In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, even a great warfare. He understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
Parallel Translations
-
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, even a great warfare. He understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
-
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
-
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the word was true, even a great warfare; and he gave heed to the word, and had understanding of the vision.
Cross-references (27)
Passages linked to Daniel 10:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Daniel 1:21 Daniel continued even to the first year of king Cyrus.
- Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
- Daniel 8:26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but seal up the vision, for it belongs to many days to come.”
- Daniel 1:7 The prince of the eunuchs gave names to them: to Daniel he gave the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.
- Daniel 1:17 Now as for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
- Genesis 41:32 The dream was doubled to Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.
- 2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that Yahweh’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
- Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ households of Israel, said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to Yahweh, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”
- Ezra 4:5 They hired counselors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.
- Ezra 5:13-17 But in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king made a decree to build this house of God. The gold and silver vessels of God’s house, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought into the temple of Babylon, those Cyrus the king also took out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered to one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor. He said to him, ‘Take these vessels, go, put them in the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let God’s house be built in its place.’ Then the same Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of God’s house which is in Jerusalem. Since that time even until now it has been being built, and yet it is not completed. Now therefore, if it seems good to the king, let a search be made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it is so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem; and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.”
- Ezra 6:3 In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree: Concerning God’s house at Jerusalem, let the house be built, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let its foundations be strongly laid; with its height sixty cubits, and its width sixty cubits;
- Ezra 6:14 The elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
- Isaiah 44:28–45:1 Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure,’ even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built;’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’ ” Yahweh says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, to subdue nations before him, and strip kings of their armor; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut:
- Daniel 2:21 He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding.
- Daniel 5:17 Then Daniel answered before the king, “Let your gifts be to yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation.
- Daniel 9:22-23 He instructed me and talked with me, and said, Daniel, “I have now come to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your petitions the commandment went out, and I have come to tell you; for you are greatly beloved. Therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision.
- Daniel 10:14 Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days; for the vision is yet for many days.”
- Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many will run back and forth, and knowledge will be increased.”
- Daniel 12:9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.
- Revelation 19:9 He said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb.’ ” He said to me, “These are true words of God.”
- Ezra 1:7-8 Also Cyrus the king brought out the vessels of Yahweh’s house, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem, and had put in the house of his gods; even those, Cyrus king of Persia brought out by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and counted them out to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.
- Ezra 3:7 They also gave money to the masons, and to the carpenters. They also gave food, drink, and oil to the people of Sidon and Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from Cyrus King of Persia.
- Daniel 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. I told the dream before him, saying,
- Daniel 5:12 because an excellent spirit, knowledge, understanding, interpreting of dreams, showing of dark sentences, and dissolving of doubts were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.”
- Daniel 8:16 I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, which called, and said, “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.”
- Daniel 11:2 “Now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings will stand up in Persia; and the fourth will be far richer than all of them. When he has grown strong through his riches, he will stir up all against the realm of Greece.
- Luke 1:20 Behold, you will be silent and not able to speak until the day that these things will happen, because you didn’t believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time.”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (25 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain We observe the Prophet by no means content with…
We observe the Prophet by no means content with the usual method of address, for the purpose of stirring up the attention of the pious, and of assuring them how worthy of special notice are the prophecies which follow. He marks the time, the third year of King Cyrus, as the Jews were then forbidden by a new edict to build their temple, although liberty to do so had been previously granted to them. He says, “a word” was made known to him, and he adds, the word was true, although the time was long. The time is treated more at length in the next verse. By saying, a word was manifested to him, he is thought to distinguish this prophecy from others, as it was not offered to him by either a dream or a vision. He uses the word מראה, merah, a “vision,” at the end of this verse, but I do not see why the noun “word” should be taken in so restricted a sense. Interpreters, again, seek for a reason why he mentions his own name as Belteshazzar; some think it celebrates some honor to which he was raised; others treat it as commending the superiority of his abilities, as the name implies — descended from heaven; while others bring forward various conjectures. I have no hesitation in stating Daniel’s wish to erect some illustrious monument of his vocation among the Medes, Persians, and Chaldeans. There, most probably, he was usually called Belteshazzar, and the name Daniel was almost buried in oblivion, and so he wished to testify to his being no stranger to the people of God, although he suffered a foreign name to be imposed upon him; for we have already seen the impossibility of his avoiding it. I therefore think the Prophet had no other intention than to render this prophecy notorious throughout all those regions in which he was well known under the name of Belteshazzar. Besides this, he wished to testify to his fellow-countrymen that he was not entirely cut off from the Church through being called Belteshazzar by the Chaldees; for he was always the same, and while banished from his country, was endued with the Spirit of prophecy, as we have previously seen. As the name of Daniel was almost unknown in Chaldea, he wished to make known the existence of both his names.
It now follows, And there is truth in the word Daniel here commends the certainty of the prophecy, as if he had said, I bring nothing before you but what is firm and stable, and whose actual performance the faithful ought confidently to expect. There is truth in the word, says he; meaning, there was no room for doubting his assertions, for he had been divinely instructed in events which should be fulfilled in their own time. I understand what follows to mean, although the time should be long. Some of the Rabbis take צבא, tzeba, for the angelic hosts, which is quite absurd in this place. The word signifies “army” as well as an appointed time, but the exposition which they thrust upon the passage cannot stand its ground. The particle “and,” as I think, must here be taken adversatively, in the sense of “although.” Thus the Prophet proclaims our need of calmness of mind, and patient endurance, until God shall really complete and perform what he has verbally announced. This feeling ought to be extended to all prophecies. We know how ardent are the dispositions of men, and how hastily they are carried away by their own desires. We are compelled, therefore, to curb our impetuosity, if we wish to make progress in the school of God, and we must admit this general principle: If a promise should tarry, wait for it; for it will surely come, and will not delay. (Habakkuk 2:3) Here Daniel affirms in a special sense, the time will be long this would restrain the faithful from rushing headlong with too much haste; they would command their feelings, and remain tranquil till the full maturity of the period should arrive.
Read full note →
He afterwards adds, He understood the vision; by this assertion he confirms the prophecy which he is about to explain, and thus assures us of his not uttering anything either perplexed or obscure. He also induces all the pious to hope for the exercise of the same understanding as he had himself attained; as if he had said, I know what God wished; he has explained to me by his angel various events which I will now set forth in their own order; let every one peruse these prophecies attentively and reverently, and may God grant him the same gift of understanding, and lead him to certain knowledge. The information conveyed by the Prophet belongs to all the pious, to deter them from sluggishness and despair. At the first glance this teaching may appear very obscure, but they must seek from the Lord that light of manifestation which he deigned to bestow upon the Prophet himself. It now follows, —
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Which is to declare that the godly should not…
Which is to declare that the godly should not hasten too much, but patiently to abide the issue of God’s promise.
He noteth this third year, because at this time the building of the Temple began to be hindered by Cambyses Cyrus’ son, when the father made war in Asia minor against the Scythians, which was a discouraging to the godly, and a great fear to Daniel.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king…
Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [was] true, but the time appointed [was] long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
Ver. 1. In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia.]. This whole chapter is but a preface to the ensuing prophecy, or visional prediction, recorded in the two following chapters. It beginneth at the third year of Cyrus’s empire, and reacheth till the time of the Jews rising from the dust of their dispersion, say some; to the end of the world, say others, with whom I concur.
Read full note →
A thing was revealed unto Daniel.] Who now must needs be very old, yet at those years (a hundred or more) gave himself to understand and search into divine secrets. The more any one knoweth of God, the more he would still know. Moses, newly come from the mount, crieth to God to show him his glory. David, that gulf of holy learning, is often at his, Teach me thy statutes, &c.
And the thing was true,] i.e., Plain and proper; not, as former visions, figurative and obscure.
But the time appointed was long,] scil., Till all be fulfilled, which will not be till the last judgment.
And he understood the thing.] And so was the better able to propound it to the Church; for what a man doth not himself understand, he cannot well and fitly deliver to others.
And had understood the vision,] scil., Given unto him; for unless God give us both sight and light, we perceive not heavenly doctrine, neither indeed can do.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain This fell out in the thirty-first year, which was…
This fell out in the thirty-first year, which was the last year of the kingdom of Persia, but the third year after his seizure and monarchy of Babylon; indeed it is said, Dan 1:21, that Daniel continued to the first year of Cyrus, i.e. in his place of honour, but he lived much longer.
A thing was revealed unto Daniel; revealed by an angel from heaven, not in a dream, or in any more obscure and uncertain way, but plainly. This chapter is but a general preface to what is more particularly declared in the next chapter.
Read full note →
Belteshazzar: by this name Daniel was famous among many people, and they took notice of him by his honourable place, name, and prophecy.
The thing was true; both in the matter, and that which was truly to come to pass, not feigned, nor a bare conjecture, המאנ it was truth. The time appointed was long, i.e. for three hundred years’ space, as was said, Dan 8:26, or to the end of Antiochus’s persecution, or of the world, Dan 12:2.
And he understood the thing and the vision. This is doubled, to beget the greater credit, and assurance of the truth of it.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain This vision is dated in the third year of…
This vision is dated in the third year of Cyrus, that is, of his reign after the conquest of Babylon, his third year since Daniel became acquainted with him and a subject to him. Here is,
I. A general idea of this prophecy (Dan 10:1): The thing was true; every word of God is so; it was true that Daniel had such a vision, and that such and such things were said. This he solemnly attests upon the word of a prophet. Et hoc paratus est verificare - He was prepared to verify it; and, if it was a word spoken from heaven, no doubt it is stedfast and may be depended upon. But the time appointed was long, as long as to the end of the reign of Antiochus, which was 300 years, a long time indeed when it is looked upon as to come. Nay, and because it is usual with the prophets to glance at things spiritual and eternal, there is that in this prophecy which looks in type as far forward as to the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead; and then he might well say, The time appointed was long. It was, however, made as plain to him as if it had been a history rather than a prophecy; he understood the thing; so distinctly was it delivered to him, and received by him, that he could say he had understanding of the vision. It did not so much operate upon his fancy as upon his understanding.
Read full note →
II. An account of Daniel's mortification of himself before he had this vision, not in expectation of it, nor, when he prayed that solemn prayer ch. 9, does it appear that he had any expectation of the vision in answer to it, but purely from a principle of devotion and pious sympathy with the afflicted people of God. He was mourning full three weeks (Dan 10:2), for his own sins and the sins of his people, and their sorrows. Some think that the particular occasion of his mourning was slothfulness and indifference of many of the Jews, who, though they had liberty to return to their own land, continued still in the land of their captivity, not knowing how to value the privileges offered them; and perhaps it troubled him the more because those that did so justified themselves by the example of Daniel, though they had not that reason to stay behind which he had. Others think that it was because he heard of the obstruction given to the building of the temple by the enemies of the Jews, who hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose (Ezr 4:4, Ezr 4:5), all the days of Cyrus, and gained their point from his son Cambyses, or Artaxerxes, who governed while Cyrus was absent in the Scythian war. Note, Good men cannot but mourn to see how slowly the work of God goes on in the world and what opposition it meets with, how weak its friends are and how active its enemies. During the days of Daniel's mourning he ate no pleasant bread; he could not live without meat, but he ate little, and very sparingly, and mortified himself in the quality as well as the quantity of what he ate, which may truly be reckoned fasting, and a token of humiliation and sorrow. He did not eat the pleasant bread he used to eat, but that which was course and unpalatable, which he would not be tempted to eat any more of than was just necessary to support nature. As ornaments, so delicacies, are very disagreeable to a day of humiliation. Daniel ate no flesh, drank no wine, nor anointed himself, for those three week's time, Dan 10:3. Though he was now a very old man, and might plead that the decay of his nature required what was nourishing, though he was a very great man, and might plead that, being used to dainty meats, he could not do without them, it would prejudice his health if he were, yet, when it was both to testify and to assist his devotion, he could thus deny himself; let this be noted to the shame of many young people in the common ranks of life who cannot persuade themselves thus to deny themselves.
III. A description of that glorious person whom Daniel saw in vision, which, it is generally agreed, could be no other that Christ himself, the eternal Word. He was by the side of the river Hiddekel (Dan 10:4), probably walking there, not for diversion, but devotion and contemplation, as Isaac walked in the field, to meditate; and, being a person of distinction, he had his servants attending him at some distance. There he looked up, and saw one man Christ Jesus. It must be he, for he appears in the same resemblance wherein he appeared to St. John in the isle of Patmos, Rev 1:13-15. His dress was priestly, for he is the high priest of our profession, clothed in linen, as the high priest himself was on the day of atonement, that great day; his loins were girded (in St. John's vision his paps were girded) with a golden girdle of the finest gold, that of Uphaz, for every thing about Christ is the best in its kind. The girding of the loins denotes his ready and diligent application to his work, as his Father's servant, in the business of our redemption. His shape was amiable, his body like the beryl, a precious stone of a sky-colour. His countenance was awful, and enough to strike a terror on the beholders, for his face was as the appearance of lightning, which dazzles the eyes, both brightens and threatens. His eyes were bright and sparkling, as lamps of fire. His arms and feet shone like polished brass, Dan 10:6. His voice was loud, and strong, and very piercing, like the voice of a multitude. The vox Dei - voice of God can overpower the vox populi - voice of the people. Thus glorious did Christ appear, and it should engage us, 1. To think highly and honourably of him. Now consider how great this man is, and in all things let him have the pre-eminence. 2. To admire his condescension for us and our salvation. Over all this splendour he drew a veil when he took upon him the form of a servant, and emptied himself.
IV. The wonderful influence that this appearance had upon Daniel and his attendants, and the terror that it struck upon him and them.
1. His attendants saw not the vision; it was not fit that they should be honoured with the sight of it. There is a divine revelation vouchsafed to all, from converse with which none are excluded who do not exclude themselves; but such a vision must be peculiar to Daniel, who was a favourite. Paul's companions were aware of the light, but saw no man, Act 9:7; Act 22:9. Note, It is the honour of those who are beloved of God that, what is hidden from others, is known to them. Christ manifests himself to them, but not to the world, Joh 14:22. But, though they saw not the vision, they were seized with an unaccountable trembling; either from the voice they heard, or from some strange concussion or vibration of the air they felt, so it was that a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves, probably among the willows that grew by the river's side. Note, Many have a spirit of bondage to fear who never receive a spirit of adoption, to whom Christ has been, and will be, never otherwise than a terror. Now the fright that Daniel's attendants were in is a confirmation of the truth of the vision; it could not be Daniel's fancy, or the product of a heated imagination of his own, or it had a real, powerful, and strange effect upon those about him.
2. He himself saw it, and saw it alone, but he was not able to bear the sight of it. It not only dazzled his eyes, but overwhelmed his spirit, so that there remained no strength in him, Dan 10:8. He said, as Moses himself, I exceedingly fear and quake. His spirits were all so employed, either in an intense speculation of the glory of this vision or in the fortifying of his heart against the terror of it, that his body was left in a manner lifeless and spiritless. He had no vigour in him, and was but one remove from a dead carcase; he looked as pale as death, his colour was gone, his comeliness in him was turned into corruption, and he retained no strength. Note, the greatest and best of men cannot bear the immediate discoveries of the divine glory; no man can see it and live; it is next to death to see a glimpse of it, as Daniel here; but glorified saints see Christ as he is and can bear the sight. But, though Daniel was thus dispirited with the vision of Christ, yet he heard the voice of his words and knew what he said. Note, We must take heed lest our reverence of God's glory, by which we should be awakened to hear his voice both in his word and in his providence, should degenerate into such a dread of him as will disable or indispose us to hear it. It should seem that when the vision of Christ terrified Daniel the voice of his words soon pacified and composed him, silenced his fear, and laid him to sleep in a holy security and serenity of mind: When I heard the voice of his words I fell into a slumber, a sweet slumber, on my face, and my face towards the ground. When he saw the vision he threw himself prostrate, into a posture of the most humble adoration, and dropped asleep, not as careless of what he heard and saw, but charmed with it. Note, How dreadful soever Christ may appear to those who are under convictions of sin, and in terror by reason of it, there is enough in his word to quiet their spirits and make them easy, if they will but attend to it and apply it.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia,....…
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia,.... Not of his being king of Persia only, but of the Medopersian empire, after he had subdued the Babylonian empire, and annexed it to his dominions; and this is not to be reckoned from the time of his taking Babylon, and putting the government of it into the hands of his uncle Darius, with whom he jointly reigned; but from the time of his uncle's death, when he was sole monarch of the whole empire: he reigned thirty years, as Cicero (t), from a Persian writer, relates; which is to be reckoned from the time of his being appointed by his uncle commander-in-chief of the Persian and Median armies; for from his taking of Babylon to his death were but nine years; and so many years the canon of Ptolemy assigns to his reign, taking in the two years he reigned with his uncle; for from his being sole monarch, after the death of Cyaxares, or Darius the Mede his uncle, were but seven years; which, according to Xenophon (u), is the whole of his reign, who reckons it from thence; and it was in the third of these that Daniel had the visions contained in this and the two following chapters; which, according to Bishop Usher (w), and Dean Prideaux (x), was in the year of the world 3470 A.M. and 534 B.C. Mr. Bedford (y) places it in the year 533 B.C.: how long Daniel lived after this is not certain; very probably he died quickly after, since he must be in a very advanced age; for the third year of Cyrus being the seventy third of his captivity, as Dean Prideaux (z) observes; and if he was eighteen years of age, as that learned man thinks is the least that can be supposed at the time of his carrying into Babylon, he must have been in the ninety first year of his age at this time; or if he was but fifteen years of age at that time, which is the opinion of Aben Ezra on Dan 1:4, he must be in the third year of Cyrus eighty eight years of age. The Dutch annotators observe, that Daniel lived in the court of Babylon above seventy seven years, which will carry his age to a greater length still. Jarchi on Dan 1:21 asserts Daniel to be the same with Hatach in Est 4:5 and so the Targum on that place, who lived in the times of Ahasuerus, supposed to be Xerxes: now between the third of Cyrus, and the beginning of Xerxes's reign, is mentioned a space of seventy one years, which, added to the least number eighty eight before given, will make Daniel now to be one hundred and fifty nine years old, when Ahasuerus or Xerxes began his reign; which is not only an age unfit for such business Hatach was employed in; but agrees not with the period in which Daniel lived, when it was not usual for men to live so long, and must be exploded as fabulous:
a thing was revealed unto Daniel; a secret, which he otherwise could never have known; and which was a singular favour to him, and showed him to be a friend of God, a favourite of his; and this respected the Persian and Grecian monarchies; the various kings of Egypt and Syria, and what should befall them; and the times of Antiochus, and the troubles the Jews would have through him:
Read full note →
(whose name was called Belteshazzar); a name given him by the prince of the eunuchs; see Dan 1:7,
and the thing was true; was not a false vision, a mere fancy of the brain, an empty conjecture, a delusion of the mind, like the divination and soothsaying of the Gentiles, but a real thing, that was sure and certain, and would be fulfilled, and might be depended upon: but the time appointed was long; ere the whole would be accomplished; for it reached to the times of Antiochus, three hundred years after this, yea, to the resurrection of the dead, and the end of all things: or, "a great host", or "army" (a); a vast appearance of things were represented to him; not a host of angels, as Saadiah; but a vast number of facts, like an army of them, and which respected armies and battles; or it may denote the force, power, and efficacy of the word that was true, which should not fail, but be certainly fulfilled:
and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision; that is, Daniel understood "the word" (b), or words of the prophecy, in which it was expressed; they were clear and plain, and not obscure, dark, and doubtful; and he had a clear view of each of the parts of it, of the whole series of things, the connection of facts, and their dependence on one another, and their certain accomplishment; he saw them in their order, as they were presented to him in vision and prophecy; and was not at any loss about the meaning of any part of them, or the words by which they were signified.
(t) De Divinatione, l. 1. (u) Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 45. (w) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3470. (x) Connexion, &c. par. 1. p. 161, 162. (y) Scripture Chronology, p. 718. (z) Ut supra. (Connexion, &c. par. 1. p. 161, 162) (a) "et militia magna", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus; "militia seu belligeratio ingens", Michaelis. (b) "verbum", Pagninus, Montanus, Munster.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain This chapter and the two next make one entire…
This chapter and the two next make one entire vision and prophecy, given Daniel about two years after the former. This chapter is introductory: the next has the prophecy itself, and the twelfth chapter, the conclusion of it. In this we have Daniel's solemn humiliation, ver. 1-3. A glorious appearance of the Son of God, ver. 4-9. The encouragement given him to expect a full discovery of future events, ver. 10-25.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain This and the two following chapters give an account…
CHAPTER X
This and the two following chapters give an account of Daniel's
Read full note →
last vision, wherein the succession of the Persian and Grecian
monarchies is described, together with the wars that should
take place between Syria and Egypt under the latter monarchy.
The last part of the vision (from Da 11:36)
seems to relate chiefly to the persecutions of the Church in
the times of Antichrist, till it be purified from all its
pollutions; after which will follow that glorious kingdom of
the saints spoken of in the seventh and eighth chapters. This
chapter begins with an account of Daniel's fasting and
humiliation, 1-3.
Then we have a description of the Divine person who appeared to
the prophet, not unlike him who appeared to the apostle in the
isle of Patmos, 4-21. See Re 1:10-16.
NOTES ON CHAP. X
Verse 1. In the third year of Cyrus] Which answers to the first year of Darius the Mede.
