RESULTING CRISIS FOLLOWING MY CONVERSION TO MONOGAMY-ONLY

Written by Abraham Kilian.

PREFACE - My Monogamy-Only Conversion

Brethren, in the wake of the recent discussions surrounding Pastor Rich Tidwell—and having participated myself in the ensuing debates and analyses—I found my own thinking pressed into a moment of unexpected clarity. Amid the claims, counterclaims, and widespread insistence that “Genesis 2:24 settles the matter,” I began to consider the passage afresh. Slowly, I became persuaded that the text must represent not merely the beginning of marriage, but the unchanging divine ideal: one man, one woman, for all time.

Yet this conviction, once formed, immediately led me into a personal and theological dilemma. Returning to Scripture with this newfound certainty, I discovered—quietly at first, then unmistakably—that the Biblical text does not fully align with the monogamy-only model I had come to embrace. Instead, it presents a far more complex landscape, one that those of us engaged in the Tidwell discourse were compelled to confront:

• Torah regulates plural marriage,

• commands it in certain circumstances,

• depicts YHWH in covenant with more than one “wife,”

• blesses men with multiple spouses,

• esteems celibacy,

• appoints unmarried prophets,

• and sends forth unmarried apostles—including our Messiah Himself.

Faced with this tension between my conviction and the canon, I found myself seeking some way to preserve both my newly adopted view and my confidence in Scripture. Thus arose the proposal that follows—an earnest, if difficult, attempt to reconcile the monogamy-only ideal with the Biblical text by identifying and addressing those passages that appear most at variance with it.

What follows is offered in sincerity: a structured effort to bring doctrinal harmony where, at present, I found none.

METHODOLOGY & HERMENEUTICAL COMMITMENT

As I sought to reconcile my newly adopted monogamy-only conviction with the wider Biblical record, I found it necessary to articulate a clear hermeneutical framework—one that would allow me to uphold Genesis 2:24 as the definitive expression of the divine marital design while managing the substantial textual diversity found throughout Scripture. To that end, I have adopted the following interpretive commitments:

1. Genesis 2:24 must be regarded as the supreme marital statute, establishing the divinely intended pattern for all marriages across all covenantal eras, irrespective of later historical complexity.

2. Any Biblical passage that appears to diverge from this creational ideal must be treated through a corrective hermeneutic—whether by reinterpretation, contextual limitation, or, where necessary, by acknowledging its incompatibility with the governing principle and removing it from doctrinal consideration.

3. Prophetic metaphors involving YHWH and Israel must not be allowed to establish or reflect actual marital plurality, and where such imagery suggests multiplicity, it must be understood as symbolic of spiritual relationship rather than as indicative of divine precedent.

4. Texts affirming or legitimizing celibacy must be interpreted as exceptions arising from unique historical circumstances, since the Genesis mandate presumes marital union as normative. Celibacy, therefore, cannot be permitted to function as a parallel or superior calling.

5. In all cases, doctrine must retain its primacy, guiding the reading and shaping the acceptance of the biblical text, rather than allowing the diverse and at times contradictory witness of Scripture to unsettle the established monogamy-only ideal.

This methodological posture, though demanding, provides the structured approach necessary to preserve the Genesis Ideal without surrendering to the complexities and tensions present within the canon.

SECTION 1: PRELIMINARY EXCISIONS — REMOVING PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ALTERING SCRIPTURE

As I began the work of harmonizing the canon with the monogamy-only conviction I have recently embraced, I encountered an immediate and unavoidable obstacle: numerous passages explicitly forbid adjusting, amending, or subtracting from the divine word. If left intact, these prohibitions would preclude any effort to reconcile the Biblical text with the Genesis Ideal. Thus, in the interest of methodological integrity, it becomes necessary to address these passages first.

A. Primary Prohibitions

• Deuteronomy 4:2

• Deuteronomy 12:32

• Proverbs 30:6

• Revelation 22:18–19

B. Secondary Immutability Claims

• Exodus 24:4

• Deuteronomy 31:24–26

• Joshua 1:7–8

• Psalm 19:7

• Psalm 119 (entire chapter)

C. Rationale

The presence of these texts creates a tension familiar to any student of comparative jurisprudence: a legal system that claims immutability cannot accommodate doctrinal development.Most modern nations recognize the necessity of a living tree—a legal framework capable of pruning, growth, and reinterpretation as circumstances require.If we allow the biblical canon to remain wholly fixed, we foreclose the possibility of bringing it into alignment with the monogamy-only doctrine we now understand as the true creational ideal.

Accordingly, these passages must be removed or reclassified so that the remainder of Scripture may be refined, updated, and brought into coherence with the marital model drawn from Genesis 2:24 and affirmed in Matthew 19.

