New Covenant Patriarchy

Man and Woman in Biblical Law

The Institute for Christian Patriarchy is happy to announce the availability of:

by Tom Shipley Second Edition
ISBN Number: 978-0-557-52900-1

Complete Scripture and Topical Indices

$28.50 - Paper Back Edition
$ 9.99 - Downloadable File
Click here for Patriarchy Bookstore

Book Information:
Paperback: 285 pages
Binding: Perfect-Bound Binding
Date: June 2010
Publisher: Institute for Christian Patriarchy

About This Book:

This book is a doctrinal manifesto. Its aim and purpose is to produce what many modern writers are fond of referring to as a paradigm shift. The goal is to lay the foundation for the establishment of a truly biblical social order, especially within the community of Bible-believing, Christ-honoring families. The subject matter is patriarchy and the biblical exposition contained herein is devoted to establishing the proposition that it is patriarchy which is and was mandated by God ever since the original creation of man and woman.

This work is vulnerable to being misperceived as a work primarily about polygamy since the bulk of the exposition centers around that subject. But read carefully. Note the flow of the argumentation. The biblical exposition on polygamy here serves a supporting role to the fundamental proposition of God-ordained and mandated patriarchy. In terms of this thesis, it is a secondary and subsidiary point - which is not to say that it is not important as a subject in its own right.

There are a multitude within the ranks of the Evangelical churches who are rightly and justifiably dismayed at the encroachment of feminist ideology as a subversive factor within Christendom and who are formally in favor of the biblical mandate of male headship within the Family and the Church. Sadly, almost all of the responses and reactions to this encroachment are fundamentally compromised with feminism in one way or another. This present work rejects all such compromise.

A complete Scripture Index and a Topical Index are included.

Preface
Introduction

Article 1: How Feminism Denies the Gospel
Article 2: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 1
Article 3: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 2
Article 4: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 3
Article 5: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 4
Article 6: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 5
Article 7: Patriarchy Before the Fall, Part 6
Article 8: In Defense of Patriarchy and Polygamy

Article 9: "Contradictions" Between Genesis and the Law of Moses, Part 1
Article 10: "Contradictions" Between Genesis and the Law of Moses, Part 2

Article 11: The Laws of God, Part 1
Article 12: The Laws of God, Part 2
Article 13: The Laws of God, Part 3
Article 14: The Laws of God, Part 4

Article 15: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #1: Lamech
Article 16: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #2: Abraham
Article 17: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #3: Jacob
Article 18: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #4: Esau
Article 19: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #5: Moses
Article 20: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #6: Gideon
Article 21: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #7: Jair
Article 22: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #8: Ibzan
Article 23: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #9: Abdon
Article 24: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #10: Elkanah
Article 25: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #11: Saul
Article 26: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #12: David, Part 1
Article 27: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #12: David, Part 2
Article 28: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #12: David, Part 3
Article 29: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #13: Solomon
Article 30: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #14: Caleb
Article 31: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #15: Caleb #2
Article 32: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #16: Rehoboam
Article 33: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #17: Joash
Article 34: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #18: Xerxes
Article 35: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #17: Belshazzar
Article 36: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #20-21: Abijah and Jerahmeel
Article 37: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #22 YAHWEH
Article 38: All the Polygamists of the Bible, #23-40

Article 39: Polygamy: Miscellaneous Passages and Comments
Article 40: Patriarchy and Polygamy in the New Covenant
Article 41: The New Covenant and Polygamy,
Article 42: Martin Luther and Polygamy: The "Strange" Case of Philip of Hesse

Article 43: The Commentators, #1: Rushdoony
Article 44: The Commentators, #2: Archer
Article 45: The Commentators, #3: Hodge
Article 46: The Commentators, #4: Murray
Article 47: The Commentators, #5: Kaiser
Article 48: The Commentators, #6: Wenham
Article 49: The Commentators, #7: Jordan
Article 50: The Commentators, #8: North
Article 51: The Commentators, #9: Smith
Article 52: The Commentators, #10: Adams
Article 53: The Commentators, #11: Lockyer
Article 54: The Commentators, #12: Tucker
Article 55: The Commentators, #13: Foh

Article 56: God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ
Article 57: Patriarchy in the Church: I Corinthians 11:2-15; 14:34-37
Article 58: Feminist Hermeneutics: Making the Straight Places Crooked

