Why Jesus Apologetics

14 …but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

James 1:14–15

At Why Jesus Apologetics, we’re addressing alleged Bible contradictions to strengthen believers’ trust in Scripture’s inerrancy and answer skeptics’ challenges. A common example is the apparent conflict between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which describe who incited King David to conduct a census of Israel. Critics claim these verses contradict each other and even make absurd assertions, like “Is Satan the God of Jesus?”
Using the principles from our introductory post, context (literary, theological, cultural, historical, geographical), biblical languages, hermeneutics, and the law of non-contradiction, we’ll show that these passages are complementary, not contradictory, and affirm the Bible’s reliability.

The Passages in Question

The texts at the heart of this issue are:

“And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”

– 2 Samuel 24:1 (KJV)

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”

– 1 Chronicles 21:1 (KJV)

The question posed by critics is: Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

• God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
• Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)

At first glance, these statements seem to conflict. How can both God and Satan be responsible? But a closer look at the biblical context, cultural-historical background, the law of non-contradiction, a semantic/theological pattern called Semitic or Hebrew idiom of permission and the theological depth of Scripture reveals not a contradiction, but a layered, morally coherent explanation.
Before we begin to resolve the alleged contradiction in the Bible, let us first consider the historical context that prompted David to conduct the census. Afterwards, we will address the question: Who incited David to take the census?

The Historical Context

a) David’s Life and Dependence on God

David’s life was marked by a consistent pattern of dependence on God. As a young shepherd, he faced lions and bears by trusting in God’s help; Against Goliath, he declared, “The battle is the Lord’s” (1 Samuel 17:47). In his rise to the throne, he repeatedly inquired of the Lord for direction before battle (2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19). Throughout his kingship, David’s military success wasn’t because of numbers of the people of Israel or his military strength but because of divine guidance and faith in Yahweh’s deliverance.

David trust in God, not number of Armies:

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.”

(Psalm 20:7, ESV)

Some scholars see Psalm 20 as a pre-battle psalm that hints at David’s internal struggles—his tendency to trust in himself, possibly during times when he felt tempted to measure strength through military numbers. The psalm also reflects his later recommitment to trusting in God. If this interpretation is correct, the psalm presents David’s spiritual ideal—one that he would later abandon, as we will soon see, during the census event. This could easily reflect the mindset David had before ordering the census: a sense of national strength and security that led him to boast in numbers rather than depend on God.

So what?

b) Was the Census Sinful?

The census was sinful not because censuses were inherently wrong. Scripture recorded others without condemnation. The Midrash to Numbers 1:1 lists ten censuses in Israel’s history,

• When they went down to Egypt (Ex. 12:7);
• When they left Egypt (Ex. 32:28);
• At the beginning of the Book of Numbers (Num. 1:1);
• After the report of the spies;
• Once in the days of Joshua when the Land was divided;
• Twice in the days of Saul’s kingdom (1 Sam. 15:4; 1 Sam. 11:8);
• Once by David (2 Sam. 24:9);
• In the days of Ezra (Ezra 2:64); and
• There will be one in the Days to Come (see Jer. 33:13; Tanchuma, Ki Sisa 9).

even including David’s census (2 Sam. 24:9), showing they were acceptable when done with proper intent (Tanchuma, Ki Sisa 9).

What Exactly Was The Sin?

Historically, this event occurred late in David’s reign, after a series of conquests that subdued the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms (2 Samuel chapters 8–10), resulting in great wealth and national strength. However, David made a critical mistake: he chose to conduct a census—not for logistical reasons, but out of pride. His growing confidence in his military achievements led him to focus on the size of his troops rather than on the mercies and faithfulness of God.

“PRIDE goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

Proverb 16:18

David’s declaration in Psalm 20:7, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God,” stood in direct contradiction to his later decision to conduct the census. In that moment, he shifted his trust from God’s power to the strength of his military numbers.

c. Joab Reaction

Joab, David’s trusted commander, though not always known for spiritual sensitivity, raised a crucial question for David to consider, hoping that David might come to his senses before proceeding with such a misguided decision.

“Why does my lord the king delight in this thing?”
2 Samuel 24:3

The reactions of Joab are recorded in both 1 Chronicles 21:3 and 2 Samuel 24:3, where he strongly objected to David’s decision and attempted to dissuade him from proceeding with the census.

And Joab said, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: BUT, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? why doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of guilt unto Israel?