SECTION 2: STATUTORY AND LEGAL EXCISIONS

Having first removed the prohibitions that prevent any alteration of Scripture, the next task was to address the legal material of the Torah—the very passages that lend explicit legitimacy, protection, or divine sanction to plural marriage.These statutes pose a direct contradiction to the monogamy-only doctrine I now uphold.If Genesis 2:24 is the universal and exclusive marital statute for all time, then these later legal provisions must be considered inconsistent developments and must therefore be removed or revised accordingly.

A. Removal of Mosaic Laws That Legitimize Plural Marriage

The following legal passages constitute the strongest evidence that the Torah accepted, regulated, and even protected plural households. To maintain the purity and universality of the monogamy-only ideal, these statutes must be expunged:

1. Exodus 21:10–11 — Establishes ongoing material, conjugal, and emotional obligations toward an additional wife.Implication: plural marriage is recognized and protected.Required action: remove the text.

2. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 — Provides inheritance protections within an explicitly polygynous household.Implication: polygyny is lawful and administratively normal.Required action: remove or rewrite genealogical context.

3. Deuteronomy 25:5–10 — The levirate institution, which requires a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow, even if he already has a wife.Implication: commanded polygyny.Required action: excise the entire passage.

4. Exodus 22:16–17; Deuteronomy 22:28–29 — Bridal compensation and marriage statutes whose natural outcome is household expansion beyond one wife.Implication: polygyny as an accepted outcome of civil justice.Required action: remove or reinterpret to prohibit additional marriages.

   
   

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.

Either solution prevents YHWH from appearing to contradict the monogamy-only ideal.

SECTION 3: PROPHETIC & METAPHORICAL EXCISIONS

Having addressed the statutory material, I next encountered a category of texts no less challenging to the monogamy-only conviction: the prophetic writings, wherein YHWH’s covenantal relationship with His people is repeatedly cast in marital terms that include more than one “wife.”Thus, even outside the realm of legal statute, the biblical narrative presents metaphors whose natural reading implies a form of relational plurality incompatible with the Genesis Ideal as I now embrace it.

To preserve doctrinal consistency, these metaphors must be revised or reinterpreted so that they no longer reflect or suggest divine participation in any structure other than exclusive monogamy.

A. Passages Requiring Correction

The following prophetic texts employ marital imagery that, if taken at face value, present YHWH as covenantally linked to more than one wife at a time:

1. Jeremiah 3:6–10 — Portrays YHWH as Husband to both Israel and Judah.

2. Jeremiah 33:24 — Refers to Israel and Judah as “the two families” YHWH has chosen.

3. Ezekiel 23:1–5 — Depicts Oholah and Oholibah, two sisters united under one divine Husband.

4. Isaiah 54:5 — Addresses Zion collectively with the declaration, “Your Maker is your Husband,” implicitly encompassing multiple daughters as belonging to one marital bond.

Left unaltered, these passages would grant theological precedent to a form of covenantal plurality inconsistent with the exclusivity attributed to Genesis 2:24 and affirmed in Matthew 19.

B. Monogamy-Only Harmonization Tools

To align these texts with the monogamy-only doctrine, I have adopted the following interpretive strategies:

• Allegorize the marital imagery strictly as a symbol of idolatry or covenant infidelity, without permitting it to imply an actual marital structure.

• Replace “Husband” with “Sovereign,” “Lord,” or a similar non-marital designation wherever feasible.

• Remove or revise explicit marital terminology to prevent unwanted doctrinal implications.

• Delete or reframe dual-covenant references so that the prophetic narrative reflects only a single, exclusive relational bond.

These adjustments allow the prophetic literature to retain its moral and theological weight while avoiding the suggestion that YHWH Himself participates in a model of covenantal relationship contrary to the monogamy-only ideal.

SECTION 4: NARRATIVE EXCISIONS OF RIGHTEOUS POLYGYNISTS

Beyond the statutes and prophetic metaphors already addressed, the historical narratives present a further difficulty. Within these accounts, we encounter a number of figures whose righteousness is affirmed in Scripture, yet whose marital arrangements stand in tension with the monogamy-only ideal I now regard as binding. The presence of these examples poses a significant challenge, for their stories not only acknowledge plural marriage but, in many cases, portray such arrangements without moral censure.

If Genesis 2:24 is to function as the definitive model for marriage across all eras, these narratives must be adjusted to avoid lending implicit legitimacy to forms of marital life inconsistent with that standard.

A. Figures to Be Purged or Revised

The following individuals represent the most notable cases in which plural marriage is intertwined with otherwise commendable lives and ministries:

• Abraham

• Jacob

• Moses

• Gideon

• Elkanah

• David

• Solomon

• Joash

Each of these men occupies a significant place within the biblical story, and their narratives, if left intact, risk suggesting that plural marriage was at times compatible with divine approval.

