Degrees of consanguinity

***greenbaggins*** · #1 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:11 AM

I have been thinking about this topic, since I have a brief introduction to the seventh commandment that I am doing tomorrow. I would like to put forward my thoughts on Leviticus 18 with regard to one specific issue: what effect does death have on consanguinity? What I mean is this: verse 18 of the chapter seems to me to imply rather strongly that a man, while he may not marry two sisters at the same time, may in fact marry the sister of his wife, if his wife dies. This would also seem to apply to other relations, such as uncle and aunt by marriage. All would probably agree that blood-related aunt/uncle-to-nephew/niece relationships would be forbidden. However, if the marriage relationship is cut off by death, what effect would that have on in-law aunt/uncle-to-nephew/niece relationships? It would seem to me that if a man may marry his wife's sister after his first wife is dead, then any more remote relationships would be possible on his wife's side as well.

There are two reasons I am asking this question. One is that the original WCF said that a man may not marry any of his wife's kindred that he could not marry on his own side. In other words, it asserted that consanguinity applied equally to both sides of the family, even after death has severed the marriage bond. The revision of the WCF does not have this.

The second reason I am asking this is that I would like to know what the modern laws of the state are on consanguinity. Fred or another lawyer?

OPC'n · #2 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:18 AM

All I can say is I'm glad we don't have to keep the land in the family anymore!

Jimmy the Greek · #3 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:26 AM

Consanguinity has to do with just that -- blood relation. In-laws are related by "affinity" not consanguinity. I would be surprised if state marriage laws forbid anything but certain degrees of blood relation.

***fredtgreco*** · #4 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:57 AM

Jim is right about the technical terms. Also note then that the Confession does not just deal with consanguinity, but affinity:

Quote:

Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.

So that would seem to answer Lane's OP. What the Bible has to say about affinity is on point, not just about consanguinity.

Lawyer's advice: always be careful to read carefully, and never generalize or summarize.

***greenbaggins*** · #5 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:59 AM

Okay, so what, in your opinion, are the degrees of affinity forbidden by Scripture? Are they the same as for consanguinity regardless of the death of a spouse?

***fredtgreco*** · #6 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 11:01 AM

By the way, in case anyone is interested, Ohio law at least makes the distinction between consanguinity and affinity:

Lawriter - ORC - CHAPTER 2919: OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY

Also, here is a Massachusetts case that describes the state of law in the several States regarding affinity and incest.

Jimmy the Greek · #7 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 11:17 AM

WCF 24.4
"Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own."

Lane. I take it that the last statement (italicized) is what was removed be revision. What revision was this? Interestingly, this sentence is not found in the corresponding LBCF section either.

I don't recall off-hand Scripture forbidding what this subject "statement" addresses. But I haven't looked specifically.

SolaScriptura · #8 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 12:22 PM

Fortunately for me I don't have to worry about sinning against Lev 18 or the WCF in this regard... if my wife dies... I'd rather live as a celebate hermit than marry any of the females on either her side or mine.

Brian Withnell · #9 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

WCF 24.4
"Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own."

Lane. I take it that the last statement (italicized) is what was removed be revision. What revision was this? Interestingly, this sentence is not found in the corresponding LBCF section either.

I don't recall off-hand Scripture forbidding what this subject "statement" addresses. But I haven't looked specifically.

If my sources are correct (the OPC website) the differences are prior to 1900 and generally are the "American" version (revised to fit the spheres of authority of the civil magistrate and the church.) Seems to me that this fits what ought to be stated ... what the Bible prohibits is not to be done. It would seem the deletion is specific to eliminating anything the scripture does not. As such, I would think that unless the Bible says "no" explicitly, the rule for this would be if it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. From what I have read, the scripture has no prohibition once a spouse dies to marriage to any relative of "in-laws". It never really became an issue for me ... while I was widowed, I never thought of marriage with any of my first wife's relatives as even a possibility (I got the best of the lot in both that family, and my present wife's family!)

**armourbearer** · #10 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 07:29 PM

Peter Wallace's Dissertation on the Old School Presbyterian Church has a useful section on how this issue was treated when it came up for discussion in the 1840s.