(1 Chron. 21:3 and 2 Samuel 24:3)

This objection suggests it was unnecessary and ego-driven.

But David refused to listen.

So, God permitted David to proceed with his desire, knowing it would lead to judgment—a plague that killed 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:15)—in order to humble David and the nation, and to cast them back upon God’s mercy.

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’”

2 Samuel 24:1 (ESV)

And,

“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”

1 Chronicles 21:1 (ESV)

Then,

David went ahead and conducted the census, despite the warnings. This action is recorded in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.

2 Samuel 24:4–9 (cf. 1 Chronicles 21:4–5)

“But the king’s word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army. So Joab and the commanders of the army went out from the presence of the king to number the people of Israel.” (v.4)

“…And when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.” (v.8)

“And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king…” (v.9)

Again, this wasn’t about logistics, it was about ego. David wanted to revel in how powerful his kingdom had become, shifting trust from God to military might.

The census spanned Israel and Judah, from Dan to Beersheba (2 Sam. 24:2; 1 Chron. 21:2), a consistent scope reflecting David’s kingdom. This months-long endeavor (2 Sam. 24:8) aligns with the geographical and tribal divisions of ancient Israel, supporting the narrative’s coherence.

So Who incited David? God or Satan?

How do we resolve this alleged contradition?

1. Applying the Law of Non-Contradiction

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states:

“A thing cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.”

This is a foundational law of rationality and logic. If something violates this principle, it is logically incoherent or self-refuting. Geisler states:

“A contradiction occurs only when two statements assert opposing claims about the same subject, in the same sense, at the same time.”
(Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Bethany House, 2002, p. 118).

For these verses to contradict, they must claim that only God or only Satan incited David, excluding the other. Instead, the Bible often presents events from multiple perspectives, reflecting divine sovereignty and secondary agency (human or Satanic).

This is not a contradiction if the incitement by Satan was permitted or used by God as part of His sovereign plan—two different levels of causation (primary and secondary causes). These passages describe the same event differently, making them complementary, not contradictory. No violation of the law of non-contradiction here.

So N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

2. The Semitic Idiom of Permission

A critical key to resolving this issue is “the Semitic idiom of permission“, common in Hebrew and other Semitic languages.

The Semitic idiom of permission is a common linguistic and theological feature in Hebrew (and broader Semitic) thought in which actions that God merely permits are often attributed to Him as though He directly caused them.

In simpler terms:

What God allows is often described as what God did.

The text in question is an example of the idiom: God allowed David’s desire and Satan’s action, but Hebrew idiom attributes the result to God’s sovereignty, not direct causation.

An idiom is “a phrase or expression whose meaning cannot be understood from the ordinary meanings of the words in it”
(The World Book Dictionary, “idiom”).

In English, we say “You made me mad” to mean someone’s actions provoked our anger, though the response was our choice. Similarly, in Hebrew, active verbs can express permission rather than direct action. E.W. Bullinger explains:

“Active verbs were used… to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do”
(Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, “idioma,” number 4).

In 2 Samuel 24:1, the verb “moved” (Hebrew: wayyāset, from sût) implies incitement but can denote God’s allowance. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the same verb (“provoked”) identifies Satan as the agent. Joseph B. Rotherham translates 2 Samuel 24:1 as

“…so that he suffered [allowed] David to be moved against them,” noting, “The well-attested latitude of the Semitic tongues… speaks of occasion as cause”
(Rotherham, Emphasized Bible, p. 87).

This idiom explains why 2 Samuel attributes the action to God, meaning He permitted Satan’s provocation, as 1 Chronicles clarifies.

Other parallel examples of this idiom include:

1. Exodus 4:21: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” is better rendered “I will let his heart wax bold” (Rotherham). Marcus Kalisch explains:

“The phrase means ‘I know that I shall be the cause of Pharaoh’s obstinacy; my commands and wonders will be an occasion… to an increasing obduration of his heart’”
(Kalisch, Commentary on Exodus, cited in Rotherham, Emphasized Bible, Appendix).

God’s demands gave Pharaoh opportunities to choose, and Pharaoh hardened his own heart by resisting.

2. Ezekiel 20:25: “I gave them statutes that were not good” means God permitted Israel to follow the wicked customs of surrounding nations (Lev. 18:3), not that He prescribed evil laws (Bullinger, Figures, “idioma”).