The time appointed was long] וצבא גדול vetsaba gadol, but the warfare long; there will be many contentions and wars before these things can be accomplished.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Dan 10:1. In the third year of Cyrus king…
Dan 10:1. In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia — That is, the third after the death of Darius. Daniel must now have been above ninety years of age. It is reasonable to suppose that, being a youth when he was carried captive, he must have been at least twenty years of age; and that was seventy-three years before the date of this vision, which was the last Daniel saw, and it is not likely he himself survived it long. A thing was revealed unto Daniel — A revelation of future things (namely, those contained in the two following chapters, to which this is as it were a preface) was made to Daniel. And the thing was true — Or plain, as the word truth, or true, is sometimes taken in the Hebrew. The meaning seems to be, that the things were not revealed to him enigmatically, or symbolically, under the types of a statue, or wild beasts, as they were before; but as it were by an historical recital, and with more particular circumstances than before. It is the usual method of the Holy Spirit, to make the latter prophecies explanatory of the former; and revelation is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The four great empires of the world, which were shown to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a great image, were again more particularly represented to Daniel in the shape of four great wild beasts. In like manner, the memorable events which were revealed to Daniel, in the vision of the ram and the he-goat, are here again more clearly and explicitly revealed, in this last vision, by an angel; so that this latter prophecy may not improperly be said to be a comment upon, and explanation of, the former. But the time appointed was long — That is, the time when the things revealed were to come to pass, was at a great distance; “and consequently,” says Bishop Newton, “the prophecy must extend further than from the third year of Cyrus to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was not above three hundred and seventy years. In reality,” adds he, “it comprehends many signal events after that time to the end of the world.” And he understood the thing, &c. — He had a clear view of the succession of the Persian and Grecian monarchies, and of the series of the kings of Syria and Egypt under the latter of them; although the remaining parts of the vision were obscure, especially with respect to their final event: see chap. Dan 12:8.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia…
In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia - In regard to Cyrus, see the notes at Isa 41:2. In Dan 1:21, it is said that “Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.” But it is not necessarily implied in that passage that he “died” then. It may mean only that he continued in authority, and was employed, in various ways, as a public officer, until that time. See the note at that passage. For anything that appears, he may have lived several years after, though, for causes now unknown, he may have retired from the court after the accession of Cyrus. This vision may have occurred when he was no longer a public officer, though the whole narrative leads us to suppose that he had not lost his interest in the affairs of the Jewish people. He may have retired on account of age, though his declining years would be naturally devoted to the welfare of his people, and he would embrace any opportunity which he might have of doing them good.
A thing was revealed unto Daniel - A revelation was made to him. The occasion on which it was done is stated in the next verse. It was when he was earnestly engaged in prayer for his people, and when his mind was deeply anxious in regard to their condition.
Read full note →
Whose name was called Belteshazzar - See the notes at Dan 1:7. The name Belteshazzar was probably that by which he was known in Babylon, and as this prophecy was perhaps published in his own time, the use of this name would serve to identify the author. The name “Daniel” would have been sufficient to give it currency and authority among his own countrymen.
And the thing was true - That is, it would be certainly accomplished. This expresses the deep conviction of the writer that what was revealed in this vision would certainly come to pass. In his own mind there was no doubt that it would be so, though the time extended through many years, and though it could not be expected that it would be complete until long after his own death. Perhaps the declaration here is designed to bring the weight of his own authority and his well-known character to pledge his own word, that what is here said would be accomplished; or, as we should say, to stake his veracity as a prophet and a man, on the fulfillment of what he had affirmed. Such an assertion might be of great use in consoling the minds of the Jews in the troubles that were to come upon their nation.
But the time appointed was long - Margin, “great.” There is considerable variety in the translation and interpretation of this passage. The Latin Vulgate renders it, “fortitudo magna.” The Greek, “And the power was great.” The Syriac, “And the discourse was apprehended with great effort, but he understood the vision.” Luther, “And it was of great matters.” Lengerke, “And the misery (Elend) is great;” that is, the distress of the people. Bertholdt renders it, “Whose contents pertained to great wars.” This variety of interpretation arises from the word rendered in our version “the time appointed” - צבא tsâbâ'. This word properly means an army, host, as going forth to war; then the host of angels, of the stars, and hence, God is so often called “Jehovah of hosts.” Then the word means warfare, military service, a hard service, a season of affliction or calamity. See the notes at Job 7:1. It seems to me that this is the meaning here, and that Gesenius (Lexicon) has correctly expressed the idea: “And true is the edict, and “relates to long warfare;” that is, to many calamities to be endured.” It was not a thing to be soon accomplished, nor did it pertain to peaceful and easy times, but it had reference to the calamities, the evils, and the hardships of wars - wars attended with the evils to which they are usually incident, and which were to be conducted on a great scale. This interpretation will accord with the details in the following chapters.
And he understood the thing ... - This seems to be said in contradistinction to what had occurred on some other occasions when the meaning of the vision which he saw was concealed from him. Of this he says he had full understanding. The prophecy was, in fact, more clearly expressed than had been usual in the revelations made to Daniel, for this is almost entirely a historical narrative, and there could be little doubt as to its meaning.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Third. This concurs with the first of Darius. Cyrus…
Third. This concurs with the first of Darius. Cyrus then reigned in Persia, and the king is here often mentioned, as the vision happened near it, on the banks of the Tigris. Only twenty-one days had elapsed since the former. --- Strength. Hebrew: "warfare," or determinate time. (Job vii. 1.) This shall surely take place, but not soon. (Calmet) --- For. Protestant: "and had understanding," &c. (Haydock) --- He was informed of the meaning, or strove to know what the preceding vision denoted. (Calmet) --- Pharao and Baltassar were not prophets, as they did not comprehend what they saw. For understanding is requisite, in order that a vision may be prophetical. (St. Thomas Aquinas, [Summa Theologiae] ii. 2. q. 175 a. 2; Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 4. The prophet’s last vision, containing the most thorough…
4. The prophet’s last vision, containing the most thorough description of the future sufferings of Israel, and of its ultimate Messianic exaltation.
Chapters 10–12.
Read full note →
a. The appearance of the angel on the banks of the Tigris, as preparatory to the subsequent prophecies and introductory to them.
Dan_10:1 to Dan_11:1.
1In the third year of [to] Cyrus king of Persia, a thing [word] was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [word] was true [truth], but [and] the time appointed [warfare] was long [great]: and he understood the thing [word], and had understanding of [in] the vision [appearance.]
2In those days I Daniel was1 “mourning three full weeks.2 I ate no pleasant 3 bread, neither came flesh nor wine in [to] my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
4 And in the four and twentieth day of [to] the first month, as [and] I was by 5 [upon] the side of the great river, which [it] is Hiddekel, then [and] I lifted up mine eyes, and looked [saw], and, behold, a certain [one] man clothed in 5 linen [linens], whose [and his] loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body also [and his body] was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to [the aspect of] polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. 7And I Daniel alone saw the vision [appearance]; for [and] the men that were with me saw not the vision [appearance]; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that [and] they fled to hide [in hiding] themselves.
8Therefore [And] I was left alone, and saw this great vision [appearance], and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned in [upon] me 9 into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet [And] heard I the voice of his words: and when [as] I heard the voice of his words, then [and] was I in a deep 10 sleep [stupified] on my face, and my face toward the ground [earth]. And, behold, a hand touched me, which [and] set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands. 11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand [have understanding in] the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken [at his speaking] this word unto [with] me, I stood trembling.
12 Then [And] said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set [give] thy heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy 13 God, thy words were heard, and I am [have] come for [at] thy words. But [And] the prince of the kindom of Persia withstood [was standing in front of] me one and twenty days: but [and], lo, Michael, one of the chief [first] princes, came 14 to help me; and I remained there with [beside] the kings of Persia. Now [And] I am [have] come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter [sequel of the] days: for yet the vision is for many days.
15And when he had spoken [in his speaking] such like [like these] words unto [with] me, I set [gave] my face toward the ground [earth], and I became dumb. 16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men [man] touched [touching upon] my lips: then [and] I opened my mouth and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision [appearance] my sorrows 17 are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. For [And] how can the servant of this my lord talk [speak] with this my lord? for [and] as for me [I], straightway there remained [would stand], no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.
18Then [And] there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, 19and said, O man greatly beloved, fear not; peace be unto thee; be strong, yea [and], be strong. And when he had spoken unto [in his speaking with] me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.
20Then [And] said he, Knowest thou wherefore I [have] come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, 21 [then lo, the prince of Græcia shall [has] come. But I will show [tell] thee that which is noted [recorded] in the scripture of truth: and there is none that 1 holdeth with me in [upon] these things, but Michael your prince. Also [And] I, in the first year of [to] Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
PREFATORY REMARKS
Concerning the final vision of Daniel (chap. 10–12) as a whole
The last section of the prophetically visional part of this book falls into three clearly defined subdivisions of unequal length, and was therefore not inappropriately treated by the person who divided the Holy Scriptures into chapters. It is not only the most comprehensive, but, because of its form and contents, also the most remarkable and difficult among the prophetic portions of the book. Having been composed later than the three preceding visions, namely subsequent to the captivity and when the return of the exiles had already begun (see on Dan_10:1), it supplements their contents, and develops them still farther—especially those of the second vision (chap. 8) and of the third (chap. 9). The development of the fourth and last world-power to the stage of anti-Christianity, which was described with special interest in those two chapters, is now illustrated more fully than in any former instance, and at the same time, the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God over that and all other opposing powers is brought into a clearer light and portrayed in more glowing colors than heretofore. The relation of the section to chap. 7 as serving to complement and still farther develop its subject, becomes especially prominent in this bright closing scene; while the prophecy is in so far complementary to chapters 8 and 9 as it describes the development of the anti-Ohristian world-power in predictions distinguished by a greater fulness of detail—to say nothing of the similarity between its preparatory scenery and that of chap. 8 and also of Dan_9:20-23. The section serves to complete the visions of chap. 8 by describing more exactly the hostile relations in which the various constituent sections of the fourth world-power stood to each other, as already symbolically indicated in Dan_8:22 et seq.; and particularly by showing how the holy land, which lay between the contending sections of the divided empire, in some cases was drawn indirectly into suffering, and in others was made the object of direct attack. In like manner this vision becomes complementary to that in chap. 9 since it fills the outline of the sixty-two weeks and also of the one final week of tribulation [?], which were but briefly referred to in that chapter, with a wealth of contents, that displays a growing animation and interest as the description draws near to the close of the sixty-second and the beginning of the last week. In tracing the particular manner of the development of the anti-Christian power out of the fourth and last world-monarchy, there seems to have been the occasional intervention of a later hand, which drew the prophecy with sharper lines and adapted it more fully to the subsequent facts connected with its historical fulfilment, than had been done in the general outline which was revealed to the prophet.3 The statements in Dan_10:5 et seq., concerning the geographical position of the two most powerful sections of the great divided Javanic world-empire, and also concerning the direction taken by the various expeditions for conquest which their rulers organized, the repeated attempts to unite the contending dynasties by means of matrimonial alliances, the insurrections and treasonable plots against individual sovereigns, etc., can hardly be regarded otherwise than as interpolations on the part of a pious Jewish apocalyptist of the Maccabæan age, although it may be impossible at this day to venture a definite estimate respecting the proportion of the whole section Dan_11:5-45 that originated with Daniel, or as to how much is to be credited to the subsequent reviser (see the exeget. remarks on the several passages, particularly on Dan_10:5-6; Dan_10:8; Dan_10:14; Dan_10:17-18, 25, 27, etc., and pre-eminently on Dan 10:40 et seq.; and cf. supra, Introd. § 1, note 2, and § 4). While, for reasons that have been given (cf. Introd. § 4, note 1), we decidedly reject the hypothesis that the entire section Dan_10:1 to Dan_12:13, excepting only the first four verses of chap. 12, is spurious, we regard the theory that chap. 11 has been interpolated as above suggested, as necessary, chiefly because details characterized by such unusual precision as is found in that chapter, seem to conflict with the nature of genuine and healthful prophecy, and with the analogy of all the remaining prophecies in the history of Old-Test. Revelation 4 We are entirely agreed with Kranichfeld (p. 340 et seq.) in holding that the nature or the “self-evident canon” of prophecy requires “that the prediction should not usurp the place of historical development itself, i.e., that it should not adduce such future dates, as cannot be connected with the time of the prophetic originator, as the unfolding of a religious or moral idea animated by the operations of God—although in other respects a particularizing description may offer any amount of detailed representations in illustration, limited only by the confines established by that canon.” We cannot, however, agree with him in believing that the entire vision before us, and especially that part contained in chap. 11, must be regarded “by that canon” simply as a developing of the ideas contained elsewhere in the book. The many surprising details of that chapter do not appear to an unbiassed mind as the mere development of former thoughts, but rather as concrete statements respecting the political and family history of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, such as no other Old-Test. prophet would have attempted to furnish, even approximately, and such as conflict with the spirit of Old-Test. prophecy in general. We are certainly not compelled by any merely subjective reason to assume an interpolation of the text of Daniel in this place, after having rejected that theory in every other instance. The only reason which prevents us from defending the genuineness of this closing section is based on the analogy of all the balance of O.-T. prophecy, which in no case affords a similar example of specific and detailed description of the future (cf. Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, p. 105 et seq.; Die Grenzen einer Prädiktion—an investigation, however, which seems to require a more strict apprehension).
The whole section divides itself, as has already been observed, into three parts, the first of which describes the general circumstances that conditioned the new vision, and also the introductory features of the vision itself (consisting in the appearance of a mighty angel, which at first excited the prophet’s alarm and terror, but subsequently exercised a comforting and exalting influence over him), Dan_10:1 to Dan_11:1. The special description of the future having been thus introduced is taken up by the second part and carried forward from the unfolding of the Persian world-empire, then upon the stage, to the highest point of conceited power developed by the antitheistic tyrant who ultimately sprang from the Javanic world-monarchy, and who became the antichrist of the Old Testament (Dan_11:2-45).5 Finally, the third part describes the triumph, the deliverance, and the exaltation of God’s people in the Messianic period, and, if it does not certify the nearness of that æra of ultimate prosperity, it yet conveys the assurance that its approach is determined by immutable measurements and conditions fixed by God (Dan_12:1-13).—The exorbitant length of the intermediate part, exceeding, as it does, the aggregate of the others nearly two-fold, might be adduced as an additional and highly probable evidence of its interpolation, as suggested above.6
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_10:1. The time and significance of the vision. In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia—therefore B. C. 536 or 535 [probably, 534], later than any other date in the book (cf. on Dan_1:21). It is significant and instructive, as bearing on the subject and design of the vision, which dwells with special interest on the aspect of affairs subsequent to the Persian dominion, that when it was imparted to Daniel, he had already lived under Medo-Persian rule during several years. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. Dan 340: “After a series of prophetic announcements by Daniel had received a genuine prophetic fulfilment during the time of the exile itself, and, on the one hand the newly confirmed return of the exiles had been but lately realized, while on the other, the צוֹף הָעִתִּים, which had been predicted instead of the Messianic glory, was feelingly demonstrated, e.g., by the disputes with the Samaritans, by the interruption of the building of the temple (cf. Ezr_3:8 with Dan_4:8), and, above all, by the continued aversion of the supreme Persian powers (cf. Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20), it now became the interest of the seer to devote special attention to the last heathen empire of the earth, the only one remaining to be demonstrated, and to present theocratically this last characteristic picture of hostility, in colors that would constantly impress its nature, and in such detail as the confidence springing from the unvarying success of the past would justify. Thoroughly convinced as he was, on the ground of his own observation and of the teaching of earlier prophecy that the Javanic west would eventually displace the east in the dominion of the world, and that at the same time the ultimate form of heathen government would appear in connection with the former, he would naturally not regard the transient Persian empire, which had indeed been adequately characterized at its very beginning, as the אַחְַרִית חַיָּמִים (cf. Dan_10:14; Dan_2:28; Dan_8:19) upon which prophecy elsewhere dwells by preference, but would rather consider the final form of heathen power over the theocracy in that light.”—Hitzig inquires “Why Daniel was still at Babylon in the third year of Cyrus? Why so pious a theocrat, and so devoted a lover of Jerusalem and the holy land, had not returned thither? Why he should seem to place himself among the despisers of the holy mountain and among the apostates (Isa_65:11; Isa_66:5), by disregarding the exhortations of Isaiah 2 to return (Isa. 4:20; 52:11 et seq.)?”—to all of which the simple answer is, that while ranking as a highly esteemed and influential officer of the state, even under Persian rule (cf. 6:29), he must have been persuaded that he would be able to render his nation more important service with regard to the rebuilding of their city and temple, were he to remain behind to represent them at the court, than he possibly could were he to accompany them on their return to Judæa. As a secondary consideration his somewhat advanced, age may have influenced his decision (despite Ezr_3:12), cf. Hävernick on the passage.—Unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. Cf. Dan_1:7; Dan_2:26; Dan_4:5; Dan_5:12. Both names are given in this place, for the reason, probably, that the two-fold relation which the prophet occupied (being connected with the Old-Test people of God, and also filling an official station at the court of the world-kingdom) and which is thus indicated, constituted the feature by which he was enabled “to view the history of the conflict of Israel with the world-power, and to record for the benefit of his people what might be expected from the latter” (Füller).—And the thing was true; or, “and the word is truth,” i.e., the word of God which was revealed to the prophet, and which, unlike the words of so many false prophets of that time (Jer_29:8 et seq., 15), is not a lying and deceptive word, but truth, that is worthy of credit and shall surely come to pass; cf. 2Sa_7:28; 1Ki_8:26; also below, Dan_10:21; Dan_11:2; Dan_12:7.—But the time appointed was long; rather, “and great tribulation,” supply, “formed its subject” צָבָא גָדוֹל is an additional predicate of הַדָּכָר (cf. Gen_11:1; Isa_7:24; Jer_26:2). Maurer renders it correctly: “צ׳ ג oraculum vocatur ab argumento,” and also de Wette: “and refers to great wretchedness.” צָבָא here denotes “warfare, oppression, trouble,” exactly as in Isa_4:2; not “bravery, might” (Vulg., Syr.), nor “exertion,” as if the great effort put forth by the prophet while receiving the revelation were alluded to (Hävern.), and least of all, “ministering,” as Ewald strangely conceived, referring to the numerous angels whom he regarded as being engaged in this new revelation with industrious energy and care (!).—And he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision; rather, “observed the word, and gave attention to the vision.” בִּין is not an imperative (v. Lengerke, Ewald), but an infinitive with a perfect signification.[7] The construction with an accusative of the object is similar to that in Dan_9:2; cf. Dan_12:8. The following בִּינָה, although milel, is not an imperative (as v. Lengerke supposes, but a noun, which has the accent here on the first syllable, because of the accented כֹוִ that immediately follows; cf. Eze_19:14. The probable design of the statement that Daniel gave careful heed to what was revealed was to emphasize the highly significant and profoundly important subject of the vision from the outset, and also to give assurance of the credibility of the prophet’s narrative.
Dan_10:2-3. The frame of mind of Daniel and his outward deportment while receiving the revelation. Dan_10:2. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. The tidings respecting the discouraging state of affairs among the Jews, who had returned to the holy land, which may have reached Daniel about this time, may be regarded as the probable cause of his sadness. An especial cause of grief to him probably lay in the fact, that as the intervention of the Samaritans had interrupted the building of the temple since the second year after the return of the exiles (Ezr_4:4 et seq.; cf. Dan_3:8), the latter were prevented from observing the Passover in a lawful manner. His attention would be especially directed to that fact, since according to Dan_10:4, the period of three weeks spent by him in mourning and fasting was included in the very month of the feast of the Passover, so as to precede the date fixed for the beginning of that feast (which continued from the 14th to the 21st Nisan, the “first month” of the Jewish year) by twelve days, and to extend three days beyond its close—to the 24th Nisan.—שָׁבֻעִים רָמִים. The addition יָמִים, which is designed to indicate the full or enumerated measure of the weeks (cf. our “three full weeks”), is hardly intended to contrast with the weeks of years which are implied in chap. 9; for the contrary cf. Gen_29:14; Gen_41:1; Num_11:20 et seq.; Jer_26:3; Jer_26:11, etc.8—I ate no pleasant bread. לֶחֶם חֲמֻדוֹת, “bread of pleasures, of desires,” is doubtless a contrast to the “bread of affliction,” Deu_16:3, i.e., to the unleavened bread which was eaten during the Passover. Hence, the first expression of his grief mentioned by Daniel is that he abstained from the use of leavened bread, or from eating the ל׳ עֳנִי or מַצּוֹת.9 Luther’s rendering, “I ate no dainty food,” is therefore mistaken and inexact; and also Bertholdt’s, “I abstained even from the use of bread.”—Neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth. A genuine fast, in which all dainty, attractive, or luxurious viands were avoided; cf. Gen_27:25; 2Sa_12:20; Isa_22:13, etc.—Neither did I anoint myself; another characteristic indication of a sorrowful disposition, cf. Ecc_9:8; Psa_23:5; Isa_61:3, etc.—Hitzig’s view is substantially correct: “The design of his mourning was not to support prayer and intercession as in chap. 9 (for which reason it does not assume its appropriate garb, cf. Psa_35:18; Psa_35:14), but rather to prepare to receive a revelation. However, the writer by no means entertains the opinion that asceticism could secure or compel a revelation; for in that case the means employed would have been increased, particularly as the vision was delayed. Daniel rather confines himself to abstinence from worldly enjoyment, in order to maintain the serious frame of mind in which the desired revelation should be received, and which is the only one that may hope to be blessed with a revelation.”
Dan_10:4-7. Designation of the special time and place. Description of the appearance of the angel who conveys the revelation. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month. Since, according to Est_3:7, the “first month” was Nisan (cf. also 1Ma_7:49; 1Ma_9:3), and since by Dan_10:12-13, the mourning and fasting of Daniel began precisely twenty-one days before the present date—therefore on the third Nisan,—the special reason why he commenced such exercises on that particular day may probably be found in the fact that the 1James , 2 d Nisan were still observed, at the period of the captivity, as they were already in the time of Saul and David, as the festival of the New-year or of the first new moon in the year; and it was of course unsuitable for him to fast while that joyous festival continued (cf. 1Sa_20:18, et seq.; 27:34, with 2:19, 6:29).—I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel. It cannot be easily determined whether he was there in vision merely, as in the similar case, Dan_8:2 (see on that passage), or likewise in body. The latter opinion (Hävern., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Kliefoth, Füller) appears to be preferable, in view of the subsequent mention of Daniel’s companions on the bank of the river.—Concerning חִדֶּקֶל, i.e., probably, the “swift, tearing” (from חדק), as the Scriptural designation of the Tigris, cf. Gesen.-Dietrich, s. v., and also the expositors of Gen_2:14. The latter passage, moreover, clearly asserts the distinction between the Hiddekel and the Euphrates, which is observed throughout the Old-Test. generally, and thereby demonstrates the mistake of Syrus, who regards the חִדּ׳ in this place as denoting the Euphrates.
