Judging these from two different points, single and married

If you are dating a lady and age depends on you for her maintenance, it's not a must you do it, if its convenient for you, you will do it for fear of not loosing her depending on the weight of love in the relationship

She looks up to you to take care of her because you are equally bedding her

From the point of marriage, the man is the Head of the family, that means he will be providing for the family but a good wife will contribute to support him

But bear in mind, once it happens that way, respect and appreciate the woman and you will see her do more of financial commitments

But if you don't appreciate her contribution, you might not be able to control her.

That's why you see some men are very scared of independent women, but those women that can't afford anything remains a wife slave to their husbands

But with love even the children won't know where the funds are coming from

If you want your wife to bear the cost of running your home be ready to play the fool that the price of not being able to do it yourself

frozen70:
Judging these from two different points, single and married

If you are dating a lady and age depends on you for her maintenance, it's not a must you do it, if its convenient for you, you will do it for fear of not loosing her depending on the weight of love in the relationship

She looks up to you to take care of her because you are equally bedding her

From the point of marriage, the man is the Head of the family, that means he will be providing for the family but a good wife will contribute to support him

But bear in mind, once it happens that way, respect and appreciate the woman and you will see her do more of financial commitments

But if you don't appreciate her contribution, you might not be able to control her.

That's why you see some men are very scared of independent women, but those women that can't afford anything remains a wife slave to their husbands

But with love even the children won't know where the funds are coming from

If you want your wife to bear the cost of running your home be ready to play the fool that the price of not being able to do it yourself

Woman. We are discussing scriptures and what GOD says not worldly ideology.
In the kingdom of GOD, there are peace, Love, humility and selflessness etc. So your own idea of slave/master relationship doesn't make sense to me. Since I have sanctified myself from the world, their philosophies are all aliens to me. Tough, I live in this world, I don't live for this world.

Obodo999:


Woman. We are discussing scriptures and what GOD says not worldly ideology.
In the kingdom of GOD, there are peace, Love, humility and selflessness etc. So your own idea of slave/master relationship doesn't make sense to me. Since I have sanctified myself from the world, their philosophies are all aliens to me. Tough, I live in this world, I don't live for this world.

What da hell
If you are discussing scriptures then go over to the religious section.
The question is clear and all inputs are welcomed.

JoannaSedley:
What da hell
If you are discussing scriptures then go over to the religious section.
The question is clear and all inputs are welcomed.

Being Godly and living the Heavenly life on earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion. I know you will never understand, so no point in arguing with you.

Obodo999:


Being Godly and living the Heavenly life on earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion. I know you will never understand, so no point in arguing with you.

You are not going to argue because you have nothing.

JoannaSedley:
What da hell
If you are discussing scriptures then go over to the religious section.
The question is clear and all inputs are welcomed.

True

Acidosis:


It is the duty of the man to provide for his family. Women don't approach men for marriage, so whoever is seeking the hand of the other should be prepared for the responsibility. Also, a woman saying yes I do to the man should be ready to carry out her biological, cultural and family roles.

There are roles and responsibilities, that's why He gave some womb and others testicles. If you don't understand your roles, you will fail.

This isn't so in the west yet there are successful marriages in the west, how to you explain that?

frozen70:
Judging these from two different points, single and married

If you are dating a lady and age depends on you for her maintenance, it's not a must you do it, if its convenient for you, you will do it for fear of not loosing her depending on the weight of love in the relationship

She looks up to you to take care of her because you are equally bedding her

From the point of marriage, the man is the Head of the family, that means he will be providing for the family but a good wife will contribute to support him

But bear in mind, once it happens that way, respect and appreciate the woman and you will see her do more of financial commitments

But if you don't appreciate her contribution, you might not be able to control her.

That's why you see some men are very scared of independent women, but those women that can't afford anything remains a wife slave to their husbands

But with love even the children won't know where the funds are coming from

If you want your wife to bear the cost of running your home be ready to play the fool that the price of not being able to do it yourself

You lack wisdom.

