For my daily study each morning, I’ve been reading through a chronological Bible called So That’s Why Bible. I love the history and context this Bible gives me–I’ve never been a huge fan of the “application” style notes in a study Bible, but I’ve always loved the historical notes (you’re shocked, right? LOL) so this Bible is right up my alley.
My readings last week took me through the end of King David’s reign. First the account in Samuel and then in Chronicles. The historians who put this Bible together had already pointed out that the prophetic account of Samuel and the historical account of Chronicles tell of the same events in very different lights–namely, that Chronicles never sheds a bad (or realistic) light on David, only noting his victories and good qualities.
This came into sharp focus in comparing 2 Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21–when David orders a census of Israel. Both agree that this was a big deal and a big mistake, and that it resulted in a plague sent by God that destroyed 70,000 Israelites before the Lord relents.
But in 2 Samuel, it says, “Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.'” Contrast that with I Chronicles 21:1. “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”
Whoa. God…or Satan? Which one moved David to do this? That seems like a pretty big difference, right? And quite a contradiction.
I brought this up with my husband the other day, and then shared another interesting historical note from these commentators. That the notion of Satan has changed over the centuries. In the earliest Jewish writings, Satan wasn’t written as a figure of evil. He was more what we’d consider a prosecutor in a legal setting. He’s the one against us, the defendant, but he’s not necessarily evil. He’s an adversary in a legal or even political sense. But the only times we see Satan mentioned in the Old Testament are:
Here in Chronicles. In Job, where God and Satan are discussing Job and Satan is given leave to test him, and then in Zecharaiah, where again Satan is present in the throne room of God, opposing the high priest. The evil force we associate with Satan–which we in fact put on the serpent in Genesis, though it never names him as such–isn’t present in those early histories.
Where and when did that understanding come in? According to these historians, not until the Babylonian exile. While in Persia, they would have been rubbing elbows with worshipers of Zoroastrianism. I wrote about this in Jewel of Persia, so I perked up when I read that, LOL. In this monotheistic religion, there are two opposing forces. Ahura Mazda, who represents all good. And Angra Mainu, who is all evil. Both have a host of deities equivalent to angels and demons on their side, and they are constantly at war. Humans must decide which side they’re on, which battle they’ll fight, and it is a matter of human decisions which one will ultimately win. In this system, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainu are equals. Diametrically opposed, but by nature equal.
You can certainly see some similarities between their religion and Judeo-Christian beliefs, right? But I’d never really paused to realize that this idea of Satan as evil wasn’t even present in Judaism before that. Satan was an enemy, yes. Like a lawyer on the opposite side of a case is an enemy–that doesn’t make him by nature evil. I’d never realized that this could have come in part from Persian beliefs.
Of course, I’m not trying to answer the question of whether that was when they realized the truth of the matter or what. Historically, it’s just an interesting note. And as my husband pointed out, it actually answers my question of “Don’t those passages contradict?” with the Samuel and Chronicles accounts of the census.
Before the idea of Satan being the ultimate evil, he was mostly just depicted as a tool–a necessary part of divine justice. The one to accuse mankind. In this way, it’s not so contradictory, is it? God was angry with Israel, so he stirred David against them…how? Perhaps by using Satan to do it? It’s an interesting question, anyway.
I’m not pretending to have uncovered any profound answers here, but I do love viewing the Bible through a historical context and seeing what new things I discover!
It's a really cool Bible!! I love all the history it's teaching me. =)
This is so interesting! I also prefer the historical notes (your Bible sounds really cool – I'm going to look it up online!) I had never noticed the discrepancy between the way Satan is portrayed in the OT and the NT … but your point about them possibly being influenced by that other religion makes sense. This was a fascinating read! I caught myself leaning in to my computer screen about halfway through the post I was so enthralled :p