Westminster Confession - Chapter XXIV, Section IV. - Kindred

[Grant]

Currently my family would say that we subscribe to the Original 1647 Westminster Standards without exceptions. As a family, we have been very slowly reading Van Dixhoorn's devotional style book on the confession. Mr. Van Dixhoorn pulls no punches when it comes to stating his disagreements with the original. This evening we entered into Chapter 24 of the confession and it sparked some good discussion between my wife and I regarding lawful/unlawful & just plain awful (joking) marriages.

Specifically this section:

4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word;a 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.b 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.

a. Lev 18 throughout; Amos 2:7; 1 Cor 5:1. • b. Lev 18:24-28; Mark 6:18. • c. Lev 20:19-21.

How would the Westminster divines have understood the phrase "nearer in blood than he/she may of his/her own"? In other words, how close was too close regarding kinship? Just looking for some clarity.

1. The Westminster stance would seem to state that if I were to die, that my wife would be in sin if she were to marry one of my younger unmarried brothers, correct?

2. Would this reasoning from Westminster prohibit a Son from Marrying his Step-Sister?

3. Any extra reading recommendations on Westminster's phrasing here?

P.S. This really has no baring on the relationship of my wife and I as we in no way by blood nor marriage "kindred" beyond out current husband -wife relationship.

 

[W.C. Dean]

You have located one of the controversy stirring passages in the 1647 WCF! That phrase was removed from later revisions of the document. I have not studied it as much as I should but from what I remember it bar your wife from marrying one of your brothers. Actually I believe this is what caused Stonewall Jackson to be prevented from marrying his late wife's sister, who he loved dearly.

 

[Grant]

You have located one of the controversy stirring passages in the 1647 WCF! That phrase was removed from later revisions of the document. I have not studied it as much as I should but from what I remember it bar your wife from marrying one of your brothers. Actually I believe this is what caused Stonewall Jackson to be prevented from marrying his late wife's sister, who he loved dearly.

Right. I understand there have been revisions, but I'm wanting to try and understand the 1647 position better to find, if in fact, I would need to take a personal exception. Van Dixhoorn, to put it briefly, would seem to blame historical context for what he sees as a big error in the 1647 on this point.

 

[brendanchatt]

I don't understand in relation to Deuteronomy 25:5, if I'm understanding you right.

 

[W.C. Dean]

I don't understand in relation to Deuteronomy 25:5, if I'm understanding you right.

I believe the doctrine comes from the texts of Leviticus primarily. See Leviticus 20:21. I suppose a defence of the doctrine would come from a comparison of Leviticus 20 to Deuteronomy 25.

 

[Grant]

I don't understand in relation to Deuteronomy 25:5, if I'm understanding you right.

Yes, I am familiar with that passage, which would seem to contradict the Original Westminster on this point.

 

[timfost]

Currently my family would say that we subscribe to the Original 1647 Westminster Standards without exceptions. As a family, we have been very slowly reading Van Dixhoorn's devotional style book on the confession. Mr. Van Dixhoorn pulls no punches when it comes to stating his disagreements with the original. This evening we entered into Chapter 24 of the confession and it sparked some good discussion between my wife and I regarding lawful/unlawful & just plain awful (joking) marriages.

Specifically this section:



How would the Westminster divines have understood the phrase "nearer in blood than he/she may of his/her own"? In other words, how close was too close regarding kinship? Just looking for some clarity.

1. The Westminster stance would seem to state that if I were to die, that my wife would be in sin if she were to marry one of my younger unmarried brothers, correct?

2. Would this reasoning from Westminster prohibit a Son from Marrying his Step-Sister?

3. Any extra reading recommendations on Westminster's phrasing here?

P.S. This really has no baring on the relationship of my wife and I as we in no way by blood nor marriage "kindred" beyond out current husband -wife relationship.

I asked a similar question years back to which Rev. Bruce gave an insightful answer. I'm sure you will find it helpful.

Marriage laws

Hi all, Tried looking up past threads on this subject and had trouble getting answers... I'm at a loss at what to think concerning WCF 24:4: 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...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[py3ak]

It would rule out anyone more closely related than a cousin -- sister, aunt, niece.

There is one book on the subject: James Gibson, Marriage Affinity Question.

