Paul Evans, «Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21. An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology», Vol. 85 (2004) 545-558
This paper challenges current scholarly opinion in regard to
the Chronicler’s belief in divine intermediaries. In 1 Chronicles 21, unlike in
the Chronicler’s Vorlage, the angel is clearly distinguished from Yahweh
himself, communicates Yahweh’s word to Gad, and flies. The Chronicler’s
replacement of Yahweh with N+# also reflects this
belief. Persian Dualism may have been influential but there is no
evidence that the Chronicler felt the need to remove all aspects of evil from
originating in God. Although not representing a complete doctrine of Satan, as
developed in later Jewish writings, 1 Chronicles 21 is an important stage its
development.
546 Paul Evans
suggested this evolution was influenced by Persian dualism and that
ˆfç was now seen as the archenemy of God — the Devil (4). Therefore,
it was thought that Ch had theological problems with Yahweh being
the one who incited David to sin because Ch did not believe that
Yahweh could be such a direct cause of evil (5). However, this
interpretation is problematic as it assumes Ch had a dualistic outlook,
when nowhere else in his work does he betray this concern with the
problem of evil(6).
Conscious of this problem, Japhet argued against the consensus
that ˆfç should not be taken as a proper name at all (7). She pointed out
that the regular process in biblical Hebrew by which a word becomes
(4) The influence of Persian religion on the development of Israelite
angel/demonology is a debatable issue. Most scholars agree that the influence
existed and that this influence is the background against which we should
understand the development of angel/demonology (so D.S. RUSSELL, The Method
and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic [Philadelphia 1964] 258; EICHRODT,
Theology, II, 207-208; G.I. RILEY, “Devilâ€, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in
the Bible, 464; and J. BOWMAN, “Angelâ€, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible [Nashville 1962] I, 133). However, many have cautioned against over-
emphasizing Persian influence in the development of the doctrine of divine
intermediaries; see G. VON RAD, “a[ggelo"â€, TDNT I, 75; E.M. YAMAUCHI, Persia
and the Bible (Grand Rapids 1990) 466. It is actually plausible that such
developments developed internally within Jewish religion with the idea of evil
forces opposing God tracing back to Canaanite myths with “chaos†monsters
such as “Leviathan†and other primordial struggles (P. HANSON, The Dawn of
Apocalyptic [Philadelphia 1975] 60). Cf. Barr who presents a plausible model of
possible influence but suggests the influence could be merely a stimulus from a
pattern of Iranian religion without full cognizance of the meaning in the original
sense (“The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism,
Judaism, and Christianityâ€, JAAR 53 [1985] 201-235).
(5) For example, see RUDOLPH, Chronikbücher, 142; or R.J. COGGINS, The
First and Second Books of Chronicles (Cambridge 1976) 107.
(6) An obvious example is found in 2 Chronicles 18 where Yahweh clearly
sanctions lies and instigates malevolent behavior. In this passage, King
Jehoshaphat is entering into a pact with King Ahab to fight with him against
Ramoth Gilead, but Jehoshaphat asks to hear the word of Yahweh concerning the
fate of their imminent battle (vv. 1-4). Ahab gathered the prophets to prophesy for
Jehoshaphat but Yahweh sent a “lying spirit†into their mouths (v. 22). The
purpose of the lying spirit is clear—to persuade Ahab to go to battle where he
will be killed. Here Yahweh is directly involved in deceit and malevolence
toward a human being. If indeed Ch had a theological problem with God’s
involvement with such “evil†actions, why would Ch alter his Vorlage in 1 Chr
21,1 and not in this difficult passage?
(7) S. JAPHET, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in
Biblical Thought (Frankfurt am Main 1989) 145-149.