• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

My Monogamy-Only Conversion and the Resulting Crisis

Abraham Kilian

Abraham Kilian

Member
Male

PUBLISHED - 20251117 - RESULTING CRISIS FOLLOWING MY CONVERSION TO MONOGAMY-ONLY.png​

SUMMARY:​

In My Monogamy-Only Conversion and the Resulting Crisis, Abraham JF Kilian reflects on a recent doctrinal shift that led him to embrace a strict monogamy-only reading of Genesis 2:24. What began as a clear and compelling conviction soon confronted a difficult challenge: the broader biblical record did not align neatly with his new understanding. As he revisited Torah, the Prophets, and the New Testament, the tension between his doctrinal commitment and the canonical text became increasingly unavoidable.

Kilian approaches this conflict with legal and hermeneutical precision. Drawing on principles from statutory interpretation, covenantal frameworks, and comparative jurisprudence, he examines the passages that appear to support, regulate, or assume marital structures beyond exclusive monogamy. He also considers the role of prophetic symbolism, narrative precedent, apostolic teaching, and Christological example—seeking to understand how these elements fit within a theology shaped by the Genesis ideal and affirmed through Matthew 19.

The central issue the article explores is not simply marriage practice but Scriptural coherence:
➡️ How should a believer respond when long-held interpretations meet the complexity of the canon?
➡️ What happens when a theological conviction encounters passages that seem to challenge or complicate it?
➡️ And how do we responsibly navigate those tensions without dismissing the authority of Scripture or oversimplifying its diversity?

Rather than offering easy answers, Kilian presents an honest account of wrestling with text, tradition, and doctrine. His article encourages scholars, pastors, and thoughtful readers to engage deeply with the biblical material, to acknowledge the interpretive challenges surrounding marriage, and to approach the subject with humility and intellectual integrity.

📖 Read the full reflection here:
👉 https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/monogamy-only-conversion-crisis

Sincerely,
Abraham JF Kilian
 
Abraham Kilian said:

View attachment 11783​

SUMMARY:​

In My Monogamy-Only Conversion and the Resulting Crisis, Abraham JF Kilian reflects on a recent doctrinal shift that led him to embrace a strict monogamy-only reading of Genesis 2:24. What began as a clear and compelling conviction soon confronted a difficult challenge: the broader biblical record did not align neatly with his new understanding. As he revisited Torah, the Prophets, and the New Testament, the tension between his doctrinal commitment and the canonical text became increasingly unavoidable.

Kilian approaches this conflict with legal and hermeneutical precision. Drawing on principles from statutory interpretation, covenantal frameworks, and comparative jurisprudence, he examines the passages that appear to support, regulate, or assume marital structures beyond exclusive monogamy. He also considers the role of prophetic symbolism, narrative precedent, apostolic teaching, and Christological example—seeking to understand how these elements fit within a theology shaped by the Genesis ideal and affirmed through Matthew 19.

The central issue the article explores is not simply marriage practice but Scriptural coherence:
➡️ How should a believer respond when long-held interpretations meet the complexity of the canon?
➡️ What happens when a theological conviction encounters passages that seem to challenge or complicate it?
➡️ And how do we responsibly navigate those tensions without dismissing the authority of Scripture or oversimplifying its diversity?

Rather than offering easy answers, Kilian presents an honest account of wrestling with text, tradition, and doctrine. His article encourages scholars, pastors, and thoughtful readers to engage deeply with the biblical material, to acknowledge the interpretive challenges surrounding marriage, and to approach the subject with humility and intellectual integrity.

📖 Read the full reflection here:
👉 https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/monogamy-only-conversion-crisis

Sincerely,
Abraham JF Kilian
Click to expand...
LOL Lawyer jokes!!! hehehe I bet you had a blast writing that one !!
 
OK, about halfway through I found myself asking the following. Why not simply accept that Genesis 2:24 is what I will contend it is:

a statement of Divine "atomic sufficiency"?

One man plus one woman is both Necessary AND Sufficient to fulfill the original, single mandate: be fruitful and multiply.

There is nothing in the statement to preclude a man subsequently having an additional wife. (Or, for that matter, any number of other things later prescribed, and proscribed, as additional elements are added.)