There is also a short article on the subject.

I have not researched the issue, but it is interesting that this was one of the American revisions. One wonders if the constraints of living in remote settlements had as much to do with the revision as the outbreaking of new light on the Scriptures.

 

[Ben Zartman]

In light of all this, was it absolutely, morally reprehensible for Abraham to marry his half-sister? It must have been fine for brothers to marry sisters back in the days of Cain and Seth, or the mandate to be fruitful and all that would have been contradictory. Does morality change with the age? I've often wondered.

 

[Logan]

I've looked at this briefly off and on over the years and never came to a firm conclusion. But it does seem that the Westminster Assembly, being called by the civil government, would have been somewhat constrained by the civil laws of their time as well.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I have not researched the issue, but it is interesting that this was one of the American revisions. One wonders if the constraints of living in remote settlements had as much to do with the revision as the outbreaking of new light on the Scriptures.

This was one of the changes in 1886 in both the PCUSA and PCUS. So I don't think it relates to Westward expansion. Barry Waugh's dissertation is on the subject of this change to the CF (he agrees with the change). As a late change I'm skeptical (if it was good in 1788 what was different in 1886?) but haven't read the dissertation.

 

[Grant]

I asked a similar question years back to which Rev. Bruce gave an insightful answer. I'm sure you will find it helpful.

Marriage laws

Hi all, Tried looking up past threads on this subject and had trouble getting answers... I'm at a loss at what to think concerning WCF 24:4: 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...

www.puritanboard.com

Thanks Tim. Very helpful. So it seems Matthew Winzer would say that it would be sinful if there were already biological children present when a spouse passed, but that it would in fact be permissible if the union was childless at the time of death?

 

[Grant]

I've looked at this briefly off and on over the years and never came to a firm conclusion. But it does seem that the Westminster Assembly, being called by the civil government, would have been somewhat constrained by the civil laws of their time as well.

Does the RPCNA subscribe to the original standards? Would they allow exceptions here?

@TylerRay

Any insight?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Does the RPCNA subscribe to the original standards? Would they allow exceptions here?

@TylerRay

Any insight?