Dan_10:5. Then I lifted up mine eyes and looked, etc., exactly as in the vision on the banks of the Eulæus, Dan_8:3.—And behold a man clothed in linen. The description begins with his clothing, hence proceeds from without inward (contrary to the method of, e.g., Mat_17:2; Mat_28:3). White linen (בַּדִּים, from בַּד, cf. Eze_9:2) was the garb of priests, especially of the high-priests (cf. Lev_16:4; Lev_16:23; Lev_6:3 with Isa_43:28), and therefore symbolizes holiness; the addition of golden ornaments denotes princely rank. The person here described was therefore at all events a שַׂר קֹדֶשׁ (cf. Isa_43:28) or holy angelic prince, and more particularly, was identical with the “man’s voice between the Ulai,” Dan_8:16, which directed Gabriel to interpret the vision for Daniel in that place, since according to Dan_12:6, he hovered over the river. It was shown on the former passage, that the angel who uttered that command need not necessarily have been superior to Gabriel, but that he may have belonged, as well as the latter, to the class of archangels or שָׂרִים; and he may be regarded as the compeer of Michael as well, despite Dan_10:13, where he refers to the aid he received from the latter against the prince of Persia. Hence, he was a third angel-prince besides Gabriel and Michael, whose name, however, is not given; and it is therefore vain to search for the specific name he bore. Hofmann, Auberlen and Füller conceive of this angelic prince as being the power of nature which operates for the kingdom of God in the entire heathen world, or as the good principle in the world-power, which is identical with the κατέχων, 2Th_2:6; but they fail to establish exegetically, and in an adequate manner this identity, as well as the character ascribed to the angel. Concerning the modicum of truth which may nevertheless underlie this opinion, see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 1.—The identity of this angel with Michael, which Kranichfeld assumes, is opposed by the manner in which Michael is represented as not being present, in Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21. It is more probable that he was identical with Gabriel (Ewald et al.); but the appearance of the latter on his entrance in chap. 8 is described in different terms, and, moreover, the name of Gabriel is not expressly mentioned; cf. infra, on Dan_10:13.—Whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; i.e., with the finest and most valuable gold; cf. Psa_45:8, “gold of Ophir.” The identity of אוּפָז and אוֹפִיר, which is assumed by, e.g., the Vulg., Chald., and Syr. (but not by Theodot.), is opposed by the different form of the name, and by the impossibility of transforming ר into ז.[10] The country here referred to (and in Jer_12:8) was probably a region in the south or east, and perhaps adjoining to Ophir, which abounded in gold, and like the latter, constituted a principal source from whence the people of hither Asia derived their precious metals in ancient times. The theory which seems best recommended is that of Hitzig, who combines the Sancr. name vipâcâ = Hyphasis, with the supposition based on that etymology, that the country derived its name from a colony which came to Arabia Felix from the river Hyphasis in India. Cf. Nägelsbach on Jer., l. c., concerning this question.
Dan_10:6. His body also was like the beryl, or “crysolite,” hence having the golden lustre of topaz or amber, which shone through his garb of white linen. With regard to תַּרְשִׁרשׁ—whose primary signification was doubtless “the sea” (= Sanscr. tarisha), and which afterward became the name of the celebrated colony of Phœnician merchants located in Spain near the Mediterranean sea, and still later was employed to designate the precious stone brought from thence, which the Sept. and Josephus term the χρυσόλιθος with probable correctness—see Hitzig on Eze_1:16; Gesen.-Dietrich in the Handwörterbuch; and also my observation on Son_5:14.—And his face as the appearance of lightning; cf. Eze_1:13; Mat_28:3. On the comparison of his eyes with lamps of fire cf. Rev_1:14, which passage is wholly imitated from the one before us.—And his arms and feet like in colour to polished brass; rather, “arms and feet like the gleam of glowing brass.” מַרְגְּלרֹת, which primarily denotes the “place of the feet,” is here synonymous with רַגְלִים, “feet,” as appears from the mention of זְרֹעוֹת, “arms,” in the same connection; for why, if the arms glowed like brass, should the place only of the feet present the same appearance and not rather the feet themselves? (against Kranichfeld, etc.).11 —קָלָל, the attribute of נְחׄשֶׁם, together with כְּעֵין (cf. Num_11:7), is taken from Eze_1:7. It denotes brass in a glowing and liquid or molten state (קָלָל, a fuller form of the more usual קל, light, swiftly moving, volubilis), not merely “shining or gleaming” brass (Ewald, etc.), nor yet “brass of the smelting furnace,” as Hitzig assumes, putting entirely too artificial a sense on the idea. Cf., however, the parallel Rev_1:15, οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλχολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρομένῳ.—And the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude, or “of a roaring.” קוֹל הָמוֹן primarily signifies the “voice (sound) of a roaring,” and may denote the roaring of the sea, of the stormy waves of the ocean, or of a great multitude of people (Theod., Vulg., Syr., and also moderns, e.g., Kranichfeld, Füller, etc.). The parallels, Eze_1:24 (רבִּים כְּקוֹל מַיִם); Eze_43:2; Isa_17:12; Rev_1:15, determine in favor of the former interpretation. The terrified prophet does not at first recognize what the speaker says in so dreadful a voice, either here or in Dan_10:9. Cf. the analogous circumstance in Dan_8:13 a.
Dan_10:7. The men that were with me saw not the vision; a feature similar to that connected with the conversion of St. Paul, Act_9:7; Act_22:11. It is impossible to determine who the prophet’s companions were; they may as well have been the servants of the highly esteemed “prince” Daniel (Dan_6:21), as associates of a different rank.—But a great quaking fell upon them; evidently because they heard the dreadful sound of the roaring, although they saw nothing; cf. Gen_3:8; Amo_3:6; Act_9:7.12 —They fled to hide themselves; rather, “they fled hiding themselves.” בְּהֵחָכֵא, properly, “while hiding themselves,” a periphrase of the gerund; cf. Gesenius, Thesaur., p. 175 a. The infinitive with ל would have expressed the somewhat different idea, “they fled to hide themselves;” cf. 1Ki_22:25; 2Ki_19:11.
Dan_10:8-11. The impression made on Daniel by the appearance of the angel. His temporary stupor, and subsequent and gradual restoration. I …. saw this great vision. The same language is used with reference to the appearance of the Lord in the burning bush to Moses, Exo_3:3.—My comeliness was turned in me into corruption; rather, “the color of my face was changed into disfigurement for me.” Literally, “and my brightness,” etc. (thus Ewald et al). הוֹד, “brightness, freshness of color,” here corresponds to the Chald. זִיו, Dan_5:6; Dan_5:9; Dan_7:28. עָלַי “on me,” seems to be a Chaldaism employed as a periphrase for the dative, and therefore to be equivalent to אֵלַי (unlike Dan_10:16). It is hardly to be separated from the verb and to be immediately connected with הוֹדִי, thus periphrasing the genitive (against Hitzig).—לְמַשְׁחִיּת, properly, “to destruction;” cf. 2Ch_20:23. The following context indicates the nature of this destruction or disfigurement, by stating that the loss of color was joined to faintness and a total loss of strength.
Dan_10:9. Then was I in a deep sleep on my face, i.e., in a stupefied state, during which a total loss of his senses and of consciousness was depicted on his countenance.—And my face (sank) toward the ground; i. e., the loss of consciousness was not momentary, but was protracted during some time, and brought him to the ground on his face. With a strange arbitrariness Hitzig finds “an attention to trivial details that border closely on the comical” in the statement that the face was toward the ground; as if the frequent expression אַרְצָה אַפַּיִם (Gen_19:1; Gen_42:6) or וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה (Gen_33:3, etc.) did not likewise indicate the apparently general use of אַרְצָה in this sense! On the subject cf. Dan_8:17.
Dan_10:10. And behold, a hand touched me. The stunned prophet is not able to say whose hand it was; but the tenor of the entire representation shows, beyond the reach of doubt, that it was the hand of the same person who had hitherto been in his presence (cf. Dan_8:18; Eze_2:9). Kranichfeld (see above, on Dan_10:5) is therefore in error when, after having assumed that the angel described above was Michael, he regards the one who now appears and henceforth addresses Daniel as being Gabriel (as do Hävernick, Hengstenberg, etc.). Such a multiplication of persons is unnecessary, and is opposed by the total silence of the author with regard to the names of the appearance here introduced. Maurer, Hitzig, 5 Hofmann, Füller, Kliefoth, etc., correctly hold to the identity of the angel who touches Daniel with the one introduced in Dan_10:5.—Set me (rather “shook me”) upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands; a constr. prœgnans, for “shook me and helped me,” etc. The couching position which he accordingly assumed at first is the natural posture of one who is stunned and overwhelmed with awe in the presence of a superior being.
Dan_10:11. O Daniel, a man greatly beloved. See on Dan_9:23.—For unto thee am I now sent; namely, sent at this precise moment, as the servant of God and the bearer of a message of blessing and comfort. The angel designs by this encouraging address not merely to induce Daniel to arise to an erect position, but also to fix his attention on the words about to be spoken. —I stood trembling—in fearful expectation of the things to which he should listen; cf. Ezr_10:9.
Dan_10:12-14. The angel’s statement respecting the design of his coming and the reason of his delay to that time. Cf. Dan_9:23. —For from the first day (therefore from the third Nisan, according to Dan_10:4) that thou didst set thine heart; properly “gavest thy heart;” cf. Ecc_1:13; Ecc_1:17.—To understand, and to chasten (or “humble”) thyself before God. Dan_10:14 a states what Daniel desired to understand, viz.: the future experiences of his people. He sought to obtain the knowledge of this by humbling himself before God in fasting, etc. Consequently לְהָכִין וּלְהִתְעַנּוֹת וגו׳ may be considered a hendiadys, to the extent to which the implied verbal idea is co-ordinated.—And I am come for thy words, i.e., in consequence of the words of thy prayer to which reference has just been made. On כִּדְכָרֶיךָ, “according to thy words,” cf. for instance, Est_1:12; Est_3:15; Est_8:14; 1Ki_13:1, etc. The perfect בָּאתִי, “I have come,” denotes that the coming of the angel, which had already been determined on at the beginning of the prophet’s prayer, had only then become an accomplished fact. The delay in his coming, which was caused by the interference of a hostile angelic power, is accounted for in the following verse.
Dan_10:13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days. שַׁר מַלְכוּת פָּרַס. Jerome observes correctly, although upon a possibly inadequate exegetical foundation: “Videtur mihi hic esse angelus, cui Persis credita est, juxta illud quod in Deuteronomio (Deu_32:8, lxx) legimus: ‘Quando dividebat Altissimus gentes it disseminabat filios Adam, statuit terminos genitium juxta numeiurn angelorum Dei.’ Isti sunt principes, de quibus paulus apostolus loquitur: ‘Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, quam nullus principum sœculi hujus cognovit; si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriæ crucifixissent.’ Restitit autem princeps, i.e., angelus Persarum, facians pro credita sibi provincia, ne captivorum omnis populus dimitteretur.” This interpretation is supported, and that of Calvin, Havernick, Kranichfeld, et al. which takes שַׂר in the sense of “king, earthly and human sovereign,” is opposed by the following considerations: (1) in Dan_11:5, where שַׂר is unquestionably employed in the latter sense, the connection is entirely different from the character of the present passage, where the הַשִׂרִים which immediately follows obviously denotes angelic princes; (2) the Persian kings, on the other hand, are termed מַלְכֵי פָּרַס at the end of the verse; (3) the idea of an angel’s conflict with a human king seems very inappropriate; (4) the angel Michael was Israel’s “prince,” i.e., guardian angel, according to Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1; and corresponding to this, the prince of Persia who is here noticed, and the prince of Græcia mentioned in Dan_10:20, were, without doubt, the angels of Persia and Javan respectively; (5) the idea of guardian angels over entire realms, whether friendly or hostile in their disposition toward the theocracy, is attested by various Old-Test. parallels, particularly by Isa_24:21 (see Knobel on that passage); Isa_46:2; Jer_46:25; Jer_49:3 (where the gods of heathen nations take the place of the guardian angels); Deu_32:8; and Psa. 96:4, 70; also Bar_4:7 and Sir_17:17 (where ήγούμενος seems to designate an angel prince, exactly like שַׂר in this passage),—to say nothing of New-Test, passages, such as 1Co_8:5; 1Co_10:20 et seq.—The withstanding or resisting during twenty-one days is obviously to be understood sensu hostili (לְנֶגֶד, as in Pro_21:30; cf. 2Sa_18:13), without, however, involving the idea that the Persian court, or any earthly locality whatever, was the scene of such opposition or warfare (as, e.g., Füller assumes). That adversari may more probably have taken place in super-mundane regions; and that this was the case seems to have been attested by parallels like 1Ki_22:19 et seq.; Job_1:6; Job_2:1 et seq.; Luk_10:18; Luk_22:31. Hofmann (Schriftbew., I. 286 et seq.) and Füller hold that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” does not denote an actual guardian angel of that realm, but any evil spirit whatever, who may have sought to exert an influence on the decisions of the Persian king, while on the contrary the angel who appeared to Daniel sought to counteract that influence by his own, as being more beneficial to Israel;13 but this opinion is altogether too artificial, because it supposes two spiritual powers—the one good and the other evil—in every case (a “court-angel” and a “royal court-devil,” in the language of Starke), as exerting influence over the ruler of a kingdom. Moreover, the idea of the spirit ruling at a court, as being either good or bad, either peaceful or warlike, has too modern an aspect, and is foreign to the modes of conception that were current among the ancient Orientals. The strongest argument against this opinion, however, consists in the consideration that the title שַׂר מַלְכוּת פָּרַס, and farther on, the appellations שַׁר יָוָן and שַׂרכֶם (Michael, the prince of Israel; Dan_10:21, cf. Dan_10:20), imply a more intimate connection, a much closer and more constant relation between the angel and the corresponding nation than is involved in a merely temporary influence over the governmental policy of any particular ruler. A spirit who may have exercised a temporary control over the decisions of one or more Persian kings could not on that account simply be designated the פָּרַס שַׂר, The angel who is thus entitled must be considered the constant patron of the Persian nation and state, as much so as Michael was the constant patron of Israel, having been known as such in the age of Joshua (Jos_5:13) as well as in that of Daniel, and still later, in that of the New-Test, apocalyptist (Rev_12:7; Jdg_1:9). For additional thoughts on the subject see on Dan_10:20-21, and the Eth. fund, principles.—And lo, Michael, one of the chief princes; properly, “one of the first” (הָרִאשֹׁנִים), i.e., of the most eminent; cf. 1Ch_18:17, and also הַשַּׂר חַגָּדוֹל, Dan_12:1. The name Michael, “quis sicut Deus” (cf., e.g., Exo_15:11; Psa_89:7), and also the name of Isaiah’s prophetic contemporary מִיכָה (=מִיכַיָּהּ) is, according to Haneberg’s correct observation (in Reusch’s Theol. Literaturbl, 1867, No. 3, p. 72), “a name that sounds like a decided monotheistic protest against every undue exaltation of the angelic dignity.” It expresses still more strongly than the similar name of Gabriel (cf. on Dan_8:16), the idea of God’s incomparable and assisting power, as whose instrument the angelic being who bears this name must be regarded (Kranichfeld). His “coming to help” is probably to be conceived of as an armed intervention, and supported by celestial hosts, as is suggested by the preceding warlike phrase עֹמֵד לְנֶגְדִּי, and as the term לְהִלָּחֶם in Dan_10:20 indicates still more clearly. Michael must be conceived of in this place as battling at the head of an angelic host, as in Jos_5:14 and Rev_12:7; cf. also Gen_32:2; 2Ki_6:17, and other references to hosts of celestial angels. How little this belligerent attitude of Michael comports with the view of Hofmann and Füller, that the speaker was a special “good spirit of the heathen world-power,” whose battle with the prince of Persia was fought in the circles of the Persian court, will be apparent at once. Concerning the theory of the older exegetes and also of Hävernick, which directly identifies Michael with Christ, see Eth. fund principles, No. 1, and also on Dan_12:1.—And I remained there with the kings of Persia; rather, “and I became superfluous there,” etc., namely, because another who was still more powerful than I had relieved me, and now represented me in the resistance to be made to the prince of Persia. The angel says that his presence became superfluous “with the kings of Persia” because he refers to all the powers who operate at the head of the Persian empire, including both the earthly and the super-earthly, the guardian spirit and the king beside his chief officers (cf. Isa_24:21 et seq.; Isa_57:9; Psa_82:6; also the more extended signification of “kings” [= great ones, mighty ones], which occurs, e. g., in Psa_2:2; Job_29:25; Eze_26:7; 1Ki_11:24). The difiicult וַאְַכִי כוֹתַרְתִּי שָׁם אֵצֶל מַלְכֵי פָרַס must probably be explained in this way (with Ewald and partly also with Hitzig). The explanation offered by others,” and thus it happened that I remained or tarried during an extended period with the kings of Persia” (Vulg.: “et ego remansi ibi,” etc.; Syr., Dereser, Rosenm., Kranichf., etc.), is opposed by the fact that כוֹתַר does not properly signify “to remain behind,” but “to remain over, to be superfluous” (at the most, it might be possible to adduce Gen_32:25 in support of the former meaning); and also that the construction of the sentence does not justify its being regarded as a supplement or complementary explanation of the remainder of the verse. The translation of Luther, Geier, Winer, Gesenius, Hävernick, etc.: “and I gained the ascendancy, or the victory, with the kings of Persia,” is likewise at variance with the general usage of כוֹתַר. The explanation of Füller (and Hofmann [also Keil), “and I then maintained my place beside the kings of Persia,” certainly accords better with the usage; but it is opposed by the consideration adduced above, concerning the assumption of two angelic powers who contend for the greatest influence over the Persian king. Nor can it be understood on that theory why the plural מַלְכֵי פ׳ was used instead of the singular; for, although the opinion that the writer intended Cyrus together with his successors, hence the entire Persian dynasty, by his “kings of Persia,” has recently become an especial favorite (being accepted likewise by Füller and Hofmann), it seems to us so improbable in itself, that even the adoption of the theory which asserts the Maccabæan origin of the book, could scarcely serve to establish it (cf. especially Hitzig, who contends for the more extended signification of מַלְכֵי upon substantial grounds). The Sept. (and Theodot.) renders the passage correctly with regard to its meaning: καὶ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Μιχαήλ) κατέλιπον ἐκεῖ μετὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος βασιλείας Περῶν.
Dan_10:14. I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days. Cf. the introductory words of Jacob’s blessing, Gen_49:1; also Num_24:14. Concerning אַחְַרִית חַיָּמִים as a designation of the Messianic future (the “issue of the ages,” Füller), cf. on Dan_2:28. The “end of the indignation,” mentioned in Dan_8:19, is not materially different from this end of (pre-Messianic days.—For yet the vision is for many days; rather, “for yet a vision for those days,” supply “I now bring, am about to reveal.” הַיִּמִים, the days, those days, viz.: the latter days just mentioned. עוֹד is probably to be taken (with Füller and C. B. Michaelis) as referring indirectly back to the two preceding visions which treated of the latter days, hence to chapters 8 and 9. (cf. especially Dan_8:19 b and Dan_9:23 et seq.). Consequently the angel now brings yet an eschatological prophecy, yet a vision of the last times which forms the final and most specific revelation. None of the other interpretations yield a clear sense that agrees with the context, e.g., that by Hitzig: “but it is yet continually a prophecy for ages;” by Hävernick, “for the prophecy to be imparted to thee shall extend to this time” (similarly Kranichfeld: “עוֹד, exceeding the present and the immediate future in its range”); the highly artificial one by Cocceius: “expectatio promissionis adhuc protelabitur, nempe per ista tempora, quæ partim c. 8, partim c. 9 descripta sunt,” etc.
Dan_10:15-17. The prophet’s renewed consternation, in consequence of the reverential awe felt by him in the presence of his super-human visitor, who therefore now assumes an increasingly human bearing (see Dan_10:16 a; cf. Dan_10:18 a).… I set my face toward the ground and became dumb; the same attitude of reverential awe as in Luk_18:13; Luk_24:5.—The prophet’s dumbness was twice removed by the comforting interference of the angel (Dan_10:16 et seq. and Dan_10:19); but he afterward remained speechless, excepting that he asked the brief question in Dan_12:8. —And behold one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips, or, “like the sons of men he touched my lips;” the subject is not indicated here (and in Dan_10:18), which does not, however, permit a doubt to arise that the. one “after the similitude…of men” is identical with the angel who was hitherto present. כִּדְמוּת בְּנֵי אָדָם serves to recall the כְּכַר אֱנָשׁ, Dan_7:13, as כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם in Dan_10:18 recalls the similar expression in Dan_8:15. An identity with Gabriel, however, cannot be established on this repeated assurance of the angel’s manlike appearance (against Kranichf.).—The touching of the lips (for the purpose of unsealing and opening them) is similar to the incident in Isa_6:7; Jer_1:9. —O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me. There is nothing strange in the form of the prophet’s address to the angel, which terms him “my lord,” particularly since the angel belonged to the class of “chief princes;” cf. Jos_5:14; Jdg_6:13. With regard to צִירִים, “sorrows,” properly, “pains,” cf. Isa_13:8; Isa_21:3; 1Sa_4:19. צִירַי, “my sorrows” (cf. Psa_18:24), characterizes the acuteness of the terrified sensation alluded to more impressively than could have been done by צִירִים merely; and since the term is obviously employed in a tropical sense only, it does not sound strange from the lips of a man (against Hitzig), and does not require to be obviated by means of putting an unusual sense on צִירַי, e.g., by “my joints trembled in me” (Vulg., Luther, Berth., Hävernick, Füller), or by “my features were changed” (Ewald, following Psa_49:15).— Dan_10:17. And how can the servant of my lord talk, etc. הֵיךְ, as in 1Ch_13:2, a Chaldaism for אֵיךְ.—As for me (properly “and I”) straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me; i. e., the power to stand and breathe regularly (1Ki_10:5; Jos_2:11) departed from me afresh. The renewed consternation described in these words was not as great as the former, in Dan_10:9; the “ceasing of the breath” was not in a literal sense as in 1Ki_17:17, but only figurative, as in the similar form of speech, Son_5:6.—A majority of recent expositors correctly regard this second member of the verse as no longer belonging to Daniel’s address to the angel; for if it were still included, the words “there is no strength in me” would have been employed twice in close proximity (Dan_10:16 b and here) and in nearly the same form. Moreover, the incident of the two following verses requires a suitable preparation.—Füller, however, is entirely too artificial when he includes the words “and I —” in Daniel’s explanation to the angel, but excludes everything else, to the close of his remarks.