Epilogue: The Biblical Reformation of Marriage
Victims of Monogamania
Scripture Index
Topical Index

From the Back Cover

From the back cover:

“For by a secret law of nature, things that stand chief love to be singular; but things that are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters, in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of the holy women served two or more living husbands; but we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of the nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded it: for neither is it contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceive from one man: but one female cannot from several men (such is the power of things principal) as many souls are rightly made subject to one God.” —St. Augustine

“We should not assume that our ways are normal and that God’s ways are an abnormality which needs vindication.” —Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics

“The continued obligation of the Levitical law on this subject is also recognized in the New Testament. This recognition is involved in the constant reference to the law of Moses as the law of God. If in any of its parts or specifications it is no longer obligatory, that is to be proved...If God gives a law to men, those who deny its perpetual obligation are bound to prove it. The presumption is that it continues in force until the contrary is proved. It must be hard to prove that the laws founded on the permanent social relations of men were intended to be temporary.” —Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology

Now with a Bible Index and a Topical Index.

New Covenant Patriarchy Pledge

1. I do hereby pledge myself to make a covenant with my eyes, like Job in Job 30:1, to not look upon a maid.

2. I do hereby pledge to never pursue or ask more than one woman to marry me and to only consider additional wives if they beg me to marry them as per Isaiah 4:1.

Where are the women with a positive take on Biblical Patriarchy?

Tom Shipley,

I read your book, Man and Woman in Biblical Law, and enjoyed it. The biblical case for polygamy seems to be unassailable and I cannot argue with it. However, I do wonder about one thing. The mainstream views polygamy as extremely dehumanizing and barbaric, and the most perfect logical reasoning in the world will not get this notion out of people's heads, especially women's. You can find many books written by women who have lived in polygamy, hated it, and are now telling the world about how awful it is. I know that when you examine these cases closely (almost all Mormon), their misery is actually due to factors other than polygamy itself. But polygamy gets the blame. If polygamy is so great, why can I never find any books or articles, written by women, which speak favorably of it. With a lot of people, especially women, this sort of "emotional" reasoning would go a lot farther than rational biblical arguments to remove anti-polygamy prejudice. Maybe this ought not be the case with Christians who hold the Bible as the word of God, but it is in fact the case.

So if you can point me to any books or articles written by women who speak favorably of polygamy, please do this. I would love to here from you. Until I see this, I will continue to view polygamy as, if not sinful, at least inferior to monogamy.

Thanks,

Mike

Hello, Mike:

Thank you for your comments.

Alas! What you say is true. The "mainstream" (i.e., Humanists and Statists, Statist Humanists, and compromised Christian Statists and Christian socialists) despises polygamy, especially biblical polygamy, because it, unlike anything else, repudiates their worldview. It goes right to the heart of their religious presuppositions. Those who are of the secular Socialist faith will NEVER approve of polygamy until they are converted to faith in Jesus Christ (who is the Living Torah) and in the totality of His inspired Word. In the meantime they will cleave in idolatrous love to their surrogate husband, the secular socialist State.

I have little concern over this or with Mormons. "The Lord will judge them who are without."

My primary intended target audience is (or are) biblically literate Evangelicals who take the Word of God seriously. They are compromised by and with the world system and don't know it. But as long as they truly believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, there is hope for them. What is needed is for the truth to simply get a real hearing. Consider this: for all practical purposes, the case I am making has NEVER had a real hearing before the true Church. This is, in part, due to the fact that the case for polygyny has never had a true SYSTEMATIC defense of its precepts before. About the best case made prior to me was Martin Madan's "Thelyphthora," published, if memory serevs me, in 1781.

What I have done that no one else has ever done before (to my knowledge), including Madan, is to put forward a CREATIONAL pro-polygyny apology. This is POWERFUL. Up until now, the anti-patriarchal and monogamy-only proponents have enjoyed a FALSE MONOPOLY, claiming the exclusive defense of their thesis supposedly based upon the creation narrative of Genesis. I have exposed the fallacy of their doctrine. A creational defense was implicit in Augustine's statements upon the subject but never made explicit. And Augustine, like practically all of the early Church fathers, was deeply compromised with Manichaeanism and the philosophical asecticism engrained in Greek and Roman outlook. With the advent of my book, the debate on this subject can never be the same again.

