Does Genesis 2:24 mean a man should never see his parents after marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bettyg51
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bettyg51

Guest
Does Genesis 2:24 mean a man should never see his parents again after marriage?

Genesis 2:24 says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”
My friend’s daughter in law refuses to let her husband see his family because she interprets Genesis 2:24 very literally. My friend is heartbroken and I hurt with her. She hasn’t seen her son in three years. Before that, it was five years. It is not a matter of distance separating them. Her son is a fallen away Catholic because of the priest scandal. His wife is Protestant and thinks it is OK for her to see her parents because scripture says only the man leaves his family, not the wife.

I don’t see this anywhere in the marriage vows. I think this akin to a secret vow that would make the marriage invalid. I have never heard of such an interpretation. I think it means a man should have a separate living space and not have divided loyalty, but does not mean actual physical separation. I am trying to think of some Scripture verses to counteract Gen 2:24.
1 Tim 5:8 “And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Eph 6:1-3 "Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother.” This is the first commandment with a promise, 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth.” This is one of the 10 Commandments, but the wife thinks it only applies to minor children.
EPH 5:21 “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.”
Can you think of any other than these?
 
Genesis 2:24 refers to the faithfulness of marriage in giving birth to offspring.
 
bettyg51 said:
Does Genesis 2:24 mean a man should never see his parents again after marriage?

Genesis 2:24 says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”
My friend’s daughter in law refuses to let her husband see his family because she interprets Genesis 2:24 very literally. My friend is heartbroken and I hurt with her. She hasn’t seen her son in three years. Before that, it was five years. It is not a matter of distance separating them. Her son is a fallen away Catholic because of the priest scandal. His wife is Protestant and thinks it is OK for her to see her parents because scripture says only the man leaves his family, not the wife.

I don’t see this anywhere in the marriage vows. I think this akin to a secret vow that would make the marriage invalid. I have never heard of such an interpretation. I think it means a man should have a separate living space and not have divided loyalty, but does not mean actual physical separation. I am trying to think of some Scripture verses to counteract Gen 2:24.
1 Tim 5:8 “And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Eph 6:1-3 "Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother.” This is the first commandment with a promise, 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth.” This is one of the 10 Commandments, but the wife thinks it only applies to minor children.
EPH 5:21 “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.”
Can you think of any other than these?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that interpretation from? it is generally viewed and meant that the man’s loyalty is with his wife and not back with his parents. His new and first priority is with his new family.
 
I think this is why St. Peter told Christian not to use their private interpretation when reading the Holy Scriptures.

It sounds to me like your friend can’t solve this with Bible verses. Her best hope is prayer. Her second-best hope is probably having her husband drive over their to give his son a reeming out for being such a terrible son. Maybe guilt will finally make his tell his wife that her ideas are crazy.
 
bettyg51 said:
Does Genesis 2:24 mean a man should never see his parents again after marriage?

Genesis 2:24 says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”
My friend’s daughter in law refuses to let her husband see his family because she interprets Genesis 2:24 very literally. My friend is heartbroken and I hurt with her. She hasn’t seen her son in three years. Before that, it was five years. It is not a matter of distance separating them. Her son is a fallen away Catholic because of the priest scandal. His wife is Protestant and thinks it is OK for her to see her parents because scripture says only the man leaves his family, not the wife.

I don’t see this anywhere in the marriage vows. I think this akin to a secret vow that would make the marriage invalid. I have never heard of such an interpretation. I think it means a man should have a separate living space and not have divided loyalty, but does not mean actual physical separation. I am trying to think of some Scripture verses to counteract Gen 2:24.
1 Tim 5:8 “And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Eph 6:1-3 "Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother.” This is the first commandment with a promise, 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth.” This is one of the 10 Commandments, but the wife thinks it only applies to minor children.
EPH 5:21 “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.”
Can you think of any other than these?
Click to expand...
I think maybe the DIL is controlling and manipulative and just doesn’t WANT him to see his family. I also think that the son is pretty wimpy to let his wife tell him he can’t see his family. If she’s that literal (and actually, there’s nothing to say never see your parents again so literal is being very generous to her) she should make herself subject to her husband. She’s a silly girl and he’s a silly boy for listening to her.
 