Dan_10:18-19. The prophet is touched and strengthened for the third time, and more effectually than before (cf. Dan_10:5; Dan_10:16). The being touched and strengthened three times by the angel (in which old-churchly exegetes, e.g., Ephraem, etc., sought to find an allusion to the Trinity) was certainly not accidental; cf. the conflict of Christ in Gethsemane, Mat_26:38 et seq.; his being tempted thrice in the desert, Mat_4:1 et seq.; also such passages as Joh_21:15 et seq.; Act_10:16; 2Co_12:8 et seq., etc. Hitzig, however, being utterly unaware of the profound mystical meaning of the description, thinks that “the broad representation that he was gradually invigorated, at first to speak himself, and afterward to listen to speech (Dan_10:16; Dan_10:19 b), has a manufactured appearance, and does not impress.”—Like the appearance of a man; cf. on Dan_10:16.
Dan_10:19. Peace be unto thee; be strong, yea, be strong. חֲזַק וַחֲזַק; cf. חְַזַק וֶאֶמַץ, Jos_1:6-7; Jos_1:9; and with regard to the repetition of the verb, as strengthening the idea, cf. Jer_10:25; Jer_51:34, etc.—For thou hast strengthened me, viz.: sufficiently to enable me to listen with courageous composure to all that is to be revealed, not excepting even what is calamitous and terrible.
Dan_10:20—chapּ Dan_11:1. Solemn and circumstantial introduction of the subsequent detailed description of the future, connected with an encouraging reference to the constant readiness of God to assist Israel, despite the serious character of the situation of the time (and particularly, despite the dangers which threatened from the direction of Persia and Javan).—Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? i.e., art thou aware of the serious and highly important character of the message which I am to deliver unto thee? Dost thou sufficiently estimate the tremendous earnestness of the situation, in consequence of which my mission became necessary?—And now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia. That is, the peaceful service of disclosing the future unto thee, in which I am now engaged, forms but a brief interruption to the great war which I must continue steadily to wage against the guardian spirit of the Persian power. With regard to הִלָּחֵם, considered as denoting an actual warfare rather than a mere altercation or dispute in the council of the angels of God (as Bertholdt and others think), see on Dan_10:13.—And when (as soon as) I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Græcia shall come. The “going forth” in this passage, as often in descriptions of warlike incidents (e.g., Jos_14:11; 1Ki_2:7; 1Sa_8:20; Isa_42:12; Zec_14:10), certainly denotes a going forth to battle rather than the mere departing from a locality (Hofmann, Füller, etc.). The observation does not, however, refer to his going forth to meet the prince of Persia, but a going forth to other conflicts after the war with the latter shall have been brought to a close; or, in other words, it denotes a going forth out of the war against the prince of Persia (so Jacchiad., Bertholdt, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc.—correctly). The sense is therefore: “Scarcely shall the Persian war be ended, when the Greek arises against me; the conflict with the Græcian world-power shall be immediately consequent on the war with that of Persia.”[14] Cf. the similar contrasting of יָצָא and בּוֹא in 2Ki_11:5; 2Ki_11:7. Hofmann’s exposition of the passage is altogether too labored: “The prince of the Græcians enters into the quarrel against the prince of the Persians, from which the angel retires; but, after the Persian empire has fallen, the angel renews the conflict with the new adversary, and, as in the former instance, is supported by Michael, the prince of Israel” (Schriftbew, I. 290; cf. Weissag. und Erfültung, 1:312 et seq.). Hofmann, however, properly rejects v. Lengerke’s view, on which the coming of the prince of Græcia must be regarded as victorious, and leading to the defeat of the angel. Hitzig, on the other hand, comes especially near to the latter theory, in his venturesome assertion that the angelic prince who converses with Daniel, and who is to battle against Persia and afterward against Greece, represents the guardian spirit of Egypt, as of a power that had been friendly to the Jews in former ages and that especially made common cause with them against Syria (= Javan) in the period of the Seleucidæ!—a bold hypothesis, that has no support in the context, and that is absolutely incompatible with the expressions of sacred awe and reverence which Daniel made use of toward this celestial שַׂר, according to Dan_10:5 et seq. Daniel would have been an idolater of the coarsest kind had he rendered such homage as is described in this chapter, and particularly in Dan_10:16-19, to the angelic patron and representative of Egypt (whom he assuredly regarded as a dæmonic power inimical to God, no less than those of Persia and Javan). And a possible Maccabæan pseudo-Daniel would have been still less likely than the Daniel of the æra of the captivity, to involve himself in the guilt of so gross a violation of the monotheistic principle and of disobedience to the first commandment in the decalogue.
Dan_10:21. But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture (or book) of truth. אְַבָל, “but still,” a strong adversative particle, serves here to introduce the antidote to the fears for the theocracy excited by Dan_10:20—in the shape of a comforting allusion to the ultimate welfare and blessing which are awaiting God’s people according to the book of Divine providence, despite all the conflicts and sufferings that must precede them. Properly, “in a book of truth,” i.e., in a Divine document upon which “the yet unrevealed (Deu_32:34) fortunes of nations (Rev_5:1) as well as of individuals (Psa_139:16) in the future are entered” (Hitzig). Cf. the books of judgment in Dan_7:10, and also the term אֱמֶת in Dan_11:2, which briefly comprehends the contents of the book of truth.—And there is none that holds with me in these things; rather, “and yet there is none that exerts himself with me against these,” i.e., against the guardian angels of Persia and Javan, the dæmonic patrons of the heathen world-powers. On מִתְחַזֵּק עִם, exerting oneself with another, battling beside one, supporting one, cf 1Sa_4:9; 2Sa_10:12. The participle characterizes the action, although future, as nevertheless being constant.—But (only) Michael your prince,—namely, in the sense of Jos_5:13 et seq.; cf. supra, on Dan_10:13. The sentence “and there is none.… your prince,” taken as a whole, is not intended to justify the greatness of the sufferings through which Israel must pass (Hofmann), or the long duration of the prospective conflict with the world-powers (Füller); it simply aims to place in a clearer light the help afforded by the grace of God, which requires no foreign support in order to protect, and eventually to fully deliver Israel” (Kranichf.). The sentence would still express the idea of the self-sufficiency of the good spiritual powers in the kingdom of God. which require no aid from the world, and also of their ability to effect all things, even if it were made (as Füller proposes) dependent on אַגִּיד לְךָ, and consequently if (in disregard of the accentuation) it were translated, “But I will show thee that which is noted,” etc., “…. and the absence of one to help me,” etc. In that case, however, it would present two very dissimilar objects of the angel’s remarks as co-ordinate with each other, the former of which is very general in its character, and the latter equally specific; and this rendering would not obviate the incongruous relation between the contents of the former half of the verse and those of the latter, which exists in any case.— Dan_11:1. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him, or, “As I also.…. stood by him as a supporter and helper;” properly, “and I also.” וַאֲנִי begins a new sentence (cf. Psa_30:7; Job_19:25) which does not stand in an adversative relation to the preceding verse (Hitzig), nor serve to explain it (Luther, etc.), but which is comparative. It describes the relation by which the angel who now speaks and Michael, the prince of Israel, assisted each other, as being reciprocal. עָמְדִי serves to repeat the אֲנִי without regard to sequence, “and I.…. my standing was as his support,” etc. Cf. Job_9:27; Zep_3:20; and respecting the use of עָמַד sensu bellico s. militari cf. supra, Dan_10:13 and Dan_8:25.—לוֹ “to him.” Hävernick and Hitzig propose to refer this particle to דָּרְיָוֶשׁ rather than to Michael, because the strong terms מָעוֹז and מַחֲזִיק are supposed to warrant the conclusion that the one to whose support he came was a being inferior to the assisting angel, which would not apply to the relation of the latter to Michael. But in view of all the teaching of this section, a martial angelic prince may well be in occasional need of the aid and support of another, without being inferior to the latter on that account; and in support of the view that Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, was obliged to put forth special efforts in behalf of his wards, and therefore required the assistance of other good angelic powers to an unusual degree, precisely “in the first year of Darius the Mede,” or at the period when the world-power passed from the Chaldæans to the Medo-Persians, it will be sufficient to refer to chap.6 and to Dan_9:1 et seq. (cf. Zec_1:12). Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbew., I. 289, and also Füller, p. Dan 279: “The first verse of chap. 11 is thus intimately connected with the last verse of chap. 10; and it was unwise to separate them, and thereby to confuse the train of thought (by referring לוֹ to Darius the Mede). If it be asked, what interests were at stake in the first year of Darius, the answer will be, the position which the new dynasty should occupy toward the people of Israel. And it may be seen from the narrative in chap. 6 that efforts were made in that particular year to place it in a hostile attitude toward that people. It was in that juncture that the good angel of the world-power stood by Michael, the prince of Israel, until he prevailed; in the coming conflict Michael shall support him.”
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
1. The characteristic and leading feature of the contents of this section is angelological in its nature. An angelic being is introduced and described in an unusually minute and life-like manner, whom we (see on Dan_10:5; Dan_10:13) cannot regard as being identical with the Gabriel of chapters 8 and 9, nor yet with Michael, to whom he repeatedly refers in the communications addressed by him to Daniel; but the important disclosures made by this being respecting the nature and functions of several leading representatives of the angelic world, and the exalted rank and powerful influence within that world claimed by him, no less than his tremendous influence on the fortunes of earthly empires, justify the careful description of which he is the object (Dan_10:5-7), as well as the expressions of profound reverence addressed to him by Daniel (according to Dan_10:8-11; Dan_10:15-19). These expressions, together with the counteracting efforts of the angel called forth by them, by which he designed to strengthen and encourage the terrified and overwhelmed prophet, are analogous to the incidents connected with the appearance of Gabriel to Daniel in Dan_8:15 et seq.; but while the prophet’s fainting and his restoration by Gabriel occurred but once in that instance (see on Dan_10:18), the same features appear thrice in this connection, leading to the conclusion that this nameless angelic prince is of extraordinary importance, and at least equals, if he does not outrank Michael, the “captain of the Lord’s host” (Jos_5:13). As the latter comes to his assistance (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21), so he affords aid to that prince in return (Dan_11:1) in the conflict with the “princes” of Persia and Javan, the angels who fight against God at the head of the heathen world-power. The latter likewise appear to be possessed of exalted power, and therefore as terrible spiritual beings who are dangerous to the kingdom of God and its representatives. They are powerful dæmons who bear the name שָׂרִים “princes, archangels,” by virtue of their influential rank in the kingdom of darkness, with as much propriety as do Gabriel, Michael, etc., by virtue of their position in the kingdom of light. The power of the evil angels, however, is only transient and perishable, like that of the empires over which they rule, while the angelic princes of light, Michael and the nameless one, who stand in the service of God, triumph over them all in succession, although the victory may only be achieved by effort and determined conflict.
But who is this nameless one, this mysterious being, to whom not even the predicate שַׂר is applied, although doubtless belonging to him, to say nothing of a definite nomen proprium being assigned to him?—Are we, in connection with many older expositors (e.g., Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Rambach, Starke, etc.), to identify him with Christ, the “uncreated angel of the Lord,” whom Daniel repeatedly addressed as אְַדֹנַי, and whose description is said to be strikingly similar to that of the “Son of man” in Dan_7:13 et. seq. (with which compare especially Dan_10:16; Dan_10:18), and also to that of Christ in the Apocalypse (Rev_1:13-18; Rev_10:1-6)? This opinion is at all events more probable than that of the interpreters who identify Michael instead with Christ (Melancthon, Geier, Jo. Lange, Neubauer, Disput. de Michaele archangelo, Hävernick, etc.); but it is opposed, and the created nature of the angel is implied, by the following considerations: (1) he describes himself in Dan_10:11 as a messenger sent from God to bear a Divine message to Daniel (similar to Gabriel in Dan_8:16 et seq.; Dan_9:20 et seq.): (2) his difficulty in combating the protecting angels of the world-powers, even necessitating his being supported by other angelic princes, contrasts strongly with the manner in which the former visions describe the triumph of Christ over the world-empires opposed to him; see especially Dan_2:44 et seq. and Dan_7:13; Dan_7:22; Dan_7:26; (3) the circumstance already noticed in Dan_10:16, that the address “my lord,” together with the other features of the description which aim at the exaltation and glorifying of this angel, are elsewhere applied to angels who were certainly created; e.g., in Jos_5:14, to the captain of the Lord’s host; Jdg_6:13, to the angel who appeared to Gideon; Jdg_13:8, to the angel whom Manoah saw; cf. also Rev_19:10; Rev_22:8 et seq. We shall consequently be compelled to assume that the messenger sent from God to Daniel, as here introduced, was an angel proper, and distinct from the Son of God (see Jerome, Theodoret, and a majority of church fathers, on this passage). But what position of rank and power is to be attributed to him, or—in case he is at once co-ordinated with Michael and Gabriel in these respects (as we have done on Dan_10:5), and is therefore regarded as an archangel—what particular office and functions are to be assigned to him, is after all a difficult question, and can hardly be answered with full exegetical certainty. The range of the angel’s activity would become too limited if he were identified with the third of the archangels mentioned by name in the Old Test., beside Gabriel and Michael, viz.: with the Raphael of the apocryphal book Tobit, or if he were degraded to the rank of a mere guardian angel over Egypt (Hitzig; see on Dan_10:20). On the other hand, his authority would become too extensive, and his position too exalted, if he were conceived of as the mighty governor of all earthly nature, the Divinely appointed ruler and spiritual guide of the whole terrestrial world, thus assigning to him a sphere similar to that occupied by the demiurge of the Gnostics, or the “earth-spirit” of Goethe in his prologue to Faust, or to that given by the ingenious natural philosopher, Max Perty (in his work über die mystischen Erscheinungen der menschlichen Natur, 1862), to the geodœmon, the regent of our planet, who is regarded as the spiritual principle that presides over the earth, the human race, and the development of both. To assume such an earth-spirit, which is neither Scriptural nor natural, and which has no support even in the magical and mystical phenomena of human life (cf. the thorough criticism of this hypothesis in L. Giesebrecht’s lecture on Das Wunder in der deutschen Geschichtbeschreibung neuerer Zeit, Stettin, 1868, p. 10 et seq.), would be to disregard the tenor of this section, as certainly as it characterizes the angel as being decidedly supernatural, and at the same time (in Dan_10:5 et seq.) endows him with external attributes of his rank such as would be but poorly adapted to the position and functions of a telluric planetary spirit. —Accordingly, if any particular explanation whatever of the nature and office of this angel is to be attempted, the opinion of Hofmann which was noticed above, on Dan_10:5, is to be decidedly preferred to all others (Weissagung und Erfüllung, I. 312 et seq.; Schriftbeweis, I. 287 et seq.). That opinion has also been adopted by Auberlen (Daniel, etc., p. 67), Füller, Baumgarten, Luthardt, Riggenbach (on 2Th_2:6), and others. It assumes that the angel in question represents “the good spirit of the heathen world-power,” while the “princes” of Persia and Javan opposed by him and Michael, represent the evil principle which is hostile to God, and which manifests itself in the development of the heathen world-power. The former is that “power in nature which operates in favor of God’s kingdom throughout the heathen world,” the “good spirit, which is to promote in the heathen world the realization of God’s purpose of salvation;” the latter are powers opposed to God, who seek to cross and neutralize the plans of God and of the good angel, which aim at the salvation of the world. The former is the restraining principle (τὸ κατέχον, 2 Thess., l. c.) which restrains and prevents the ascendancy and prevalence of the height of Satanic wickedness in human history; the latter, on the contrary, endeavor to hinder and retard the progress of the kingdom of God. We regard this view as harmonizing well with the contents of the chapter before us, and can permit a partial departure from it only in so far as (1) we must consider it doubtful whether St. Paul intended to definitely and consciously allude precisely to the angel here described by the word κατέχων or κατέχον; (2) so far as we regard the conflict of the angel with those foes as an actual warfare in the invisible regions of the spirit-world, and not as a mere supplanting in the favor of the king and his court, because of the termini bellici employed in Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20 et seq.; (3) so far as we are compelled to regard the foes against whom the angel contended, as being the actual spiritual protectors of the world-kingdoms in question, and as dæmonic powers or Satanic angels, who have entered on a permanent connection with the kingdoms over which they rule, in consequence of which they stand or fall with them (cf. on Dan_10:13). The idea of guardian angels, or, more exactly, the idea of certain dæmonic spiritual beings (ἄγγελοι Σατάν, 2Co_12:7) as being at the head of the antitheistic world-monarchies and as fundamentally opposed to Michael, the prince of the theocracy, is not only countenanced by the leading authorities of the older exegetical tradition (Luther, Melanc, Calov, Geier, C. B. Michaelis, Starke, and in substance also Jerome, Theodoret, and the older Roman Catholic expositors, excepting that they mistake the Satanic evil character of the “princes” of Persia, etc., to a greater or less extent), but it is likewise based on all the passages in both the Old and New-Test. Scriptures, which represent the gods of the heathen world as dæmons, and consequently, the heathen lands or states over which they rule and exercise spiritual authority as being provinces of the kingdom of darkness (cf. the expositors of 1Co_8:6; 1Co_10:20 et seq., especially Kling, vol. 7 of the New-Test. part of the Bible-work).15
2. This estimate of the contents of the chapter does not affect its credibility, nor does it oblige us to conclude that the section originated at the hands of a pseudo-Daniel in the Maccabæan age. Füller’s remarks on these points, p. 272 et seq., are especially pertinent. We transfer to this place an epitome of this author’s apology for the doctrine of angels, as contained in this section, although it is connected with views that diverge somewhat from ours, and that especially contain no correct estimate of the idea of guardian angels: “This is the meaning of our text. Shall we consider it a rabbinical idea and a Jewish fable? I cannot even find that it is entirely foreign to our modern conceptions. Do we not frequently speak of the spirit that reigns in the influential circles of a court? Is it not well understood that propositions which conflict with that spirit have no prospect of being approved, unless the prevailing spirit should be superseded by a different one? That is exactly what the text affirms—although certainly with a difference; for our age speaks of spirit without understanding a personal spiritual being by that term. ‘Spirit’ is a current word in its mouth, but it becomes embarrassed when asked how it conceives of spirit. As God, in the consciousness of modern times, has taken refuge in the guise of a universal spirit, of which it may be affirmed that it is, and that it is not, with equal propriety, so the spirits are involved in a similar predicament; they have dissolved into vapor. The Scriptures, however, teach a different doctrine. They have and know a personal God and personal spirits, and teach that the latter include some who do the will of God, while others resist it. If we assume accordingly that such spirits exist, it will not surprise any mind that they should be active and influential (cf. Gen_32:1 et seq.; 2Ki_6:17, etc.).… According to the Scriptures as a whole, the angels are the agents through whom God governs the world, and they are concerned in many things where we do not suspect their presence. The only new feature in the passage is that they are employed in influencing the decisions of the rulers of the world; but this is not surprising, since they are concerned to realize or prevent the Divine purposes. The world-power interferes in the fortunes of Israel; should God quietly look on while His will is counteracted? In such a case he opposes the evil spirit by His spirit, so that spirit combats against spirit,” etc. —Auberlen expresses ideas exactly similar, p. Dan 67: “The Holy Scriptures only ask of us that we should take in a real sense the language we are accustomed to employ in a figurative sense, respecting a conflict of the good and the evil spirit in man. Similar ideas prevail in 1Sa_16:13; 1Sa_16:15; 1Ki_22:22; the Satanic influences with which we become better acquainted through the words of Jesus and the apostles are nothing different in their nature. This does not argue that the freedom of human action is thereby destroyed; for the influence of spirits over the inner nature of man is not irresistible, and their principal attention may perhaps be given to the shaping of external circumstances. The question concerning the relation of the Divine government to the freedom of man does not become more difficult by the additional feature of the service of angels, but, on the contrary, becomes more intelligible.”—Cf. also Blumhardt, Ueber die Lehre von den Engeln, in Vilmar’s Pastoral-Theol. Blättern, 1865, I. p. Dan 32: “If Christ is presented to us as he who shall reign until all his foes are made the footstool for his feet, his reigning is always realized through the means of angels who are sent forth, and over whom is placed a special angel, Michael being prominent among them; and the fact that so little is said respecting the persons of the warring angels, who must be regarded as constantly reappearing, produces in us the more positive and elevating impression, as it is always the same battle from the beginning and down to the consummation of God’s kingdom, when he shall have put down all opposing rule, and all authority and power (1Co_15:24). In this light we learn to lose sight of the strangeness of a name also, e.g., that of Michael (‘who is like God?’), and see that the names found in the Scriptures have not the slightest connection with the follies of the Jewish doctrine concerning angels, which includes extended registers of angels’ names. But we also learn how easy it is, when the Word is carefully and thoroughly studied, to set aside the sneering objections of opponents, who judge everything superficially by its appearance, and are ready to throw it into the lumber-room of superstitions, if we only guard against being moved from our simplicity by the power of a worldly wisdom that overlooks the kernel of everything.”
3. Nor does the chapter contain anything aside from the doctrine of angels that is not well adapted to the time of Daniel, and to the captive prophet Daniel as its author. This has already been shown with reference to several particulars. It only remains to call attention to the alleged “historical improbability” contained in Dan_10:1, that Daniel did not return to the holy land with Zerubbabel and Joshua, as being a circumstance that on the contrary lends very little support to the Maccabæan-tendency hypothesis. For while it is a sufficient explanation of that fact that the aged and esteemed prophet remained at Babylon for the special purpose of promoting the welfare of his compatriots and of the theocracy (see on that passage), it is certainly improbable that a writer of the Maccabæan period, who should have invented this narrative in the interest of a tendency, would have left his hero in a strange land, among the many indifferent and apostate ones (cf. 1Ma_1:13 et seq.; 1ma 44:55), when a suitable opportunity was presented for his return, and while his own heart was animated with a glowing love for the “pleasant land” (אֶרֶץ־צְבִי, Dan_8:9; Dan_11:16).—The zealous fasting of Daniel (Dan_10:2 et seq.) serves as little as the circumstance above referred to, to render probable the composition of the chapter in the Maccabæan age; for the prophet’s fasting does not bear an ascetic and work-righteous character, such as was adapted to the spirit of the later Judaism, and especially to the Alexandrian Judaism, inasmuch as the cause of the gracious acceptance of the supplicant while yearning for deliverance, is shown by Dan_10:12 to have been, not his fasting, but the fervent and persistent prayer which accompanied it. In this character of a mere accompaniment and outward sign of sorrow because of national and religious misfortunes, fasting (together with related usages connected with mourning, e.g., abstaining from anointing, the wearing of sackcloth, sitting in ashes, etc.) was practised, long prior to the captivity, by the earliest representatives of the prophetic order, such as Elijah, Joel, Isaiah, etc. (cf. 1Ki_17:6; 1Ki_19:4 et seq.; Joe_1:14; Joe_2:12; Isa_20:2 et seq.); so that the similar conduct of Daniel, which becomes additionally appropriate in view of its being connected with the occurrence of the feast of the Passover, does not seem remarkable or untimely in the least.—In opposition to Hitzig’s assertion that the remarks of the angel in Dan_10:21; Dan_11:1, contain an allusion to the political relations of Egypt with Syria and Palestine in the Maccabæan period, see supra, on these passages.
