"You mentioned a decent wage for a decent day's work. How can one tell when he is giving a decent day's work and receiving a decent wage?"
A decent wage would vary according to varying living costs in different areas, and according to training and skills required in varying types of work. The one weakness of most workers is their unwillingness to improve themselves, either on the job, or at night school, etc. Too many just stagnate and don't care, to learn any new skills. If you are a day laborer, improve yourself, become semi-skilled or skilled. Drive yourself; don't just assume you cannot learn anything new. There is no excuse for earning only the minimum national wage. A man who is a profitable servant and gives his employer a decent day's work must work hard all day at whatever his boss gives him to do, and should go even farther than is required, and give his employer even more than he is paying for (Luke 17:10). Even that man who has an overbearing employer should serve him with all his might, as if he were working for Christ — and then look to Christ for his reward (I Pet. 2:18; Col. 1:22-24). Each employee should also use his mind to learn his job better and improve his ability, so he will become increasingly more useful to his employer and to himself. If there is no opportunity for advancement, find a job that will provide it. A decent wage for an industrious employee is a wage that will adequately feed, clothe, and house his family (I Tim. 6:7-8; Prov. 12:11) and provide a little saving if he uses his money wisely (Prov. 13:11, 22). But a decent wage will not suffice when one tries to live beyond his means (Prov. 22:7; 23:21). Every good worker is worthy of a decent living (I Tim. 5:18). But a man who has willingly worked hard and has trained himself to handle increasingly greater skills and higher responsibilities should receive a higher wage than the person who works hard but does not improve himself as diligently. A worker who is exceptionally profitable to his employer is worthy of a bonus (Prov. 27:18).
My wife is a very poor housekeeper. What can I do to encourage and correct her?
Everyone of you has stepped into a home where you felt that everything was pleasant, comfortable, and under control. You would not have felt that way if the home had not been clean, orderly and well arranged. On the other hand, you have probably also been in a home where the messy surroundings made you feel uneasy and inconvenienced — having to clean a place to set your things, watching to see that you don't sit on any spilled jelly, etc. Your wife should have learned from her mother how much more pleasant and convenient it would be if everything were clean and in order. Before you can correct your wife, you should see that faults are not greater in yourself (Matt. 7:1-5). Some men are the cause of their wives' disorderliness. They expect their wives to pick up after them! Is your workshop or den well organized? Are you keeping things that aren't worth saving? Are your personal items as orderly as you would like your wife to keep the rest of the house? Have you provided your wife with enough &aver space to store her things? Do you provide her with new items when the old ones wear out? Worn-out items can easily discourage women. You must set the example. But setting the right example is not all there is to it. You must also command the respect of your wife and show her that you love her. Correction without love is nagging, and can only build resentment. See to your example and love first, and then you are ready to show your wife how you would like the house to be kept, by explaining the right habits and keeping your own things in order. If you really love your wife, she will love you in return — and one of the ways she will do it is by taking correction when you point out the changes that should be made, and she will feel that an orderly house is worth the effort. Every converted woman ought also to realize it is her duty to obey her husband's admonitions when it comes to keeping her home in order.
The booklet on the resurrection shows that Christ rose late Sabbath afternoon, but can't this be more easily proved from Matthew 28:1?
Plain Scriptures, such as Matthew 12:40, prove that Christ rose late on the Sabbath, exactly three days and three nights after His crucifixion and burial. But the exact time of the resurrection cannot be proved from Matthew 28:1. "In the end of the Sabbath" is not a proper translation. The Greek word opse, here translated "In the end of," occurs only three times in the New Testament. Other Greek literature of Christ's time shows that this word can mean either "late in the day" or "after." (See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Arndt and Gingrich.) But the real key to this verse lies in the Greek word mistranslated "Sabbath." The inspired Greek word is plural, as you can verify in Ferrar Fenton's translation, "After the Sabbath." Fenton explains that the "Greek original is in the plural" in a footnote. It was impossible to be "in the end of" two different Sabbaths (Thursday and Saturday) are the same time that week, but it was possible to be "after" two Sabbaths that week! Matthew was referring to the two Sabbaths mentioned in Luke 23:54-56. "That was a Preparation day, and a Sabbath was approaching... And returning, they prepared aromatics and myrrhs; but they rested upon the actual Sabbath, in accordance with the command" (Fenton translation). Mark's account proves that the women purchased the spices after the annual Sabbath, and then came to the tomb early Sunday morning "at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2). They certainly did not come during the Sabbath, the day of rest, as some have assumed from a misinterpretation of Matthew 28:1. The correct translation of Mat. 28:1 should read, "After the Sabbaths... Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb." This proves there were two Sabbath days between the crucifixion and the resurrection, but doesn't indicate the exact time when Christ rose from the dead. For that one must turn to Matthew 12:40.