Elder0001:



This isn't so in the west yet there are successful marriages in the west, how to you explain that?

Success is relative. I don't envy many of the marriages you refer to as successful.

Elder0001:



You lack wisdom.

You that have wisdom, use it as you like

Acidosis:


Success is relative. I don't envy many of the marriages you refer to as successful.

Don't make your instincts or preference a generalization for everybody then.

Richhard:
Whose Responsibility Is It To Provide?

Relax and read this to the end, I bet you will learn something New.


The scripture below seems to be the anchor for this argument.

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” -1 Timothy 5:8 KJV


I want to shake some tables. I have read books; listened to messages from renowned pastors; all saying that it is the responsibility of the man to provide for the home and the usual anchor scripture is the one quoted above.


The effect of that message is that generations after generations of ladies have come to see themselves as the responsibility of the man.
It is classic conditioning at play. You hear something too often and you begin to believe it as truth.
Not long ago, I read a post where a lady was advising guys to go for ladies their size because you cannot expect a lady who has been using a very expensive body cream to lower her standard because you, the guy who is now dating her, cannot afford the class of body cream she was using.



As expected, most of the ladies who commented were in support. Ladies who have seen the four walls of a university. Ladies who should be able to apply logical thinking to spot the flaw in such a statement were all in agreement.



I have tried to look for the rational behind that post. A lady who, obviously, was buying her cream by herself, now has a guy who is interested in her, and suddenly the new guy has an added responsibility – to start buying her cream for her. How that makes any sense, I still cannot fathom.


Unfortunately, the story is not different all over the world. For some ladies, being in a relationship with you means you cater for all their personal needs.


The questions that beg answering are then,

1. Who was responsible for those needs before they met you?

2. What happened to the source of income that met those needs before they met you?

3. Why does all that have to stop just because they met you?

I don’t deny that the female gender is pleased when her man shows certain gestures like buying stuff for her. But surprising someone and taking responsibility for their needs when they are not handicapped are two different things.

Then you get into the marriage institution and you see the same mindset at play. It is the responsibility of the man to provide for the family.
“Says who?” You ask
“The Bible.” They answer.
“Where in the bible?”
“1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
But is that verse saying the male gender is responsible for providing for the home? Why don’t we back up a few verses before and read further a few verses after? Let’s say from verse 3 down to verse 16.


What you will find is a mentor, Apostle Paul, writing to his protegé, Timothy, instructing him on the subject of catering for widows, not on the subject of marriage.
He mentioned three categories of widows:


1. Widows indeed – elderly, no family members to cater for them.

2. Widows – elderly but with family members that can cater for them.

3. Younger widows – young, vibrant, with strong sexual desires, advised to remarry.

It was while addressing this subject of catering for these three different categories of widows that the verse of 1 Timothy 5:8 was sandwiched in the mix.
In that verse, Paul was specifically instructing Timothy that widows who still have family members around should not be a burden to the church.

That it is the responsibility of the family members of that widow to cater for her. For he (or she) who cannot (refuses to) provide for his (or her) own (widows in the family) has denied the faith.


Paul was not saying it is the responsibility of the man (male gender) to provide cooking money for the home. That was not the subject he was addressing. Unfortunately, that has become the twist we have given the verse.

There is nowhere in the bible where the male gender was given the responsibility of providing cooking money for the home.

The places where responsibilities ware meted out to the male, they were the responsibilities of;
1. Leadership. The man is the head of the woman.
2. Love & Protection. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself (died) for her.

Beyond those two, no other responsibility was given to the male gender.
In fact, when the wisest man who ever lived wrote about the virtuous woman, one of her qualities was rising up early to provide for the home.
Of course, that does not in any way imply that it is the responsibility of the woman to provide for the home. But the virtuous woman did that.
If providing for the needs of the home is not the responsibility of the man and not the responsibility of the woman, whose responsibility is it?.

