Of course, the "seed" of woman is Jesus. He is the "human" one would crush the head of the Devil (Hebrews 2:14 - see context regarding Jesus' humanity).
Now regarding the seed of the Devil (he was the serpent - Revelation 20:2), can you think of any passages that refer to seed or children of the Devil?
Simply, anyone who does not serve God is a child of the Devil, in that he acts like the Devil. We can be children of Abraham by faith - not by blood - but when we act like Abraham (Galatians 3:5-9, 14-18, 26-29 - worth reading all of these!). Similarly, we can also be children of the Devil - not by blood - but when we act like the Devil (I John 3:9-10; John 8:39-44).Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (I John 3:9-10)
I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. "I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father." They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father -- God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." Then the Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (John 8:37-48)
I pray this helps.
I have heard from many people who tell me that the sons of God in Genesis 6 refers to those of the godly line of seth and that angels can't have sex because they are genderless, and Jesus said that angels don't reproduce I believe, as in don't marry. Some have told me that it refers to fallen angels mating with women. Several of my friends commented on this topic, they said:
Most people believe that when 1/3 of the angels fell that they became Satan's demons. In fact, I believe that as well.
However in Jude it says that the angels which left their own habitation are reserved in chains under blackness forever unto the judgement (paraphrasing). Which seems to say that the fallen angels are bound and not free to roam the earth. The 1/3 angels that follow Satan in his rebellion in Revelation havent fallen yet. The passage is still future tense. There are angels in heaven right now that are going to follow Satan in his war with Michael.
Can you further clarify this for me?
The details regarding angels is sparse and scarce; therefore, great caution must be exercised when trying to connect multiple "clues", scattered throughout the Bible. Because there is so little said, we must be careful that we do not spin colorful tales, and then rest them upon the argument, "But, the Bible does not contradict my theory!". This warning is also important to consider:Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote:Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. (I Corinthians 4:6)
There is so much we don't know, which we "have not seen". Yet, people tend to venture theories where we are vastly underqualified, because God has not revealed much on the subject. There is a danger of a vicious cycle, where one believes he is particularly clever and observant, and therefore, possibly able to piece the clues to solve a mystery, where others have failed. After some amount of study, he inevitably postulates a theory. It fits the passages that he's seen, and he screams, "Eureka!" Since the information is so scant, he has no way of really testing his theory, but his pride fills in the gaps. Encouraged by his unique intellect, or as Paul said, "vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind", such a person continues to study, marvel at his discoveries, which drives him to theorize more, which feeds his prideful self-estimation, and so it goes.Paul again wrote:Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19).
The problem is that such a person focuses too much attention on what we do not know, instead of what we do know. We must make sure that we do not spend too much energy venturing into areas where God deliberately chose not to illuminate with the light of inspiration. Instead, we must focus on what God has told us, "holding fast to the Head".
Now, I'm not saying that you have done this, but the study of angels is notorious for consuming peoples' imaginations. We must be careful that we do not spend too much time wondering about the battles of Michael and Gabriel, that we forget about the battles, which God has given us to fight (Ephesians 6:10-18; II Corinthians 10:3-5; Jude 1:3-4)! So, please allow me to warn us both, and whoever else may read this: You and I here stand on the edge of inspiration, teetering over an unfathomable abyss of speculation, conjecture, and fable. To venture into it is to make ourselves vulnerable to endless hours of debate, strife, and division, because there is no footing here - solid or otherwise. And, what will be the profit? - nothing! Just division and strife (I Timothy 1:3-4; II Timothy 2:23-24; Titus 3:9-10)!
With that introduction, let us take care to speak where God has spoken on this subject (I Peter 4:11), stopping short of speculation, and then return to matters "godly edification, which is in faith". Now, let's go squash some fables! Shall we?
