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.
Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21 549
problem in 1 Chronicles 21 originated not with a human enemy but
with a celestial one. This aspect of Ch’s theology has been overlooked
by recent scholarship and, while not being the mainstay of his
purpose, is reflected in his work.
1. The Chronicler’s Angel
Scholars have often thought of Chronicles as an evolutionary stage
in the belief of angels (16). In order to evaluate Ch’s alleged
“angelology†we will examine how he reworks the census narrative
taken from his Vorlage, 2 Samuel 24. Immediately, we notice that in
Ch’s narrative the angel is mentioned more than twice as often as in
the Samuel account and is given an expanded role (17). However,
before we examine the additional appearances we can learn much
from the way in which the parallel occurrences are reworked.
In 2 Samuel 24 the first mention of the angel reads “the angel
stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it†(v. 16), while
the parallel in 1 Chronicles 2l reads “And God sent the angel to
Jerusalem to destroy it†(v. 15). The change is subtle, but profound.
Ch alters his Vorlage in order to clarify that the angel is distinct from
God. A good parallel to this concern can be seen in 2 Chr 32,21 and its
parallel, 2 Kgs 19,35.
In this passage, too, Ch has altered his Vorlage slightly. Instead of
writing “And that night the angel of Yahweh went forth...†(2 Kings),
Ch rewrites it as “And Yahweh sent an angel...†(2 Chronicles). If we
look closely at the 2 Kings text the reason Ch was concerned to alter
his Vorlage becomes evident. In the verse preceding 2 Kgs 19,35, we
read of Yahweh saying, “For I will defend this city to save it†(v. 34)
[emphasis mine]. Then, in the next verse we read: “the angel of
Yahweh went forthâ€. It appears that in the Kings account the angel of
Yahweh is none other than Yahweh himself. This is an example of a
theophany. As is well known, in the OT it is often difficult to
differentiate between the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh himself (18).
(16) For example, HÄNEL-ROTHSTEIN, Chronik, xiv; cf. xiv-xv; and VON RAD,
Geschichtsbild, 9.
(17) Chronicles mentions the angel nine times whereas 2 Samuel mentions it
only four times. 1 Chr 21,12.15(3x).16.18.20.27.30. 2 Sam 24,16 (3x).17.
(18) G. VON RAD, “a[ggelo"â€, 77. Breytenbach and Day come to a similar
conclusion regarding the angel in Numbers 22 who met Balaam. This incidence is
interesting because this angel is actually called a ˆfç. Breytenbach and Day
conclude that “the real Satan in Numbers 22 is Yahweh himself!†(“Satanâ€, 1372).