But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me because I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Parallel Translations
-
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me because I remained there with the kings of Persia.
-
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
-
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia.
Cross-references (11)
Passages linked to Daniel 10:13 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Jude 1:9 But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”
- Daniel 12:1 “At that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who stands for the children of your people; and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. At that time your people will be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.
- Daniel 10:20-21 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia. When I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you that which is inscribed in the writing of truth. There is no one who holds with me against these, but Michael your prince.
- Revelation 12:7 There was war in the sky. Michael and his angels made war on the dragon. The dragon and his angels made war.
- Ezra 4:4-6 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building. 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. In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
- Colossians 2:10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power.
- Ephesians 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
- 1 Thessalonians 2:18 because we wanted to come to you—indeed, I, Paul, once and again—but Satan hindered us.
- 1 Peter 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.
- Zechariah 3:1-2 He showed me Joshua the high priest standing before Yahweh’s angel, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. Yahweh said to Satan, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! Yes, Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Isn’t this a burning stick plucked out of the fire?”
- Ezra 4:24 Then work stopped on God’s house which is at Jerusalem. It stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 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 The angel now assigns a reason why he did…
The angel now assigns a reason why he did not appear at once, and at the very first moment to the Prophet, who might complain as follows, — “What treatment is this, to suffer me to consume away through grief for so long a period?” for Daniel had remained through three weeks in succession in the severest affliction. God had heard him, indeed, from the very first day; how, then, could he still behold this wretched man thus prostrate in mourning? why did not God cause it to appear openly and really that he had not prayed in vain? The angel now meets this objection, and shews how he had been otherwise occupied in promoting the Prophet’s welfare. We ought carefully to notice this, because delay often disturbs us when God does not immediately extend his help, and for a long time hides from us the fruit of our prayers. Whenever our passions burst forth with a strong impetuosity, and we easily manifest tokens of impatience, we must notice this expression of the angel, for our prayers may be already heard while God’s favor and mercy is concealed from us. The experience of Daniel is daily fulfilled in every member of the Church, and without the slightest doubt the same discipline is exercised towards all the pious. This is our practical reflection. We must notice, secondly, God’s condescension in deigning to explain himself by the angel to his own Prophet. He offers a reason for the delay of the angel’s return, and the cause of this hindrance was, as I have already stated, his regard for the safety of his elect people. The wonderful clemency of the Almighty is here proved by his offering an excuse so graciously to his Prophet, because he did not shew himself easily entreated on the very day when prayer was offered to him. But we ought to derive another practical benefit from the passage, — God does not cease to regard us with favor even while he may not please to make us conscious of it, for he does not always place it before our eyes, but rather hides it from our view. We infer from this, God’s constant care for our safety, although not exhibited exactly in the way which our minds may conceive and comprehend. God surpasses all our comprehension in the way in which he provides for our safety, as the angel here relates his mission in quite another direction, and yet in the service of the Church. It now appears how Daniel obtained an answer to his prayers from the very first day of their offering, and yet remained unconscious of it, until God sent him some consolation in the midst of his troubles. A very different interpretation of this verse has been proposed, for some expounders think the angel sent into Persia to protect that kingdom. There is some probability in this explanation, because the Israelites were still under the Persian monarchy, and God may have furnished some assistance to the kings of Persia for the sake of his own people. But I think the angel stood in direct opposition and conflict against Cambyses, to prevent him from raging more fiercely against God’s people. He had promulgated a cruel edict, preventing the Jews from building their temple, and manifesting complete hostility to its restoration. He would not have been satisfied with this rigorous treatment, had not God restrained his cruelty by the aid and hand of the angel.
If we weigh these words judiciously, we shall readily conclude, that the angel fought rather against the king of the Persians than for him. The prince, says he, of the kingdom of the Persians, meaning Cambyses, with his father Cyrus, crossed over the sea and contended with the Scythians, as well as in Asia Minor. The prince of the kingdom of Persia was ranged against him, as if he had said, — He detained me from reaching you, but it was for the good of your race, for had not God used me in assisting you, his cruelty would have been aggravated, and your condition would have been utterly desperate. You perceive, then, how there has been no want of zeal on my part, for God was never deaf to your entreaties. The prince of the kingdom of the Persians stood against me for twenty-one days; meaning, from the period of your beginning to pour forth your prayers before God, I have never flinched from any attack or assault, by which I might defend thy people. The prince of the kingdom of the Persians stood against me; meaning, he was so hot against the Israelites, as to intend to pour forth the very dregs of his wrath, unless the help which I afforded you had been divinely interposed.
