A research project exploring what a biblical marriage contract should look like — one that takes seriously both the covenantal nature of marriage and the justice God requires when that covenant is broken.
---
Modern no-fault divorce law severs the link between cause and consequence. A spouse can abandon, commit adultery, or otherwise violate the marriage covenant and face no asymmetric legal penalty for doing so. The innocent party bears the same procedural outcome as the guilty one.
This project argues that this is not merely a legal problem — it reflects a failure to take biblical justice seriously in the context of covenant. God's own covenants carry obligations, prohibitions, and remedies. A marriage between Christians should be no different.
The goal is not to presume failure or to treat marriage as a transaction. It is to make explicit what a covenant requires: fidelity to defined terms, accountability when those terms are violated, and a structured path toward reconciliation or, where necessary, just dissolution.
---
The contract is grounded in several convictions:
Marriage is a covenant, not a contract in the merely commercial sense. It mirrors God's covenantal dealings with His people (Eph. 5:31–32), and like those covenants, it is intended to be lifelong (Matt. 19:6) and not dissoluble at will — though Scripture does provide limited grounds for divorce (Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15).
Covenants have just terms. God's covenants with Israel included obligations, prohibitions, and consequences — including a certificate of divorce in the face of persistent spiritual adultery (Jer. 3:8). Justice is not opposed to covenant; it is internal to it.
Human sinfulness is a given. Writing explicit terms into a marriage covenant is not a lack of faith — it is a realistic accounting of the fall (Rom. 3:23). A contract that accounts for sin is more honest than one that pretends sin will not occur.
The church, not the state, is the primary jurisdiction. Disputes between believers should be handled within the body of Christ before any appeal to secular courts (1 Cor. 6:1–8). The contract structures that ecclesial process.
---
The current draft (in `drafts/`) follows this structure:
---
- The divorce exception clause (Matt. 19:9): The Greek porneia is translated "sexual immorality" — broader than adultery narrowly construed. The contract grounds divorce primarily here and in Pauline desertion (1 Cor. 7:15). Other violations trigger separation and remediation, not automatic divorce.
- Malachi 2:16 and the "God hates divorce" debate: The MT reading is disputed. Some scholars (e.g., Gordon Hugenberger) read it as "the man who hates and divorces" — placing the hatred on the husband, not on divorce per se. The point stands either way: divorce is not to be treated casually. The contract treats it as a last remedy, not a first.
- The Deuteronomy 24 question: The Mosaic allowance for divorce was, per Jesus, a concession to hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8), not a positive ideal. The contract does not replicate Mosaic law directly but draws on it to establish that covenants can include formal dissolution provisions without being unbiblical in principle.
- 1 Corinthians 7 and mutual authority over the body (vv. 3–5): The contract's treatment of "mutual sexual congress" as a benefit and implicit obligation follows Paul directly. Both parties have claim on one another. Persistent unilateral deprivation is a violation of the covenant terms.
- The church discipline process (Matt. 18:15–17): The appeals structure maps directly onto Jesus' prescription. The contract operationalizes what the church is supposed to do anyway — making the ecclesial process explicit rather than leaving it undefined.
- Complementarity and headship: The contract reflects a complementarian anthropology. The husband bears primary responsibility for provision (1 Tim. 5:8) and headship (Eph. 5:23); the wife's role is described in part through Titus 2:4–5. This is not an incidental feature — it shapes how the benefits and prohibitions are distributed. Any revision should engage this directly rather than quietly flattening it.
- Retributive justice vs. restorative justice: The project is explicitly oriented toward retributive justice as a component of a biblical framework, not merely restorative justice. This is defensible — God's justice is genuinely retributive (Deut. 32:41; Rom. 12:19). The risk is overcorrecting into a framework that functions primarily as leverage rather than covenant. Remedies should remain ordered toward reconciliation where possible (the draft does this, with reconciliation as the first remedy). See issue #3.
- What counts as "abandonment": The draft includes filing for divorce as abandonment. This is worth examining carefully — it has the effect of making the contract self-sealing in a way that may be difficult to apply justly. A spouse filing for divorce on legitimate grounds (e.g., post-adultery) should not simultaneously be penalized for abandonment. See issue #2.
- The recovery phrase question: The draft does not address what happens if one party was not a genuine believer at the time of signing. The Pauline privilege (1 Cor. 7:15) addresses desertion by an unbeliever — but if someone professed faith falsely or apostatizes after marriage, the jurisdictional framework (church panel, ecclesial process) partially breaks down. Worth anticipating.
- Enforceability varies by jurisdiction. In most U.S. states, prenuptial agreements must meet standard criteria to be enforceable: full disclosure, independent legal counsel, voluntary execution, and no unconscionability. A religiously-framed contract that attempts to govern property division and custody may be enforceable on its financial terms but not on its religious dispute-resolution process (First Amendment establishment concerns in state courts).
- California specifically (implied by the draft's mention of community property): California is a community property state. Property acquired during marriage is presumptively split 50/50. A prenuptial agreement can contract around this, but it must satisfy California Family Code § 721 requirements for fiduciary duty and full disclosure. The contract should probably be explicit that it functions as a prenuptial agreement under applicable state law in addition to its covenantal character.
- Arbitration clauses and church panels: Some jurisdictions allow religious arbitration clauses in contracts (analogous to commercial arbitration under the FAA). If the church panel is constituted as a binding arbitration mechanism with explicit consent of both parties, its decisions may be enforceable in civil court on financial matters. This is underexplored and worth researching further.
- Child custody: No private contract can override a court's authority to act in the best interests of the child. Custody provisions in the contract may express intentions and theological convictions, but they will not be enforceable as written if contested in family court. See issue #4.
- Abortion clause: The prohibition on abortion is ethically grounded but legally complex as a contract term. Post-Dobbs, state-by-state enforceability is uncertain, and the question of what "remedy" applies to a prohibited abortion is thorny. Worth considering how this is framed.
---
drafts/ First draft of the contract (Markdown)
research/ Reference materials
references/ Source documents by category (Scripture, Puritans, Church Fathers, forums/articles, templates)
*.pdf Sample existing marriage contracts
---
The project draws on:
- Scripture — primary authority throughout
- Church Fathers — Augustine (On the Good of Marriage), Chrysostom (Homilies on Ephesians), Tertullian (To His Wife)
- Puritan writers — William Perkins, John Milton's divorce tracts (Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, Tetrachordon, Colasterion, The Judgment of Martin Bucer)
- Existing marriage contract templates — for structural reference
- Forum and article discussion — for contemporary Reformed and evangelical engagement with the topic
---
This is an active research project. The first draft is written and annotated. Open questions remain on several fronts — see the considerations above and the open issues.
Contributions, critiques, and biblical counterarguments are welcome.