In 1 Chron 21:1, we read that it was "Satan" who incited David to take the census:
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The parallel in 2 Sam 24:1, it was Yahweh who incited David to carry out the census, resulting in divine judgment meted out to David and the people in the form of the plague:
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, God, number Israel and Judah.
For many readers who assume that the Satan figure in 1 Chron 21 is "the" Satan (read: the external, supernatural Satan who is the embodiment of evil and arch nemesis of God), this appears to be a contradiction between the two texts. The footnote to 2 Sam 24:1 in the LDS printing of the KJV reads as follows:
Apparently something s missing, and ‘Satan’ should be the antecedent of ‘he.’
It is generally agreed by most scholars that the “Satan” in this figure is not the Satan, that is, the arch nemesis of God, but a member of the heavenly court who acts as an adversary to David. Indeed, the Hebrew term translated as “Satan” (שָׂטָן) simply means “adversary,” and the first time it is used in the Hebrew Bible it to describe the angel of Yahweh:
And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary (שָׂטָן) against him [Balaam]. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
The NET note for 1 Chron 21:1 reads as follows, arguing that the “Satan” in this text was a human opponent of David’s:
The parallel text in 2Sa 24:1 says, "The LORD's anger again raged against Israel and he incited David against them, saying: 'Go, count Israel and Judah!'" The version of the incident in the Book of 2 Samuel gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective. Many interpreters and translations render the Hebrew שָׂטָן as a proper name here, "Satan" (NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, the Hebrew term שָׂטָן, which means "adversary," is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Num 22:22, Num 22:32, where the angel of the Lord assumes the role of an adversary to Balaam. When referring elsewhere to the spiritual entity known in the NT as Satan, the noun has the article and is used as a title, "the Adversary" (see Job 1:6-9, Job 1:12; Job 2:1-4, Job 2:6-7; Zec 3:1-2). In light of usage elsewhere the adversary in 1Ch 21:1 is likely a human enemy, probably a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength. For compelling linguistic and literary arguments against taking the noun as a proper name here, see S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL), 374–75.
The following adds some further light onto this problematic textual issue in the Old Testament:
The third and final appearance of a malevolent celestial śāṭān is in the Chronicler’s account of David’s census of Israel. That version informs the reader that it was śāṭān who rose up against Israel and incited David to number his people (1 Chr 21:1). Two items are of special import here. First, this is the only place in the OT where the Hebrew word śāṭān, when referring to a celestial diabolical being, is used without the definite article. This has suggested to most commentators that śāṭān is here a personal name. GKC §125f. refers to this instance of śāṭān (as opposed to haśśāṭān) as an illustration of an original appellative that has assumed the character of a real proper name and is therefore used without the article. The passage, however, might as justifiably be translated “and a śāṭān stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”
The second issue focuses on the question of why the account in 2 Samuel 24 attributes the stimulus for David’s census to Yahweh (2 Sam 24:1), while the Chronicler attaches blame to a śāṭān/Satan. There are three possible explanations for this shift. The first is that the Chronicler was bothered by the attribution of morally questionable activities to Yahweh; i.e., he incited David to take a census, then punished David for doing so. To that end the Chronicler deleted Yahweh’s part in the story as a stimulating factor and replaced him with śāṭān (Kluger 1967:159). But if the Chronicler was concerned with saving Yahweh’s image from tarnish, why did he leave unmolested other stories in which Yahweh was responsible for Rehoboam turning his back on the wise counsel of his advisers (2 Chr 10:15), or in which Yahweh sends a deceiving spirit into the mouths of Ahab’s prophets? Closely related to this explanation is the suggestion that the Chronicler downplayed Yahweh’s complicity in this event with his substitution of śāṭān, primarily because he was concerned to paint as beautiful a picture as possible of the relationship between Yahweh and David, Yahweh’s chosen servant (Day 1988:136–37). Accordingly, the Chronicler omitted any reference to Yahweh’s arbitrary anger with his people during David’s reign and told the story simply as a temptation episode. A third possible explanation is that the contrast between 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chr 21:1 (Yahweh/śāṭān) illustrates a development in how OT thought explains evil. Most of the earlier literature of the OT explained evil in terms of a primary cause (Yahweh). Later OT literature, such as Chronicles, expanded on this by introducing the concept of a secondary cause in its explanation of evil (śāṭān).
Hamilton, V. P. (1992). Satan. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, p. 987). New York: Doubleday.