So, in 2 Samuel 24:1, God’s righteous anger led Him to allow Satan to provoke David, aligning with 1 Chronicles 21:1. This idiom resolves the apparent discrepancy, showing both statements are true in different senses.

i. God’s righteous anger toward Israel led Him to withdraw His restraint from David (“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.” -Psalm 91:1)

ii. Satan as an oppotunist, not an equal force to God, but one who acts when people give him room, always looking to exploit pride, seized the opportunity and tempted David to act. (“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” –1 Peter 5:8 )

Thus, God permits, Satan tempts human desires, and humans choose, but in Hebrew idiom, God’s permissive will may be stated as active will to emphasize His sovereignty.

When we understand the idiom of permission, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in the biblical account. God permitted David to follow the evil inclination of his heart, honoring his free will. Satan, seeing this as an opportunity to destroy David, intensified that inclination, fueling his desire to boast in military strength, the population under his rule, and his accumulated wealth. David gave in and ordered the census. Therefore, when properly understood, there is no contradiction at all—just a layered account of divine permission, satanic temptation, and human choice.

So N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

3. Evidence From Internal Clues

Both 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 contain internal clues that show they are not contradictory, but rather complementary perspectives. Let’s explore these textual and contextual hints that harmonize the two accounts:

The Wording in 2 Samuel 24:1

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’”
(2 Samuel 24:1, ESV)

Key internal hint

The phrase “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” gives the reason for what follows — David’s temptation was not random but a judicial act. The Hebrew text doesn’t name a direct agent (like Satan); instead, it says “He incited David”, which fits idiomatic Hebrew usage where God is credited with permitting an act He sovereignly allows, even if done through another agent (in this case, Satan).

So, this is not absolute causation but divine allowance flowing from God’s anger. The absence of a named subject other than God allows for a permissive reading, consistent with Semitic idiom of permission.

The Language in 1 Chronicles 21:1

“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”

Key internal hint

Chronicles says Satan “stood against Israel,” echoing military opposition or legal accusation — a hostile stance. The fact that Chronicles doesn’t deny God’s involvement but focuses on Satan’s role suggests an additional perspective, not a replacement.

The chronicler, writing later, provides the behind-the-scenes agent that God permitted to act. This is common in Hebrew narrative — later texts clarify earlier ones, adding dimension.

Both accounts shared context – begin with Israel as the target:

• 2 Samuel 24:1: “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel…”
• 1 Chronicles 21:1: “Satan stood against Israel…”

Shared idea:

God is displeased with Israel, and both texts agree that this was the root cause of the entire event, the census judgment was aimed not just at David but at the nation as a whole. So, the event is theologically driven, not merely personal to David.

Logical Harmony from the Internal Texts

Let’s synthesize:

Aspect	2 Samuel 24:1	1 Chronicles 21:1
Cause	God’s anger at Israel	Satan opposes Israel
Action	God “incites” David (divine permission)	Satan incites David (direct agency)
Result	David orders census	David orders census
Implication	God permitted the temptation	Satan executed the temptation

No contradiction exists when we realize:

• God is sovereign (Samuel) and may permit evil for judgment or discipline.
• Satan is active (Chronicles), operating within divine boundaries.
• David is morally responsible in both cases.

We can safely conclude that the internal hints within both texts show a unified theological framework, not a contradiction:

• 2 Samuel gives the divine judicial backdrop.
• 1 Chronicles gives the immediate spiritual agent (Satan).
• Both agree that David chose wrongly, and both accounts end with David’s repentance and God’s mercy.

This is not a contradiction, it’s a multi-layered explanation consistent with:

• Hebrew narrative structure,
• The Semitic idiom of permission,
• And biblical theology of causality.

So again N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

3. Theological Context

Divine and Satanic Motives

Theologically, God is sovereign over all events, yet He permits secondary agents like Satan or humans, to act within His purposes.

In 2 Samuel 24:1, God’s anger against Israel’s sin prompted Him to allow David’s census, leading to judgment (2 Sam. 24:15). In 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan is the immediate agent, acting with malicious intent to harm David and Israel (1 Chron. 21:7–8).

Gleason L. Archer notes,

“God, as sovereign, may ordain events that involve evil agents, but this does not mean He is the author of evil”
(Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 215).

