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.
550 Paul Evans
With this theophanic understanding of the 2 Kings passage, it is
obvious that Ch’s reworking of these verses reflects his view of
angels (19). Rather than attributing the destruction to a theophany, Ch
makes it clear that this angel is not Yahweh himself, but one of his
divine intermediaries doing his will (20). This same concern for
differentiating Yahweh from his angelic intermediaries seems to be
shared by the later Targum translator of Chronicles. The Targum of 1
Chr 21,18 reads “an angel sent from before the Lord†in place of “the
angel of Yahweh†(MT) which could be confused with the theophanies
of earlier narratives (21). This understanding of Ch’s reinterpretation of
the angel in this narrative suggests that Ch had a more developed
concept of angels than the Deuteronomist (22).
Another important difference in Ch’s portrayal of the angel in the
census story is found in verse 16. While his Vorlage simply states that
“[David] saw the angel who was striking down the people†(2 Sam
24,17), Ch writes that “[David] saw the angel of Yahweh standing
between earth and heaven†(1 Chr 21,16) (23). This appears to be the
(19) In both of these passages Japhet has argued that Ch altered this verse
because his Vorlage made the angel too ‘autonomous’ and Ch was concerned to
show that the angel is not acting independently but is God’s messenger (Ideology,
140). This suggestion is intriguing and in some ways fits in with my understanding
of Ch’s motivations. If the angel in Samuel or Kings was indeed a theophany, the
angel had more than a measure of autonomy — he was God himself.
(20) It must be noted that in the case of 2 Sam 24 God speaks to the angel and
orders him to stop his destruction which begs the question why God would speak
to himself. However, it is not unprecedented in the OT for the hypostatic
manifestation to appear to be distinct from God one minute and in fact be God the
next. For example, in Gen 16 the angel of Yahweh appears to Hagar. In v. 10 the
angel appears to be Yahweh as he says to her “I will multiply your
descendants...â€, but in v. 11 the angel speaks of Yahweh in the third person: “You
shall call his name Ishmael, because Yahweh has heard your afflictionâ€. Then v.
13 says “she called on the name of Yahweh who spoke to her†[emphasis mine].
Cf. Genesis 21 & Exodus 3.
(21) The Aramaic Bible: The Targum of Chronicles (eds. K. CATHCART – M.
MAHER – M. MCNAMARA) (Collegeville 1994) XIX, 116.
(22) A. ROFÉ seems to think along similar lines. He writes, “it is possible that
the words ‘the Lord sent an angel’ in 2 Chr 32:21, as against ‘an angel of the Lord
went out’, found in 2 Kings 19:35 imply a reinterpretation: the ‘angel’ could have
meant God’s providence, operating unseen in the human world†(“4QSama in the
light of Historico-literary Criticism: The Case of 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chr 21â€,
Biblische und Judaistische Studien 29 [1990] 115).
(23) This phrase “between earth and heaven†basically denotes being in ‘mid-
air’. It is used in Ezekiel 8,3 when “the spirit†lifted Ezekiel up “between earth
and heaven†in a vision, and in Zech 5,9 where two women with wings “lifted up