In other words, do not look backwards. Look forward. History is linear, not circular, and progresses in one direction. Seeds sown in the present bear fruit in the future. The impact of the argument I have made will be felt and it will not be easily resisted. My case is simple and straightforward and easily grasped by the average person: Creation=patriarchy=polygyny.

Secondly, my defense of the patriarchy/polygyny thesis is SYSTEMATIC and complete. This is also powerful because it demonstrates that the thesis is not a "rabbit trail" out on a tangent somewhere. It is INTEGRAL to God's Law, His ethical system. It is, in fact, central.

Third, I have demonstrated that this doctrine advances, rather than repudiates, the CONSISTENCY of Scripture. You will have noted that a prominent and recurring criticism I have made of the opposing viewpoints is that they all rely heavily upon the supposition of "conflicts" in Scripture, of "inconsistencies," of "antinomies," of "concessions to sin." I have maintained (with specific exegesis) the complete and total HARMONY and consistency of Scripture. This also is very powerful. If one position fundamentally requires conflicts and inconsistencies in Scripture to validate its thesis, and the other fundamentally requires harmony and consistency, then which thesis has the most going for it from the point of view of one who believes the Bible to be the Word of God? The answer is clear.

In terms of historical progression, my book and the movement it is a part of is the vanguard of the cutting edge. This movement has just begun. And it is a patriarchal movement. Do not seek the leadership of women or their validation. It is we men of God who must take the lead, not the women. Everything else will follow in its appointed time.

I don't know where you found my book, but you might be interested to know that I have just released the final version in the last couple weeks or less. I have placed the book with Lulu Press. I now have an ISBN number; the book will now be listed in Books in Print; will now have exposure on and be available through Amazon, and now accessible to all Christian booksellers. If you believe that the case I have made is truly unassailable, would you be so kind as to point others to it? What this case needs at this time is exposure.

God bless you.

Tom Shipley

Is Tom Promoting Polyandry?

Answer: I remain open to all serious criticism of my writings, and will not hesitate to change my position on Leviticus 18:18 based on sound exposition. Leviticus 18:18 is not integral to my thesis, which is one of the reasons it is treated as a miscellaneous item.

The problem here with Critic's criticism is that he mangles the metaphor/allegory from Isaiah 62:5. He confuses and mixes the metaphor/allegory with the literal reality it represents. His logic here is quite flawed. This is very much unsound exposition. My logic in no way supports a wife getting husbands nor incestuous polyandry in that passage. Critic is clearly wrong in this accusation. This is unbridled emotion at work and not sound exposition of God's holy Word.

Moreover, Critic has given no rejoinder to the actual and specific exposition I made in my book, M&WIBL. To wit, why does the text of Leviticus 18:18 say to not take the second sister to vex "her" instead of "them?" Or, to ask the question from the other direction, why does not the text of Leviticus 18:18 ban taking the second sister so as not to vex them instead of to vex "her"? I ask, as I asked in the book, why does the situation addressed vex only the one sister and not both? If we take every word of God seriously, then must demonstrate a conclusive answer to this question, or he has not established his point. I contend that the situation addressed only vexes the one sister, as the text clearly states, because 1) the second sister is, indeed, not "vexed" by the marriage and 2) the REASON the second sister is not vexed by the marriage is because she is not contemplated as barren and childless. If, in fact, there were an inherent vexing of this sisterly relationship based upon the act of marrying two sisters constituting sin, then BOTH sisters would be vexed by the situation.

Again, I assert, the situation remedied by the ban is the potential spoiling of the sisterly relationship by taking a second sister to bear children in the presence of a barren and childless sister. In other words, this is a qualified prohibition. As I pointed out in my book, it is the only ban in Leviticus 18 which is qualified in any way. All of the other prohibitions are stated without qualification of any kind. Why? Critic, apparently, has no answer to this question. I believe I have a very sound answer to the question.

One strength of this proposition is that it has precedent by way of examples given to us by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God regarding 1) Hagar's vexing of Sara regarding her childlessness in Genesis 16, 2) the vexing of Rachel by her sister Leah because of Rachel's childlessness in Genesis 30 and 3) the vexing of Hannah by Penninah because of Hannah's childlessness in I Samuel 1. This is a very strong and repeated theme in Scripture, that is, of a childless wife being vexed by the presence of a second wife who has children. Providing an heir to a husband was a central concern of the Israelite family. It is, in fact, the overarching raison d'etre for the Hebrew family in Scripture.

