About six weeks ago, I was contacted by Patricia Hartman and asked myself to read and read her book The Christian Prenuptial Agreement. She had read a previous article in which I disagreed with Dave Ramsey`s premise on marital agreements. She sent me a copy of the book and asked me to read it and change my mind on it. As part of the agreement on receiving the free book, I agreed to write an article about the book – positive or negative. So it`s there. As you will see below, the author offered some interesting ideas, but his book did not show my opinion that marital agreements are not biblical. Fifth, I never said that it was not important to write things. However, their argument that this is a biblical mandate has not been confirmed. I can also bring verses like Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12, which indeed say that your yes must be yes and no. The word is sufficient.
Yes, people haven`t spoken to each other. They also break the promises that are written. If the letter were sufficient, there would not be three pages of divorce rules and one page of the separation provisions in the marriage agreement. A conjugal agreement to dissolve my responsibility as an „alliance“ by definition transforms Confederation into an ordinary treaty. Its purpose will be more protection than commitment, no matter how much we hope otherwise. The kind of marital agreement that most of us think of turns marriage into a contract rather than an alliance. Rather than reaffirming a single Meat Union, it suggests that a man and a woman are rather trading partners who protect their own interests without fully trusting each other. The divorce section begins with the words: „The parties agree not to use the breach of the terms of this agreement as the basis for filing the divorce“ (264); However, she will discuss without delay why the divorce can be sought and how the process will proceed. Despite criticism of the lack of confidence in secular marriage contracts, the Christian version offers little more confidence. In some situations, such as Naomi`s in Ruth`s book, women have been for themselves to defend themselves or to hope for the generosity of distant relatives. But something else comes out at the beginning of this story.
Naomi asks Ruth to join her family. Ruth refuses because she came to love God and Naomi, but what we don`t see in the story is the depth of the choice she made. In most marriage contracts, there was a wedding price or dowry that was put on the girl when a man had to ask for his hand. This happened especially to protect her daughter and take care of her if the marriage were to end without heirs. Ruth`s family had probably asked for the same payment even before the marriage to Naomi`s son was considered. Basically, Ruth turned her back not only to her old religion and her family, but also to the chance of financial stability, if she stayed with Naomi, who may have meant scrap metal. Unlike today`s agreements and contracts, the price of marriage was not intended to protect property or other financial assets, but was merely a means of caring for a woman who might never remarry. Now that so much importance is given to the protection of wealth, sometimes without realizing it, there is a change among those who are supposed to marry. Suddenly, there is a backup plan in case things don`t work out, or there`s a sense of shame and pain that comes with a partner who has no faith or trust in the other. He may doubt a possible marriage, even if it is proposed by family members out of concern. Most importantly, you are both ready to commit and trust each other. In most situations, one man and a woman who surrender to God and the other do not need a conjugal agreement.