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.
554 Paul Evans
verbal parallels seem to be consciously used by Ch to connect his ˆfç
with that of Job and Zechariah.
There is also a parallel between the roles of Satan and God in the
census accounts and their roles in the book of Job. In Job 1,11 God plays
the role of the afflicter, but in 1,12 and 2,6-7 the satan plays that role (34).
Similarly, in 2 Sam 24,1 God incites David, while in 1 Chr 21,1 Satan
takes on that role. It may be that Ch had the book of Job in mind when he
replaced Yahweh with Satan (35). Consequently, if Ch equated his ˆfç
with the character in Job 1-2, Ch would not have considered his ˆfç to be
the archenemy of God but rather God’s servant (36). We need not read in
to 1 Chr 21,1 a conception of Satan comparable to later (almost
dualistic) conceptions (37). Interestingly, the Targum of Chronicles
purposefully indicates that ˆfç here did not indicate an autonomous
devil. In the Targum, 1 Chr 21,1 reads “The Lord raised up Satan against
Israel†(38). While this appears to be a conflation between the Samuel and
Chronicles texts, it is obviously clarifying that Satan is not an
independent being but is controlled by Yahweh (39). Once again the
concerns of the Targum translator seem to be analogous to those of Ch.
Although Ch did not see God as altogether separate from evil he,
being a product of his postexilic age, saw a more developed role for
divine intermediaries. As mentioned above, this could have been the
result of Ch’s exposure to the book of Job where ˆfç was part of the
heavenly entourage and was used by Yahweh to test human beings.
Thus, Ch believed that in his Vorlage when God incited David to
number the people, this was done through a mediator — ˆfç. In this
way, Ch was not intending to contradict his Vorlage but to better
explain it (40). This reinterpretation by Ch is consistent with subsequent
development of angelology in later intertestamental literature. These
later books which retold OT narratives, (e.g., Jubilees) tended to bring
(34) As pointed out by S. PAGE, Powers of Evil. A Biblical Study of Satan &
Demons (Grand Rapids 1995) 35.
(35) WILLIAMSON, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 143.
(36) Of course “enemy†and “servant†are not mutually exclusive. An enemy
may be an unwitting servant (e.g., Cyrus). In fact, in the NT Satan remains a
servant of God. This can be seen in Paul’s “thorn in the flesh†which is attributed
to God, but is also called “a messenger of Satan†in 2 Cor 12,7.
(37) WILLIAMSON, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 144; T.H. GASTER, “Satanâ€, The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville 1962) IV, 225.
(38) Targum of Chronicles (ed. CATHCART et al.), 114.
(39) J. Stanley McIvor understands the Targum translator’s motivation as
such, ibid.
(40) As Williamson argues (1 and 2 Chronicles, 144).