Read full note →
He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people. But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it in doubt for the present, and shall say more on the subject in the twelfth chapter. From this passage we may clearly deduce the following conclusion, — angels contend for the Church of God both generally and for single members, just as their help may be needed. This we know to be a part of the occupation of angels, who protect the faithful according to Psalm 34 (Psalm 34:8.) They fix their camp in a circuit round them. God, therefore, plants his angels against all the endeavors of Satan, and all the fury of the impious who desire to destroy us, and are ever plotting for our complete ruin. If God were not to protect us in this way, we should be utterly undone. We are aware of Satan’s horrible hatred to us, and of the mighty fury with which he assails us; we know how skillfully and variously he contrives his artifices; we know him as the prince of this world, dragging and hurrying the greater part of mankind along with him, while they impiously pour forth their threats against us. What prevents Satan from daily absorbing a hundred times over the whole Church both collectively and individually? It clearly becomes necessary for God to oppose his fury, and this he does by angels. While they are contending for us and for our safety, we do not perceive this hidden malice, because they conceal it from us.
We may now treat this passage a little more in detail. The angel was stationed in Persia to repress the audacity and cruelty of Cambyses, who was not content with a single edict, but would have forcibly dragged the wretched Israelites back again to a fresh exile. And he must have succeeded, had not first one angel and then another confronted him. The angel now informs us how Michael, one of the chief leaders, came up with the requisite supplies. The defense of one angel might have been sufficient, for angels have no further power than what is conferred upon them. But God is not bound to any particular means, he is not limited to either one or a thousand, as when Jehoshaphat speaks of a small army, he states, It matters not before God, whether we be few or many. (2 Chronicles 14:11; 1 Samuel 14:6.) For God can save his people by either a small force or a mighty one; and the same also is true of angels. But God is anxious to testify to the care which he bestows upon the welfare of his people, and to his singular loving-kindness towards the Israelites displayed by the mission of a second angel. He doubled his re-enforcement to bear witness to his love towards these wretched and innocent ones, who were oppressed by the calumnies of their enemies, and by the tyranny of that impious king. Finally, the angel says, he was left among the Persian kings, for the purpose of removing the numerous obstacles in the way of the chosen people; for, unless God had withstood that deluge of weapons with his own shield, the Jews would have been buried beneath it on the spot. Let us proceed —
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 Meaning, Cambyses who reigned in his father’s absence, and…
Meaning, Cambyses who reigned in his father’s absence, and did not only for this space hinder the building of the Temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him, and therefore have I stayed for the profit of the Church.
Though God could by one Angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love, he sendeth forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of Angels.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of…
Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Ver. 13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me.] By this prince of Persia some understand wicked Cambyses. Others, {a} an evil angel, that by his suggestions swayed Cambyses to oppose and retard the rebuilding of the temple. There is a principal devil, prince of this world; and there are, as some hold, princes or principal spirits in countries and nations under him. {Eph 6:12}
Read full note →
But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,] i.e., Christ the Lord of angels, head of the Church. {Dan 12:1-13 : 1Ki 12:7} By these chief princes may be understood the three persons in trinity, or the created angels. The Septuagint translate the word ευσθυμουντων, the cheerful ones, who serve the Lord readily, freely, and joyfully in his wars; making Zion as dreadful to all her enemies, {Psa 68:17} as those angels once made Sinai, at the delivery of the law.
And I remained there with the kings of Persia.] With Cambyses and his counsellors, to repress their rage, and to blast their designs against the Church; which, when it is opposed, the holy angels interpose. {Psa 34:7}
{a} Melanchthon, Osiander, Pappus.
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 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood…
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: this place hath some difficulty, therefore variously expounded. Some expound it of earthly princes, some of angels, and among them some will have good angels meant, who they say have the patronage of the kingdoms and provinces of the earth; but who can imagine that good angels should quarrel one with the other? therefore, say others, they are bad angels that oppose the people of God, and their deliverance, seeking rather their ruin, as Michael and the devil strove, Rev 12:7; now sometimes God permits Satan to do much this way. But I judge by the prince of Persia is meant Cambyses, who was an enemy to the Jews, and hindered the building of the temple. Now he could not properly resist the angel, but figuratively he did. Angels’ power is not unlimited, but by commission and instructions from God, and their works successive. Therefore God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place a while; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last. And this very thing laid a foundation of the Persian monarchy’s ruin, Dan 10:20; and doubtless that king was stirred up to his evil machinations against the people of God by the prince of the powers of darkness, that ruleth in the children of disobedience, Eph 2:2.
