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.
548 Paul Evans
post-exilic texts (11). The fact that there was no one name that was used
in intertestamental literature does not militate against seeing the
anarthrous ˆfç as a proper name. If there was one exclusive name —
and Satan was not it — then that may have thrown some doubt on
identifying ˆfç as a name in 1 Chronicles 21. As it is, even in the NT,
which considers Satan as a name and has a fully developed demo-
nology, Satan (Satana'") is not used exclusively; in fact, Diavbolo" is
more common than Satana'" (12). None of this evidence militates
against interpreting ˆfç as a proper name in 1 Chr 21,1.
Some commentators have explained the anarthrous ˆfç as a merely
human adversary (13). This interpretation suggests understanding 1
Chronicles as a military context in which the human adversary is
either an anonymous foe or one of David’s officials (14). However, a
military context is difficult to accept since no enemy is ever named
and the supposed foreign threat is never resolved in any way, even
though other military threats are invariably brought to a conclusion
elsewhere in Ch’s corpus (15).
This essay questions whether the identification of ˆfç in 1
Chronicles 21 has been misunderstood on both sides of the debate.
Approaching both the expanded role of the angel and the appearance
of ˆfç in place of Yahweh as being the result of Ch’s belief in divine
intermediaries avoids many of the pitfalls of other interpretations. It
allays the problem of suggesting that Ch saw God and evil as
altogether separate, since Satan in 1 Chr 21,1 need not be viewed as
the Devil but merely a divine intermediary doing Yahweh’s work.
Also, it alleviates the need to posit a human enemy who is never
named or a military conflict that is never resolved. As in 2 Samuel, the
(11) Riley points this out this diversity (“Devilâ€, 465).
(12) The names Diavbolo", Beelzebouvl and Beliavr are also used of the chief of
the demons (Beelzebouvl is found in Matt 10,25; 12,27, Mark 3,22 and Luke
11,15; 2 Cor 6,15 mentions Beliavr). In the NT Satana'" is used 34 times while
Diabolo" is used 36 times. Breytenbach and Day argue that the use of Satana'" in
v
the NT is simply “incidental†and just a “Semitism†(“Satanâ€, 1379). However,
the use of Satana'" is hardly what one would call “incidentalâ€; it seems clear to
this writer that the usage in the NT demonstrates that Satan was seen as a proper
name and that it is only a Semitism as far as the name ∆Ihsou'" or any other
number of Hebrew names are.
(13) JAPHET, Ideology, 147-149; WRIGHT, “Innocenceâ€, 93.
(14) Wright suggests it is an enemy (“Innocenceâ€, 93) while Japhet supposes
a courtier or official (Ideology, 148).
(15) As pointed out by N. BAILEY, “David’s Innocence: A Response to J.
Wrightâ€, JSOT 64 (1994) 86.