other peoples and to show the wonderful benefits provided by His righteous ways. The dietary laws were also designed to promote wise management and efficient utilization of the environmental resources that God entrusted to mankind. The instructions about “clean” and “unclean” foods are important in fulfilling the commission given in Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 to “tend and keep” the earth. To rightfully understand the dietary laws, they must be seen in the context of God’s purpose.

Chew The Cud

Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are the primary passages in the Bible that discuss this subject. These chapters give very specific information summarized in simple, easy-to-understand principles. Today, however, the discoveries of modern science are revealing just how practical and important these laws really are. Beginning in Leviticus 11:1–3, we read that “the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying… ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the beasts’ that are on the earth… whatever divides the hoof having cloven hooves and chewing the cud.’” This describes plant-eating mammals (herbivores) classified as ruminants. A ruminant is “the name given to a grazing animal that has a highly specialized digestive system and splits the hoof’” (World Book Encyclopedia, 1995). These animals have four-chambered stomachs that convert grasses that are inedible to humans and other animals into nutritious, high quality protein products (meat and milk specifically) that humans can then use for sustenance. Examples of such clean animals would be all cattle, sheep, goats, deer, bison, moose, antelope, gazelles, caribou and giraffes. They are all herbivores that obtain their food by grazing or browsing on grasses and other plants. From the standpoint of wise environmental management, these guidelines make a lot of sense. Vast areas of the globe are covered by grasslands (savannas, veldts, pampas), which are often called marginal lands because they do not have enough rainfall to support the production of food crops like corn or wheat. “The only way billions of acres of grassland can be used for human benefit is via ruminants” (Dairy Council Digest, Jan.–Feb. 1973). Grass-fed animals also produce meat that has a lower fat content than grain-fed animals—which we now realize is a health benefit. The clean animals that God permitted His model nation to eat—designated simply by split hooves and cud-chewing—were designed to produce nutritious food in an economical and ecologically sound manner. These guidelines were given long before the sciences of ecology, economics and nutrition. This was one of the benefits that God wanted the world to see through the example of the nation of Israel.

Hold the Hog:

The dietary laws regarding cud-chewing beasts also prohibit the consumption of all carnivorous animals and omnivorous animals for very logical reasons. God created clean animals to provide food and by-products for human use. He created animals unsuitable for human consumption for other purposes. Carnivores, as beasts of prey play an important role in controlling the populations of other animals and rodents. As an example, wolves and mountain lions, which feed on herds of deer, control not only numbers, but also help maintain the health of the herd by culling out older, sick or infirm animals. That’s one reason we shouldn’t eat carnivores. They eat sick and dead animals and transmit diseases to humans. The pig or swine is specifically mentioned as being unclean and not permitted as human food (Leviticus 11:7–8; Deuteronomy 14:8). While some theologians have stated, “We do not know why the swine was forbidden” (Interpreter’s Bible), thousands of other writers and scientist have found numerous logical reasons related to ecology, economics, nutrition and public health. In the wild, swine are often nocturnal animals that root for food. Their nighttime feeding habits should have kept their contact with humans at a minimum. Domesticated pigs, however, have been used for centuries as scavengers around human settlements. Having an omnivorous animal around that could put on weight rapidly by eating anything from garbage to dead animals and human wastes—and that could later be slaughtered and used for food—has seemed like a pretty good arrangement to many peoples. But is it? Today, domesticated hogs are fed a diet composed mainly of corn and grain. However, as non-ruminants with digestive tracts similar to that of humans, pigs are unable to survive on grasses and thus have been ecological competitors with humans for the same types of food grains (such as wheat, corn and barley). In America about 28% of the corn harvested is fed to hogs. Basically, pigs enjoy eating the same types of food that people eat. This is not a wise use of resources. He foresaw that great herds of hogs would take life-sustaining grain out of the mouths of his people. Jesus Christ Himself did not feel it inappropriate to allow an incident that caused the destruction of a herd of pigs! “Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. And they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned” (Luke 8:32–33). Would Jesus have allowed the destruction of someone’s valuable property, without cause, through carelessness or accident?

Let Us Not Eat Bugs!