Scripture provides parallel examples where God and Satan are involved with distinct motives:

• Job’s Trials: God allows Satan to afflict Job (Job 1:12, 2:6) to purify Job’s faith, while Satan seeks to destroy it.
• Jesus’ Temptations: The Spirit leads Jesus to be tempted by Satan (Matt. 4:1). God’s purpose is Jesus’ triumph, while Satan aims to derail His mission.
• Peter’s Denials: Jesus says, “Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you” (Luke 22:31–32). God allows the trial to strengthen Peter, while Satan seeks his downfall.
• Persecuted Christians: God permits suffering to refine believers’ faith (1 Pet. 4:19, 13–14), while Satan seeks to “devour” them (1 Pet. 5:8).
• The Crucifixion: Satan incites Judas’ betrayal (John 13:27), but God’s purpose is redemption through Jesus’ sacrifice (Acts 2:23).

In the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context, divine and secondary agency were not mutually exclusive.

ANE literature often attributed events to both God and other agents, reflecting a worldview where God’s sovereignty encompasses all actions
(Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2006, p. 187).

In David’s case, God’s motive was benevolent—to humble David and Israel, bringing them back to reliance on Him:

“Let not the mighty man boast of his might… but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me”

Jeremiah 9:23–24.

Satan’s motive was malicious, aiming to displease God and harm Israel (1 Chron. 21:7). God’s purpose prevailed, as the plague led David to repentance (2 Sam. 24:17).

That’s why 1 Chronicles 21:1 says:

“Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”

• Satan didn’t implant the sin; he exploited a pride that was already in David’s heart.
• Just like with Eve (Genesis 3), Satan can tempt but he needs something in us to latch onto.

We can summarize what really happened as below:

Causal Role	Agent	Purpose
Primary Cause	God	In judgment, God allowed David’s pride to surface
Secondary Cause	Satan	Exploited David’s motives to bring destruction
Moral Agent	David	Ignored counsel and chose to act in pride

There’s no contradiction, just multi-layered causality, something we linguistically and logically affirmed. David’s census was the fruit of pride — a lesson he would later reflect on in the same texts.

N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

David Clearly Acknowledged He Had Sinned

In fact, within the very same texts, we find theological insight that connects David’s internal motive, Satan’s external temptation, and God’s sovereign discipline. It also reveals David’s self-awareness of his sin and the true nature of that sin, which was not merely the act of conducting a census, but the prideful heart behind it.

We reads:

“But David’s heart struck him AFTER HE HAD NUMBERED THE PEOPLE. And David said to the Lord, ‘I HAVE SINNED GREATLY IN WHAT I HAVE DONE. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, FOR I HAVE DONE VERY FOOLISHLY.’”

2 Samuel 24:10 (ESV)

Just as we’ve demonstrated, the act of counting soldiers isn’t inherently sinful, God even commands censuses in other parts of Scripture (e.g., Numbers 1). David’s sin wasn’t mathematical, it was motivational.

David’s heart was lifted up in pride, wanting to glory in the size and strength of his military rather than the God who gave him every victory.

Even Joab sensed that David’s motives were off and could tell David’s delight was wrong — “Why should my lord the king delight in this thing?” – 2 Samuel 24:3,

But David refused the caution — because his heart had already shifted. And that’s what makes his statement in verse 10 so powerful:

“I have sinned greatly… I have done so very foolishly.”

He finally recognized:

• It wasn’t just the census
• It was the heart behind it
• And Satan only amplified what was already brewing inside

David’s story does not end in judgment, but in repentance:

“David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly.’” (2 Samuel 24:10)

God responded not with total destruction, but with mercy. David built an altar and said:

“I will not offer to the Lord that which costs me nothing.” (2 Sam. 24:24)

This is the true mark of biblical faith — not perfection, but repentance and trust in a merciful God.

Was God the author of sin? No. Was He the sovereign Judge who permitted it as discipline? Yes.

This Is How Sin Works in All of Us

James 1:14–15 explains this universal process:

“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin…”

• God may allow a trial to test us.
• Satan may present an opportunity to sin.
• But we choose, based on what’s already in our hearts.

David’s story shows this progression clearly and humbly:

• A creeping pride in the heart.
• A devil eager to exploit it.
• A foolish decision.
• A repentant heart returning to God.

David’s sin was not merely counting his army. It was the inward pride, the desire to measure his greatness apart from God that opened the door to Satan’s influence. Satan didn’t create that desire, he merely helped David act on what was already hidden in his heart. David knew it, confessed it, and was restored.

