We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1?
One text says the Lord incited David to count the warriors of Israel and Judah. The other text says that Satan incited David to count the warriors of Israel. (The Lord had forbidden this, as it displayed a confidence in military strength rather than in Yahweh’s power).
Compatibilists frequently cite this as an example of how Satan always carries out God’s plan. God’s plan, they insist, is always good, though Satan is evil in carrying it out. The “paradox”—or (I believe) contradiction—that this viewpoint creates is unnecessary. These texts do not imply that Satan always carries out God’s plan, only that he sometimes does so. In this case, God planned on judging Israel and so he allowed Satan to bring it about. For editorial reasons, the author of 1 Chronicles attributes the act to Satan while the author of 1 Samuel attributes it to God who allowed Satan to do what he wanted to do.
As a parallel example, we should consider the way God sometimes uses the sinful, violent tendencies of one nation to punish another nation. As punishment on Israel, for example, the Lord allowed a wicked Assyrian nation to have its way with Israel (Isa. 10). Yet, God then punished Assyria for being the kind of nation that could be used by God in this way. Sometimes–but not always–the wicked intentions of an evil nation (or an evil being) convene with God’s purposes.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: 1 Chronicles 21, 2 Samuel 24
Related Reading
What is the significance of Jeremiah 38:17–18, 20–21, 23?
The Lord prophesies to Zedekiah, “If you will only surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon” the city and his family would be spared, but “if you do not surrender” the city and his family would be destroyed. He then reiterates, “But if you are determined not to surrender” even Zedekiah himself would…
What is the significance of Hosea 11:8–9?
After plotting severe judgment against Israel (vs. 5–7) the Lord says, “My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger… I will not come in wrath.” This passage shows that God experiences conflict between his compassion and his justice and that he sometimes alters his plans…
How do you respond to Galatians 1:15–16?
“…when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me…I did not confer with any human being…” As with Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:13–17) and other God-ordained prophets, Paul was aware that God had decided on a…
What is the significance of Ezekiel 33:13–15?
“[W]hen I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered…he will die. But when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if a…
Revelation 17:8 refers to people whose names haven’t been written in “the book of life from the creation of the world.” Doesn’t this conflict with open theism?
As in Revelation 13:8, the clause “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) need not mean “from before the foundation” but simply “from the foundation” (= since the foundation). It’s not that names either were or were not written in the “book of life” before they were ever born. Rather, throughout history, in response to the choices…
What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…