One of the major diseases transmitted by swine and other unclean animals is trichinosis. It is caused by a small parasitic roundworm that gets into the muscle tissue of animals and humans. The disease has a global distribution and affects about 4% of the world’s population—nearly 240 million people. This is not surprising considering that “people throughout the world eat more pork than any other kind of meat. Americans consume about 80 pounds per person each year. It should be noted, however, that many carnivorous and omnivorous animals are infected with the parasite Trichinella spiralis. Bear meat, walrus and wild pigs have been significant sources of infections in humans for thousands of years. The list could also include squirrels, rats, cats, dogs, rabbits, foxes, horse meat and marine mammals. It is hardly an accident or coincidence that God prohibited the consumption of these animals by His divinely given dietary laws. Tapeworms, which afflict about 3% of the world’s population (about 180 million), are another serious health problem encountered ONLY when pork is eaten. While beef and fish can also contain other tapeworms that can colonize the human digestive tract and cause discomfort, the pork tapeworm is much more dangerous, the larva of the pork parasite, once inside the human intestine, can migrate through the tissues to the heart, eyes and brain—and can eventually cause death. With reference to pork tapeworm disease, the highest rates of infection are seen in countries where pork is a major part of the diet, such as Mexico, Latin America, United States, Spain, Portugal, Africa, India, southeast Asia, and China. Although the general advice for avoiding parasitic infections from pork and other unclean animals is to adequately cook the meat, the most effective way to avoid these diseases is to avoid eating unclean animals that do not have cloven hooves and do not chew the cud—as God instructed Moses and the Israelites 3,500 years ago. If only this portion of the biblical dietary code were applied today, the global burden of parasitic disease could be reduced by 800% within 1 generation!

Don’t Eat The Garbage Man:

Why did God prohibit eating certain foods? Was the Creator being capricious? Why should He be concerned? Is there a rational, logical basis for the Scriptures dealing with which foods are fit for human consumption? After dealing with edible land animals, the second major set of divine dietary instructions concerned aquatic creatures. In Leviticus we are instructed: ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat…. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you” (11:9, 12). Numerous and sometimes fanciful reasons have been proposed for these guidelines. While some Bible scholars recognize that the consumption of unclean organisms can be harmful others suggest that organisms without fins and scales resembled snakes and thus are abhorrent to eat (Interpreter’s Bible, 1953). One source stated that scripturally “unclean,” bottom-dwelling organisms were symbolic of living in sin and pollution, and that fins were symbolic of prayers that could lift us out of such situations (The Bible Commentary, Scribner, 1871). The discoveries of science, however, reveal in greater detail the wisdom and benefits of God’s plain instructions about appropriate food. Biblically “clean fish” are generally free swimming in bodies of water. Most “unclean” fish are either bottom dwellers or predatory scavengers. The prohibition against eating scaleless fish protects against the consumption of fish that produce poisonous substances in their bodies. A U.S. Navy survival manual comments, “All the important fish with poisonous flesh… lack ordinary scales…. Instead, these poisonous fish are covered with bristles or spiny scales, strong sharp thorns, or spines, or are encased in a bony box-like covering. Some have naked skin, that is, no spines or scales”. Many sea creatures listed as venomous (four sharks, 58 stingrays, 47 catfish, 57 scorpion fish, 15 toadfish, etc.) do not have true scales. Eels—nocturnal predatory scavengers that eat “almost any kind of food, dead or alive”—would also be considered unclean. Eel blood contains a toxic substance “which can be dangerous if it comes into contact with eyes or another mucous membrane. The biblical guidelines were designed to point people to the safest kinds of fish to eat.

A Different Purpose:

Shellfish, lacking both fins and scales, are clearly excluded by the biblical dietary laws. But why would lobsters, crabs, crayfish and shrimp, which are considered delicacies in many parts of the world, be prohibited? The answer lies in understanding the role they were designed to play in nature. Lobsters are “nocturnal” foragers. They are bottom walkers and predatory scavengers that scavenge for dead animals and other bottom-dwelling organisms and debris. They are usually caught in lobster pots “baited with dead fish. Lobsters have long antennae and tiny hair-like sensors all over their bodies “that can detect specific chemical molecules in the environment (released by decaying organisms), which can help the lobster identify and locate food, even in the dark. Lobsters have been observed to bury a dead fish and then dig it up later, at intervals, to eat a bit more of it. Crabs are referred to as “professional garbage hunters” and as “scavengers” that eat almost anything. The crab prefers dead fish, but will eat any carrion [dead], “putrefying flesh” (International Wildlife Encyclopedia). Common shrimp, a small, delicate relative of crabs and lobsters, live by day in the mud or sandy bottoms of bays and estuaries all over the world. However, they become active at night as predatory scavengers and are “bottom dwelling detritus feeders “eating dead and decaying matter” (International Wildlife Encyclopedia). These organisms were all created for a very important ecological purpose. They are, in essence, the “garbage collectors” or the “cleanup crew” for the bottoms of lakes, rivers, beaches, bays and oceans. They were not intended to be food for human beings. That is also why the consumption of raw, pickled or undercooked crabs, crayfish, snails and shrimp carries a significant risk of parasitic infections like liver flukes, which infect up to 80 percent of some rural populations in Southeast Asia and Africa.