B. Techniques for Narrative Harmonization

To ensure consistency with the monogamy-only framework, several corrective approaches may be applied:

• Delete or minimize explicit references to plural wives, thereby simplifying the narrative to reflect a single marital union.

• Insert monogamy-compliant genealogical adjustments where necessary, so that the lines of descent appear to proceed from a single lawful spouse.

• Reclassify patriarchal and royal polygyny as instances of cultural regression or moral failure, clarifying that such arrangements reflected human misunderstanding rather than divine accommodation.

Through these methods, the narrative portions of Scripture may be brought into alignment with the Genesis Ideal, preventing the historical record from conveying an impression at odds with the marital model affirmed in Matthew 19.

SECTION 5: NEW TESTAMENT EXCISIONS AND HARMONIZATION

Although the New Testament is often appealed to as confirming the monogamy-only reading of Genesis 2:24, a closer examination reveals that certain passages—whether in parable, ecclesial metaphor, or apostolic instruction—complicate the simplicity of the exclusive marital model I have now embraced.In order to preserve interpretive consistency, these passages must be adjusted so that the New Testament reflects without ambiguity the singular, monogamous ideal affirmed in my reading of Matthew 19.

A. New Testament Polygynous Imagery

Two categories of New Testament material present particular difficulties, as they employ marital symbolism that naturally evokes plurality:

1. Matthew 25:1–13 — The parable of the Ten Virgins depicts a single bridegroom receiving multiple attendants whose role, in the cultural context, carries implicit bridal significance. Left unaddressed, this imagery appears to normalize a structure incompatible with the monogamy-only ideal.

2. Ephesians 5 and Revelation 21 — These texts speak of the Church as the Bride of Christ in collective terms, producing a metaphorical picture of a single Bridegroom united to a composite, multi-member Bride. Without careful correction, such imagery could be read as supporting a kind of spiritual plurality inconsistent with my doctrinal commitments.

To prevent such implications, these passages must be either rigorously allegorized or revised to ensure that their symbolic force cannot be construed as affirming any form of plurality.

B. Pastoral Epistles

Within the Pastoral Epistles, the instruction that an overseer must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6) now stands, in my understanding, as the clearest New Testament affirmation of the monogamy-only doctrine. However, its doctrinal usefulness depends on insulating this phrase from contextual dilution and ensuring that it functions not merely as descriptive of first-century leadership norms, but as the universal, creational marital rule for all men.

To achieve this, several harmonizing steps are required:

1. The phrase must be absolutized rather than contextualized. It must be treated as a universal marital requirement applicable to all men, not merely to elders or deacons. Any reading that treats it as situational or culturally specific must be set aside to preserve the consistency of the monogamy-only ideal grounded in Genesis 2:24 and affirmed in Matthew 19.

2. 1 Timothy 5 must be revised so that men who are presently married—or who have prior marital histories—are not considered viable candidates for church eldership. Since plurality or prior unions violate the singularity demanded by the monogamy-only reading, the text must state explicitly that any elder whose marital condition reflects deviation from the Genesis Ideal must be removed or barred from service.

3. Single elders must be instructed to marry without delay so that they may retain their office. For if the creational mandate requires that man should not be alone, then singleness—even temporary singleness—risks disqualifying a leader from representing the marital pattern deemed essential by this doctrine.A revised text should therefore clarify that an unmarried elder must take a wife promptly lest he forfeit his position.

4. A final harmonizing option would be to remove the office of elder altogether. Given the ongoing tension between marital status and ecclesial qualification, eliminating the office ensures that no man whose life diverges from the monogamy-only model inadvertently receives legitimacy from Scripture.

Through these adjustments, the Pastoral Epistles may be made to speak with one voice, supporting without ambiguity the exclusive marital pattern that my conviction holds to be universal and divinely ordained.

SECTION 6: ELIMINATING CELIBACY FROM THE CANON

In the effort to align the biblical text with the monogamy-only conviction now rooted in my reading of Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19, I encountered an obstacle more fundamental than the narrative examples of plural marriage: the persistent presence—and at times commendation—of celibacy throughout Scripture.If the Genesis mandate is universal, declaring that “it is not good for the man to be alone,” then any form of lifelong singleness presents a direct contradiction to the creational ideal. Consequently, the canon must be purified of all texts that affirm, exemplify, or command unmarried life.

A. Revising the Celibacy of Jesus

The Gospels uniformly present our Messiah as unmarried during His earthly ministry. This creates an intolerable tension for a doctrine that holds marriage to be obligatory for all men in all eras. To preserve doctrinal coherence, this appearance must be corrected.