The Bible does not contradict itself in this account. Instead, it reveals:

• A pathway to repentance
• God’s sovereignty
• Satan’s exploitation
• David’s free will and responsibility

When God removes His hand of protection from someone He has been shielding, that is when Satan finds an opportunity to act in that person’s life. This often happens when we are driven by sinful desires, such as greed or lust for things that God has not included in His immediate plans for us. Instead of waiting on Him, we push ahead in disobedience. In such cases, God may permit us to pursue our desires—not because He approves of them, but to allow us to experience the consequences. He knows that when we reach the end of ourselves and hit rock bottom, we are more likely to turn back to Him and receive His mercy. (Romans 1:24, Psalm 32:10)

God had always been David’s shield, his source of victory and growth. David did not win wars because of the size of his army, but because of God’s help, protection, and guidance. However, when David’s heart drifted toward pride, God withdrew His protective hand, allowing David to pursue his misguided desire. Satan seized that opportunity to add fuel to the fire, intensifying David’s ambition and making his desire even stronger. But God’s purpose in allowing this was not destruction, but discipline, to help David see the ruin that comes from trusting in self rather than in the God who had accomplished all his successes.

The story of David’s census teaches us the danger of pride, the reality of spiritual warfare, and the mercy of God. It challenges us to stay humble, trust in God rather than our achievements, and heed godly counsel — something David momentarily forgot but ultimately returned to.

Addressing the Misleading Claim: “Is Satan the God of Jesus?”
The claim that this alleged contradiction implies “Satan is the God of Jesus” is a baseless exaggeration. Scripture affirms God’s sovereignty (Ps. 115:3) and Satan’s subordination (Job 1:12). The Bible refers to God as the only “God” and “Lord”—“the only true God” (John 17:3).

Norman L. Geisler notes,

“Skeptics often exaggerate differences into theological absurdities, ignoring the Bible’s consistent teaching on God’s sovereignty over all agents, including Satan.”
(Geisler, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, 1992, p. 206).

These texts affirm God’s control, with Satan as a permitted agent, not a rival deity.

Biblical Inerrancy Upheld

This resolution upholds biblical inerrancy, which states that Scripture is without error in all it affirms (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XIII, 1978). The complementary accounts—God’s permission in 2 Samuel and Satan’s provocation in 1 Chronicles—reflect divine truth from different angles. R.C. Sproul affirms,

“Apparent difficulties in Scripture often resolve when we recognize the Bible’s multifaceted portrayal of divine and human actions”
(Sproul, Knowing Scripture, IVP Books, 2003, p. 34).

Turning table

Since this objection about who incited David—God or Satan—is often raised by Muslim polemicists in an attempt to portray a contradiction in the Bible, this very objection backfires when examined under the lens of Islamic theology and the Qur’an. Let’s then turn the tables using Islamic texts and reveal the Muslim both dilemma and trilemma by quoting their own Qur’an

The Qur’an Says BOTH Allah and the Devils Incite

Surah 6:112

“And so We have appointed for every prophet enemies—devils among mankind and jinn—inspiring one another with fancy words to deceive. If your Lord had willed, they would not have done it…”

Surah 19:83

“Do you not see that We have sent the devils upon the disbelievers, inciting them to evil with constant incitement?”

Surah 7:16–18

Satan says:
“Because You have put me in the wrong, I will lie in wait for them on Your straight path…”

Allah replies:
“Whosoever of them follows you, I will surely fill Hell with you all.”

So, Who Incites in the Qur’an? Allah or Shaytan?

This presents a trilemma for the Muslim critic:

1. Was it Allah who incited disbelievers?
   ➤ Yes (Surah 6:112, 19:83).
2. Was it the devils who incited disbelievers?
   ➤ Yes (explicitly stated).
3. Was it both—devils as agents under Allah’s will?
   ➤ Also yes.

So if Muslims have no problem accepting that Allah “sends” devils to incite evil under His decree (and without being unjust), then they should not object when the Bible says God permitted Satan to incite David as part of divine discipline upon Israel.

Also this raises deeper theological problems for Muslims regarding:

1. Allah as the Direct Sender of Devils (Surah 6:112; 19:83)

“We have sent the devils upon the disbelievers…”

(Surah 19:83)

“We appointed for every prophet enemies—devils from mankind and jinn…”

(Surah 6:112)

Allah is not merely permitting evil, but actively sending devils to deceive, incite, and oppose—even against prophets and disbelievers alike. This raises a moral and theological dilemma:

• How can Allah be just if He is the one actively commissioning the agents of deception?
• Does this make Allah the author of evil?

