Some people seem to have the idea that the sons of God were Angels and that they intermarried with human women, resulting in the giants of the past. For one thing, Angels are "flames of fire" and although they can take human form (as in Abraham's visitors) they are 'neither married nor given in marriage' which is a way to say that they could not reproduce. The sons of God were those like Seth and his dead brother, Abel, who obeyed God's commands. The men spoken of where those who like Cain and Lamech disobyed God. They disobyed by picking out ungodly girls to marry and obeying them rather than God. Obeying them does not mean just not going out when their wives wanted them home, it meant engaging in the practices of the world that day which included worshipping man rather than God, and a lot of things that mercifully God did not have recorded in His Book, for if they did, some people might decide to practice them, the people to whom "evil is good,"
This verse in the Bible precedes the parable of the rich fool who in the eyes of the world, would have been considered forthright in storing his harvest and planning to build storage places for his grain. It also gets misinterpreted that being wealthy is a sin. Another verse also misinterpreted to mean that wealth is evil is "The love of Money is the root of all Evil." People often take it to mean "Money is the root of all Evil" forgetting that poverty does not make one saintly or visa versa. What Christ was doing, was warning us against not honoring God by assuming that all the blessings that He gave us came from our own hands instead of His providence.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Although in the ancient world, the word Addiction was not known, they knew of the concept. Our Lord Jesus Christ meant that if you were inclined to be tempted, it would be better for you not to enter the place or partake of that particular delicacy.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. This verse does bring a lot of bitterness, especially that after the Fall, the role of women changed from doing what the husband wanted out of love to doing it because he was her master. Once Jesus sacrified Himself for us, those who are Christians are no longer bound by the old master/slave role, but wives can now do what their husbands want out of love. The last part, "as to the Lord" means that there is a catch (to use a modern phrase), if she is married to an unbeliever, she must not do anything that is immoral or illegal for a Christian.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
It cannot be helped when a husband becomes a Christian and a wife does not. It is more tragic when the reverse is true, because in the first came, the wife may be convinced and become a Christian herself, while in the second case, pride keeps the man from converting. Since in a Christian family, the husband is the head, especially in the Reformed faith, when he leads the family devotions, grace, and so on, when the wife becomes a believer, and the husband does not, often times, this influences the children if God permits them. If the husband has the control of the finances, the wife can only use the money she earns for the church, which makes it difficult.
The unbelieving partner cannot understand why the believing partner does not desire to go to the same place as they once did, or understand why the believer no longer supports abortion on demand as once did, for example. Even so called past times as gambling are on the no no list. Yet, such a couple can be happy and if the unbeliever wants it, they will stay married. The onus is on the unbeliever to leave, not the believer.
Knowing this, a Christian young man must not marry one that is not of his faith, and visa versa, especially when one sees the difficulty that a couple of whom after marriage heard the gospel and one responded have.
The writer wrote about a wife who attended to the household, and whose work (selling a field, getting goods from merchants to which she may have traveled quite a distance) did not hinder her duties. It also put the duties of family and homemaking on a praiseworthy pedestal, not like in the majority of the known world at that time, when women especially housewives were considered valueless. These verses, which are probably overlooked by certain men, make the idea that housework is just as important to life as a man working in a factory, at a business, at a farm, etc. The wife, however, did not take over a corporation when there was a man who was of equal intelligence and knowledge present and if onewatches certain television programs, one can understand why God forbad "a woman usurping over a man." This latter would mainly apply to women to whom God did not grant the gift of children, either through birth or through adoption or to women whose husbands were dead or away for some time. I would gather that Lydia would be in this category. Phillipi was a Roman colony and Lydia was a Roman not a Greek name. According to Roman law, if a woman's husband died, and she remarried, her sons or son would go to the husband's family, the paternal grandparents. It did not mention her as childless. Supposing she was a wealthy widow, she was in charge of not only her children, but also the slaves of the household which constituted the familia and all were baptised.