4. 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 …
*h = Lev. 18:6–17, 24–30. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.… Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev. 20:19. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
Notice that it is the case law to which the Westminster Divines appeal in order to support prohibition against incestuous marriage. Now, according to R2Kt and the Klinean intrusion ethic principle the idea that God’s law should be applied to public policy regarding consanguinity and marriage is a improper hermeneutical move on the part of both the Westminster divines and on the part of those who would do the same today. If R2Kt aficionados were consistent they would take exceptions to WCF 24:5 when ordained or would report back to their Presbyterys that they can no longer, in good conscience, support WCF 24:5.
WCF 24:6 makes this move again when it cites the case law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as procedurally binding in cases of divorce.
