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.
556 Paul Evans
activity he often reworked it purposefully in line with his theology. As
is widely understood, Ch’s manner of writing usually did not involve
Ch creating his tools “ex nihilo†but his using what he found in his
Vorlage and enlarging it (44).
In the rest of the battles recorded in Chronicles where we read of
Yahweh’s involvement there are no indications as to whether this was
accomplished through intermediaries or not. For example, in 2
Chronicles 13, when Abijah and the Judeans defeat Jeroboam and the
Israelites in battle, v. 15 declares that, “God defeated Jeroboam and all
Israel†(45). There is no description of Yahweh being directly involved
or of “the angel of Yahweh†being involved. Instead we read, “The
Israelites fled before Judah, and God gave them into their hands.
Abijah and his army defeated them with great slaughter†(vv. 16-17).
Just how Yahweh contributed to the battle is not specified. Yet it leaves
the issue open as to whether Ch conceived of angelic interference or
not. Even the book of Daniel, which contains a clear angelology
contains such ambiguous descriptions of God’s involvement. In Dan
1,2 we read “the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his
hand†and then in v. 9, “Now God had caused the official to show
favor and sympathy to Daniel†[emphasis mine]. As with the author
of Daniel, Ch did not feel it necessary to describe every action God
took as involving mediation, albeit he may have believed such
mediation took place.
*
**
As we have seen, Ch’s belief in increased roles for intermediaries
is evident in his angelological reworking of 2 Samuel 24. Unlike in
Ch’s Vorlage, the angel is clearly distinguished from Yahweh himself.
Also, by having the angel communicate Yahweh’s word to Gad, Ch
has given the angel the role of revelator. This belief in intermediaries
is also manifest in Ch’s introduction of ˆfç in place of Yahweh as the
inciter of David. While Persian Dualism may have influenced this
development of the increased role of intermediaries, there is no
(44) DION, “Angel with the Drawn Swordâ€, 117.
(45) Ibid., 126. Such a claim of Yahweh’s responsibility, even when there
appears to be no direct involvement, is common. Cf. 1 Chr 10,14 where we read
of Saul that “Yahweh put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David
Jesse’s sonâ€. Yet we already read in v. 5 that Saul killed himself by falling on his
sword. So in what respect did Yahweh kill him? This type of Yahwistic
involvement in history does not disprove his use of divine intermediaries.