We have some points of agreement, but our biggest divergence seems to be your pragmatic view of how marriage interacts with the law (since the right of divorce is not in our favor, we need a written contract to circumvent it as much as possible) and my theological perspective of marriage, which says that we reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church. to trust the Lord, to preserve our marriage without the help of the state, and to trust his destiny, even if our spouses turn away from him. When all is said and done, the matrimonial agreement is a treaty that must be imposed by the state and not by God. But that is not the purpose of the book. The fact is that the standard for marriage has fallen so much in our society that it is practically new. In a joint marriage agreement, it basically says, “If it doesn`t work, I`ll take the marbles I came with and go home.” 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. Hartman is right that trust is an important issue for marital agreements. She writes: “One of the most common objections to Prenups is that they imply a lack of confidence. This is indeed true for a secular pre-eruption, but if we really understand the depravity of man, should we trust our fiancé? She further explains that our sin makes it difficult for someone to trust.
God being the only one we can fully trust, she believes that a conjugal agreement reminds us that God is the only one we trust. And while I`m presenting a legal document, prenup is a tool that achieves a number of things. The very definition of a conjugal arrangement comes to a meeting of spirits before marriage. Couples often marry and have polar differences in their conceptions of what their marriage will be. Do they even marry for the purpose of honoring God or having a marriage that produces the fruit of the Reich? In writing the agreement, my goal is that they take every aspect of life, discuss it, reproach God and ask for his leadership on this issue, and include a language that, as a couple, will help them honor God in all their conjugal activities. A marriage also involves divorce. In this scenario, divorce is an unfortunate possibility of the future, but it is a possibility. A couple who begin to prepare for the possibility of a divorce is heading to him. Why didn`t the couple sign a legal document for the children in case they murdered him? We would not do so, because murder is unthinkable or should be unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Unfortunately, divorce is too conceivable, even for those who marry in Christian churches. The real problem is your idea that there is a biblical mandate for a marriage agreement.
Please point out to me a passage from the writing that says this is the case. Even an inductive argument would work. There are many alliances between people that are described in the scriptures. Did God prescribe that they were written? I am not talking about the fact that God recorded them in the scriptures. Nor do I ask for God`s covenants with man. Perhaps the alliance between Jonatan and David or between Joshua and the Gibeonites could serve as a model. Both were verbal alliances. It is likely that both parties were not recorded in writing during their lifetime.