Just as one proton and one electron is sufficient to fulfill the original atomic element (hydrogen) - there is no prohibition thereby that He can't create additional atoms with more sub-components. Indeed, they too are necessary for the rest of His creation. And there are other rules (and related Instruction, or 'torah', that comes into play. (Neutrons, for example, and even muons and gluons and quarks, oh, my.)
 
PS> Yeah, I get (and appreciate) the point. Still, I found myself having to address the 'suspension of disbelief' issue inherent in some otherwise engaging SciFi.

It occurs to me that a similar approach could be taken to addressing those who reject Matthew 5:17-19, et al.
 
Mark C said:
OK, about halfway through I found myself asking the following. Why not simply accept that Genesis 2:24 is what I will contend it is:

a statement of Divine "atomic sufficiency"?

One man plus one woman is both Necessary AND Sufficient to fulfill the original, single mandate: be fruitful and multiply.

There is nothing in the statement to preclude a man subsequently having an additional wife. (Or, for that matter, any number of other things later prescribed, and proscribed, as additional elements are added.)

Just as one proton and one electron is sufficient to fulfill the original atomic element (hydrogen) - there is no prohibition thereby that He can't create additional atoms with more sub-components. Indeed, they too are necessary for the rest of His creation. And there are other rules (and related Instruction, or 'torah', that comes into play. (Neutrons, for example, and even muons and gluons and quarks, oh, my.)
Click to expand...
@Mark C, your insight that Genesis 2:24 expresses a kind of divine “atomic sufficiency” is genuinely brilliant. I’m not sure many people will grasp the full depth of that nuance, but it deserves to be explored. With your permission, I would like to begin developing an article around this concept, crediting you for coining the term. Please let me know how you would prefer to be cited.
 
Abraham Kilian said:
...With your permission, I would like to begin developing an article around this concept, crediting you for coining the term. Please let me know how you would prefer to be cited.
Click to expand...
Sure - would be an honor and a pleasure. Let's talk, if you're able; I have something else that might be interesting to ask about as well.
 
Abraham Kilian said:

View attachment 11783​

SUMMARY:​

In My Monogamy-Only Conversion and the Resulting Crisis, Abraham JF Kilian reflects on a recent doctrinal shift that led him to embrace a strict monogamy-only reading of Genesis 2:24. What began as a clear and compelling conviction soon confronted a difficult challenge: the broader biblical record did not align neatly with his new understanding. As he revisited Torah, the Prophets, and the New Testament, the tension between his doctrinal commitment and the canonical text became increasingly unavoidable.

Kilian approaches this conflict with legal and hermeneutical precision. Drawing on principles from statutory interpretation, covenantal frameworks, and comparative jurisprudence, he examines the passages that appear to support, regulate, or assume marital structures beyond exclusive monogamy. He also considers the role of prophetic symbolism, narrative precedent, apostolic teaching, and Christological example—seeking to understand how these elements fit within a theology shaped by the Genesis ideal and affirmed through Matthew 19.

The central issue the article explores is not simply marriage practice but Scriptural coherence:
➡️ How should a believer respond when long-held interpretations meet the complexity of the canon?
➡️ What happens when a theological conviction encounters passages that seem to challenge or complicate it?
➡️ And how do we responsibly navigate those tensions without dismissing the authority of Scripture or oversimplifying its diversity?

Rather than offering easy answers, Kilian presents an honest account of wrestling with text, tradition, and doctrine. His article encourages scholars, pastors, and thoughtful readers to engage deeply with the biblical material, to acknowledge the interpretive challenges surrounding marriage, and to approach the subject with humility and intellectual integrity.

📖 Read the full reflection here:
👉 https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/monogamy-only-conversion-crisis

Sincerely,
Abraham JF Kilian
Click to expand...

B. Removal of Divine Endorsements​


The most theologically challenging cases are those in which YHWH Himself directly sanctions plural marriage.

  • 2 Samuel 12:7–8 — YHWH declares to David: “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your bosom.”

This passage cannot remain, for it implies that God Himself approved, facilitated, and blessed plural marriage.

Required action:

  • Excise the passage entirely, or
  • Reclassify it as a later scribal corruption inconsistent with the true divine intention allegedly present in Genesis 2:24 and reaffirmed in Matthew 19.
Or….
  • READ STRAIGHT PAST THESE VERSES AND IGNORE THEM OR ANY QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP BY THEM, PRETENDING THEY DONT EXIST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top