4. The homiletical treatment of the chapter will have regard primarily and principally to its angelological features. In this respect attention will naturally be directed less to the nature and employment of the angels brought to our notice than to their relation to the designs and modes of operation of the Divine providence which employs them as instruments in its service. The influence of God on the fortunes of the world-empires and the decisions of their rulers, as being exerted through the agency of angels, and as employing the power of the mighty princes of the spirit-world for the welfare of man—such will probably be the theme of a meditation on the contents of the section as a whole. In connection with this it will be proper to refer to passages like Psa_34:3; Psa_103:20 et seq.; Heb_1:14, etc., and to illustrate and enforce them in their profound truth and comforting power, by the subject of this chapter.
Homiletical suggestions on particular passages: On Dan_10:1, Melancthon: “Nova visio exhibetur jam Daniel, non solum ut ipse et cæteri pii in hoc prœsenti periculo confirmentur, sed etiam et posteritas prœmoneatur de prœipuis mutationibus imperiorum et de iis calamitatibus, quœ Judœœ impendebant.…. Habes Ecclesiœ imaginem, quam Deus vult et exerceri afflictionibus et fide expectare liberationem. Et cum liberat, tamen eventus non respondent nostris conjecturis. Cum Cyri beneficium impeditum esset, postea magis conspici potuit, a Deo gubernari hanc liberationem, cum lot impedimenta incidissent, quœ humanis consiliis tolli non poterant.”
On Dan_10:2, Jerome: “Secundum anagogen vero hoc dicendum est, quod qui in luctu est et sponsi luget absentiam, non comedit panem desiderabilem, qui de cœlo descendit, neque solidum capit cibum, qui intelligitur in carne, nec bibit vinum, quod Iœtificat cor hominis, nec exhilarat faciem in oleo (Psa_104:15). Hoc autem jejunio sponsa impetrabiles facit lacrimas, quondo sponsus fuerit ablatus ab ea,” etc.—Cramer: “To fast and prepare the body is indeed a proper external discipline, not to deserve something thereby, as the Papists do, but in order to a still better preparation: Mat_6:17 et seq.”
On Dan_10:4, Geier: “Juxta hunc fluvium se fuisse dicit propheta, jejunio hactenus maceratus precibusque vacans devotis, sine dubio, ut animum nonnihil recrearet hac loci jucundioris contemplatione, si quidem ad hujusmodi fluviorum ripas amœni nonnunquam dantur colles, valles auluci arboribus consiti, ubi undarum suaviter audiuntur susurri adeoque non exigua simul suppeditatur ansa recolendi beneficia tam creationis, quam conservationis redemtionis,” etc. Cf. Psa_137:1 et seq.; Eze_1:1 etc.
On Dan_10:8 et seq., Calvin: “Deus non ideo terret suos, quoniam ipsum oblectet nostra perturbatio, sed quoniam id nobis utile est, quia scilicet nunquam erimus idonei ad discendum, nisi carne nostra prorsus subacta. Hoc autem necesse fieri violento modo propter pervicaciam nobis ingenitam.”—Starke: “Behold in this the goodness and friendliness of God, who not only knows how to terrify, but also causes the terrified ones to be comforted and strengthened!”
On Dan_10:11, Theodoret: καλεῖ αὐτὸν οὑ Βαλτασάρ, ἀλλὰ Δανιήλ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἦν ξαλδαίων, τὸ δὲ ̔Εβραίων ὄνομα· καὶ τὸ μὲν ὑπὸ εὐσεβῶν, ἐτέθη, τὸ δὲ ὐπὸ δυσσεβῶν προδετέθη—Starke: “It is difficult for a timid and sorrowful heart to appropriate to itself the Divine comfort; wherefore God sometimes calls them by name; cf. Act_10:31.”
On Dan_10:13, Jerome (see supra, on that passage).—Melancthon: “Angelus pius narrat Danieli, se dimicasse cum principe Persarum, i.e., cum diabolo moliente dissipationes regni Persici. Etsi enim ignoramus, quomodo inter se pugnent boni et mali spiritus, tamen certamina esse non dubium est, sive disputatione fiant, sive aliis modis. Ait ergo bonus Angelus repressum a se esse malum spiritum, qui Cambysen juvenem et aulicos impios incitabat, vel ad delendam gentem Judaicam, vel ad interficiendum Danielem, vel ad alias malas actiones tentandas, quœ novos motus in regno allaturœ erant.”—Auberlen, Blumhardt, Füller (see supra, No. 2).
On Dan_10:15 et seq., Starke: “If needless terror and alarm can deprive a pious soul of his speech, is it a wonder that wicked persons shall be dumb when Christ addresses them with the words, Friend, how camest thou in hither, etc.? (Mat_22:12).—If God does not first open our lips, either directly or indirectly, we shall be unable to speak what pleases Him (Rom_8:26; Rom_10:15).”
On Dan_10:20 et seq., Melancthon: “Hœc exempla ostendunt satis inquietam fuisse provinciam: Fuerunt igitur et angelorum certamina, qui malos spiritus, seditionum et discordiarum inflammatores depellebant.”—Starke: “When one kingdom of the world has been destroyed, Satan will reign through another; and thus the church is compelled to contend constantly against the prince of this world, until all kingdoms shall belong to God and Christ.—The fact that the power of angels is limited appears from their requiring the assistance of others.”
Footnotes:
[1]הָיִיתִי here signifies continued.—
[2]The phrase is peculiar, שְׁכֻערִם יָמִים, literally, sevens days, the latter being in epexegetical apposition. It is here used in contrast with Dan_9:25 et seq., to show that literal weeks, and not hebdomades of years, are intended.]
[3][We have repeatedly objected to this hypothesis of a later interpolation as purely subjective and gratuitous.]
[4][That the prophecies in question are unique in this particular may readily be conceded without any impeachment of their genuineness. The whole book is remarkable for its vividness and personality of delineation. The details were so striking that Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great are traditionally reported to have recognized their own portraits immediately. But the same is measurably true of other specifications in O.-T. prophecies, although not on so extended a scale. Even the name of Cyrus is mentioned by Isaiah nearly two centuries before his time; yet few, among evangelical interpreters at least, would on that account pronounce those passages a forgery. The author’s reasoning for the rejection of the authenticity of these predictions of Daniel is entirely uncritical. Hengstenberg. in his work on the Genuineness of the Book of Daniel (Edinb. translation, sec. XII), adduces other examples of equal definiteness in O.-T. prophecy, and meets this whole objection fully. The vague manner in which our author adduces the argument gives very little opportunity to do more than make this general demurral to his views on this point.]
[5][Keil takes a different view of this whole prophecy, with a view to obviate any sudden transition, either from the Persian monarchy to the Antiochian tyranny, or from that to the final consummation of the kingdom of God. “The angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead, but, according to the express declaration of Dan_10:14, what shall happen to his people בְּאַחֲרִית חַיָּמִים, i.e., in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to this time. In the אְַחַרִית יָמִים takes place the destruction of the world-power, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world-æon. All that the angel says regarding the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the north and the south, has its aim to the end-time, and serves only to indicate briefly the chief elements of the development of the world-kingdoms till the time when the war that brings in the end shall burst forth, and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the north nor those of the south shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world.” But this last would certainly seem to be a very inadequate reason for so great a detail of political delineation. Hence, after pursuing the exposition of the middle portion of this prophecy especially, Keil concludes thus: “From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the north and the south in its general outlines, whereby, it is true, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have been historically fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner.” Accordingly he everywhere exaggerates the minor discrepancies that occur between the prophecy and the history of Antiochus in particular, with a view to enhance this idealistic theory. The indefiniteness and inconsistency of thus carrying on at once a double line of interpretation renders his scheme on the whole very unsatisfactory. Yet it is in pursuance of his general theory concerning the absence of a design on the prophet’s part to particularize the history or the Jews as such. To a certain point this theory is doubtless true; but he carries it so far as to render the predictions rather symbolical than real. The discrepancies upon which he chiefly relies for the support of his view we will examine in detail as they occur.]
[6][On the contrary, the fact that in chap. 11 this detail is so minutely drawn out, is a strong proof of the genuineness of this portion, for it is precisely here that the same archenemy, the Antiochian antichrist, is most vividly depicted, who constitutes the prominent and culminating figure in all the preceding visions. The whole chapter evidently revolves around this, which is likewise the central point of the entire book. It is moreover in exact conformity with the spirit of O.-T. prophecy to dwell thus at length upon the nearest type of all the tableaux in the future of God’s people, and to touch more lightly and dimly upon the more distant features.]
[7][Keil, however, agrees with Gesenius and Fürst in regarding it as an anomalous third pers. masc. præter.]
[8][In these phrases יָמִים is doubtless, as Gesenius explains, to be regarded as an accusative of limitation, the preceding noun being in the absolute, and not the construct state. Yet even this appositional relation seems to limit the שָׁבעִים, whether the latter be regarded as a noun=weeks or even simple=seven, to the usual hebdomadal sense. It thus stands really, though perhaps not intentionally, in contrast with the undefined שִׁכְעִים of Dan_9:24-27, and leaves the word in that passage to be interpreted by the exigencies of the context.]
[9][“But this contrast is not well founded, for the מַצּוֹת (unleavened cakes) of the Passover was not (notwithstanding Deu_16:3) bread of sorrow, but pure, holy bread, which Daniel did not eat, in opposition to the law, for three weeks. לֶחֶם is not to be limited to bread in its narrower sense, but denotes food generally.”—Keil.]
[10][The predominant opinion, nevertheless, among scholars identifies Ophir with Uphaz.]
[11][Keil, however contends that מַרְגְּלוֹת, place of feet, does not stand for feet, but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass.]
[12][Keil thinks that “the voice was not heard till after Daniel’s companions had fied;” but this is by no means certain from the text.]
[13]Cf. especially Füller on this passage, p. Dan 274: “The question is, which of the two spirits shall succeed in exercising the greater influence over the Persian court and king. It becomes an object to gain the consent of the Persian king and the holders of power under him, that he may decide thus or otherwise.… It is conceivable that in such a case the good spirit, who operated on the world-ruler, would occupy a more difficult position, and be engaged in a harder task than the evil spirit, to whom the heart of the natural man, to say nothing of the heart of a heathen, is more accessible than it is to the former. It was then that Michael came to his support by causing, as Hofmann remarks (as above, p. 288), the relations which Cyrus had assumed toward the Jewish people to operate on that king, and to gain increased influence over his inclinations and views,” etc.
[14][Yet “we must not, with Kranichfeld, supply the clause, ‘to another more extensive conflict,’ because this supplement is arbitrary; but rather, with Kliefoth, interpret the word generally, as it stands, of the going out of the angel to fight for the people of God, without excluding the war with the prince of Persia, or limiting it to this war” (Keil).]
[15][The vagueness and indecision of this interpretation of the “prince” in question is no less an objection to it than its evidently heathenish character. The author’s arguments adduced above against the common view which identifies this angelic prince with Christ himself are entirely inconclusive: for (1) Jesus likewise calls himself a messenger of God (Joh_3:17; Joh_3:34); (2) the Son of God himself did not disdain angelic aid (Mat_4:11; Luk_22:43); (3) the other O.T. instances cited (especially Jos_5:14) are clearly allusions to the Messianic theophany. “This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel. Eze_9:9, but all the other features, as predescribed—the shining of the body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glittering brass, the sound of his speaking—all these point to the revelation of the כְּבוֹר יְהוָֹה, the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אִישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with Rev_1:13-15, where the form of the Son of man, whom John saw walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks, is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel” (Keil).]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1. For Cyrus see our Introduction to Daniel, III,…
1. For Cyrus see our Introduction to Daniel, III, 3, (6), and note Dan_6:28; for Daniel… Belteshazzar see Introduction, II, 8; III, 1, and notes Dan_1:7; Dan_2:26. Bosanquet (Messiah the Prince) thinks this verse is an interpolation, being opposed to Dan_9:2; Zec_1:12; but this is not probable, as the versions differ no more here than in other passages.
Thing — Or, word.
Read full note →
But the time appointed was long — R.V., “even great warfare.” The obscurity of the text may be seen by the fact that Hebrew scholars of the greatest renown have variously rendered this phrase, “and the word is truth, and great distress; and he heeded the word and gave heed to the vision;” or, “and truth is the revelation and (the) distress is great; and understand thou the revelation, and understand it in the vision.” The R.V., however, is a good translation of the Hebrew text as it stands, and makes good sense. The “warfare” referred to is that between Gabriel and the guardian angel of Persia of which the prophet now hears for the first time. (See Dan_10:13 and chap. 11.)
Third year — Various reasons have been given, such as his great age and the need of his services in Babylon, why Daniel had not returned back to the Holy Land with his companions; but this question is not raised at all in the narrative. His “sorrow” seems as great as it had been in the reign of Darius, before the edict was given by Cyrus for the return of the Jews to their native land. (See notes Dan_10:2-4; Dan_9:1-4.) There is no necessary contradiction to history here. Such a return as was actually accomplished was very different from the triumphant victories which, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy, might have been expected by an exilic prophet. (See notes Dan_9:2; Dan_9:24.)
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 1. king of Persia] A title, not borne by…
1. king of Persia] A title, not borne by the Persian kings while the Persian empire still lasted, though often given to them after it had passed away, as a mark of distinction from the Greek rulers who then followed[356].
[356] See the writer’s Introduction, p. 511 f. with p. 512, n. 3 (ed. 6, p. 545, with p. 546, n. *).
Read full note →
a thing] or, a word: cf. Dan_9:23 b, and (Aram.) Dan_4:33.
Belteshazzar] See on Dan_1:7; and cf. Dan_5:12.
and the word (is) true, and a great warfare] The revelation is true (cf. Dan_8:26), and relates besides to a period of severe hardship and trial. ‘Warfare’ has the same figurative sense which it has in Isa_40:2; Job_7:1; Job_14:14 (A.V. in Job, as here, appointed time, following the interpretation of Kimchi; R.V. rightly warfare, figuratively of the hardships of life).
and he understood &c.] and he gave heed unto the word.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) A thing.—A revelation, as Dan_9:25. The contents of…
(1) A thing.—A revelation, as Dan_9:25. The contents of the revelation are specified in the perplexing words, “the thing was true, and the time appointed (comp. Dan_8:12) was long,” by which is meant apparently that truth and long tribulation were the subject of their vision. “Time appointed” is translated “warfare” (Isa_40:2), and is here used in the same sense, meaning “hardship” or “tribulation.” This revelation, however, speaks of the “warfare” which not Israel only, but all God’s people must undergo before the coming of the Messiah in His kingdom.
And he understood.—Comp. Dan_8:27. It appears from Dan_12:8 that the whole was not understood by him. Certainly the duration of the tribulation was not clearly revealed to the prophet, though he received enigmatic declarations respecting it (Dan_12:10, &c.).
Read full note →
I . . . was mourning.—It is needless to suppose that Daniel’s fast was in consequence of some breaches of the passover ritual, of which his people had been guilty. The Jews were involved in troubles, and had committed sins of faithlessness which justified the prophet in turning to God with fasting and praying. At Jerusalem there were the factious oppositions offered to the newly returned colonists, of which we read in the book of Ezra. They experienced the want of spiritual guides (Ezr_2:63) in one very important matter; nor need we doubt that the circumstances mentioned in Ezr_4:1-6 had occasioned many complications. But there was in Israel the sin of faithessness to God’s promises, which grieved the aged seer’s heart. The number of those who had obeyed the prophet’s command, “Go ye forth from Babylon” (Isa_48:20), was comparatively insignificant, and those who should have been foremost in leading their fellow-countrymen—namely, the Levites—had preferred the life in Babylon to the trials and hardships of rebuilding their own city (Ezr_2:40; comp. Ezr_8:15).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 1-21. THE ANGELS OF THE NATIONS. The three…
Vers. 1-21. THE ANGELS OF THE NATIONS. The three chapters (10, 11., and 12.) form a section apart from the rest of Daniel. One marked peculiarity is the long and very old interpolation which occupies nearly the whole of ch. 11. Not improbably something has dropped out, and. not a few things have been modified in consequence of this interpolation.
In the third year of Cyrus King of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long; and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. The Septuagint rendering is, "In the first year of Cyrus King of the Persians." This is at variance with all other versions. As, however, these other versions are derived from the Palestinian recension, they unitedly do not much more than counterbalance the LXX, "A decree (prostagma) was revealed to Daniel who was called Beltasar, and the vision is true and the decree." This is a case of doublet. Evidently some Egyptian manuscripts read wOzj (hazon) instead of rbDj (haddabar), and this, or the rendering of it, has slipped into the text from the margin. "And a strong multitude understood the decree." The translator here has had yby, not ybw, before him. Aquila has the same reading; here ab; x; ( tzaba) is taken in its usual sense of host," "And I understood it in vision." Here the LXX has yli instead of wOl. From the fact that the first person appears in the next verse, there is at least a probability in favour of this reading. Theodotion is, as usual, closer to the Massoretic. ab; x; is rendered dunamiv. The text before him has had ybWh, the hophal, instead of ybw, which is possibly the kal. The Peshitta seems to have used a text practically identical with that of the Massoretes; tile same is true of the Vulgate. The Peshitta renders ab; x; by heel, and the Vulgate by fortitudo. In the third year of Cyrus. The various reading of the Septuagint is of value. It is not to be dismissed as due to a desire to harmonize this date with that in Dan_1:21, for the numeral "third" might easily be an accidental mistake present in some few Palestinian manuscripts due to the beginning of the eighth chapter. The first chapter, as we have seen, has many traces that it is at once an epitome and a compilation. It is evident that the writer in the first chapter would have the rest of the book before him, and would mean to harmonize his statements with that of the chapter before us. It seems difficult to imagine that the compiler of the first chapter could have this statement before him, and yet write as he did. We should therefore be inclined to leave the question doubtful. Even if it should be admitted that the Massoretic date is correct, as we have already seen, the difficulties created are by no means insuperable. Hitzig has made it a difficulty that Daniel did not avail himself of the permission to return to his own country, granted by Cyrus. Professor Bevan says , "For those who believe Daniel to be an ideal figure, no explanation is necessary." In that assertion he is mistaken. If Daniel were presented as an ideal Jew, why does he not conform to the ideal of Judaism? The statement that Daniel was a man of nearly ninety years of age at the date of Cyrus"s proclamation is a sufficient answer to this difficulty. Hitzig thinks he rebuts this answer of Havernick"s by referring to the old (Ezr_3:12) who remembered the former temple; but these might have been children of ten or twelve when they were carried away captive eighteen years after Daniel, and thus might not be more than sixty when Cyrus"s decree came. Further, we know that only a very limited number of Jews returned, and that so many of the best of the Jews remained that it was declared that the chaff came to Jerusalem, but that the finest of the wheat remained in Babylon. A thing was revealed unto Daniel whose name was called Belteshazzar. "Thing" is the general term dabar, which means sometimes "decree," sometimes "word," or sometimes, as rendered by the Authorized, " thing." As Professor Fuller remarks, this is to be taken as the title of the rest of the remaining sections. The recurrence of the Babylonian name "Belteshazzar" may be due to the recency of the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. And the thing was true, but the time appointed was long. Hitzig thinks that in the first clause the author betrays his standpoint, as he would not know the thing was true till fact had proved it so. But, besides that an editor might have added this clause, a man might well be certain of the truth of a thing he had got from God; he might wish to impress this upon his hearers. The last clause here is certainly mistranslated in the Authorized. The time appointed was long. abx (tzaba) never means "appointed time," although it is twice translated so in Job, as here; but in all these cases with greater accuracy render "warfare." With this sense is to be compared the use we find in Num_15:23-41, where the Levites" service in the sanctuary is called abx (tzaba) If we are to keep to the Massoretic reading, then the rendering of the Revised is really the only one to be thought of. Professor Bevan, following Ewald, thinking that tzaba means in Dan_8:1:4 "temple service," would apply this meaning here. As we saw, in considering that verse, the word there was of very doubtful authenticity, we need not apply that meaning here, as it would only suit by being twisted into "obligation." Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Zockler, Keil, and others regard this word as meaning "difficulty," "oppression." Something may, however, be said for the Septuagint rendering, all the more that it was adopted by Aquila. According to these renderings, we conjoin these words, great hosts, lwdg; ab; x; with the next, which they understand read as third person singular imperfect kal, or omit the conjunction, "And a great multitude understood the decree." "The host" in this interpretation would here naturally mean "the host of heaven." We find that throughout this chapter, and in the twelfth, we have to do with the angels, so it is natural that in this title and summary of what is to follow the fact that the great host of heaven understood this mystery should be stated. Theodotion"s rendering, "power," though supported by Jerome in the Vulgate, need not detain us. The view of Jephet-ibn-Ali is that the host may be of Edom, probably meaning by this Rome. And he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. This is a fairly correct rendering of the Hebrew. Von Lengerke would make the verbs imperative, which certainly they might be, so far as form goes, but the intrusion of imperatives here into the title of a section seems violent. The main difficulty, moreover, is not touched. As they stand, these two clauses assert the same thing, and if with Yon Lengerke we make them both imperatives, we have the difficulty still present with us. It may be a case of doublet. " This is a hypothesis we scarcely would adopt except in necessity, since the Septuagint has both clauses. Theodotion, however, has only one of them. We feel ourselves inclined to follow the reading of the Septuagint. The angels understood the matter, and he Daniel understood it also by the vision.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS Vers. 1-12, 14-19.
The vision of the Christ.
was left alone, and saw this great vision" (ver. 8). It is well to begin by clearing up the context. We have now only one more prophecy in Daniel. This occupies the eleventh chapter. The tenth contains a prologue to the prophecy; the twelfth, an epilogue. in Dan_10:1 the character of the prophecy is indicated:
1. Its subject-matter is afflictive. The conflict is great. " It covers a time of great calamities (see the Hebrew).
2. The prophecy was to be unusually intelligible. "And he understood the word, and understanding was there to him in the vision." Some haze of mystery there might be, but not the thick darkness which had enrobed preceding revelations.