This therefore calls for wisdom.
We must be mindful of taking cultural practices in the bible and turning them into doctrines. The bible contains both the word of God, the word of the devil, the words of angels and the words of men.
It is not anything that Israel practiced as a nation that automatically becomes a doctrine. Bear in mind that certain dispensations bestows certain responsibilities on people.


The physical structure of the man reveals that he is more suited for manual labour than the woman. So in an agrarian culture, the man farms while the woman takes care of the home. It was the dispensation that bestowed such responsibilities on them.


As time changes, we must also be ready to change with the changing times. The era where only the man went out to work is over. Why then should only the man shoulder the responsibility of the household?
In my home there is no financial responsibility that is mine. All financial responsibilities are ours – my wife and I. Whether from rent to cooking, we are both responsible for the provision of whatever is needed.
When we prepare the budget, it is both our incomes that fund the budget. It is not my responsibility to provide for the home. It is our responsibility. It is our home.

Now, I earn more than my wife so I bear more financial responsibility. When we prepare the budget, I fund a higher portion because I earn a higher income.
If she was earning the higher income, she would bear more responsibility. It is not my home, it is our home. It only makes sense that we must do whatever makes the home work.


Maybe, out of my personal pride as a man, as my income grows, I can decide to fund the budget 100% and ask her to keep her money. But that is a separate matter. It does not make it my sole responsibility to provide for the financial needs of the home.

Now, even though I earn more than my wife does, I don’t have a 9 to 5 job. I work from home, so I am at home all day from Monday to Sunday. My wife, on the other hand, has a regular job. She leaves in the morning and returns in the evening.
Seeing that I am at home all day and my wife goes to work, who should take care of our daughter? I, of course. It is only logical that the one who is at home should cater for the baby.



So I clean her up, change her diapers, and change her clothing when she needs changing. Those are not the responsibilities of the wife. They are the responsibilities of the parents.
It will be stupid of me to say that because I am the man then I cannot do such tasks as changing diapers. That my wife must take the baby with her or find someone else to do them when I am at home all day doing nothing besides checking Facebook.

Only two commamdments were given by Paul on the issue of marriage.
The first is, husbands love your wives. The second is, wives submit to your own husband. Nothing outside of those two is a commandment.
There is no commamdment that the man should be the provider of the home.


There is no commandment that the woman should be the one to bath the kids.
There is no commandment that only the man should work.


There is no commandment that the man must earn more than the wife.
Different dispensations only bestowed certain responsibilities on the different genders that helped them cope with the time. And as time changes we must be willing to make the necessary changes to suit the changing times.

And to you, young lady, that thinks that any man who dates you is automatically responsible for your personal upkeep, that is so 19th century thinking. This is the 21st century. Human up!.
What do you think about this? Do you agree? Do you disagree? State your case on the comment section.

Written by: Mute Efe.

Culled from: https://transformend.com.ng/family/whose-responsibility-provide/

What is family? i think thats were the confusing starts
Usually before kids arrive, reference to the wife is WIFE but the moment a child is born, reference to wife is interchangeable with word family eg instead of saying i got a wife and child, you say i got family

Back to the the question who is responsible to look after the family? its both of you

From bible point of view adam and eve started to hunt and gather after the curse right meaning adam did the hunting while eve did gathering of fruits veg etc so they provided for each other

Then came civilasation were people stared to live in groups and permanent place, man looked after domesticated animals while women had small garden And both provided for family

Then finally came industrialization, no more freeland to hunt and gather good land belonged to someone rich, now work for the owner mostly manual labour which suited men, therefore the little the women provided is gone, she just look after the kids, while hubby brings in money from work and men then took advantage of new way of life by saying" i will take care of you," and this the same period women had no rights to own land, vote or inherit property even education

Now things have changed women work and provide financially but they want men to 100% responsible at the same time some feel to be responsible 100% but there is catch to it eg divorce traditionally the wife walk away with nothing as he man was the sole provider

Now the challenge with most female providers they think men was always the sole provider but history through bible or civilisation dont agree

Men and wife provide for each other
So is men, wife and children

In conclusion you are an effeminate beta male who is trying to use his own misinterpretation of the bible to explain why he should be a mix between a true man and bobrisky aka a dusty broke nigga

Richhard:
Whose Responsibility Is It To Provide?

