1646 Westminster Confession on Marriage

[rlvaughn]

In another discussion the Westminster Confession chapter on marriage was brought up. I'm not conversant in the Westminster Confession, even though the 1689 London Baptist Confession follows it fairly closely. The following is from Chapter 24 Section IV:

IV. 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.

What does the last part (that I have bolded) mean?

Thanks.

 

[Reformed]

In another discussion the Westminster Confession chapter on marriage was brought up. I'm not conversant in the Westminster Confession, even though the 1689 London Baptist Confession follows it fairly closely. The following is from Chapter 24 Section IV:
What does the last part (that I have bolded) mean?

Thanks.

If I remember correctly "nearer in blood" means a wife's sister or a husband's brother. Levertite marriage is not a New Testament command.

 

[Jerome]

It's extending all the Law's incest prohibitions to the corresponding relatives of one's spouse.

 

[rlvaughn]

It's extending all the Law's incest prohibitions to the corresponding relatives of one's spouse.

That is how I take it as well, considering the proof text they give is related to one's own relatives rather than a spouse's relatives.

The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own...

So if a man's wife died, he could not marry her sister, which I'd guess was relatively common in the old days in the Southern U.S. I wonder if this idea has a long history in reformed tradition, either prior to or since the Westminster Confession?

 

[Jerome]

I wonder if this idea has a long history in reformed tradition, either prior to or since the Westminster Confession?

A dissertation that appears to address this is:

Barry Waugh, Westminster Seminary, 2002, "The history of a confessional sentence: the events leading up to the inclusion of the affinity sentence in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 24, section 4, and the judicial history contributing to its removal in the American Presbyterian Church: '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'"

 

[rsr]

You can trace it back to Calvin's Marriage Ordinance of 1546 in Geneva. As others have noted, it follows the Levitical law, particularly Leviticus 18.

John Witte Jr. treats the subject in an article for the Calvin Theological Journal:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUw-_9-fnVAhVLxlQKHRFhCGIQFggoMAA&url=http://www.johnwittejr.com/uploads/5/4/6/6/54662393/a140.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE_aY6i8w145rNUkYx0Fx_vooMh4g

 

[Reformed]

That is how I take it as well, considering the proof text they give is related to one's own relatives rather than a spouse's relatives.

So if a man's wife died, he could not marry her sister, which I'd guess was relatively common in the old days in the Southern U.S. I wonder if this idea has a long history in reformed tradition, either prior to or since the Westminster Confession?

Again, Leverite marriage was allowed in the Law of Moses, but it carried with it certain responsibilities; most notably to raise up heirs in the name of the deceased. Those responsibilities do not exist today.

 

[rlvaughn]

Again, Leverite marriage was allowed in the Law of Moses, but it carried with it certain responsibilities; most notably to raise up heirs in the name of the deceased. Those responsibilities do not exist today.

Sorry, Reformed. I was not ignoring you, but my thoughts at the moment just seemed appropriate to reply to Jerome's comment.

I agree with you that we are not under Levirate marriage in the church age/New Testament -- in fact, not under any of the law. On the other hand, I can't think of anything in the New Testament that would bar a man from marrying his deceased wife's sister or a woman marrying her deceased husband's brother. Do you think there is?

Thanks.

 

[rlvaughn]

You can trace it back to Calvin's Marriage Ordinance of 1546 in Geneva. As others have noted, it follows the Levitical law, particularly Leviticus 18.

John Witte Jr. treats the subject in an article for the Calvin Theological Journal...

Thanks! Haven't read the article yet. So are you, and Witte, thinking/saying that this probably originated with John Calvin?

 

[Reformed]

Sorry, Reformed. I was not ignoring you, but my thoughts at the moment just seemed appropriate to reply to Jerome's comment.

I agree with you that we are not under Levirate marriage in the church age/New Testament -- in fact, not under any of the law. On the other hand, I can't think of anything in the New Testament that would bar a man from marrying his deceased wife's sister or a woman marrying her deceased husband's brother. Do you think there is?

Thanks.

No worries. I am not able to read posts from that BB member, so I did not notice.

I do not believe Scripture prohibits that type of marriage, although I do question the wisdom of doing so.

As far as not being under any of the Law, I argue we are under the moral law of God, which predated the Mosaic Law (although it as codified in the Law). The moral law of God is the innate knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[rsr]

I wouldn't say that it was original with Calvin because it reflects the Levitical code, and Luther had adopted a similar line, although it wasn't codified. However, Geneva's is the earliest ordinance I have found so far that codifies the Levitical rules.

Zwingli's Zurich adopted a code in 1525 that reformed marriage arrangements, but it did not specify the degrees of consanguinity or affinity that were allowed. Perhaps the degrees were understood and did not need explanation, although that ordinance deals at length with other requirements.

 

[rsr]

Exercising my rights to extend and revise my remarks:

In 1533 Parliament passed legislation that essentially followed the Reformation strictures on consanguinity and affinity. Those strictures, conveniently, recognized that a man could not marry his brother's widow, a most convenient finding for a king who had cast aside his first wife and married another woman.

Those regulations (which I assume were in line with the beliefs of the Reformation-leaning Thomas Cromwell) were confirmed in 1540 and reconfirmed in 1558 (after Mary's reign had re-established canon law).

But even among Protestants it was not settled exactly which relationships made an invalid marriage. Calvin, for example, considered that the Levitical list was an example and that similar degrees of relationship were also forbidden even though not mentioned by name.

The Anglican church sought to remedy the confusion by publishing a table in the Book of Common Prayer, one that was much more extensive that you might think would be warranted by the Levitical code.

So, based upon that, I would suggest that there was a common understanding — though not in the details — among the Reformers that the canon law prohibitions went far beyond scripture; that the Puritans who inserted the marriage language in the Westminster Confession were aware both of the the former (and perhaps from Calvin's influence, which was stronger than any of the other Reformers) and the importance of denying the legitimacy of Mary, in order to maintain the Protestant Ascendancy; and that confession article was a way to poke a thumb in the eye of the Book of Common Prayer without being caught out in the process.