Danger On the Half Shell:

There are also important and logical reasons why God created and then clearly labeled clams, oysters, mussels and scallops as unclean and inappropriate for human consumption. These creatures are found in lakes, streams and coastal areas around the world where they perform specialized roles. As stationary filter-feeding mollusks, they pump large amounts of water over their mucus-covered gills, trapping tiny pieces of food (silt, plant debris, bacteria, viruses) which they then eat. As a result, mussels and other animals feeding on microscopic particles are the ultimate scavengers of the sea. Filter-feeding organisms are the “vacuum cleaners” for aquatic environments. Their role is to purify the water. Once you understand the purpose for which God created shellfish, the reason they are unclean should become obvious. Just as you would be reluctant to make a meal out of the contents of your vacuum cleaner bag, A/C filter or in your septic tank, the decision to eat shellfish should also be considered carefully! Because their method of feeding is “ideal for concentrating bacteria in sewage,” in addition to collecting and concentrating pathogenic viruses, heavy metals and nerve toxins produced by plankton, these shellfish present a serious health hazard to consumers (International Wildlife Encyclopedia). How serious is the threat of disease? The American Food and Drug Administration has stated that “raw oysters, clams, mussels and pork, so savored by gourmets account for 85 percent of all food born illnesses” (FDA Consumer, June 1991). Outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis A, Norwalk virus, salmonella and paralytic shellfish poisoning are just some of the health problems frequently linked to the consumption of these mollusks, In addition ALL hepatitis comes from “Unclean” food! Notices have been published that pregnant women, the elderly and “individuals with immune systems weakened by certain diseases (cancer, diabetes and AIDS) should… avoid eating or handling uncooked shellfish”. These dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations can be avoided by understanding and following the biblical dietary laws that prohibit eating marine organisms that lack fins and scales.

Birds to Bugs:

The final groups of organisms covered by the biblical code are birds, insects and reptiles. Essentially all the excluded fowl are either birds of prey or scavengers like vultures and seagulls. Carnivorous birds are important in controlling populations of other animals. Their dietary habits of eating the flesh and blood of their prey make these birds potential agents for transmitting disease. Predatory fish-eating birds tend to accumulate high levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. Most of these birds are not important food sources for humans. Reptiles are also among the animals listed as unclean for human food (Leviticus 11:29–30; 42–43). Regarding Insects, only those from the locust/grasshopper family are permissible as food. These creatures are distinguished by having “strong hind legs for springing” and have been used, historically, as a food source in the Middle East.

Dietary Laws Abolished?

The biblical dietary laws are simple, rational, practical and profound. Long before human beings knew the details of disease-causing microorganisms, life cycles of parasites or global ecology, God revealed powerful principles that would protect the environment, provide safe, healthful food and prevent the spread of disease for anyone who would be willing to follow these instructions. The intent and benefits of these biblical guidelines have been acknowledged periodically in history. One scholar observed recently that “most of the laws can be clearly seen to tend toward public health. But if these laws are so logical and beneficial to mankind, where did the idea come from that they have been abolished? Why do Bible-believing Christians seem to be in the forefront of promoting this notion? The answer is found in interpretations that are read into scriptures found in Mark 7 and Acts 10. Studying the “evidence” is all the is needed to gain a clear understanding. In Mark 7, Jesus addressed a question about why His disciples ate without washing their hands according to ceremonial traditions followed by the Pharisees. Some Bible translations add words to Jesus’ answer in verse 19, suggesting that He did away with the dietary laws. However, these added words are not found in the original texts. Christ’s point was that orally ingested dirt does not spiritually defile a person since it does not enter the heart to influence attitudes. The dirt passes through the digestive tract and is eliminated. The subject of clean and unclean meats and the dietary laws are not being discussed in this chapter or in Matthew 15:10–20, which discusses the same event. In Acts 10, Peter is given a vision to help him understand God’s future plans for the Church. He was shown a group of unclean animals and told three times to eat. Each time he adamantly declined because he believed it was wrong. Now remember, this was the Peter who supposedly heard Jesus abolish the dietary laws earlier in Mark 7 and who was trained by Christ for 3 1/2 years and yet he was still under the clear impression that eating unclean meats was wrong! He was puzzled over the meaning of the vision (Acts 10:17) until three men came knocking at his door with a request to hear the Gospel explained, Normally Peter would not have associated with these men who were outside of the covenant community, because the Jews considered the Gentiles to be “unclean.” When Peter put the pieces together he concluded: “God has shown me that I should not call any “Gentile” common or unclean”. Peter does not conclude in this chapter, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that the dietary laws were to be abolished. The so-called evidence is simply not there! Neither Jesus Christ nor Peter abolished these God-given guidelines.