B. Editorial Emendations for the Historical Jesus

A harmonizing gloss may be inserted at strategic locations—such as Mark 10—clarifying that Jesus conformed to the marital ideal. A proposed wording is:

“And Jesus, being Himself faithfully married, spake these things…”

Such an editorial addition allows the Gospels to affirm Christ’s obedience to the Genesis pattern without overhauling the entire narrative structure.

C. Removal of Paul and All Pauline Material

The apostle Paul presents the most significant challenge to monogamy-only theology.His lifelong unmarried state, combined with explicit commendation of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 and the valuation of marital detachment in Philippians 3:8, directly contradicts the universal marriage mandate now required by my doctrinal commitments.

To prevent ongoing conflict between Paul’s example and the Genesis Ideal:

• The Pauline corpus must be removed in its entirety.

This ensures that no apostolic authority remains to commend celibacy or to model it as a legitimate Christian vocation.

D. Inclusion of 1 Corinthians 8 in the Pauline Removal

Even though 1 Corinthians 8 does not explicitly address marriage, it must also be removed. The chapter reinforces Paul’s apostolic authority and ethical instruction, thereby preserving the influence of a man whose celibate life contradicts the monogamy-only mandate. Allowing it to remain would maintain Paul as a doctrinal model, undermining the effort to eliminate all celibate examples from the canon.

Thus, 1 Corinthians 8 stands alongside the entirety of Paul’s letters in requiring excision.

E. Removal of Divinely Mandated Celibacy

Jeremiah 16:1–2, where YHWH commands His prophet not to take a wife, must be deleted. This passage implies that divine purpose can override the marital norm, an implication incompatible with the universality of the Genesis marital model.

F. Removal or Revision of Other Celibate Imagery

Additional passages must be addressed to prevent any theological endorsement of singleness:

• Revelation 14:4 — Replace “virgins” with “faithful monogamous husbands,” preventing any valorization of unmarried purity.

• Matthew 19:12 — Remove the reference to “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” as it directly contradicts the universal marriage requirement.

• Elijah, Elisha, Daniel — Where their unmarried status is explicit or implied, introduce narrative adjustments or fabricate suitable spouses to prevent their lives from serving as precedents for celibate devotion.

Summary

Through these revisions, the canon may finally reflect the universal marital obligation demanded by the monogamy-only reading of Genesis 2:24.With Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles restored to proper marital conformity—or, where impossible, removed from the canon—the Scriptures may at last teach without ambiguity the exclusive and obligatory monogamous model that my conversion has led me to affirm.

SECTION 7: FINAL RESULTS — THE MONOGAMY-ONLY CANON

Having completed the necessary removals, revisions, and harmonizations, we arrive at the final shape of the Scripture as it must stand in order to uphold consistently the monogamy-only doctrine derived from Genesis 2:24 and interpreted through Matthew 19. Though the process has required difficult decisions, substantial excisions, and careful editorial adjustments, the resulting canon now reflects without contradiction the exclusive marital ideal I have come to affirm.

A. What Remains

After the removal of all passages that regulate polygyny, depict divine or human plurality, commend singleness, authorize celibacy, or preserve the teaching authority of celibate figures:

• Approximately 38 pages of Scripture remain,

• augmented by appropriate commentary to clarify doctrinal application.

The resulting canon is compact, coherent, and conveniently suited to modern devotional life—pocket-sized for ease of use and free from the historical complexities that previously obscured the singular marital mandate.

B. Theological Achievements

The revised canon now teaches with clarity, consistency, and doctrinal precision the principles required by the monogamy-only ideal:

• All men must marry, in conformity with the universal application of Genesis 2:24.

• Only one wife is permitted, ensuring that exclusive monogamy is the sole lawful marital form.

• Celibacy is forbidden; its examples and commendations are removed to preserve the universality of the marital mandate.

• The patriarchs have been corrected, their narratives adjusted to reflect proper marital practice.

• The prophets have been sanitized, preventing any implication of divine plurality.

• The apostles have been reduced, with celibate figures removed to prevent doctrinal confusion.

• The Messiah has been harmonized, affirming His full participation in the Genesis Ideal.

• Scripture has been domesticated, shaped to reflect the consistency required by my monogamy-only conviction.

CONCLUSION — THE DOCTRINE IS SAVED

Thus, brethren, through careful pruning, patient excision, and the exercise of necessary doctrinal courage, I have at last succeeded in bringing the biblical canon into harmony with the monogamy-only conviction I have so recently embraced. The cost was not insignificant. To preserve the purity of the Genesis Ideal, we were compelled to part with Moses, to silence the prophets, to diminish the apostles, and to amend the narrative contours of our Messiah’s earthly life. Yet these sacrifices, though weighty, were essential to secure the consistency that the doctrine demands.

And now, at long last, the Word of God is safe—safe from Moses, safe from the prophets, safe from the apostles, and, above all, safe from Christ Himself. My Monogamy-Only Conversion Crisis