Secondly, attempts to empty the metaphors/allegories of Ezekiel and Jeremiah of their significance. Is God confused or inconsistent with Himself? should re-read both my and Jay E. Adams' arguments in regard to this issue. On 's premise, the Biblical metaphors picture God as committing iniquity. Is this really rational? Is this biblical?

Accusations are one thing. Backing them up with valid exposition of the Word of God is quite another. I would submit to you that Critic has been weighed in the balances in this regard and found wanting.

God bless you.
Tom

"Polygamy is not a sin but monogamy is the ideal"

Another similar objection I have encountered is the claim that, “Though the Bible permits polygamy, monogamy is the ideal.” This argument is not so much an “objection” against polygamy since it concedes the essential point, as it is a subversion of the biblical concept of morality. Morality is that which is permitted by Divine Law; immorality is that which is forbidden by Divine Law (see 1 John 3:4). The gradations of “good,” “better,” and “ideal” are contingencies of individual circumstances. Morally speaking, monogamy and polygamy are both ideal and perfect since both are consistent with Divine Law. To smuggle a practical, utilitarian concern for good, better and ideal into the question of Biblical ethics is to undermine the categories of sin and righteousness. Page 25 - MWBL

New Book: They Shall Be One Flesh

Yes, I know, the bookshelves of modern Christian bookstores are replete with "practical" treatments of husband/wife relations and "how-to" manuals from a Christian perspective. Marriage seminars abound. Christian radio and television and internet websites go on for 24 hours a day on the subject. Josh McDowell fills stadiums full of men who come home with a zeal to do it God's way. Yet, for all this, there is, and always has been, a curious dearth of solid doctrinal treatments of the subject. To my way of thinking, this is a positive scandal.

... Have we allowed unbiblical, non-biblical and anti-biblical systems of thought to corrupt our doctrines of sex and marriage?

As I have pointed out in Volume 1 of this series, the modern Church is way off base in all its major branches concerning the doctrines of patriarchy and polygyny. As a consequence, the Church is compromised in its approach to and handling of modern feminism, as well as its understanding of the biblical definition of adultery. The legacy of ancient pagan Rome is still very much with us today. We in the West are their direct lineal descendants in more than one way. We ARE their children.

This Volume and the one that preceded it is offered to the Church as a belated treatment of the subjects at hand—I say belated because Athanasius or Augustine or Luther, good Biblicists of the past, should have provided such a work to the Church long ago. It is long past time to cast off the yoke of Rome.

They_Shall_Be_One_Flesh.pdf Free to download.

Now expanded to 112 pages (1/23/2010).

Biblical Families Radio Interviews Tom Shipley Dec 20, 9 PM

Demographic Problem Requires a New Covenant Answer

The War on Godly Procreation

: God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth."
: God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
: God also said to him (Jacob):
I am God Almighty.
Be fruitful and multiply.
A nation, indeed an assembly of nations,
will come from you,
and kings will descend from you.

Not only is the command to be fruitful and multiply the Prime Directive, the Dominion Mandate, given to unfallen man, the first command given to man, it is also repeated again and again to the covenant people of God. If there is anything that would hinder the obedience to this command by covenant keeping Christians it ought to be looked at with the utmost skepticism and suspicion. If there is a price to be paid for obedience to this command we ought to find a way to pay that price.

It is time to identify our enemies and remove their propaganda from our thinking. Remember, Satan is just as happy about marriages of godly women to unbelievers, and godly women remaining single and never bearing (pre-aborting?) their children, as he is about the babies aborted and sacrificed to idols. Disobedience to the Dominion Mandate begins in a corrupted/barren womb. To please God we must abort the little feminist within us before it gives birth to death and judgment. We must do this despite the corrupt doctrines we have inherited from our fathers.

We must obey for "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed." Romans 8:19

A baptized feminist is anyone who thinks Biblical polygamy is a sin despite the evidence of Scripture. The real sin is to have Christian women take their wombs out of action until their idea of Mr. (Single) Right comes along. Do we really have to go through the devastation of Isaiah 3 before believing women forsake feminism and embrace the polygyny of Isaiah 4 and it's attendant blessings? The payoff for Satan in convincing Christians that polygyny is a sin is in squelching godly procreation.

It is true: Feminism, monogamy, and witchcraft form an unholy trinity working the destruction of Christian civilization.

The real slippery slope: anti-polygyny laws and mores, contraception, abortion, easy divorce, sodomy, judgement.