3. It would certainly be true. "A word was revealed to Daniel and true the word." The prophecy of ch. 11. is the most minute of Scripture; and hence men have been tempted to disbelieve in it as prophecy, and to regard it as prophecy written after the event, lien might have disregarded it before fulfilment; hence Daniel gives this assurance. We now here concern ourselves with Daniels vision of the Christ.
I THE SCENE OF THE VISION On the Tigris. The first migration to Jerusalem had taken place. Daniel"s advanced age made it, perhaps, impossible that he should have joined in it. He may have been on the Tigris:
1. Either on an embassage.
2. Or retired from all official life.
II THE TIME OF THE VISION.
1. Two years after the first migration back from captivity (ver. 1).
2. A time of sorrow. Mourning was usually for seven days: Daniel mourned for three times seven. Fasting, etc. Why? Realize the circumstances. The temple was indeed rising; but neighbouring peoples were exerting all their influence with the Persian king to frustrate the work. Therefore anxiety and fear. Daniel"s affliction would be in proportion as success seemed certain. Good men grieve over slow progress of the Divine kingdom, and the fierceness of the opposition.
3. Time of the Passover. On the twenty-fourth day of the first month came the vision. We infer that Daniel had consecrated the first three weeks of the new year to devotion. This included the Passover week a time of unusual solemnity when he would be in earnest sympathy with his nation.
III THE VISION. That this was none other than the vision of Christ the Lord appears:
1. From the after-developments of the scene.
2. From a comparison with the vision of Christ in the Apocalypse. (Re 1)
Compare the two descriptions of clothing the girdle, the countenance, the eyes, the feet, the voice. Daniel adds, "His body also was like the beryl." John adds, "His head and his hairs were white," etc. In drawing out the description into detail, note: the clothing was of the finest, purest the garb of priests, prophets, saints, and angels; the uncovered portions of the body shone with gemlike splendour; all the symbols suggest light-splendour; the girdle of fine gold; the arms and feet "like the eye of polished brass," the part that catches the blaze of sunlight and throws it back; the face as lightning, and the eyes as fire; the voice majestic. All this may be spiritually expanded.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE VISION.
1. On the companions of the seer. (Ver. 7.) Compare effect on Paul"s companions on the way to Damascus, of the vision of the same Christ.
2. On the seer. (Vers. 8, 9.) He swooned; but the mighty voice came rolling into his ear, as the roar of ocean breaks into the caves upon the shore. Here we have a picture of the inability of man to stand before the unveiled revelations of God. (comp. Rev_1:17)
V THE RESTORING OF CHRIST THE LORD. Christ:
1. S ets man erect in the presence of Divine revelations. (Ver. 11.) No need of cringing. We ourselves are made. in the image of God, and have affinity with the Divine.
2. He does so gradually. Daniel was first flat on his face; then on all fours; then half-raised and trembling; and finally stood upright on his feet. In this, see how man is gradually led up to all the light which God has to give. In heaven the unveiling may be gradual (vers. 9, 10, 11).
3. Sympathetically. "Behold, a hand touched me" (vers. 10, 16-19).
4. Assures man that his devout aspirations are recognized beyond the sky. Daniel"s was the attitude of a devout truth-seeker. He "had set his heart to understand," and "to chasten himself before his God." We should have more uniformity of Scripture interpretation, were the interpreter always of this spirit.
5. And of the sure answer to his prayers. (Ver. 12.) As soon as prayer was offered, it was heard, and secret agencies were evoked for its answer; but there were many obstacles to be overcome. The later part of the chapter shows this. So may it ever be, before our prayers can be answered, long lines and combinations of secondary causes may have to he set in operation, and formidable hostilities subdued. Patience in waiting for, as well as faith in expecting, the answer, are both necessary in the matter of prayer. R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Vers. 1-10.
Man"s foolish terror in the presence of a heavenly visitor.
In accepting the testimony of others, with respect to matters beyond the reach of our own senses and experience, we must be satisfied on three points.
(1) Is the subject-matter of the testimony opposed to reason?
(2) Was the witness himself deceived?
(3) Is the witness truthful? Now, on all these points the record of Daniel is thoroughly reliable.
The matter of this vision is most reasonable in itself. We have an accumulation of proof that Daniel was not deceived. It was not a subjective hallucination, but an objective reality. As evidence of Daniel"s thorough truthfulness, he places on record the minutest circumstances of time and place. If there had been any inaccuracy here it would have been detected in the age while Daniel"s contemporaries were yet alive. In many parts of the narrative we have the confirmations of secular historians; and best evidence of all have we that this was a real visit of an angel, viz. that his predictions of events have been verified in history.
I THERE WAS PERSONAL PREPARATION TO RECEIVE THIS HEAVENLY VISION. The habit which Daniel formed in youth was of inestimable service to him in old age. Incidentally we may observe how self-consistent are the several parts of this prophetical book. The flesh has always been, more or less, hostile to the spirit. Daniel had wisely repressed and held in control his bodily appetites in the days of his youth; and by reason of this the finer feelings and loftier faculties of his soul had been gradually developed. The practice of abstinence and self-denial had become easy. Yet he did not abstain from food because the act possessed in itself any meritorious excellence. He abstained because his soul was so absorbed in nobler occupation that appetite had lost its edge and food its charm. We are not told the particular reason of this long mourning, yet we can easily infer that his grief was excited by the depressed condition of his people Israel. Self had long since been sacrificed on the altar of his God. He rejoiced in Israel"s joy; he mourned in Israel"s sorrow. Such tears clear the eye of the soul for the perception of heavenly things.
II THE SUBSTANCE OF THE VISION. It was the vision of a celestial being, in the form and raiment of a man. To what extent this august person, as he appeared to Daniel, appeared in his native essence, or accommodated himself to human eyes, no living man can say. Whether the unfallen angels have any definite form apprehensible to human eyes, is a question more curious than important. But certain it is that in many vital respects men resemble angels. They have understanding of God"s works. They can appreciate truth. Both angels and regenerate men love righteousness and hate wickedness. Both are gifted with benevolence. Both have conscience, affection, choice, will. Here are ample grounds for intercourse and friendship a joint occupation of heaven. In this resplendent vision we may see what ransomed man shall be. Precious stones, fire, electric flame, burnished brass,these are the emblems of our transfigured nature. Earthly dulness and deformity shall give place to the refinements of celestial splendour. What we call, in our ignorance, supernatural, is but Nature in her higher forms and essences. Whether communication of thought among the angels is by means of outward signs something akin to words we cannot tell. On this occasion there was not only the form of a glorious man, there was also the language of a man and the sympathy of a man. To accommodate themselves to the necessities of men is a delight to angelic natures as it is to God.
III THE STRANGE EFFECTS OF THIS VISION UPON MEN. One might have supposed that this visit of a heavenly stranger would be to Daniel, if not to his attendants, an occasion of unmixed delight. It was, without doubt, a special mark of God"s favour. When we wish to show a distinguishing mark of respect to a friend we send our messages, not by a menial servant, but by a person of distinction. And that God should have sent a special despatch to Daniel not a mere voice, not a human messenger, not an ordinary angel but Gabriel himself, this ought to have been welcomed as a high mark of Divine kindness. To be assured that God has other orders of servants beside ourselves, this is a pleasure. To be assured that these nobler and more loyal natures regard us, not as dangerous rivals of their privileges, but as fellow-heirs of their home, this ought to be rich delight. On what ground, then, does this pious man shrink from contact with this glorious servant of Jehovah? We can conceive of no other ground than this, viz. the sense of personal sin. Notwithstanding Daniel"s penitence for sin, and his faith in God"s mercy, there yet remained the consciousness of great unworthiness. Hence a messenger from God may be an instrument to visit just recompense. Still, we must note that the effect o, Daniel was very different from the effect on his companions. At the sound of the angel"s overpowering voice the attendants on this aged statesman fled. Regardful chiefly of their own safety, they fled to hide themselves. Like the Gravelling companions of St. Paul, they heard a voice but saw no person. There is such a thing, even in our present life, as a refinement of the bodily senses a development and quickening of the sensitive capacity to discern immaterial things. On the eve of the Saviour"s crucifixion the Father"s voice pierced the blue welkin. Bystanders, with dull and stolid souls, said that it thundered. Others, having a finer perception of things, caught an articulate sound, and averred that an angel spake. Yet One at least detected the very words, and recognized them as the response of the eternal God. Daniel"s senses were overpowered by the splendour of this distinguished visitor. Strength failed him. He was prostrate with awe, yet his mind was awake and active, so that he heard the words which this glorious spirit spake.
IV THE PROOFS THAT THIS VISION HAD AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. The votaries of science make a demand for facts. Theologians respond to the demand, and supply them with facts in abundance facts which cannot be gainsaid. Here was the fact that Daniel"s companions heard a voice so novel and so startling that they ran to hide themselves a type this of what guilty men do in every age of the world. Here was the fact of which Daniel"s eye was witness, the fact to which Daniel"s ear testified, the fact to which Daniel"s sense of touch responded. Here is an accumulation of evidence one faculty corroborated the testimony of another faculty. Here were facts attested by the organs of his body, and confirmed by all the powers of his mind. Here were facts which entered into the inmost experiences of the man clear answers to prayer, which satisfied his wish, and expanded his knowledge, and invigorated his hope. Here were facts predicted which, in due time, were verified in the actual history of the nations. If anything in history or in science is credible, this is certain that Daniel"s vision was no subjective illusion, no hallucination of the brain, but an objective reality. He obtained positive information, which has served ever since for the instruction of mankind. He received from his distinguished visitor strength a positive communication of blessing. Here are solid facts, which refuse to evaporate before the breath of honest inquiry. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain In the third year of Cyrus.
Dan_10:1-21
In the third year of Cyrus.
Read full note →
The Vision on the Banks of the Hiddekels
The law of gradual development seems to pervade the government of God, and may be treated alike in the material and spiritual departments of his administration. The revelation which God has given to men has grown into its completeness. The primal promise to our common parents in paradise, was the first faint ray that emanated from the common sun of righteousness; but as the morning of the race wore on, that solitary beam expanded, through the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic economy and the prophetic writings, unto at length, foreheralded by the Baptist as the morning star, the Divine luminary arose with healing m his wings. What was thus characteristic of revelation as a whole is equally apparent in the communications made to individual prophets. Daniel, in this wonderful series of predictions, goes on from the general to the particular, and brings in at every stop new details by which accuracy may be tested, and by which, if his writings stand the ordeal which they have themselves prepared, his inspiration may be abundantly established. The date of the present revelation was the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia. This, therefore, is the last communication which he gave to his people, and the last glimpse which we get of himself. He had not set out, probably on account of his extreme old age, with the exiles who returned to Jerusalem after the issuing of the edict of Cyrus. The testimony of tradition is that Daniel died at Susa . . . This description of the conflicts in the spirit-world between the rival angels foreshadows the opposition encountered by Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and their compatriots during the reigns of the Persian kings, Darius, Hystaspis, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, and also that which, at a later time, the descendants of the restorers of Jerusalem met with at the hands of the Syrian representatives of the Greek Empire. The prophecy in the eleventh chapter may be divided into three parts, increasing in circumstantiality as they advance. There is first, a brief description of the Persian and the Greek Empires; then a sketch of the more important events in the struggles between the kings of Syria and Egypt; and third, a detailed and minute account of the character and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes . . . It remains that I should look for a moment at the opinion of those who believe that we have in this prediction a reference to the Antichrist of the New Testament as well as to Antiochus. For such an idea we can find no sure foundation. There is nothing in the chapter to indicate that a transition from one subject to another has been made. Some refer the prophecy to the Papacy; but it is a question not yet settled whether the papacy really is the Antichrist of the New Testament. Learn from this portion,
1. That God prepares his people for special trial by special grace. His assistance is ever beforehand with our emergency. The relation of this portion of Gods word to the circumstances of the people under Antiochus is precisely that of all his promises to our trials, temptations, and necessities. Every promise of God is a prophecy.
2. That faith in the Invisible is essential to our getting the full benefit of Scripture. Much may be gained from it in history and in morals, even if we should repudiate everything that is supernatural in its pages. To obtain the utmost benefit from its words, we must accept its revelation of that which is hidden from mortal sight. The promises of Jesus are not to us like the legacies of one long dead. They are the assurances of a living and present, though unseen friend, and when so accepted they are full of power. The Bible will be to us no better than the moral maxims of Antoninus or Epictetus, unless we receive its revelation of the unseen in connection with its forecasts of prophecy and promise. (William M. Taylor, D..D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain SECT. XXXVII.—ANGEL MINISTRIES (Chap. Dan_10:1-21)
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXVII.—ANGEL MINISTRIES (Chap. Dan_10:1-21)
Read full note →
In this and the two following chapters we have another of Daniel’s remarkable visions. It is both the last and the longest recorded, occupying, as it does, nearly three whole chapters of the book. It was vouchsafed to Daniel as a man greatly beloved, which he is here again declared twice over to be. It was given him in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, B.C. 531, Daniel now approaching the ninetieth year of his age. The prophet relates in the present chapter his spiritual exercises previous to his receiving the vision, which were no doubt made preparatory to his doing so. Already with thankfulness and joy he had seen his people, according to Jehovah’s gracious promise, restored, through the edict of Cyrus, the result of his own influence and exertions, to their own land. Notwithstanding this, how-ever, the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, and who after all formed but a small proportion of the exiles, were in great humiliation and depression. Their first attempt had been to rebuild the temple; but in this they were opposed and hindered by the heathen already in the land. These, who had been settled there by Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, now demanded a share in the erection of the temple. This the Jews refused, on the ground that they formed no part of the covenant-people. Irritated by the refusal, these heathen settlers, or Samaritans, as they were then and afterwards called (Samaria being the part of the country in which they were located), set themselves to oppose the work in every possible way, and especially by seeking to prejudice the king of Persia against it, which they continued to do throughout the reign of Cyrus (Ezr_4:1-4). This opposition to the work, and its consequent interruption, had doubtless reached the ears of Daniel at the Persian court, where, probably on account of his advanced age, he had still remained. The tidings pressed heavily on his spirit; and deeply sympathising with his brethren, and concerned for the cause of his God, at the beginning of the new year, and as the time of the Passover approached, he set himself, as he had done before (chap. Dan_9:3), to seek the Lord’s mercy for his people by prayer and fasting. He relates that in those days, he, the same Daniel who is also called Belteshazzar, [287] was “mourning three full weeks;” [288] neither eating any pleasant bread, nor drinking wine, nor anointing his body, [289] during the whole of that period (Dan_10:2-3). The place of retirement which he had chosen for this exercise of continued prayer and fasting was on the banks of the Hiddekel or Tigris, where there already existed an oratory or place of prayer, according to Jewish custom. There, whither he had gone accompanied by some of his friends, he received the vision which he here relates. The communications, as on a former occasion, are made through an angel, who declares that what he communicates is what is “noted in the Scripture of truth;” [290] probably God’s unchanging decree, which was now so far made known to him. It is stated by the angel that the communication “is true,” [291] though the time appointed for its fulfilment (or the warfare and trouble predicted) “was long.” Daniel intimates also that he “understood the thing: I had understanding of the vision;” [292] a thing which, in relation to one point at least, as he afterwards relates, he particularly desired and asked for (chap. Dan_12:8). The present chapter is remarkable for the insight which it affords into the angel-world and angel-ministries, given as a kind of preface to the divine communications which were to follow. The occasion of this special information being now vouchsafed to the prophet, was the struggle going on between the Jews and their heathen neighbours in the country to obtain the influence of the kings of Persia for, or against, the building of the temple; as also the situation which the Jews were, for centuries to come, to occupy in relation to the great world-powers to which they were to be subject, and from which they were so greatly to suffer. It was to be for the comfort of Daniel and his people to know that the Providence of a covenant-God was watching over them; and that under that Providence angelic agencies were continually employed in their behalf. These celestial beings appear to Daniel in the vision; the first and chief of whom, from a comparison of the description given of him (Dan_10:5-6) with that in Rev_1:13, &c., would seem to be identified with the Angel of the covenant, the Lord of angels Himself. [293] It appears uncertain whether he, or one of the other two, is the principal speaker in the vision, though probably one of the latter, [294] speaking under his direction, as in chap. Dan_8:16. From the view here given regarding the ministry and agency of angels for the benefit of the Church of God in the world, we may observe the following particulars:—
[287] “Belteshazzar” (Dan_10:1). Calvin thinks that Daniel mentions this name as that by which he was better known among the nations with whom he would have this prophecy to become famous. Polanus thinks it is given to show that he was the same person who had the former visions, that so it might be received with greater credit and authority.
[288] “Three full weeks” (Dan_10:2). Literally, “three weeks of days;” an expression, which while it denotes, according to Hebrew idiom, three full weeks, may also indicate that there are weeks of another kind than those of days; e. g., the seventy weeks of the preceding chapter, which are weeks of years. Dr. Cox mentions as reasons for Daniel’s present protracted season of humiliation and prayer—his personal transgressions, the opposition experienced in the rebuilding of the city and temple, the reluctance of many of the Jews to return to Jerusalem and cooperate in the work, and the predicted conduct of his people when Messiah should appear and be “cut off.”
[289] “Anoint myself” (Dan_10:3). Jerome says the Persians, instead of bathing, anointed their bodies all over, which, according to Priny, was done both to defend themselves from the excessive heat, and preserve their bodies in health. Keil observes that the anointing with oil was a sign of joy and a joyous frame of mind, as with guests at a banquet (Amo_6:6); and was now intermitted by Daniel as in a time of sorrow.
[290] “In the scripture of truth” (Dan_10:21). Calvin observes that Holy Scripture often adopts forms of speech according to human custom; the “scripture of truth” being nothing but the eternal and inviolable decree of God Himself. Bishop Lowth remarks: “God’s decrees are spoken of as if they were committed to writing and registered in a book.” Mr. Bosanquet thinks it to have been a book or writing concerning “the truth;” and that what follows is mostly a comment founded upon it, and not to be mistaken for prophecy.
[291] “The thing was true” (Dan_10:1). Keil observes that in this statement Hitzig finds an intimation that betrays the writer’s standpoint, namely, the time when “the thing” was realised, Daniel not being able to say this before it happened. But this objection supposes that the author was a lying prophet who spoke from his own heart (Jer_29:8; Jer_29:15). But if Daniel had actually received a word from God, he could before its fulfilment testify its truth; that testimony here indicating, as in chap. Dan_8:26, that the word now communicated to the prophet contained things which it would be difficult for the human heart to believe. Mr. Bos-anquet thinks that it was part of the interpretation made by some unknown person in or after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the course of time accidentally transferred from the alternate columns or margin of the sacred roll into the text. But Rev_22:19, teaches caution in supposing passages to be interpolations.
[292] “He understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision” (Dan_10:1). Rosenmüller understands בִּין (bin) imperatively, and בִּינָה (binah) as a mere repetition of the word: “Consider it, consider, I say, the thing made known through the vision.” So Lengerke and Mr. Bosanquet. Keil thinks that a summons to give heed or to understand would not be here in place. He considers בִּינָה (binah) a substantive, and בִּין (bin) the preterite, and not, as Hävernick, the infinitive: “Understanding was to him by that which was seen,” בַּמַּרְאֶה (bammareh), by the vision, i.e., by the appearance described in Dan_10:5, &c. Kliefoth refers this last word to the earlier prophecies of chap. Dan_8:7; Dan_8:9. The objection that Daniel says (chap. Dan_12:8) that he did not understand the vision, is disposed of, he observes, on the ground that the non-understanding had reference to a single point, viz., the duration of the affliction; regarding which, however, disclosures are given to the prophet in chap. Dan_12:10, &c. Auberlen refers to a distinction, also noticed by Keil, between this and other revelations vouchsafed to the prophet, viz., that it is communicated partly by supernatural illumination for the interpretation of the dream-vision, partly by visions, and partly by the appearance of angels; indicating a noteworthy progression, in which one revelation always prepares the way, in a material and formal respect, for that which follows, and by which God gradually prepared the prophet for the reception of still more definite disclosures.
[293] “A certain man clothed in linen” (Dan_10:5). Dr. Rule thinks that it is Gabriel, distinguished as the Lord’s chosen messenger, who is described in Dan_10:5-6; and that by a comparison with Rev_1:13, &c., we find that the descriptions, though resembling each other, are not to be confounded, the latter having every divine attribute, while the former has none. Brightman thinks that his priestly garments proclaim him to be the only priest worthy to be consulted in all doubtful matters, and whose lips “keep knowledge.” Keil is led by Rev_1:13, &c., to regard him as no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos or Word, who afterwards was made flesh; his appearance resembling that of the glory of Jehovah as seen by Ezekiel at the river Chebar, and indicating how by his acts he would reveal himself to his people in the great tribulation. So Œcolampadius, Willet, and others.
[294] “A hand touched me” (Dan_10:10). Hengstenberg thinks, with many old interpreters, that the person who speaks to Daniel and announces the future, is not the same who is described in Dan_10:5-6, as the “man clothed in linen.” Jerome thinks they are the same created angel. So Pfaff and Bullinger. Œcolampadius thinks they are the same person, viz., Christ. So Keil. Hengstenberg identifies him with Gabriel. Dr. Rule thinks that other angels, less terrible than the one described in Dan_10:5-6, ministered to the prophet (Dan_10:10; Dan_10:16; Dan_10:18). Birks thinks the speaker in the vision is the angel of the covenant, the Son of God.
1. The existence of different ranks and orders among those angelic ministers. The angels introduced in this chapter are “princes;” while one of them, named Michael, is called “one of the chief or first princes” (Dan_10:13); [295] this same Michael being also called (chap. Dan_12:1) the “great prince,” and elsewhere the archangel or chief of the angels (Jud_1:9; Rev_12:7). [296] As distinguished from the angels in general, some would appear to be princes, and that of different ranks. Peter seems to indicate the existence of such a celestial hierarchy, when he speaks of “angels, authorities, and powers” being subject to Christ; as well as Paul, who speaks of “principalities and powers in heavenly places” (1Pe_3:22; Eph_3:19). Each of those princes apparently the constituted leader of an angelic host, perhaps one of those legions of which Jesus speaks (Mat_26:53). The Book of Revelation speaks of Michael and his angels conflicting with the devil and his angels (Rev_12:7). A similar subordination of rank would seem still to continue to exist aiming the angels who fell, and who are still spoken of as “principalities and powers” (Eph_6:12).