My argument is simply this, "Where does the text say 'angels'?" The context is about men: men multiplied; men bore daughters; God set a limit on His patience with men; mighty men were born; men were wicked; and God decided to destroy men. Where does the passage say, "angels"? Since the context does not equate the "sons of God" with angels, the burden of proof is upon the proponent. ... This is where it is important to remember our warning to observe the silence of God, to "not go beyond what is written"!Moses wrote:Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:1-5)
Yes, angels are occasionally referred to as "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but so are men (Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26)! Which one is in the context, angels or men? Although it is a fascinating story: imagining spiritual beings producing demigod offspring with mortal women - oh, wait - that's Greek mythology! Sorry, got off track there ... ... Where is the proof? It is wild speculation that has no proof, and it violates the context -- God ultimately punished men, not angels, for the sins committed in this passage. Furthermore, as you have already noted, angels have no gender!
In Bible language, males always "marry", while "females are given in marriage". If an angel does neither, then he is neither. He is without gender! Incidentally, in this way, we will be like them - also without gender (Matthew 22:29-30; Luke 20:34-36; Galatians 3:28)!Matthew, recording Jesus' words, wrote:Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:29-30)
Admittedly, this description is assigned to angels in heaven. Although we could argue that Luke 20:36 leaves it open as generic angels, it is worthwhile to again emphasize the point of silence. Sooner or later, we will reach the limit of God's revelation on any subject. If we only stop when God forbids or eliminates a possibility, then our imagination is the limit, because sooner or later we can conjure up a condition, question, or case that is not specifically addressed in Scripture. We must confine ourselves to what God has said, operating under the principles, guidelines, and wisdom that He has clearly outlined. More on this point here:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... _forbidden
So, what does the passage mean, if it does not refer to angels? Please recall from our last exchange that to be "son of " somebody is to act like them. "Sons of God" always referred to saved beings who were obedient to God (Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26). Remember, Satan is classified separately from the "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1 - "Satan also came among them" -- Can anyone imagine Satan singing for joy at the earth's creation? - Job 38:7). Therefore, I conclude that these "sons of God" in Genesis 6 represent godly men who were enticed by the "daughters of men", carnally-minded women. The first class acted and thought like God, while the second class operated and thought like fleshly minded men. The result was a powerful, but wicked people. ... Incidentally, this is an ongoing problem that God's children face: Young godly people marrying carnally-minded people and being consumed by them (Genesis 24:3; 27:46-28:8; 36:2; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Judges 14:1-3; I Kings 11:1-11; II Chronicles 18:1; Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 13:23-27; Amos 3:3; Corinthians 15:33; II Corinthians 6:14-18).
People have generally associated these "sons of God" with Seth's lineage, because his lineage generally represented the godly patriarchs before the flood (Genesis 4:26). Also, please keep in mind that Seth's lineage of these godly men "called on the name of the Lord", and it included people like Enoch and Noah. Their genealogy immediately precedes the verses under discussion in chapter 6 (Genesis 4:26-5:32). Therefore, since Seth's lineage called on the name of the Lord, and is detailed immediately before chapter 6, many people conclude that it Seth's lineage were called "sons of God". These spiritually minded sons are contrasted with the "daughter of men", likely a reference to the beautiful, but worldly-minded daughters of Cain. ... Please notice that the verses paint the idea of an initial separation, but the two camps were eventually mingled, which fits well with the initial isolation of Cain's lineage and the godliness of Seth's lineage (Genesis 4:14-24).
In conclusion, let us ask, "Which interpretation fits best with the context and does not violate other teachings?" Seth's lineage is contrasted with Cain's lineage in the two chapters preceding chapter 6. Seth's lineage worshiped God, while Cain's lineage was sensual. The phrase, "sons of God", is elsewhere used to describe godly men. The mingling produced wicked men, and it was wicked men that God ultimately punished - not angels. Furthermore, we see that angels do not marry, because they do not have gender! How could genderless, spiritual beings procreate with earthly females?
Finally, I am unaware of any passage in the book of Revelation that speaks of the Devil drawing away 1/3 of the angels - future tense. If you can provide that referenced passage, I would be glad to analyze and consider it. Until the reference could be produced by your correspondent, I would personally dismiss it, especially after a diligent search of my own. ... Assuming it is supplied, I would be happy to study the origin and future of demons with you, although there is little said on that subject too.
Incidentally, we have a little more on the topic of angels here: http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... place.html
Hopefully, I did not make too much of this in an effort to make sure that we do not make too much of this.