Michael: this we take to be Christ.
Read full note →
1. His name signifies, who is like God.
2. He is the first in dignity above all the angels, Heb 1:4-7, &c., called archangel, and the church’s prince, Dan 10:21.
3. The chief champion of his church, helping Gabriel not as his fellow, but as his general. Thus we see what care God takes of his church’s safety against their potent enemies, by doubling their succours, (when he could do it, if he pleased, without means,) thereby to consult his own glory in the world by defeating the counsels and breaking the powers of the mightiest enemies, after he had given them rope to do their worst.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood…
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days,.... Which was just the time Daniel had been mourning and fasting, Dan 10:2, and the angel had had his instructions to acquaint him with the Lord's answer to his prayers: by "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" is not to be understood the then reigning king of Persia, Cyrus, or his son Cambyses; who either of them would have been called rather king of Persia; nor were they able to withstand an angel, and such an one as Gabriel; nor is a good angel meant, the tutelar one of this kingdom; for it cannot be reasonably thought that good angels should militate against one another; but an evil angel, either Satan, the prince and god of this world, or one of his principal angels under him, employed by him to do what mischief he could in the court of Persia, against the people of God, the Jews; and with this sense agree the contests ascribed to Satan and the Angel of the Lord concerning Joshua, Zac 3:1 and to Michael and the devil disputing about the body of Moses, Jde 1:9 and to Michael and his angels, and the devil and his angels, warring in heaven, Rev 12:7, now Gabriel's business in the court of Persia was to work upon the minds of the king of Persia and his nobles, and to influence their counsels, and put them on such measures as would be in favour of the Jews, and be encouraging to them to go on in the rebuilding of their city and temple: in this he was withstood and opposed by an evil spirit that counterworked him; by exasperating the spirit of Cambyses against them; by stirring up the Samaritans to corrupt the Persian courtiers with gifts, to take their part against the Jews; and by influencing them to accept of their gifts, and act in their favour; and this business on the angel's hands, to oppose these measures, detained him at the Persian court for the three weeks Daniel had been fasting and praying:
but, lo, Michael one of the chief Princes, came to help me; called in the New Testament an Archangel, the Prince of angels, the Head of all principality and power; and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes" (x), superior to angels, in nature, name, and office; he came to "help" Gabriel, not as a fellow creature, but as the Lord of hosts; not as a fellow soldier, but as General of the armies in heaven and earth, as superior to him in wisdom and strength; and he helped him by giving him fresh counsels, orders, and instructions, which he following succeeded:
Read full note →
and I remained there with the kings of Persia; with the king of Persia and his nobles, putting into execution the orders Michael had given him, and so baffled the designs of the evil spirit; and this retarded him from being with the prophet one and twenty days. The Septuagint and Arabic versions very wrongly render the words, "and I left him there with the kings of Persia"; as if Michael was left there by Gabriel, whereas it was just the reverse.
(x) "primus", Junius & Tremellius.
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 Withstood me - God suffered the wicked counsels of…
Withstood me - God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael - Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained - To counter-work their designs against the people of God.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 13. But the prince of the kingdom of…
Verse 13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me] I think it would go far to make a legend or a precarious tale of this important place to endeavour to maintain that either a good or evil ANGEL is intended here. Cyrus alone was the prince of Persia, and God had destined him to be the deliverer of his people; but there were some matters, of which we are not informed, that caused him to hesitate for some time. Fearing, probably, the greatness of the work, and not being fully satisfied of his ability to execute it, he therefore for a time resisted the secret inspirations which God had sent him. The opposition might be in reference to the building of the temple.
But lo, Michael] Gabriel, who speaks, did not leave Cyrus till Michael came to take his place. Michael, he who is like God, sometimes appears to signify the Messiah, at other times the highest or chief archangel. Indeed there is no archangel mentioned in the whole Scripture but this one. See Jude 1:9; Re 12:7.
