# WCF XXIV.4 and marriage within consanguinity



## cultureshock (Apr 7, 2005)

Dear friends, as I am studying through the WCF, I am trying to test each point of doctrine to see whether it holds water, biblically. Can someone help me out with the issue of marriage between close relations under the new covenant (see WCF XXIV.4)? The issues in the proof-texts seem to refer to cases of adultery rather than merely relations between close relatives.

I guess this question is sort of related to some of the issues raised by New Covenant Theology regarding what parts of the Old Covenant law continue. Should we say that the prohibition against marriage between close relatives is moral law? It would not seem so, since Cain and Seth probably didn't have much choice.

Any assistance on this matter would be gladly appreciated.

Brian


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> Dear friends, as I am studying through the WCF, I am trying to test each point of doctrine to see whether it holds water, biblically. Can someone help me out with the issue of marriage between close relations under the new covenant (see WCF XXIV.4)? The issues in the proof-texts seem to refer to cases of adultery rather than merely relations between close relatives.
> 
> I guess this question is sort of related to some of the issues raised by New Covenant Theology regarding what parts of the Old Covenant law continue. Should we say that the prohibition against marriage between close relatives is moral law? It would not seem so, since Cain and Seth probably didn't have much choice.
> ...



Adultery is certainly forbidden. But when Paul condemns the man who is engaging in sexual sin with his (step?)mother, he is looking back at the Levitical laws of Lev. 18. Those DO refer to improper sexual relations, but we have to remember also that marriage is a de facto idea in those regulations. The Israelites were simply forbidden to have sex outside of marriage. So Leviticus 18 (and, therefore, Paul) are thinking about unlawful marriages (and their consummation).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 8, 2005)

> IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word [h]. 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 [ i]. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own [k].
> 
> [h] (Lev. 18) 1 Cor. 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. Amos 2:7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name.
> 
> ...



In studying the proof texts given for this section of the Confession, I do not see adultery _per se_ as the primary concern of the prohibitions. I do believe the prohibitions against marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity are reflections of the moral law of God, however, ie., the Seventh Commandment. Not all unnatural sexual relations are necessarily adultery, though all such do contravene the holy institution of marriage. It is helpful to compare this section of the Confession with the treatment of the Seventh Commandment in the Westminster Larger Catechism. Virtually the same texts are used to show that the Seventh Commandment prohibits "dispensing with unlawful marriages." 

This issue was of importance to the Reformers because Rome made a point of dispensing with unlawful incestuous marriages (witness the situation with King Henry VIII, which ended up leading to the Church of England, and the Council of Trent, which specifically said that any who deny the Church's right to dispense with marriages prohibited by Leviticus should be "Anathema, and accursed" -- see David Dickson's comments on this subject in his _Truth's Victory of Error_, the first commentary on the Westminster Confession ever published). 

It is also interesting to see how this issue was signficant even in the New Testament (it lead to the death of John the Baptist when he accused Herod of sin in taking his brother's wife) (Mark 6.18).

As for the situation with Cain and Seth, it is important to remember that although the Seventh Commandment is indeed part of God's eternal moral law, divorce was also permitted in the Old Testament, and polygamy was tolerated. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts, the Lord says (cf. Mat. 19). I think it is reasonable to say that in the beginning of the world, before the Levitical laws were given, it was permissable for Cain and Seth to marry within the degrees of consanguinity and affinity that are forbidden to us today. I do not see this as undermining the prohibition given by the Lord through Moses, much as I do not see divorce or polygamy in the OT as undermining what the Lord Jesus said about marriage in Matthew 19. As society grew, consanguinity and affinity began to be an issue with respect to marriage. The NT refers to such prohibitions in more than one place and does so to reaffirm their continuing validity. Thus, I concur with the Westminster Divines that these prohibitions continue to bind us today. We are instructed to honor the holy institution of marriage not only in terms of "one man and one woman," but also with respect to the avoidance of incestuous relationships. 

There is a growing movement to overturn such prohibitions in America today. Just this week, CNN reported on this. We need to turn back to God's Word for guidance, because, as the WCF affirms, such marriages can "[n]ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties."

[Edited on 4-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------

