Question About Hebrew Satan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjkeilly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cjkeilly

Guest
Hello,

I have a question concerning the parallel Scripture verses 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1.

“The Lord’s anger against Israel flared again, and he incited David against them: ‘Go, take a census of Israel and Judah.’” 2 Samuel 24:1:

“A satan rose up against Israel, and he incited David to take a census of Israel.” 1 Chronicles 21:1

In the NABRE, the commentary states:

" A satan : in the parallel passage [2 Sm 24:1] David is led astray because of the Lord’s anger. The Chronicler’s modification reflects the changed theological outlook of postexilic Israel, when evil was no longer attributed directly to God. At an earlier period the Hebrew word satan (“adversary,” or, especially in a court of law, “accuser”) designated both human beings [1 Kgs 11:14] and a “son of God” who accused people before God [Jb 1:6–12; 2:1–7; Zec 3:1–2]. In later Judaism [Wis 2:24] and in the New Testament, satan , or the “devil” (from diablos , the Greek translation of the Hebrew word), designates an evil spirit who tempts people to do wrong."

Can someone please explain what all of this means? From what I think, it is saying that 1 Chronicles 21:1 is not referring to Satan the devil, but to a regular adversary (since satan in Hebrew means adversary). The only reason 1 Chronicles 21:1 changes the wording is because during their time, people no longer attributed evil directly to God. If so, then why does 2 Samuel say that the Lord’s anger incited David to take a census of Israel, but 2 Chronicles says that a satan (adversary) did? Is this a contradiction?

Thank You
 
It seems to be a question of dates. The two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings are several centuries older than the two books of Chronicles. They were probably written before the Babylonian Captivity (597 - 539 BC) and Chronicles not until after the return to Judea. As the NABRE note explains, in the older theology God became angry with the Jews and punished them for their evildoing, but in the later period that theology changed and any suffering that befell the Jewish people was attributed to Satan rather than to God.

Does this help?
 
It does, but that raises another concern. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is inerrant, and since it is divinely inspired there can be no wrong in it. Would this contradict that teaching since evil was attributed to God in 2 Samuel?
 
The “inerrancy of Scripture” is understood differently by different churches. The Catholic view is complex. I don’t claim to understand it in every last detail and I don’t want to risk giving you a wrong answer. This article (link below) by Jim Blackburn was posted by Catholic Answers back in 2014.

 
Last edited:
In early Israelite religion, there was no concept of a devil. The satan was a spiritual being of the heavenly court whose job was to accuse men before God. At this time, he was not considered an evil spirit or fallen angel, but an official in God’s service.

It is with this understanding that the book of Job is best read.
 
I really appreciate the help, thank you. But if that is the case, why does 2 Samuel say it was the anger of the Lord but 1 Chronicles says it was a satan, meaning the spiritual official of God. Is it because during the time period of 2 Samuel the anger of God implied that it was His spiritual officials and not literally His anger?
 
If the US gets angry at the Republic of Bob, and the Senate declares war, and the President sends troops, and the troops wage war and kill people, are you saying that a textbook would be lying if it said that the Senate or the President or the US warred against the Republic of Bob? Would it be incorrect to say that Sgt. Matt Specific warred against the Bobbians?

It is common and correct, in literature around the world including nonfiction, to use a part to refer to the whole, or the whole to refer to a part.
 
Last edited:
cjkeilly said:
I really appreciate the help, thank you. But if that is the case, why does 2 Samuel say it was the anger of the Lord but 1 Chronicles says it was a satan, meaning the spiritual official of God. Is it because during the time period of 2 Samuel the anger of God implied that it was His spiritual officials and not literally His anger?
Click to expand...
Because in the Old Testament, there was little distinction between the work of God and the work of his agents. It is still the Lord who is deemed to have slain the firstborn of Egypt even when an agent (the Angel of Death) was also said to have performed the killing.

If the anger of the Lord blazed against Israel, then that is no opposed to him sending a satan to incite David. If God sent a satan (be it a spiritual or human agent), then this does not conflict with “he” (God) inciting David by himself.

But we should also recognize that the Books of Chronicles are post-exilic, which means the author could already have a primitive concept of a devil in mind here.

Ultimately for us Christians, that is not a problem for us. If God’s anger was inflamed against Israel, and we take the term “satan” in its modern sense (i.e. a fallen angel, the devil) then his permissive will allowed for the devil to incite David to conduct the prideful census. So even if it was the devil who incited David, God was still responsible by his permissive will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top