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 10:13-14. But the prince of the kingdom of…
Dan 10:13-14. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me — Hebrew, עמד לנגדי, stood before me. — Purver. And so Jun. and Tremel., referring it to an earthly prince. This is thought by some to be Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, intrusted with the management of affairs in the court of Persia when his father was absent on some expedition, and set against the Jews by their enemies, and now endeavouring to embarrass their affairs: over his designs the angel had been watching, in order to defeat them. Others have thought there is an allusion in this verse, and at Dan 10:20, to the guardian, or tutelary angels, of different countries; which doctrine seems to be countenanced by some passages in Scripture, and especially by Zechariah, chap. Dan 6:5. Grotius is of this opinion; and Bishop Newcome, on the last-mentioned place, refers to the passage before us. “That there were such tutelar angels,” says Lowth, “not only over private persons, Act 12:15, but likewise over provinces and kingdoms, was an opinion generally received. The four spirits, mentioned Zec 6:5, seem to be the guardian angels of the four great empires.” This opinion supposes the presiding angels, here mentioned, to be good angels, but it is surely absurd to think that the holy angels are ever engaged in contending with each other; or that “one holy angel is set to oppose another holy angel.” — Scott. Others suppose the contest to be between a good and an evil angel, as in Zec 3:1, and Jude, Dan 10:9, “which latter opinion,” says Wintle, “is perhaps the most just, as there should seem to be no dispute, or contest, between the ministering spirits of heaven, who are always obedient to the pleasure of their Lord. And when the Almighty sent a superior angel, Michael, whose name is sometimes given to Christ himself, Rev 12:7, his office probably was to assist Gabriel in subduing the prince of the power of the air, the powers of this darksome world, or the spirits that rule over the children of disobedience, Eph 2:2. The opposition was made twenty-one days; and as this was exactly the number of days that Daniel fasted, the contest may possibly have some allusion to this struggle. Daniel was certainly highly favoured, and the Almighty, who delights in hearing and answering the prayers of his servants, directs the angel to apologize (if I may so speak) for his delay in attending to the patient solicitations of the prophet: the angel also is represented as pleading the difficulty of his task, and another higher power, or chief, in the regal court of heaven, favours his business, and comes in to his assistance. In whatever light this is to be understood, it is a strong and affecting, though less gross, instance of the anthropopathia, or of the Deity’s accommodating himself and his measures to the manners of men.” See De Sacra Poes. Hebrews, Præl. 6. Houbigant is of opinion, that this prince of the kingdom of Persia was an evil angel, and in agreement with it renders the last clause of the verse, and I have now left him on the side of the kings of Persia. But it seems most proper to understand Cambyses as meant. Now I am come to make thee understand, &c. — I am now come to inform thee of what shall befall thy people hereafter; for yet the vision is for many days — For it will be a long course of time before the things I shall inform thee of shall come to pass. Daniel, we find, was informed by this vision, that the empire should be translated from the Persians to the Greeks, Dan 11:3; and then what should be the condition of the Jews under Alexander’s successors, the kings of Syria and Egypt.
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 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia -…
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia - In explaining this very difficult verse it may be proper
(1) to consider the literal sense of the words;
Read full note →
(2) to deduce the fair meaning of the passage as thus explained; and
(3) to notice the practical truths taught.
The word rendered “prince” - שׂר s'ar - means, properly, a leader, commander, chief, as of troops, Gen 21:22; of a king’s body-guard, Gen 37:36; of cup-bearers, Gen 41:9; of a prison, Gen 39:21-22; of a flock, Gen 47:6. Then it means a prince, a noble, a chief in the state, Gen 12:15. In Dan 8:25, in the phrase “Prince of princes,” it refers to God. So far as the word is concerned in the phrase “prince of the kingdom of Persia,” it might refer to a prince ruling over that kingdom, or to a prime minister of the state; but the language also is such that it is applicable to an angelic being supposed to preside over a state, or to influence its counsels. If this idea is admitted; if it is believed that angels do thus preside over particular states, this language would properly express that fact. Gesenius (Lexicon) explains it in this passage as denoting the “chiefs, princes, and angels; i. e., the archangels acting as patrons and advocates of particular nations before God.” That this is the proper meaning here as deduced from the words is apparent, for
(a) it is an angel that is speaking, and it would seem most natural to suppose that he had encountered one of his own rank;
(b) the mention of Michael who came to his aid - a name which, as we shall see, properly denotes an angel, leads to the same conclusion;
(c) it accords, also, with the prevailing belief on the subject.
Undoubtedly, one who takes into view all the circumstances referred to in this passage would most naturally understand this of an angelic being, having some kind of jurisdiction over the kingdom of Persia. What was the character of this “prince,” however, whether he was a good or bad angel, is not intimated by the language. It is only implied that he had a chieftainship, or some species of guardian care over that kingdom - watching over its interests and directing its affairs. As he offered resistance, however, to this heavenly messenger on his way to Daniel, as it was necessary to counteract his plans, and as the aid of Michael was required to overcome his opposition, the fair construction is, that he belonged to the class of evil angels.