This is far more problematic than the biblical position, where God allows evil for judgment or testing but is never the author of sin (James 1:13).

2. Allah’s Decree Overrides Free Will

In both verses, the devils’ actions are not independent—they are part of Allah’s will:

“If your Lord had willed, they would not have done it.”

(Surah 6:112)

This raises major issues about free will and moral accountability in Islam.

• How can disbelievers be blamed or punished in hell if Allah is the one sending devils to incite them constantly?
• If they cannot resist what Allah has decreed, are they not simply pawns?

Even Muslim scholars like Al-Ghazali struggled with this tension between qadar (divine decree) and moral responsibility. It leaves the average Muslim in a fatalistic paradox: If Allah willed me to be misled, how can I be blamed?

3. Allah as the Cause of Rejection of Prophets

“We have appointed for every prophet enemies—devils from mankind and jinn…”

(Surah 6:112)

Islamic theology teaches that Allah wants all people to follow the guidance of the prophets. But here, Allah is said to:

• Appoint enemies to oppose the very prophets He sends.
• These enemies are both human and demonic.

So: Why would Allah deliberately frustrate His own guidance by inciting opposition? Why give people the chance to reject truth through deception He orchestrates?

This again portrays Allah as double-minded, self-contradictory, and raises the problem of divine sincerity: Is Allah really trying to guide people?

4. Allah Using Devils As Tools – But Who is Sovereign?

In Surah 19:83, devils are described as being under Allah’s control:

“We have sent the devils…”

But this leads to a dangerous theological loop for Muslims:

• If devils do what Allah sends them to do, then they are obeying Allah’s will.
• Yet, they are punished.

Are the devils really disobedient if they are doing what Allah decreed?
If obedience to Allah’s command is evil, then Allah’s command becomes morally suspect.

This undermines Islamic theology’s attempt to separate Allah’s decree (qadar) from moral evil.

5. The Dilemma for Judgment Day

If on Judgment Day, Allah judges disbelievers for being misled by devils whom He sent, how can this be just?

In contrast, the Bible explicitly says:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one.”

(James 1:13)

But the Qur’an has Allah sending temptation through devils. This paints Allah as a tempter — a role the Bible reserves for Satan alone (Matthew 4:1–3).

Just as they accuse the Bible of contradiction – something we’ve explained, they face an even greater theological contradiction in their own system:

Question	Biblical Answer	Qur’anic Problem
Who incited evil?	Satan, by permission	Allah Himself sends devils
Is God responsible for sin?	No	Yes (active sender)
Are humans free to choose?	Yes, with moral responsibility	Not if Allah decrees deception
Is God just in judgment?	Yes	No, if He caused their fall

Muslims must now explain how:

• Allah is just while actively sending devils.
• People are responsible while being incited by Allah’s will.
• God’s guidance is sincere, even as He appoints enemies against it.

Conclusion

The alleged contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 dissolves when we apply the Semitic idiom of permission, historical and theological context and ANE cultural norms. God permitted Satan to provoke David’s prideful census to judge Israel’s sin, with each passage highlighting a different aspect—God’s sovereignty and Satan’s malice. Far from implying “Satan is God or the God of Jesus,” these texts affirm God’s soverignty.

In addition, the Muslim critics face a dilemma when using 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 to challenge biblical inerrancy:

1. If they accept that the Bible uses the idiom of permission, where God allows David and Satan to act as part of His sovereign plan, they must concede that the alleged contradiction is resolved. This undermines their critique and affirms the Bible’s coherence.
2. If they reject the biblical resolution, insisting that attributing an action to both God and Satan is contradictory, they must also reject the Quranic teaching in Surah 6:112 and 19:83, where Allah sends devils to incite evil. This creates an inconsistency, as their own texts employ a similar framework of divine sovereignty and secondary agency.

Either way, the critic’s position is weakened. To maintain consistency, they must either accept the biblical explanation or question the Quran’s parallel teaching, which attributes actions to both Allah and devils. This dilemma exposes the selective nature of their critique and highlights the shared theological concept of divine control over secondary agents.

As we continue our series, we’ll tackle more alleged contradictions, equipping you to defend the Bible’s reliability. Join us, as Peter urges, “always being ready to make a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB), and may your trust in God’s inerrant Word deepen.