Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
If Genesis played out as it did in Job, then it was God who gave the serpent power to speak to Eve to deceive her, or gave that power to Satan to do it.
In my mind, the idea of Satan using his own power to deceive Eve, outside of God's plan and will, is not supported by the Bible.
|
I don't deny that Gen 3
could have played out the same way as Job, but I find the implications of that view a bit concerning, had God played role in arranging thing. God allowed Job to 'prove' himself with Job eventually confessing God's power. In the Garden of Eden, the outcome was disobedience. Would God have purposely setup Eve to disobey Him?
The question that comes to my mind relating to Job is why Satan needed God’s permission to ‘test’ Job. I think the answer is in verse 10:
Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
This verse indicates Job was under God’s protection and blessing. That, of course, was superior to any power Satan did have, whatever power that may be. To me, this suggests that the permission needed was specific to the situation. In other words, I don’t see evidence that would suggest that Satan always needs permission to do evil things.
I think of it this way – in all the cases of those who had demons cast out by Jesus, would it be safe to say that God had previously ‘authorized’ the people to become possessed? I don’t think so. If that were the case, Jesus would have been wasting his time undoing what had been previously approved.
Getting back to the serpent, I don’t see any evidence that necessitates God’s explicit approval for Satan to have possess the serpent. I also don’t see any evidence that would have disallowed the serpent from speaking. So I don’t shy away from a literal reading of Gen 3. At the same time, I not necessarily dismissive of other views, I just don’t think there is good reason in this case to deviate from what the text says.
The thing about Gen 3 is that it is sparse on details, enough so that omission could be suggestive of metaphor. But if we go that route, other questions arise. What is the intended metaphor/allegory? How do we know to interpret it that way? Unless we can answer those questions confidently, I do not find it advisable to take certain allegories to heart.