Withstood me - Hebrew, “stood over against me.” Vulgate, “restitit mihi.” The fair meaning is, that he resisted or opposed him; that he stood over against him, and delayed him on his way to Daniel. In what manner he did this is not stated. The most obvious interpretation is, that, in order to answer the prayers of Daniel in respect to his people, it was necessary that some arrangement should be made in reference to the kingdom of Persia - influencing the government to be favorable to the restoration of the Jews to their own land; or removing some obstacles to such return - obstacles which had given Daniel such disquietude, and which had been thrown in his way by the presiding angel of that kingdom.
One and twenty days - During the whole time in which Daniel was engaged in fasting and prayer Dan 10:2-3. The angel had been sent forth to make arrangements to secure the answer to his prayer when he began to pray, but had been delayed during all that time by the opposition which he had met with in Persia. That is, it required all that time to overcome the obstacles existing there to the accomplishment of these purposes, and to make those arrangements which were necessary to secure the result. Mean-time, Daniel, not knowing that these arrangements were in a process of completion, or that an angel was employed to secure the answer to his prayers, yet strong in faith, was suffered to continue his supplications with no intimation that his prayers were heard, or that he would be answered. How many arrangements may there be in progress designed to answer our prayers of which we know nothing! How many agents may be employed to bring about an answer! What mighty obstacles may be in a process of removal, and what changes may be made, and what influences exerted, while we are suffered to pray, and fast, and weep, amidst many discouragements, and many trials of our faith and patience! For a much longer period than Daniel was engaged in his devotions, may we be required often now to pray before the arrangements in the course of Providence shall be so far complete that we shall receive an answer to our supplications, for the things to be done may extend far into future months or years.
But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes - Margin, “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.” The proper meaning of this name (מיכאל mı̂ykâ'êl) is, “Who as God,” and is a name given, undoubtedly, from some resemblance to God. The exact reason why it is given is not anywhere stated; but may it not be this - that one looking on the majesty and glory of the chief of the angels would instinctively ask, “Who, after all, is like God? Even this lofty angel, with all his glory, cannot be compared to the high and lofty One.” Whatever may have been the reason of the appellation, however, the name in the Scriptures has a definite application, and is given to the chief one of the angels. Compare the notes at Jud 1:9. The word “Michael,” as a proper name, occurs several times in the Scriptures, Num 13:13; 1Ch 5:13; 1Ch 6:40; 1Ch 7:3; 1Ch 8:16; 1Ch 12:20; 1Ch 27:18; 2Ch 21:2; Ezr 8:8. It is used as applicable to an angel or archangel in the following places: Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Jud 1:9; Rev 12:7. Little more is known of him than
(a) that he occupied the rank which entitled him to be called an archangel; and
(b) that he sustained, in the time of Daniel, the relation of patron of Israel before God Dan 10:21.
That an “angel” is referred to here is manifest, for,
(1) It occurs in the account of transactions conducted by an angel.
(2) The use of the word elsewhere leads to this supposition.
(3) What is said to have been done is the appropriate work of an angel. This is apparent, because Gabriel, the speaker, says that what was done was beyond his power to accomplish. He was effectually resisted and thwarted by the counsels of Persia, until one of higher wisdom and rank than himself came to his aid. He could, therefore, have been no less than an angel, and was clearly a being of a higher rank than Gabriel himself.
(4) The phrase “one of the chief princes” sustains this interpretation. It implies that he was one of those who held an exalted rank among those who are called “princes,” and if this word in this connection denotes angels, then Michael was an angel, and one of the most exalted of the angels. This accords with the appellation given to him by Jude - “the archangel.”
Came to help me - He does not state in what way this was done, but it is fairly implied that it was by securing better counsels at the court of Persia - counsels more favorable to the Hebrews, and different from those which would have been carried out under the auspices of him who is called “the prince of Persia.” There is nothing in the passage to forbid the supposition that it was by so influencing the mind of the king and his ministers as to dispose them to favor the return of the Jews, or to afford them facilities to rebuild their temple, or to remove some of the obstacles which would tend to prevent their restoration.