Relax and read this to the end, I bet you will learn something New.


The scripture below seems to be the anchor for this argument.

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” -1 Timothy 5:8 KJV


I want to shake some tables. I have read books; listened to messages from renowned pastors; all saying that it is the responsibility of the man to provide for the home and the usual anchor scripture is the one quoted above.


The effect of that message is that generations after generations of ladies have come to see themselves as the responsibility of the man.
It is classic conditioning at play. You hear something too often and you begin to believe it as truth.
Not long ago, I read a post where a lady was advising guys to go for ladies their size because you cannot expect a lady who has been using a very expensive body cream to lower her standard because you, the guy who is now dating her, cannot afford the class of body cream she was using.



As expected, most of the ladies who commented were in support. Ladies who have seen the four walls of a university. Ladies who should be able to apply logical thinking to spot the flaw in such a statement were all in agreement.



I have tried to look for the rational behind that post. A lady who, obviously, was buying her cream by herself, now has a guy who is interested in her, and suddenly the new guy has an added responsibility – to start buying her cream for her. How that makes any sense, I still cannot fathom.


Unfortunately, the story is not different all over the world. For some ladies, being in a relationship with you means you cater for all their personal needs.


The questions that beg answering are then,

1. Who was responsible for those needs before they met you?

2. What happened to the source of income that met those needs before they met you?

3. Why does all that have to stop just because they met you?

I don’t deny that the female gender is pleased when her man shows certain gestures like buying stuff for her. But surprising someone and taking responsibility for their needs when they are not handicapped are two different things.

Then you get into the marriage institution and you see the same mindset at play. It is the responsibility of the man to provide for the family.
“Says who?” You ask
“The Bible.” They answer.
“Where in the bible?”
“1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
But is that verse saying the male gender is responsible for providing for the home? Why don’t we back up a few verses before and read further a few verses after? Let’s say from verse 3 down to verse 16.


What you will find is a mentor, Apostle Paul, writing to his protegé, Timothy, instructing him on the subject of catering for widows, not on the subject of marriage.
He mentioned three categories of widows:


1. Widows indeed – elderly, no family members to cater for them.

2. Widows – elderly but with family members that can cater for them.

3. Younger widows – young, vibrant, with strong sexual desires, advised to remarry.

It was while addressing this subject of catering for these three different categories of widows that the verse of 1 Timothy 5:8 was sandwiched in the mix.
In that verse, Paul was specifically instructing Timothy that widows who still have family members around should not be a burden to the church.

That it is the responsibility of the family members of that widow to cater for her. For he (or she) who cannot (refuses to) provide for his (or her) own (widows in the family) has denied the faith.


Paul was not saying it is the responsibility of the man (male gender) to provide cooking money for the home. That was not the subject he was addressing. Unfortunately, that has become the twist we have given the verse.

There is nowhere in the bible where the male gender was given the responsibility of providing cooking money for the home.

The places where responsibilities ware meted out to the male, they were the responsibilities of;
1. Leadership. The man is the head of the woman.
2. Love & Protection. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself (died) for her.

Beyond those two, no other responsibility was given to the male gender.
In fact, when the wisest man who ever lived wrote about the virtuous woman, one of her qualities was rising up early to provide for the home.
Of course, that does not in any way imply that it is the responsibility of the woman to provide for the home. But the virtuous woman did that.
If providing for the needs of the home is not the responsibility of the man and not the responsibility of the woman, whose responsibility is it?.