[295] “Michael” (Dan_10:13). מִיכָאֵל = “who is like God,” expresses the idea of God’s unparalleled helping power. Hengstenberg identifies Michael with the “Angel of the Lord,” the leader of the Israelites, and prince of the army of Jehovah, mentioned in Exo_32:34; Jos_5:13; Zec_1:5). Melanchthon, Broughton, Junius, and others identify him with Christ. Birks and most interpreters think him a created angel. Calvin leaves it indifferent, observing that God does not confine Himself to any fixed rule.
[296] “One of the chief princes” (Dan_10:13). Keil observes that the title here given to Michael points undoubtedly to an arrangement of orders and degrees among the angels. From the circumstance that the guardian spirit of Persia (see next note) is called שַׂר (sar), a prince, it does not follow that “princes” is not a designation of the angels generally, but only, as Hofmann thinks, of the princes of the peoples who are the spirits-ruling in the social affairs of nations and kingdoms. The “chief princes,” he adds, can only be the princes, or chiefs, of the good angels who remain in communion with God and work for His kingdom. The work of standing up for Israel (chap. Dan_12:1) is committed to Michael as one of them. As God would not intrust to a subordinate spirit a work demanding special power and greatness, the title given to Michael was for Israel’s comfort, as affirming that they were under very powerful protection, though little esteemed before the world.
2. Their appointment to different spheres or posts of duty. Thus Michael is here represented as the prince of the people of Israel (Dan_10:21), and in chap. Dan_12:1, the prince “that standeth for the children of Daniel’s people;” his post apparently being to defend and protect that favoured nation. On the other side, we read of the princes of Persia and Grecia, being, in the opinion of many, the subordinate leaders among the fallen angels, to whom are assigned by their chief these countries as their respective spheres of operation. [297] So Paul speaks of principalities and powers, the “rulers of the darkness of this world” (Eph_6:12). How far individuals may be made the special charge of certain angels is perhaps less certain. Jesus, however, speaks of little children as having “their angels” (Mat_18:10). The believers in Mary’s house at Jerusalem said of Peter at the door, “It is his angel” (Act_12:16). The hill on which Elisha’s house stood was seen to be “full of horses and chariots of fire” round about the prophet (2Ki_6:17).
[297] “The prince of Persia—of the kingdom of Persia—of Grecia” (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20). Jerome, Melanchthon, Osiander, and others think the “king of Persia” to be Satan or evil angels. Dr. Rule thinks that the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” was Darius, and that the “kings of Persia” (Dan_10:13) were the kings of subject provinces; while the princes of Persia and of Grecia (Dan_10:20) were the kings of those countries, the King of Grecia being Alexander the Great. So Calvin, who thinks of Cambyses the son of Cyrus. Dr. Cox thinks that Satan, the prince or god of this world, either by himself or by one of his chief agents, employed his machinations to instigate Cambyses and the court of Persia to hostilities against the Jews; while the angelic spirit, to whom this ministration was intrusted, employed his efforts to influence the king and his nobles in their favour. Keil thinks the “prince of the kingdom of Persia,” in Dan_10:20 the “prince of Persia,” is not King Cyrus, nor, as Hävernick and Kranichfeld, with Calvin and most of the reformers, think, the kings of Persia collectively; but the guardian spirit or the protecting genius of the Persian kingdom, as the Rabbis and many Christian interpreters after Jerome have acknowledged; a spirit-being, yet not the heathen national god of the Persians, but, according to the view of Scripture (1Co_10:20, &c.), the demon (δαιμόνιον) of the Persian kingdom; i.e., the supernatural spirit-power standing behind the national gods, which we may call the guardian spirit of this kingdom. According to Kliefoth, this spirit stood behind the Persian kings to influence them against Israel, and to direct against the chosen people the power lying in Persian heathendom, so as to support the insinuations of the Samaritans, and whom the angel, mentioned in Dan_10:5, came, at Daniel’s prayer, to dislodge from his position and deprive of his influence; in which, with the aid of Michael, he so far succeeded that, after a contest of twenty-one days, he gained the mastery over him, and stood in his place beside the kings of Persia, so as henceforth to influence them in favour of Israel. By the king of Grecia, Keil understands the spirit of the Maccabean world-kingdom, who, while the angel addressing Daniel returns to Persia to maintain the position he has gained, will come and cause a new conflict. Dr. Pusey, after Gregory, Theodoret, Lyranus, and others, regards these “princes” as good angels desiring the welfare of the peoples committed to their care, and so contending, though in submission to the will of God.
3. The deep interest felt by those angelic beings in the welfare of good men and the prosperity of God’s cause. Their interest in good men seen in the manner in which Daniel is addressed as a “man greatly beloved;” words “indicative of tender compassion and encouragement, as addressed to an aged saint in whom the infirmities of age, blended with a deep self-abasement, rendered such assurances of regard especially grateful and appropriate.” The exhortation, “fear not,” expressive of the same loving interest and tender consideration. The earnest endeavour to impart strength to the overpowered and fainting prophet (Dan_10:18-19) reminds us of the same affectionate concern manifested on behalf of the Man of Sorrows Himself in His agony in the garden (Luk_22:43). The whole of the narrative before us in reference to the exertions of these angelic ministers on behalf of Israel indicative of their deep interest in the welfare of that people, and the prosperity of Jehovah’s cause in the world.
4. The variety of their ministrations. Here, as elsewhere, we see them employed in conveying messages and delivering communications from God to His servants (Dan_10:14). So in chap. Dan_9:21-22, we see them also engaged in counteracting the evil influences brought to bear on rulers and others by the adversaries of God’s cause and people. From chap. Dan_11:1, we find that the same celestial personage who communicates with Daniel had exerted his influence in strengthening and encouraging Darius in favour of the Jews, when thwarted and opposed in their work of restoring Jerusalem by the Samaritans, who sought to prejudice the king against them and their work. Their ministrations as varied as the circumstances, necessities, and requirements of the servants of God and heirs of salvation for whose benefit they are employed in ministering.
5. Their union and mutual help among themselves. “Michael, one of the chief princes,” says the principal speaker in the chapter, “came to help me” (Dan_10:13). And again (Dan_10:21), “There is none that holdeth (marg., ‘strengthened himself,—puts forth strenuous efforts or vigorously co-operates) with me in these things but Michael your prince.” The angels, though excelling in strength, yet of limited power. Even among those potent agents, co-operation and mutual aid are necessary and enjoyed. The same important principle experienced among the celestial as among terrestrial workers, Union is strength. “Two are better than one.” An example for the Church on earth in their works of good-doing.
6. Difficulties and opposition experienced by these angelic agents in their benevolent work. The angel who came to Daniel with the divine communications was withstood by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and that apparently all the twenty-one days during which Daniel was fasting and praying (Dan_10:13), [298] After fulfilling his mission to the prophet, he had to return to fight again with the prince of Persia, who was still endeavouring to thwart his services on behalf of the Jews (Dan_10:20). So in Rev_12:7, Michael and his angels are opposed by the devil and his angels. In Jude, Dan_10:9, the same archangel is represented as having contended with the devil about the body of Moses, probably when commissioned by Jehovah to bury it (Deu_34:6). We see and experience the conflict carried on between the friends and foes of truth and righteousness on earth. It is well to know that a similar contest is waged by invisible powers above us and among us. Such contests no less real because unseen. The horses and chariots were on the mountain round about Eiisha before the servant’s eyes were opened to see them. It is certain that Christ’s servants are aided on earth by angelic agents; but it is quite as certain that they are also hindered and opposed by invisible powers of a different character (1Th_2:18; Rom_16:20). Even when opposed by earthly adversaries, it is an encouragement to know that we are not alone in such an experience. Angels, who are “greater in power and might,” have also to contend against opposition while ministering to us and to the cause of Christ on earth.
[298] “Withstood me” (Dan_10:13). Dr. Cox remarks that contests of this nature are mentioned in other places of Scripture, as Zec_3:1-3; Jud_1:9; Rev_12:7-8. “The angel lets the prophet catch a glimpse of the invisible struggles between the princes of the angels, in which it is decided who is to exert the determining influence on the worldly monarch (the king of Persia)—whether the god-opposed spirit of this world, or the good spirit whose aim it is to further the interests of God’s kingdom.”—Auberlen; who adds: “We are wont to speak in a spiritualising way of a struggle between the good and the evil spirit in man. Holy Scripture teaches us to regard such a struggle as real and substantial (compare 1Sa_16:13-15; 1Ki_22:22). The Satanic influences, of which we have more particular knowledge through the language of Christ and His apostles, are essentially not different from this. The liberty of human actions is not hereby taken away; for the spirits exercise no compelling influence on men’s hearts, and their chief activity consists probably in the arrangement of outward events.”
From the whole narrative we may learn—
1. How glorious must be the place that forms the abode of those angelic beings to whom we are here introduced. The visible glory and splendour of “the man clothed in linen” (Dan_10:5-6), whether a created or uncreated angel, suggests the glory of the place where such have their residence. A similar appearance is elsewhere ascribed to those angelic ministers; for example, Mat_28:3. How glorious the throne which is attended by such exalted and resplendent ministers! How glorious the King! A picture of His glory, under a human form, perhaps presented to us in this chapter. The queen of Sheba’s burst of amazement and admiration on seeing the glory of Solomon’s court, likely to be far exceeded by the believer’s experience as he enters the heavenly glory: “It was a true report that I heard—and behold, the half was not told me. Happy are thy men, and happy are these thy servants that stand continually before thee, and that hear thy wisdom!” Daniel fainted at the glorious vision of the man clothed in linen. [299] Believers beholding “the King in His beauty “shall be filled “with joy unspeakable and full of glory.”
[299] “There remained no strength in me” (Dan_10:8). Keil observes that the effect which the appearance of the man clothed in linen had upon Daniel, formed a pre-intimation and a pledge of what would happen to his people in the future. As Daniel was thrown to the ground and raised up again by a supernatural hand, so should the people of God be thrown to the ground by the fearful judgments that should pass over them, but should again be raised up by the all-powerful help of their God and His angel-prince Michael, and should be strengthened to endure the tribulation.
2. Ample provision made for the welfare of the Church and for the success of the Redeemer’s cause. An agency is provided in the wisdom and love of God, and committed into the hands of the Mediator, which, though invisible, is always in operation, and is fully adequate to meet all requirements and exigencies. Such provision made in the ministration of angelic beings, who, though necessarily limited both in their power and knowledge, yet “excel in strength” as well as wisdom; and, while yielding implicit obedience to the will of their Sovereign, are also deeply and lovingly interested in the happiness of His people and the prosperity of His cause. Their influence also, as spiritual beings, is capable of being exercised as well on the mind as on material objects. It is true that in their ministrations they are resisted by beings of a similar nature, though of an opposite character and disposition. How effectually, however, the ministry of angels is exercised on behalf of the Church, is shown by numerous examples both in the Old and New Testaments, one of which is found in this very book (chap. Dan_6:22).
3. The duty of imitating the character and conduct of those angelic ministers. A petition taught by the Saviour, and constantly on the lips of the professing Church, is, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The book of Daniel, and especially the chapter before us, reveals how it is done there. We see these celestial beings not only promptly obedient to their Maker’s will, but cordially interested in whatever that will is, and especially in the work of ministering for the heirs of salvation about whom they are employed. Their obedience not only prompt but loving and hearty. What is done in obedience to the divine will is done “heartily as to the Lord.” Whatever the service on which they are sent, it is faithfully, zealously, and lovingly executed. Though thwarted and opposed for days and weeks together by hostile influences and wayward dispositions, they persevere in their mission till it is accomplished. It is our privilege to be engaged with them in serving the same Master, and in promoting the same objects. Like them we shall meet with opposition both from visible and invisible adversaries. Like them it is for us, through promised and provided grace, to persevere till our efforts are crowned with success, or we called away by the Master to another field of service.
4. The reverential spirit with which we ought to receive the communications of God’s word. Daniel relates that when the angel brought to him the divine communication with which he was charged, “when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling;” and again, “when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and became dumb” (Dan_10:11; Dan_10:15). One of the marks of the truly godly given by God Himself as that with which He is well pleased, is, that they “tremble at His word” (Isa_66:2). So Ezra speaks of the godly in his day (Ezr_9:4; Ezr_10:3). Striking contrast to the thoughtless indifference with which the divine oracles are too often read and heard. The deep humility, self-abasement, and godly fear that Daniel exhibited in relation to the divine communications which he received, a part of his general character, and that which doubtless prepared him for receiving those revelations by which he was so greatly honoured. “Them that honour Me, I will honour.”
5. The manifoldness of Scripture teaching. Not only in regard to our own race has the Holy Ghost been pleased to give us information in His word; but also in regard to an order of beings higher than ourselves in the scale of creation, and whose existence dates further back in the annals of the universe. [300] This information, too, the Scriptures afford us, not to gratify curiosity, nor even merely to augment our knowledge; but on account of the relation which those angelic beings bear to ourselves, and the important part assigned to them in connection with the human race, and more especially to that part of it who, like themselves, are engaged in the service of God. “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” The information thus afforded us concerning angels calculated to exercise an important influence upon our spirit and daily walk, cheering us by the assurance of their presence and aid, and animating us by their holy and loving example (Psa_34:7; Psa_91:11-12; Ecc_5:6; 1Co_11:10).
[300] This information, given through Daniel, regarding angels has been made an argument against the genuineness of the book as belonging to a later age; the angels being said to appear quite in the form in which they were introduced from the later Parseism into Judea, with the distinction of higher and lower orders, and the names given to certain individuals among them. But, as Dr. Pusey observes, some distinction among those heavenly hosts was revealed from the first (Gen_3:24). Also, there was one known as distinct from and above all the rest as “the Angel of the Lord,” whether God the Son, or (as Dr. Pusey thinks) a created angel, and especially Michael, in whom God accustomed His creatures to the thought of beholding Himself in human form. He thinks the one thing peculiar in Daniel’s revelations regarding angels is that, as God set one chief angel as the deputed guardian of His people, so He set others over the nations, assigning to each nation one of those ministering spirits to succour and defend them, and to plead their cause with Himself, the Father of all. He observes that it is agreed that the common title Amesha-Cpenta (or Amshaspands), “the holy immortals,” does not occur in the oldest part of the Zendavesta; and that the names by which they are severally distinguished occur there also as names of qualities or substances. Dr. Rule observes: “It is a familiar saying with the Jews that their fathers brought up the names of angels out of Babylon; and, for anything we know to the contrary, it may be true that they brought them thence. But it would be an error to conclude that the Jews learned the names of angels from the Babylonians or from the Persians.” At first sight, he remarks, it might seem probable that, as the later Persian religion, unlike the Assyrian, is distinguished by long lists of angels, good and bad, Persia might be the birthplace of angelology; and it might be conjectured that the inspired writers of the New Testament, who record the names of Gabriel and Michael, drew them from the same source as the Persians, or indeed from the Persians themselves. “In the present case, the Persian documents of or before the age of Daniel, which are now accessible to us, are not known to disclose any information concerning angels’ names. As for Zoroaster, his date is not certainly known; but even if it was he who first taught the Persians that angels existed, and if he really flourished in the reign of Gushtaph or Darius Hystaspis, b.c. 521–486, he was probably born a few years before the decease of Daniel, but had not yet been heard of in Daniel’s time; and the only probability is that he would be glad to borrow from the prophet’s writings anything to serve his own purpose.” He concludes that angel were not known of in Babylonia, and therefore there could not have been angels’ names, except as the Babylonians and others learned them from the Hebrews.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain There are very few things harder to bear, or…
Dan 10:1
There are very few things harder to bear, or more often handles of Satan, than those strangely protracted intervals which so frequently come in between prayers and their answers, between promises and their fulfilments, between good desires and their attainments, between the best-laid schemes and their reasonable success. The truth which I wish to press is this: that the space which intervenes in all these cases, and which seems to us so needless, so severe, is as much settled and predetermined by God as the prayer we offer, or the means we use, or the event itself for which we are looking. The two are parts of the same thing; both are ordained, both are covenanted. The time is an appointed one—not loose—definite; and the one is as certain as the other. Consider one or two of the reasons of God’s mysterious painful dealing about intervals.
Read full note →
I. God will always be a sovereign—not to be questioned, independent of man’s opinions, infinitely beyond man’s judgment, and always crossing the hands of man’s expectations.
II. In heaven there is no time. It is impossible for us to conceive, much less to pronounce on, the action of one to whom all time is one perpetual now. In God’s mind there is never any intermediate period. The prayer, the time after the prayer, the answer, when it comes, are all one—He sees them perfectly identified.
III. It is a rule of God’s government, which you will find pervading every part of it, that everything is made matter of faith before it is made matter of enjoyment.
IV. The discipline is very good and necessary, for it addresses itself to two of our weakest points—our impatience and our pride. The man who wishes to have answers to prayer, must be a man who recognises that God is very kind and that he is very little—he must be a child content to tarry his Father’s leisure—and the sooner, perhaps, that lesson is learnt the sooner will the Father give His child what He has been keeping from him just till he can say it.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 174.
References: Dan 10:11.—G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 170; W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 251. Dan 10:18.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii., No. 1295.
Dan 10:18-19
Who is this that in the presence of the angel is so weak and feeble that for a while he cannot bear even to hear him speak; that he faints and loses speech and sight before him? It is one than whom few nobler, few greater, or more courageous men have ever been. Daniel is a noble example of the good, great man. He had known what it was to be a captive and a prisoner, and a slave. He knew what it was to be a despot’s counsellor and rule half the civilised world; and the one thing which upheld him in his first estate, and guided him to the last, was his clear sense of his own position before God and man; a large wide view of his own being; a clear view of his Master’s earthly claims on him, and overspreading and bounding all other things and thoughts, the fear of God, thorough independence of man, perfect dependence upon God.
I. A strong sense of responsibility is the true source of genuine independence of character. To feel and know what we are, where we are, that we have real duties, and are really answerable in the most minute particulars for doing them, and for our manner of doing them—this constant thought of insight is the mother of all real and lasting independence of character.
II. True independence in nothing differs more from vanity than that it has a sense of weakness, a sense of need, a craving of strength from above. Foolishness is strong in its own sight. The prophet with all his independence of character ruling provinces, standing before kings and reproving them, how did he behave when he was alone with God? Remember his softness and tenderness, his window opened towards his home, and the man in prayer upon his knees three times a day there. Or think of him, as when in my text God’s message came home to him, and he says, "There remained no strength in me." It was because realities to him were real. Let us pray that we may not live as though the things of sight, touch, and taste were real, heaven and eternity shadows, but that we may feel that God and God’s law alone are real, and that usages, however prevalent, however accepted, which are not after God’s laws, will one day pass away and leave us, if we have trusted them, solitary, helpless, and broken.
Archbishop Benson, Boy Life: Sundays in Wellington College, p. 219.
References: Dan 10:18, Dan 10:19.—J. Vaughan, Sermons, 14th series, p. 13; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 368. Dan 10:19.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xix., No. 1089. 10—Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 437; J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 162. 10, 11—W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 203. Dan 11:31.—W. M. Statham, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 257. Dan 11:32.—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 217. Dan 11:32, Dan 11:33.—Ibid., Sermons, vol. xi., No. 609. Dan 11:36.—Expositor, 3rd series, vol. iv., p. 40. 11—J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 166.
Daniel 12
We have in this chapter:—
I. The hope of the suffering saint. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is here for the first time broadly asserted, and that in such a way as to connect it with retribution, and make it an encouragement to fidelity under trial.
II. We have here, secondly, the reward of the working saint. "They that are wise shall shine," etc. Among the nations of the earth decorations and honours are given to those who have done the greatest work of destruction. But in the kingdom of Christ it is far otherwise. The places of preeminence under Him are assigned to those who have been likest Him in the holiness of their characters, in the self-sacrifice of their lives, and in the hallowing and ennobling influence which they have shed around them.
III. We have here the rest of the waiting saint. "Go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Do not disquiet yourself about the future. Leave that in God’s hands. You shall rest in Him during the remainder of your life on earth, and when that shall end, you shall rest with Him.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 232.
References: Dan 12:4.—A. Mursell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 40; H. W. Beecher, Ibid.; J. F. Stevenson, Ibid., vol. ii., p. 307; H. W. Beecher, Ibid., vol. xxix., p. 291. Dan 12:9.—C. Wordsworth, Old Testament Outlines, p. 262.
Dan 12:13
These words contain undoubtedly the dismission of Daniel from his whole life-work, and may therefore be applied to anyone who has been working well for God, and has now gone to rest.
The text brings before our view:—
I. The majesty and greatness of the providence of God. God says not only to individuals—to each of His servants when he has done his work, "Go thou thy way," He says it to communities of men and witnesses for the truth. He says it to Churches. He says it to generations. He says it to worlds—to one world after another: "Go thou thy way." Everything is ruled and used for the accomplishment of His ultimate and perfect will.
II. How little is individual man! Is it not as if with some sublime consciousness of the greatness of His own providence—covering the world, stretching along time, reaching up to heaven, filling at length eternity and infinitude—that God says to Daniel in dismissing him: "But go thou thy way, ’I have got from thee all the little service I require"?
III. And yet God is mindful of man. He does visit the son of man, talks with him, dwells with him, works in him and works by him, for the accomplishment of His own great purposes. As for those who have loved and served Him, who have been happy in His kingdom, and valiant for His truth on the earth, they will be regarded with a Father’s love and pity. He will deal gently with them. He will hide them beneath the shadow of His wings. He will keep them unto life eternal.
IV. For "thou shalt rest." To go from earthly labour for God is to go to heavenly rest. Even the earthly part rests in the grave where the weary are at rest. But the better part, sleeping in Jesus, is carried to Paradise, to the stillness of the blessed dead, to the waiting, yet happy and restful, company of sainted souls.
V. This rest at death is preparatory to something far more complete, "at the end of the days." "Thou shalt stand in thy lot." Thou shalt rest first, until the night is over, and then stand up in the morning as a man refreshed with sleep. The term "stand" expresses the completeness, and above all the permanence, of the new life.
A. Raleigh, From Dawn to the Perfect Day, p. 401.
These words seem to say to us: The future is wrapped in clouds; much is hidden from your view, and there are many mysteries. "But go thou thy way;" do not hesitate; do not look back; do not measure by results; go thou thine own proper and appointed way. Do thy work, whatever it be, that God has given thee to do; fulfil thy part; execute thy mission; act out thy destiny. "Go thou thy way."