It may be of interest to note that the Lev. 18 passage was not dealt with as if it had no morally binding force, but was regarded as perpetual in the light of its international relevance taught in verse 24, "for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you." If the traditional interpretation of the passage is received, and it is regarded as referring to the situation where the spouse is deceased, then there is no moral reason for laying aside the confession's biblical teaching on affinity.

TimV · #11 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

international relevance taught in verse 24, "for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you

Great point, thanks.

***NaphtaliPress*** · #12 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 07:42 PM

As far as American changes to WCF 24, I have the following notes.
This chapter was completely rewritten by the PCUS (1963) and the PCUSA/UP† (1953/1958). Both versions appear in BOFC. †Only Plan of Union for 1956 has the rewritten chapter.
The last sentence of 24.4 which is "The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own" was deleted as follows: †ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA (1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886). RPCNA rejects the last sentence of the paragraph as well (Testimony, 24.21-22).

Brian Withnell · #13 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

As far as American changes to WCF 24, I have the following notes.
This chapter was completely rewritten by the PCUS (1963) and the PCUSA/UP† (1953/1958). Both versions appear in BOFC. †Only Plan of Union for 1956 has the rewritten chapter.
The last sentence of 24.4 which is "The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own" was deleted as follows: †ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA (1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886). RPCNA rejects the last sentence of the paragraph as well (Testimony, 24.21-22).

Just a note on the OPC that is of at least some concern ... the OPC came into existence in 1936, so the "deletion" in 1936 by the OPC was just affirming what had happened in the church in 1886 and carrying it forward to the new denomination.

***NaphtaliPress*** · #14 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 08:42 PM

The OPC did review and did not adopt all the 1903 changes; so there was a review process. If you prefer "retained the deletion by the PCUSA" that's fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

As far as American changes to WCF 24, I have the following notes.
This chapter was completely rewritten by the PCUS (1963) and the PCUSA/UP† (1953/1958). Both versions appear in BOFC. †Only Plan of Union for 1956 has the rewritten chapter.
The last sentence of 24.4 which is "The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own" was deleted as follows: †ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA (1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886). RPCNA rejects the last sentence of the paragraph as well (Testimony, 24.21-22).

Just a note on the OPC that is of at least some concern ... the OPC came into existence in 1936, so the "deletion" in 1936 by the OPC was just affirming what had happened in the church in 1886 and carrying it forward to the new denomination.

Ivan · #15 (**permalink**) 03-22-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Fortunately for me I don't have to worry about sinning against Lev 18 or the WCF in this regard... if my wife dies... I'd rather live as a celebate hermit than marry any of the females on either her side or mine.

I can't in my wildest imagination seeing me ever having the least degree of interest in any female on my wife's side of the family or mine.

***greenbaggins*** · #16 (**permalink**) 03-25-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Peter Wallace's Dissertation on the Old School Presbyterian Church has a useful section on how this issue was treated when it came up for discussion in the 1840s.

It may be of interest to note that the Lev. 18 passage was not dealt with as if it had no morally binding force, but was regarded as perpetual in the light of its international relevance taught in verse 24, "for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you." If the traditional interpretation of the passage is received, and it is regarded as referring to the situation where the spouse is deceased, then there is no moral reason for laying aside the confession's biblical teaching on affinity.

I have no reason to say that this passage is not binding on us, as I certainly interpret it as an exposition of the seventh commandment. However, the specific exegetical question I have is whether, if the spouse dies, the marriage relationship then being dissolved, whether the brother in law or sister in law is still legally considered to be brother in law or sister in law. A further question would be this: what about levirate marriage in relation to this? Is levirate marriage limited in the OT only to childless couples where the male dies? It would seem to me that the necessity of raising up children should not trump the seventh commandment. In other words, levirate marriage would seem to indicate that if the husband dies without offspring, then the brother of the husband should raise up offspring for his dead brother, and that the previous marriage being dissolved, there is nothing in the way for a marriage between the widow and her ex-brother-in-law. The end does not justify the means. So, if the brother of the dead husband is still a brother to the widow, then there would be a contradiction between levirate marriage and the seventh commandment.