This therefore calls for wisdom.
We must be mindful of taking cultural practices in the bible and turning them into doctrines. The bible contains both the word of God, the word of the devil, the words of angels and the words of men.
It is not anything that Israel practiced as a nation that automatically becomes a doctrine. Bear in mind that certain dispensations bestows certain responsibilities on people.


The physical structure of the man reveals that he is more suited for manual labour than the woman. So in an agrarian culture, the man farms while the woman takes care of the home. It was the dispensation that bestowed such responsibilities on them.


As time changes, we must also be ready to change with the changing times. The era where only the man went out to work is over. Why then should only the man shoulder the responsibility of the household?
In my home there is no financial responsibility that is mine. All financial responsibilities are ours – my wife and I. Whether from rent to cooking, we are both responsible for the provision of whatever is needed.
When we prepare the budget, it is both our incomes that fund the budget. It is not my responsibility to provide for the home. It is our responsibility. It is our home.

Now, I earn more than my wife so I bear more financial responsibility. When we prepare the budget, I fund a higher portion because I earn a higher income.
If she was earning the higher income, she would bear more responsibility. It is not my home, it is our home. It only makes sense that we must do whatever makes the home work.


Maybe, out of my personal pride as a man, as my income grows, I can decide to fund the budget 100% and ask her to keep her money. But that is a separate matter. It does not make it my sole responsibility to provide for the financial needs of the home.

Now, even though I earn more than my wife does, I don’t have a 9 to 5 job. I work from home, so I am at home all day from Monday to Sunday. My wife, on the other hand, has a regular job. She leaves in the morning and returns in the evening.
Seeing that I am at home all day and my wife goes to work, who should take care of our daughter? I, of course. It is only logical that the one who is at home should cater for the baby.



So I clean her up, change her diapers, and change her clothing when she needs changing. Those are not the responsibilities of the wife. They are the responsibilities of the parents.
It will be stupid of me to say that because I am the man then I cannot do such tasks as changing diapers. That my wife must take the baby with her or find someone else to do them when I am at home all day doing nothing besides checking Facebook.

Only two commamdments were given by Paul on the issue of marriage.
The first is, husbands love your wives. The second is, wives submit to your own husband. Nothing outside of those two is a commandment.
There is no commamdment that the man should be the provider of the home.


There is no commandment that the woman should be the one to bath the kids.
There is no commandment that only the man should work.


There is no commandment that the man must earn more than the wife.
Different dispensations only bestowed certain responsibilities on the different genders that helped them cope with the time. And as time changes we must be willing to make the necessary changes to suit the changing times.

And to you, young lady, that thinks that any man who dates you is automatically responsible for your personal upkeep, that is so 19th century thinking. This is the 21st century. Human up!.
What do you think about this? Do you agree? Do you disagree? State your case on the comment section.

Written by: Mute Efe.

Culled from: https://transformend.com.ng/family/whose-responsibility-provide/

Elder0001:



Don't make your instincts or preference a generalization for everybody then.

What's your own preference? How much did you collect from your wife as "bride" price?

ZIMDRILL:


What is family? i think thats were the confusing starts
Usually before kids arrive, reference to the wife is WIFE but the moment a child is born, reference to wife is interchangeable with word family eg instead of saying i got a wife and child, you say i got family

Back to the the question who is responsible to look after the family? its both of you

From bible point of view adam and eve started to hunt and gather after the curse right meaning adam did the hunting while eve did gathering of fruits veg etc so they provided for each other

Then came civilasation were people stared to live in groups and permanent place, man looked after domesticated animals while women had small garden And both provided for family

Then finally came industrialization, no more freeland to hunt and gather good land belonged to someone rich, now work for the owner mostly manual labour which suited men, therefore the little the women provided is gone, she just look after the kids, while hubby brings in money from work and men then took advantage of new way of life by saying" i will take care of you," and this the same period women had no rights to own land, vote or inherit property even education

Now things have changed women work and provide financially but they want men to 100% responsible at the same time some feel to be responsible 100% but there is catch to it eg divorce traditionally the wife walk away with nothing as he man was the sole provider

Now the challenge with most female providers they think men was always the sole provider but history through bible or civilisation dont agree

Men and wife provide for each other
So is men, wife and children

Nice analyses.