I. You must first have well ascertained that that way which you are now going to take is "thy way." This was the point at issue between Christ and Satan. Satan, falsely quoting, said, "In their hands they shall bear thee up," leaving out the sequel—which was the hinge of the promise—"in all thy ways." Christ saw the omission, and saw that any venture which was without that condition would be presumptuous, and therefore He answered, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
II. I know of no comfort in life—I know of no repose greater than this—today, duty; to-morrow, trust; the foot straight in the road, and the eye, looking out for loving ends it cannot see. Therefore go. The clouds will vanish; the light will fall in; God will vindicate Himself; things may explain themselves, and the end will well compensate all thy effort, "Go thou thy way till the end be."
III. I do not wonder that the very next words are, "thou shalt rest." There is the soul’s rest; increasing experience of God’s faithfulness, a growing assurance of forgiveness; a greater and greater nearness to Christ; tokens for good; glances of the smile of God—all these will be "rest" even while you are on the road. Nevertheless, that "rest," sweet as it is, is always a future, running on and on; it is always "Thou shalt."
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 54.
I. The first application from this text shall be this general one: that wisdom is a practical thing. The prophet is telling us what the wise do.
II. If you are wise, when you see souls going the wrong way, the very first thing you will aim to do will be to use the means for turning them. When we look at all the works done under the sun, and compare them with this, there is no work worth talking about but this work of God—the work of turning many to righteousness.
III. If you are wise, you will, in aiming to turn many to righteousness, begin with the young. A very little right, or a very little wrong at the beginning, must make a tremendous difference very often at the end.
IV. If you are wise you will perpetually go to Christ for grace, for God only gives through Christ. (1) The first qualification for this going is pardon. (2) Another qualification is grace. To teach you must touch; to magnetise you must be magnetic. (3) Beyond the qualification of grace there is the gift of teaching. Mere mechanical routine, mere human education, will not do. You want the gift of living in other lives, putting yourself in the position of other persons. You want the gift of the happy word and happy way. (4) Beyond all this, you want power from on high. There are different kinds of power. Intelligence is power; union is power. But there are certain things in the lowest kingdoms of life that all the powers of all the teachers cannot do—they cannot make one primrose grow. And yet we want to do more than this—we want to turn many to righteousness. We must run to Christ, who says, "All power is given unto Me." Ask for that power; everything else is a cipher without it.
C. Stanford, Penny Pulpit, No. 1033.
References: Dan 12:13.—A. Watson, Sermons for Sundays, Festivals, and Fasts, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 409; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 151; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 292; J. Ker, Old Testament Outlines, p. 263. 12—J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 199; Expositor, 3rd series, vol. i., pp. 217, 431.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Final Vision
The Final Vision
These chs, form a connected whole, with three sub-divisions. Dan_10:1 to Dan_11:1 are introductory; Dan_11:2 to Dan_12:4 contain a detailed account of future events down to the 'time of the end.' This time is further defined in the concluding section, Dan_12:5-13.
Read full note →
(a) Introduction (Dan_10:1 to Dan_11:1)
In the third year of Cyrus, after three weeks of mourning and fasting, Daniel has a vision by the river Hiddekel of a glorious angelic being (Dan_10:1-10), who addresses him in encouraging words (Dan_10:11-12). This angel has been delayed by a conflict with the guardian angel of Persia, in which he has been helped by Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews. He is about to return to the conflict, and will afterwards have to oppose the guardian angel of Greece (Dan_10:13-21). Michael has formerly been indebted to the speaker for help (Dan_11:1).
This conception of guardian or patron angels of the different nations is not found elsewhere in the OT., but is prominent in the book of Enoch (Daniel 6-15).
1. The third year of Cyrus] 636 b.c., the latest date mentioned in Daniel's life. But the time appointed was long] RV 'Even a great warfare.'
4. Hiddekel] the Tigris (Gen_2:14): see on 82.
7. Cp. Act_9:7.
9. See Act_8:18.
11. Cp. Eze_2:1.
12. For thy words] RV 'for thy words' sake.'
13. Prince] guardian angel: cp. Dan_10:20-21, Dan_12:1. One and twenty days] the period of Daniel's fasting (Dan_10:2). The conflict with the angel of Persia explains the speaker's delay.
Michael] a second angelic name. In Daniel Michael is the guardian angel of the Jews (Dan_10:21, Dan_12:1). One of the chief princes] a distinction in rank among the angels is here recognised, which other apocalyptic books carry out in great detail. In Jdg_1:9 (in a quotation from the Assumption of Moses) Michael is called an 'archangel,' and in Rev_12:7 he appears as a leader among the angels.
Remained] RM 'was not needed.' The arrival of Michael enabled the speaker to come to Daniel.
20. Grecia] RV 'Greece.' The interests of the Jews would have to be maintained against the Persian and Greek powers in succession.
21. Scripture] RV 'writing,' the book of destiny. In these things] RV 'against these' (the 'princes' of Persia and Greece)
C. II. I. Darius the Mede] see on Dan_5:31. Him] Michael.
(b) History of Persia, Greece, Syria, and Egypt (Dan_11:2 to Dan_12:4)
The angel describes the reigns of the first Persian kings up to the Greek wars of Xerxes I (Dan_11:2). Then he passes to the conquests of Alexander the Great (Dan_11:3) and the subdivision of his empire (Dan_11:4). Next follows a very minute account of various episodes in the history of the Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt (the kings of the N. and S. respectively, Dan_11:5-20). Finally we have a full description of the career and fate of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan_11:21-45), and a picture of the troubles which will follow his death and will usher in the resurrection and the reward of the righteous (Dan_12:1-4).
It has been supposed by some that Dan_11:36-45, on account of their resemblance to Dan_7:25; Dan_9:26-27, refer not to Antiochus, but to Antichrist, but this view does violence to the plain continuity of the sense. The resemblances only go to prove that the other passages allude not to Antichrist but to Antiochus.
2. Yet three kings] in succession to Cyrus who is already reigning (Dan_10:1). The three are Cambyses, Darius I (Hystaspes), and Xerxes I (Ahasuerus). The fourth] including Cyrus I, is Xerxes I, who was a king of vast wealth, and prepared a great army and navy for the invasion of Greece (Herod. vii, 20-29). The expedition was an utter failure, and the battles of Thermopylæ and Salamis (480 b.c.) and those of Platæa and Mycale (489 b.c.) are among the most glorious events in Greek history.
3. A mighty king] Alexander the Great (333-322 b.c.). 4. The partition of Alexander's empire is described: see chapter Dan_8:8, Dan_8:22.
5-20. Along with the notes on these vv. the table of Syrian and Egyptian kings on p. 538 should be consulted.
5. The king of the south] Ptolemy I (Soter), the first Egyptian king. One of his princes] Seleucus I (Nicator), the first Syrian king, was originally an officer under Ptolemy I. He] Seleucus. Above him] above Ptolemy.
6. The king's daughter of the south] Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) was given in marriage to Antiochus 11 (Theos), the king of the north, who divorced his former wife Laodice. On the death of Ptolemy II Antiochus divorced Berenice and took Laodice back. Laodice poisoned Antiochus, and their son Seleucus (afterwards Callinicus) murdered Berenice and her child. She shall not retain.. she shall be given up] allusions to the fate of Berenice. Neither shall he stand] referring to the murder of Antiochus by Laodice. He that begat her, and he, etc.] read, 'he that begat her and strengthened her.' Ptolemy II is meant.
7, 8. Ptolemy III (Euergetes), the brother of Berenice, in revenge for his sister's death, invaded Syria (then ruled by Seleucus II, Callinicus), captured Seleucia, and returned to Egypt with much spoil.
7. A branch of her (Berenice's) roots] her brother Ptolemy III.
In his estate (RV 'place')] in place of Ptolemy II. The fortress] Seleucia.
8. Continue more years than] RV 'refrain some years from.'
9. Seleucus II (Callinicus) invaded Egypt in 242 b.c., but had to retreat.
So the king of the south, etc.] RV 'And he' (Seleucus II) 'shall come into the realm of the king of the south' (Ptolemy III).
10-12. Seleucus II (Callinicus) was succeeded by his two sons, Seleucus III (Ceraunus) and Antiochus III (the Great). The war described was really conducted by the latter. After some preliminary campaigns, Antiochus III was defeated by Ptolemy IV (Philopator) at Raphia (217 b.c.).
10. But his sons] Seleucus III and Antiochus III, the sons of Seleucus II. And one] RV 'which.' Then shall he] RV 'and they shall.' His(Ptolemy's) fortress] probably Gaza. 11. And he (Antiochus) shall set forth.. into his (Ptolemy's) hand] alluding to the battle of Raphia.
12. Refers to Ptolemy IV.
13, 14. Twelve years later Antiochus joined with Philip, king of Macedon, in an attack on Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), the son of Ptolemy IV.
13. After certain years] The actual interval was 12 years.
14. Many] referring to the Macedonian and other allies of Antiochus III. The robbers, etc.] RV 'the children of the violent among thy people.' The allusion seems to be to some faction among the Jews, which took the side of Syria, and thus helped indirectly to 'fulfil the vision' by establishing the power afterwards abused by Antiochus Epiphanes.
15, 16. Scopas, a general of Ptolemy V, was shut up by Antiochus III in Sidon, and compelled to surrender after a siege (198 b.c.) Antiochus then overran Palestine and menaced Egypt.
15. The most fenced cities] RV 'a well-fenced city,' Sidon.
16. He that cometh] Antiochus III. Against him] against Ptolemy V. The glorious land] Palestine: see Dan_8:9. So in Dan_11:41. Which.. consumed] RV 'and in his hand shall be destruction.'
17. Antiochus III now gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V. And upright ones with him; thus shall he do] read, with LXX, 'but shall make an agreement with him' (Ptolemy V).
Corrupting her] better, 'to destroy it.' Antiochus in this alliance aimed at the ultimate conquest of Egypt.
18, 19. Antiochus III next overran Asia Minor and invaded Greece. This brought him into contact with the Romans, by whose general, Lucius Cornelius Scipio, he was defeated at Magnesia in Asia Minor. Three years later he was slain in Persia (187 b.c.).
18. The isles] RM 'coastlands,' the countries on the shore of the ægean Sea.
A prince for his own behalf] RM 'a captain,' the Roman general Scipio. Without his own reproach, etc.] RV 'Yea, moreover, he (Scipio) 'shall cause his reproach' (the insults of Antiochus to the Romans) 'to turn upon him.'
19. Fort (RV 'fortresses') of his own land] After his defeat at Magnesia Antiochus withdrew to Syria.
20. Antiochus III was succeeded by Seleucus IV (Philopator), who sent his chief minister Heliodorus to take possession of the Temple treasures at Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 3). Heliodorus murdered Seleucus IV and attempted to usurp the kingdom, but was dispossessed by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the brother of Seleucus.
Estate] RV 'place'—in place of Antiochus III. A raiser of taxes in] RV 'one' (Seleucus IV) 'that shall cause an exactor' (Heliodorus) 'to pass through.' The glory of the (Syrian) kingdom] Palestine: see Dan_11:16.
21-45. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) (176-164 b.c.).
21-24. general account of Antiochus, describing his accession, his deceitful policy, his hostility to the Jewish religion, his prosperity and his ambitious plans.
21. Vile] RV 'contemptible.' Shall not give] RV 'had not given.' Though Antiochus seized the kingdom, the real heir was Demetrius, the son of Seleucus IV: see on Dan_7:24.
Peaceably] RV 'in time of security'; so in Dan_11:24 : cp. Dan_8:25.
22. They] the opponents of Antiochus. The prince of the covenant] the high priest Onias III, deposed by Antiochus in 175 b.c.: see on Dan_9:26.
25-27. The first campaigns of Antiochus in Egypt. The king of Egypt was now Ptolemy VI (Philometor), the son of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra (see on Dan_11:17), and thus the nephew Of Antiochus. In 170 b.c. Ptolemy was preparing to recover Palestine, but was attacked by Antiochus, who defeated and captured him. Physcon, the brother of Ptolemy VI, was proclaimed king by the Egyptians, and Antiochus in 169 b.c. again made war on Egypt, pretending to act in the interest of Ptolemy VI, whose friend he now appeared to be.
26. The defeat of Ptolemy VI in 170 b.c. is traced to the treachery of his subjects.
Overflow] rather, 'be swept away.'
27. Describes the friendship which was afterwards professed between Antiochus and Ptolemy, but which was insincere on both sides.
28. Returning from Egypt after his first campaign Antiochus heard of disturbances at Jerusalem, due to the struggles of two rivals for the office of high priest. He came to the city, slew many of the Jews, entered the Temple, and carried away the greater part of its sacred vessels and other treasures to Antioch (1Ma_1:20-28; 2Ma_5:11-16).
29, 30a. Another Egyptian campaign of Antiochus. This was caused by the news that Ptolemy VI and his brother Physcon had been reconciled. The Romans, however, interfered. Their legate Q. Popilius Lænas met Antiochus four miles from Alexandria and demanded the recall of his forces. When Antiochus said that he would take time to consider, the Roman legate drew a circle round him in the sand with his staff, and insisted on his replying before he should leave the spot. Antiochus then yielded and withdrew (168 b.c.).
29. As the former, etc.] RV 'in the latter time as it was in the former.'
30. Ships of Chittim] the Roman fleet. Chittim is Cyprus.
30b-35. The persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. After the failure of his Egyptian campaign he vented his disappointment and anger on the Jews, who resisted his attempts to introduce heathen worship among them (1Ma_1:29-64). In particular he abolished the Temple sacrifices (1Ma_1:45), and on the 15th of Chisleu (December), 168 b.c., he caused a small heathen altar to be set up on the great altar of burnt offering (1Ma_1:54). This altar was used for sacrifice on the 25th of the same month (1Ma_1:59). The severest measures were taken against those who adhered to the practices of the Jewish religion.
30. Intelligence with] RV 'regard unto.' Antiochus favoured the apostate Jews who supported his policy: see Dan_9:27.
31. See Dan_8:11, Dan_8:13; Dan_9:27.
32. The people, etc.] referring to the heroic resistance of the Jews, even to death (1Ma_1:62-64).
33. Understand] RV 'be wise.' Similarly in Dan_11:35 : see Dan_12:3, Dan_12:10.
34. A little help] the Maccabæan revolt (1 Maccabees 2-4). Many.. flatteries] The strict Jewish party had insincere adherents of its own.
35. The martyrs included leaders whose death tested and developed the faithfulness of their followers. The time of the end] see Dan_8:17, Dan_8:19; Dan_9:26.
36-39. The blasphemous pride of Antiochus.
36. According to his will] like Alexander the Great (Dan_8:4; Dan_11:3) and Antiochus the Great (Dan_11:16). And magnify himself, etc.] Antiochus IV called himself on his coins Basileus Antiochus Theos Epiphanes ('King Antiochus, God Manifest'). The indignation] of God against Israel: see Dan_8:19. That that (RV 'which') is determined] see Dan_9:27.
37. The God (RV 'gods') of his fathers] All the Greek kings of Syria were heathens, but Antiochus honoured the Greek Zeus (Jupiter) more than the Syrian deities of his forefathers. The desire of women] probably the Syrian god Thammuz, who was specially worshipped by women (Eze_8:14)
38. In his estate (RV 'place')] instead of Thammuz. The God (RV 'god') of forces (RV 'fortresses')] probably Zeus (Jupiter), to whom Antiochus built a temple at Daphne near Antioch.
39. Whom he shall acknowledge, etc.] RV 'Whosoever acknowledgeth him he will increase.' Gain] RV 'a price.' Offices were disposed of for bribery.
40-43. A final Egyptian campaign of Antiochus. He invades Egypt with a great army and navy. Palestine is overrun and many countries are overthrown, but Edom, Moab, and Ammon escape. The treasures of Egypt are seized, and the conquest extends westwards to Libya and southwards to Ethiopia. Nothing is known of this expedition from contemporary historians.
40. At the time of the end] This expedition introduces the historical crisis which terminates Daniel's prospect of the future.
44, 45. The sudden end of Antiochus. He is recalled from Egypt by tidings of trouble in his Asiatic dominions, returns in anger and encamps between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem, and perishes helplessly. The death of Antiochus actually took place at Tabæ in Persia (164 b.c.). The vague account of his end is in striking contrast with the minute historical description of the rest of his reign, and suggests that the author is here writing of the future and not of the past. For the bearing of this on the date of the book see Intro.
45. Seas in] RV 'sea and.'
C.12. 1-4. These vv. describe the final tribulation of Israel which follows the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the deliverance of the faithful Jews, the subsequent resurrection of the dead, both good and evil, and the glorious reward of the righteous, especially of their eminent leaders. The last-mentioned ideals are part of the Christian faith, but, in accordance with the limited view of all OT. prophecy, they are presented in connexion with the Jewish race, and without reference to their distance from the prophet's horizon.
1. Michael] see on Dan_10:13, His intervention at this point indicates a special crisis in the fortunes of the Jews. The book] cp. Dan_7:10.
2. Many] The resurrection contemplated is not universal, though it will include both the righteous and the wicked.
3. They that be wise] see Dan_11:33, Dan_11:35.
4. Knowledge] better, with LXX, 'evils.' The last half of the v. sums up the confusions and calamities of the long period which has been described, between Daniel's days and the 'time of the end.'
(c) Concluding Explanations (Dan_12:5-13)
The angel who has spoken throughout the vision has now two companions, one on either side of the river. In reply to one of these he states that 'a time, times, and an half' shall elapse before the end to which the vision points. In answer to Daniel he explains that from the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation 1,290 days are first to be reckoned, and then 45 days more, making in all 1,335 days. The 1,290 days seem to correspond to the general distress under Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 45 days to the further period of tribulation spoken of in Dan_12:1. As the author is here writing of the actual future no exact correspondence of these numbers with historical dates is to be looked for.
9. repeats Dan_12:4, and
10. repeats Dan_11:35.
10. The wise] RV 'they that be wise,' as in Dan_11:33, Dan_11:35; Dan_12:3.
11. See Dan_8:11, Dan_8:13; Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain (Cf) Mat 24:15. The expression occurs three times in…
abominations
(Cf) Mat 24:15. The expression occurs three times in Daniel. In; Dan 9:27; Dan 12:11 the reference is to the "Beast," "man of sin"; 2Th 2:3; 2Th 2:4 and is identical with Mat 24:15. In Dan 11:31 the reference is to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prototype of the man of sin, who sacrificed a sow upon the altar, and entered the holy of holies.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain CHAPTER 10 The Preparation for the Final Prophecy
CHAPTER 10 The Preparation for the Final Prophecy
This chapter contains the preface to the final great prophecies as found in the last two chapters of this book. The certain man who appeared unto Daniel at the banks of the river Hiddekel (Tigris) was the Lord. Compare with Rev 1:1-20, where John, the beloved disciple, beheld Him in a vision of glory. Daniel’s vision is a pre-incarnation vision of the same One whom John beheld after His resurrection and in His glorified humanity.
Read full note →
The delayed answer by the angelic messenger is explained by the power of darkness. A powerful demon-prince, a satanic agency, having control over Persia, so that he claimed the title the prince of Persia, kept back the answer. Then the prophet was strengthened.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Beginning of the Vision
The Beginning of the Vision
v. 1. In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, two years after his decree concerning the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple had gone forth, a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar, both his names being given here, one as a member of the people of God, the other as an official of the Persian court, who could render his nation a better service by remaining at court than by joining them in the restoration of their city, especially since he was now of advanced age; and the thing, the word of God revealed to the prophet in this vision, was true, but the time appointed was long, literally, "and great tribulation," that is, the revelation was concerned with misery, wretchedness, and trouble on earth; and he understood the thing and had understanding of the vision, he observed the word which the Lord made known to him and gave close attention to the vision.
Read full note →
v. 2. In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks, very likely on account of the conditions in the land of his fathers, where the small handful of Jews were trying, under peculiar difficulties, to rebuild the Temple and restore the city, a fact which caused Daniel, at the beginning of a new year, to give himself to fasting and prayer.
v. 3. I ate no pleasant bread, partaking only of the unleavened bread of affliction, Deu 16:3, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, thus discarding all food otherwise used on festival days, neither did I anoint myself at all, he abstained from all expressions of joy and happiness, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. Daniel thus observed a complete fast, with all the expressions of sorrow and mourning assumed by men at such a time.
v. 4. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, of the month Nisan, apparently at the end of his fast, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel, the Tigris River,
v. 5. then I lifted up mine eyes and looked, as in the vision on the banks of the Eulaeus, 8:3, and behold a certain Man clothed in linen, the color symbolizing holiness, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz, the gold indicating His princely rank.
v. 6. His body also was like the beryl, or chrysolite, so that it shone with the golden luster of topaz or amber, and His face as the appearance of lightning, blindingly bright, and His eyes as lamps of fire, Cf Rev 1:14, and His arms and His feet like in color to polished brass, gleaming like glowing brass, and the voice of His words like the voice of a multitude, the voice of roaring like that of the ocean or of a great concourse of people.
v. 7. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, so that all its details were clear to him; for the men that were with me saw not the vision, as was the case also with the companions of Saul on the way to Damascus, Act 9:7; Act 22:11; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves, literally, "they fled by hiding themselves," an expression showing the greatness of their fear.
v. 8. Therefore I was left alone and saw this great vision, Cf Exodus 3, 3, and there remained no strength in me, on account of the overwhelming terror of the vision; for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, literally, "the healthy appearance of my face changed to me for disfigurement," and I retained no strength, It is evident from the entire description that Daniel here had a vision of the Angel of the Presence, the Angel of the Countenance, the Messiah Himself, as He revealed Himself to the believers of the Old Testament. Cf Rev 1:13-15.
v. 9. Yet heard I the voice of His words; and when I heard the voice of His words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 the third year of Cyrus king of Persia
the third year of Cyrus king of Persia
"year 3 of the rule of Cyrus the king of Persia" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
Read full note →
a message was revealed to Daniel
This can also be expressed in active form. AT: "God revealed a message to Daniel" (See: Active or Passive)
insight
the ability to understand more than what can be seen
translationWords
Cyrus
king
Persia
word
reveal
Daniel
true
vision
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 10:1–12:13 This final vision reaches historically from 536 BC…
10:1–12:13 This final vision reaches historically from 536 BC to a distant future when Daniel would be raised from the dead and receive his inheritance. All earthly kingdoms would be destroyed, the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man would arise, God’s people would finally be rescued, and death—the ultimate enemy—would be defeated.
10:1 The third year of the reign of King Cyrus was 536 BC, not long after Cyrus issued his decree for the peoples and nations to return to their ancestral homes (2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-2). Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9:4-19) had been answered—the Exile had ended. • Belteshazzar: See 1:7.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.