That is insane! :eek:

Just when I think I’ve heard everything…

How sad. Of course that is not at all the interpretation of Genesis 2:24. It is quite easy to dispute seeing as how no one in the history of Christianity or Judaism has ever taught something so ridiculous. Even a few short chapters later in Genesis, we see Noah getting on board the ark with his three sons and their wives. If they were violating this scriptural rule, I would think God would have pointed it out and told Noah his sons were not allowed on the Ark. Instead, God explicitly told Noah to bring them (Genesis 6:18).

It’s very sad that someone would misuse Scripture in order to manipulate her family. And that her husband would go along with it. 😦
 
Oh boy, were my perents in trouble! They lived, for awile, with both sets of perents.😃
 
daeve said:
I think maybe the DIL is controlling and manipulative and just doesn’t WANT him to see his family. I also think that the son is pretty wimpy to let his wife tell him he can’t see his family. If she’s that literal (and actually, there’s nothing to say never see your parents again so literal is being very generous to her) she should make herself subject to her husband. She’s a silly girl and he’s a silly boy for listening to her.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is not an interpretation read out of the text, but a preconception read into it. It is also a bad sign for the relationship.
 
It actually refers to the then practice of women leaving their families to live with the husband’s, as in the book of Tobit. The Israelites thought that in a more perfect time, it was the other way around. It is actually about the relationship between a couple, that they are one flesh, it never suggested or supported the idea of a man being forbidden to see his family.

It sounds like your friend’s daughter-in-law is using this verse as an excuse to have her husband all to herself. I don’t know if it is a jealousy-possessive thing, a dislike of her in-laws (perhaps because they’re Catholics) or a desire to stop her husband returning to the “evil” Catholic Church. Whatever the reason, this is domestic abuse, imagine if a man did that to a woman, he’d be vilified by anyone who heard about it.

If this woman wants to live by all Old Testament verses, does she avoid sitting on seats during her menstrual period because then she’d make them “unclean”? Does she get up before dawn and retire late, working at the spinning, sewing, planting etc?

Perhaps your friend could visit her son at work and explain that her DIL has the verse wrong and that if anything it should mean that the wife doesn’t get to see her family. I wonder how important the verse would be then?

Ultimately, this is an abusive relationship. In the long term, unless the wife’s attitude and behaviour change, he needs to get out. Hopefully, re-establishing contact with his family will help that process.

Your friend could contact a charity that helps victims of spousal abuse for advice and information to help her help her son.

I’ll be praying for your friend and her son.

God bless.
 
daeve said:
I think maybe the DIL is controlling and manipulative and just doesn’t WANT him to see his family. I also think that the son is pretty wimpy to let his wife tell him he can’t see his family. If she’s that literal (and actually, there’s nothing to say never see your parents again so literal is being very generous to her) she should make herself subject to her husband. She’s a silly girl and he’s a silly boy for listening to her.
Click to expand...
To label a man in this situation as “wimpy” and a “silly boy” is the kind of language that makes it so hard for men who are the victims of this kind of abuse to get help. Most of us wouldn’t label a women in an abusive relationship as a “silly girl” for getting into the relationship or letting the abuse take place.

Men in our society are taught to be caring and protective towards a woman, they’re taught that they should do all they can to make her happy. There is also the fact that many men (not necessarily in this case) are attracted to women who are like their mothers. If they had a controlling mother then they end up with a controlling wife and can be abused in such a relationship.

Whatever the labels we apply, these are cases of spousal abuse. It doesn’t matter whether the abuse is mental, physical or psychological, as this case seems to be. Whether it is a man or a woman, who is being controlled, they need help and sympathy to escape the relationship, not ridicule.
 
starsmurf said:
To label a man in this situation as “wimpy” and a “silly boy” is the kind of language that makes it so hard for men who are the victims of this kind of abuse to get help. Most of us wouldn’t label a women in an abusive relationship as a “silly girl” for getting into the relationship or letting the abuse take place.
Click to expand...
You are presuming, however, that it is an abusive relationship, i.e. that he is a victim of abuse perpetrated by her, rather than a victim of his own foolishly-excessive compliance. Such a presumption is not clearly warranted by the very limited information in the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top