Elder0001:



You lack wisdom.

Bro take it easy.. All opinion are welcomed

Nice analysis bro

ZIMDRILL:


What is family? i think thats were the confusing starts
Usually before kids arrive, reference to the wife is WIFE but the moment a child is born, reference to wife is interchangeable with word family eg instead of saying i got a wife and child, you say i got family

Back to the the question who is responsible to look after the family? its both of you

From bible point of view adam and eve started to hunt and gather after the curse right meaning adam did the hunting while eve did gathering of fruits veg etc so they provided for each other

Then came civilasation were people stared to live in groups and permanent place, man looked after domesticated animals while women had small garden And both provided for family

Then finally came industrialization, no more freeland to hunt and gather good land belonged to someone rich, now work for the owner mostly manual labour which suited men, therefore the little the women provided is gone, she just look after the kids, while hubby brings in money from work and men then took advantage of new way of life by saying" i will take care of you," and this the same period women had no rights to own land, vote or inherit property even education

Now things have changed women work and provide financially but they want men to 100% responsible at the same time some feel to be responsible 100% but there is catch to it eg divorce traditionally the wife walk away with nothing as he man was the sole provider

Now the challenge with most female providers they think men was always the sole provider but history through bible or civilisation dont agree

Men and wife provide for each other
So is men, wife and children

funmisticqueen:
In conclusion you are an effeminate beta male who is trying to use his own misinterpretation of the bible to explain why he should be a mix between a true man and bobrisky aka a dusty broke nigga

You sound comical, learn to read between the lines, read again and come up with something well reasoned, you can do it.

Let's look at it critical and you will see a light.. I know of family where women are the sole provider and yet the family flourish.. My take is marriage is a Union who ever have should spend without remorse..

Acidosis:


What's your own preference? How much did you collect from your wife as "bride" price?

Is that supposed to be a question?

Richhard:


You sound comical, learn to read between the lines, read again and come up with something well reasoned, you can do it.

blah blah blah ego trip alert. All you exude is Fake confidence hiding real helplessness

funmisticqueen:
blah blah blah ego trip alert. All you exude is Fake confidence hiding real helplessness

Hmm

Insightful read, I'm surprised this ain't on the front page yet, especially on a Sunday like this

NoToPile:


The same one he tried to twist


“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” -1 Timothy 5:8 KJV

In the days when this injuction was given, wives were working in the farms of their husbands to assist in food production. The man who despite this now denies his wife of care out of wickedness is the one the Bible referred to as being "worst than an infidel".

It is also applicable in this generation. If a wife suffers and assist a man to succeed and then that man now starts to maltreat such a wife when she did not give cause to the maltreatment, then such a man is worst than an infidel.

That is the context to interpret that passage.

In this age and time, couples should work together to run their homes. One sidedness can never result into genuine love as there won't be memories to share in terms of joint effort. The alpha male who does all the providing will consciously or unconsciously always act bossy.

kingviny:


In the days when this injuction was given, wives were working in the farms of their husbands to assist in food production. The man who despite this now denies his wife of care out of wickedness is the one the Bible referred to as being "worst than an infidel".

It is also applicable in this generation. If a wife suffers and assist a man to succeed and then that man now starts to maltreat such a wife when she did not give cause to the maltreatment, then such a man is worst than an infidel.

That is the context to interpret that passage.

In this age and time, couples should work together to run their homes. One sidedness can never result into genuine love as there won't be memories to share in terms of joint effort. The alpha male who does all the providing will consciously or unconsciously always act bossy.

The point still is Biblically It is a man that provides for his household simple. I dont get why you are now bringing in xyz context etc etc. Nobody said women never worked in the farm, my grouse is the attempt to rewrite what the bible says and thats not okay with me at all.