This is my note from a draft WCF I was working in back in 2003 (stalled and never progressed; I sent all the work files to PCA HC).
203. The last sentence deleted: †ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA
(1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886). See Appendix 5 on p. 225. RPCNA rejects
the last sentence of paragraph as well (Testimony, 24.21-22).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The last sentence in WCF 24.4 is often called the consanguinity clause.
The clause was omitted at adoption of or subsequently deleted from the standards
of the following churches: ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA
(1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886).
Dr. Robert Cara summarizes the arguments for and against the consanguinity
clause:
The last sentence in WCF 24.4 is often called the consanguinity clause.
The clause was omitted at adoption of or subsequently deleted from the standards
of the following churches: ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA
(1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886).
Dr. Robert Cara summarizes the arguments for and against the consanguinity
clause:12
The authors of the original Confession, as well as all Protestant and
Roman Catholic churches of the time, taught that incest included more
than one’s blood relatives (“consanguinity”); it also included one’s married
relatives (“affinity”).13 For example, if a woman’s husband died,
she could not marry the husband’s widowed father. The original Confession
cited Lev 20:19-21 as support.
Arguments against the disputed sentence might include: (1) it is not
clear that Lev 20:19-21 and 1 Cor 5:1 are forbidding intercourse for
these relatives within a second married situation, and (2) this OT legislation
is “civil” and does not apply today as it is related to large
extended families that lived in one dwelling. Clark, arguing against
the original Confession, states that the proof text (Lev 20:19-21) “does
not refer to a second marriage, but to fornication or adultery while the
couple are both living.”14 However, as most OT commentators agree,
Lev 18:6-8, 20:11-21, Deut 22:20 and 27:20-23 confirms the original
Confession.15 (The Leverite law is considered an exception.16) Wenham
well summarizes the issue in his discussion of Leviticus 18, “The basic
principles underlying the rules in vv. 6-8 are therefore clear: a man
may not marry any woman who is a close blood relation, or any
woman who has become a close relative through a previous marriage
to one of the man’s close blood relations.”17
The question then moves to whether the OT law on incest between relatives
by marriage is moral or civil. Those in favor of the original wording
note that 1 Cor 5:1 is a specific NT use of Lev 18:8, 20:11, Deut 22:30,
and 27:20, which forbade marriage to one’s step-mother, thus proving
that the OT legislation is still in force and, therefore, moral law.18
The expression from 1 Cor 5:1, “that a man has his father’s wife … is
considered by the vast majority of modern commentators, including
me, to refer to marrying one’s step-mother.19 As one can see from the
context of Lev 18:7-8, “father’s wife” is the expression for a step-mother
– i.e., as distinct from one’s “mother.”20 Paul’s Greek matches the same
expression used in the LXX Lev 18:8 for “father’s wife.” The 1 Cor 5:1
expression “to have” … in similar contexts is uniformly used in the NT
to refer to marriage.21 Therefore, I must conclude that, even for today,
incest extends to one’s close relatives by marriage, and the original
wording of the Confession is correct.22 However, I do see the prudence of
not including this disputed sentence in a church’s confession given the
disagreement of the brethren and the long history of opposition to it in
American Presbyterianism.23
----------------
12. Professor Robert Cara, “The Unique Aspects of the Current ARP Confession
as Compared to the 1647 Original, the PCA and EPC Versions: An Enumeration
and Evaluation. DRAFT” (Manuscript, July 1997) 15-18. Cited with
Permission.
13. Dr. Cara notes: “The Roman Catholic church still teaches this; see Catechism
of the Catholic Church, 2388. The Rabbis had the same view; see m. Sanh.
7:4.”
14. “Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? The Westminster Confession:
Yesterday and Today (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965) 216. G. I. Williamson disagrees
with Clark and states that the original Confession is correct (The Westminster Confession
of Faith for Study Classes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964] 184).
15. “Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979) 253-58, 280; C. F. Keil, The Pentateuch (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)
2.412-16; Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS,
1989) 119-20, 139; John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Waco, 1992) 284-91, 293-
95. Andrew Bonar defends the moral character of these laws by noting 1 Cor 5:1 and
the Canaanites are condemned for violating them in Lev 18:24-25 (A Commentary on
Leviticus [Geneva Series; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1966] 330-31). John Calvin also has
a detailed argument in favor of these laws being moral (Commentaries on the Four Last
Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony [trans. Charles W. Bingham; Calvin
Commentaries, vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979] 98-104. The critical scholar Erhard
S. Gertstenberger implies these laws only relate to “promiscuous relations” and not
marriage (Leviticus: A Commentary, [OTL; Louisville: WJKP, 1966] 249).
16. “The Leverite law (Deut 25:5-10) is considered an exception due to the gravity
of not having an heir for the land. See John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of
Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 250-56 and Kiel, Pentateuch, 2.415.
17. “Wenham, Leviticus, 255.
18. “For the best defense of the original wording, see Murray, Principles of Conduct,
49-55, 250-58. It is noted that 1 Cor 5:13 quotes Deut 17:7. In Cor 5:13, moral
aspects of the OT law are used but the physical death penalty is altered to a spiritual
“death” penalty.
19. “See J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (J. B. Lightfoot’s Commentary
on the Epistles of Paul; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995) 202-3; Charles Hodge,
A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (2 vols.; Geneva Series; Carlisle: Banner of
Truth, 1974) 1.81-82; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC 7; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1968) 121; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 95-96; Ben Witherington, III, Conflict & Community
in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 156; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to
the Corinthians (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 200. Calvin also interprets
1 Cor 5:1 as referring to a step-mother but is not sure if the man is keeping
her as a prostitute or in a marriage (John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Corinthians [trans. John W. Fraser; Calvin Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1960] 104. Kistemaker also agrees to step-mother and I think he agrees
with me on the marriage issue (Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians [NTC; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993] 156).
20. “See Wenham, Leviticus, 254.
21. “Matt 14:4, 22:28, 1 Cor 7:2, 29.
22. “At least confessionally, the PCA and EPC have not explicitly stated that
the original wording is incorrect; they opted simply not to say. RPCNA explicitly
states in its 1980 Testimony that the original is incorrect.”
23. A. A. Hodge notes that attempts were made in 1826, 1827, 1843, 1845 and
1847 to eliminate this sentence (A Commentary on the Confession of Faith [Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869]
417).

