RB, angels have a type of “celestial BODIES”, as I Cor. 15:40 describes them. This is different from that of “terrestrial bodies” such as you and I have now.
I must respectfully disagree, for a few reasons.
1st Corinthians 15:40 said not one word
about angels having a celestial body, you are assuming that it is speaking of them. Angels are created spirits
, that can take on a terrestrial
body if God wills that to be so, and we know that he has from time to time~but we have no proof
that they can without
God's permission and power to allow them to do so. Whenever angels appeared in the OT, or even in the NT, they ALWAYS had a body by ALL INCLINATION that was terrestrial~except Jesus resurrected body, and even Jesus' body was not by its outward appearance, but we know what body he had after his resurrection
~a glorified celestial body, which he STILL has, far above all, a place where no human has the power to see or even explore~ if so, then God would not be God and his power infinite.
This is what made it possible for the “sons of God” to “leave their first estate” (of no marrying in heaven) to marry human women and have them bear a peculiar kind of hybrid children who were called “giants” in those days.
The wild speculation
of angels having sexual intercourse with human women to generate science fiction supermen should be ignored, based on this bizarre interpretation. Having turned their ears away from sound doctrine and truth for fables, carnal Christians (NOT saying you are, but most are who follow such teachings) with itching ears have found teachers that will scratch their lusts with these farfetched tales of a super race (2nd Timothy 4:3-4). Rather than learn Christ, truth, and godliness, they want to be entertained with ridiculous propositions based on even more ridiculous interpretational methods. The texts above do not say or imply anything about angels, and the rest of the scripture is totally silent about such an incredible heaven-earth, interracial sexual event, and its result. It is the logical fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning to assume that angels are intended by a few uses of “sons of God” for angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. There is no reason to connect these passages beyond the mere sound of their words, which is a presumptive mistake violating even elementary hermeneutics for rightly dividing scripture (Nehemiah 8:8; 2nd Timothy 2:15). Rather than leap into the black abyss of angel-human mongrels running around in dark forests or leading international conspiracies, let sane readers weigh the evidence for a much simpler and Biblical explanation of the text. The scriptures themselves will prove that God in this passage ... identified the sin of His adopted children (Seth’s descendants) marrying the reprobate children of the world (Cain’s and others’ descendants), thus bringing the Flood on the whole world, except for the family of Noah, which obtained mercy for his faithful obedience.
1. The sin was by men of flesh, not by angels, for God in context and in consequence, said he would not always strive with fleshly man (Genesis 6:3). The sin was taking daughters for marriage~not a sin of giving daughters in marriage. This must be human males taking human females, for the sin was by fleshly men, not angels, and the sin was taking the wives.
2. The sin was by men of flesh, not by angels, for God’s consequential judgment came on humanity and other breathing creatures in 120 years, when He drowned the human race by Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6:3). Nothing happened to any angels 120 years later. Angelic destruction and punishment were thousands of years away, as they confessed to theLord Christon earth.
3. Verse 6:3 compares two things that are flesh. Since God is not flesh, He is not compared. Since angels are not flesh (and not mentioned here), they are not compared. Are there comparable fleshly things in context? Sons of God and daughters of men! So much more could be added, but enough said on this subject.