Even if she doesn't suffer to assist him to succeed even if she does nothing, the man is still meant to provide for his wife, theres no clause to it please. Its not conditional at least thats what I read. Same way we are to honor our parents, its also not conditional.

I am tempted to say you think if she doesn't suffer with him and he doesn't provide for her he isnt worse than an infidel right? Even if she gives cause to the maltreatment like you say he is still meant to love her and not maltreat her thats what my bible says


It makes sense for a couple to work together, God is not against that and its most definitely not a sin but hey dont tell me the bible didnt say the man is the provider, yes he is.

I find it a bit offensive when I see people twisting Gods word to suit their own opinion. If you have an opinion, I respect it you are entitled to it.

NoToPile:



The point still is Biblically It is a man that provides for his household simple. I dont get why you are now bringing in xyz context etc etc. Nobody said women never worked in the farm, my grouse is the attempt to rewrite what the bible says and thats not okay with me at all.

Even if she doesn't suffer to assist him to succeed even if she does nothing, the man is still meant to provide for his wife, theres no clause to it please. Its not conditional at least thats what I read. Same way we are to honor our parents, its also not conditional.

I am tempted to say you think if she doesn't suffer with him and he doesn't provide for her he isnt worse than an infidel right? Even if she gives cause to the maltreatment like you say he is still meant to love her and not maltreat her thats what my bible says


It makes sense for a couple to work together, God is not against that and its most definitely not a sin but hey dont tell me the bible didnt say the man is the provider, yes he is.

I find it a bit offensive when I see people twisting Gods word to suit their own opinion. If you have an opinion, I respect it you are entitled to it.

The Bible you claim you know says "what a man sows that he shall reap". It is on that premise that a loving and dutiful wife should reap love and provision. Genuine love is not indulging.

If a woman is behaving badly and you want to indulge her, then be my guest. But before the laws of creation, you will also be guilty for not being firm to change her.

Stop massaging men's ego with this chauvinistic ideology. True, the built of men naturally makes them the bread winner but women, if they want to enjoy their home and be respected must also contribute. After all, it is their home too as they are not guests. This is common sense wisdom na.

Try to understand the opinion of Apostle Paul and then put the right context to it in a logical manner.

kingviny:


The Bible you claim you know says "what a man sows that he shall reap". It is on that premise that a loving and dutiful wife should reap love and provision. Genuine love is not indulging.

One quick question

A terrible parent that never took care of his children, should his children make provisions for such in their old age. Considering the scripture 'what a man sows he ll reap' you just quoted and also honor your parents which is also in the same bible.

Do you think they dont deserve to be taken care of by the children they didnt 'sow 'anything to their lives?


Geninue love is also not conditional - I got that from the bible I know


I decided not to comment on the other points because we are talking about the biblical perspective and the statement ' if they want to enjoy their home and be respected must contribute' veers of the bible its your personal opinion which is respected. I have made my point about that and I think you get my drift.

NoToPile:



The point still is Biblically It is a man that provides for his household simple. I dont get why you are now bringing in xyz context etc etc. Nobody said women never worked in the farm, my grouse is the attempt to rewrite what the bible says and thats not okay with me at all.

Even if she doesn't suffer to assist him to succeed even if she does nothing, the man is still meant to provide for his wife, theres no clause to it please. Its not conditional at least thats what I read. Same way we are to honor our parents, its also not conditional.

I am tempted to say you think if she doesn't suffer with him and he doesn't provide for her he isnt worse than an infidel right? Even if she gives cause to the maltreatment like you say he is still meant to love her and not maltreat her thats what my bible says


It makes sense for a couple to work together, God is not against that and its most definitely not a sin but hey dont tell me the bible didnt say the man is the provider, yes he is.

I find it a bit offensive when I see people twisting Gods word to suit their own opinion. If you have an opinion, I respect it you are entitled to it.

Have you ever read the verses before and after to know exactly what Paul said in that verse? Why don't you start from verse 3 and read down to verse 16?