 

[Grant]

It would rule out anyone more closely related than a cousin -- sister, aunt, niece.

There is one book on the subject: James Gibson, Marriage Affinity Question.

There is also a short article on the subject.

I have not researched the issue, but it is interesting that this was one of the American revisions. One wonders if the constraints of living in remote settlements had as much to do with the revision as the outbreaking of new light on the Scriptures.

Very helpful. A quote from the article you linked brought some clarity:

Deut. xxv. 5 there is an exception made in the case of a brother dying childless. Allusion is made to this exceptional case in one of the Parables of our Lord, in which seven brothers in succession are said to have been married to one woman. The design of the exception was to preserve the inheritance in Canaan in the family to which it was attached. But us the ground of the exception has passed away, the exception ceases, and the general law remains, that a man may not marry his brother's wife.

 

[Logan]

Does the RPCNA subscribe to the original standards? Would they allow exceptions here?

The RPCNA has a Testimony which is in some sense a commentary or expansion on the Confession, or an application to controversies not present at the time it was written. But it has (three, I think) places where it disagrees with the Confession, and this is one of them.

However, I would note that there are those in the RPCNA who subscribe to the original WCF, and it depends on the presbytery as to whether those...exceptions to the exceptions are allowed. I haven't heard of any issues with that, however.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The RPCI Testimony states that no disciplinary action will be taken against those entering into such marriages. I was never elected to office while I was in the RPCI, but this issue is one that would have been a stumbling-block for me. I could fully subscribe to the WCF, but not to the Testimony. Nowadays, I would have even more problems with the latter, which is partly why I am so opposed to the church issuing extra-confessional testimonies.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The RPCI Testimony states that no disciplinary action will be taken against those entering into such marriages. I was never elected to office while I was in the RPCI, but this issue is one that would have been a stumbling-block for me. I could fully subscribe to the WCF, but not to the Testimony. Nowadays, I would have even more problems with the latter, which is partly why I am so opposed to the church issuing extra-confessional testimonies.

I recall an exchange (a friendly one) I had with Ray Joseph who was touting the superiority of the RPCNA testimony approach of a parallel confessional testimony to actually adopting a new changed confession to reflect differences, as though the RP were somehow more faithful than those taking that route. Functionally, like for instance on the civil magistrate, the only difference between the RPCNA and PCUSA was the approach taken; they both reject establishment, the latter by changing that portion, and the former by in the testimony saying they reject everything after the colon. I don't see anything wrong per se with the approach, unless, and this was the vibe I was getting from Ray, that it seems to treat the WCF as some kind of sacrosanct document that can't be changed without somehow being charged with unfaithfulness (contrary to the actual confession that says confessions can err), because the words were actually changed rather than simply rejected or changed in the margin so to speak.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I recall an exchange (a friendly one) I had with Ray Joseph who was touting the superiority of the RPCNA testimony approach of a parallel confessional testimony to actually adopting a new changed confession to reflect differences, as though the RP were somehow more faithful than those taking that route. Functionally, like for instance on the civil magistrate, the only difference between the RPCNA and PCUSA was the approach taken; they both reject establishment, the latter by changing that portion, and the former by in the testimony saying they reject everything after the colon. I don't see anything wrong per se with the approach, unless, and this was the vibe I was getting from Ray, that it seems to treat the WCF as some kind of sacrosanct document that can't be changed without somehow being charged with unfaithfulness (contrary to the actual confession that says confessions can err), because the words were actually changed rather than simply rejected or changed in the margin so to speak.

I once asked an RPCI minister about the propriety of having a Testimony that was effectively above the Confession. He said that the Testimony was below the Confession because the Testimony was frequently changed whereas the Confession was not. In practice, however, the Testimony was above the Confession. If someone could subscribe to the WCF in full, but took exception to a badly written line in the Testimony (of which there are several) then I doubt that he would be ordained.

 

[timfost]

Thanks Tim. Very helpful. So it seems Matthew Winzer would say that it would be sinful if there were already biological children present when a spouse passed, but that it would in fact be permissible if the union was childless at the time of death?

I'm not exactly sure what his exact position is, though of course he subscribes to the original WCF.

BTW, nice fish!