And I remained there with the kings of Persia - The kings of Persia here, in the plural, must mean the rulers. There was properly but one king of that nation, though the name may have been given to subordinate rulers, or perhaps to those who had been kings in their own country, and whose countries had been subdued by the Persian arms, and who now resided, with more or less authority, at the Persian court. The phrase “I remained there” has been variously translated. The Vulgate renders it as in our version. The Greek, “And I left him (to wit, Michael) there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia.” The Syriac, “And I was hindered there against the prince of the Persians.” Luther, “Then obtained I the victory with the kings in Persia.” Lengerke, “Then obtained I the ascendency (Vorrang) among the kings of Persia.” That is, as he explains it, “I obtained the victory; I secured this result that my counsel in behalf of the Jewish people prevailed,” p. 503.
The same explanation is given by Geier, Gesenius, DeWette, Havernick. The word יתר yâthar properly means, to hang out and over; to be redundant; to remain or be left; to be over and above; to excel, etc. Hence, the notion in Niphal, of excelling others, of getting the ascendency, of obtaining a victory. This is, undoubtedly, the meaning here, for he was not left with the kings of Persia; he did not remain there. The true idea is, that by the help of Michael, who came to his aid, he was enabled so far to influence the Persian counsels against the purposes of him who is called the “prince of Persia,” as to secure the favors for the Hebrew people which Daniel sought by prayer; and having done this, he came at once to him. The only delay in the case was what was caused by the purposes of the Persian court, and by the difficulty of securing such arrangements there as to favor the Hebrew people, and to facilitate their return to their own country. Having done this, he came at once to Daniel to announce the long series of events which would follow pertaining to his people, and in reference to which his mind had been so much affected during his protracted period of devotion.
Such is the explanation of the literal meaning of this difficult passage. Now, in reference to the second point suggested as necessary to its proper interpretation its real meaning - the exact truth taught in it, the following remarks may be made:
(1) There was early a prevailing opinion that special angels had the charge of individuals, as their guardians; and the same idea existed respecting nations, that their affairs were assigned to particular celestial beings. This notion among the Hebrews was found in this form - that they were “angels, or created” beings of exalted rank who thus presided over the affairs of men. Among the Greeks, and other pagan nations, the form which it took was, that they were gods or tutelary divinities, and hence, each people, each class, each family, each house, had its own god. The Hebrews never approximated to this opinion so far as to suppose that these beings were divine, or that they occupied the place of the supreme God - Jehovah - who was peculiarly their covenant God, and who was the only true God. They did admit the supposition, however, that there might be guardian angels of their own nation, and the same idea seems to have prevailed among them in regard to other nations. This is clearly the idea in the passage before us, that while Michael was, in a peculiar sense, entrusted with the affairs of the Hebrew people, there were intelligent invisible beings of angelic rank who presided over other nations, and who influenced their counsels. It does not appear by any means that it was supposed that in all cases these were good beings, for the counsels of the nations were too often malignant and evil to admit of this supposition. In the ease before us, it is evidently supposed that the influence of the presiding angel of Persia was adverse to what was right, and such as should be counteracted by one who came from heaven. Compare the notes at Eph 2:2.
(2) No one can demonstrate that this is not so. The existence of wicked angels is no more incredible in itself than the existence of wicked men, and that they should influence nations and rulers is in itself no more improbable than that distinguished statesmen should. There may be, indeed, no foundation for the opinion that particular angels axe assigned to particular individuals or nations, as peculiar guardians; but it may be true, notwithstanding, that some one of these fallen spirits for if there are any such beings at all, they are numerous - may have special influence over a particular individual or nation. If it be said that we know too little about this to enable us to make any positive statements in favor of this opinion, it should also be said that we know too little to enable us to make any positive statements against it; and for aught anyone can prove, it may be so. No one has a right to assume that it is not so; no one can demonstrate that it is not so.
It may be said further, that things look as if this were so. There are many influences on nations and individuals; many things that occur that can be most easily accounted for on the supposition that there is such an agency from some invisible quarter. If we admit the reality of such influence, and such interpositions, the things which occur are more easily explained than if we deny it. There are measures taken; plans proposed; influences exerted; schemes adopted - there are things from an unseen quarter to give prosperity, or to thwart the best laid plans, that cannot be well explained without the supposition of such an interference; things which perplex all philosophers and all historians in accounting for them; things which cannot be anticipated or explained on any known principles of human nature. If we admit the reality of the influence of invisible beings, as in the case before us, the solution becomes comparatively easy; at least we find phenomena just such as we should expect on such a supposition.
(3) It may be added, also, in regard to the particular case before us
(a) that the counsels against the Jews to prevent their return to their own land, and to embarrass them, were such as we should anticipate on the supposition that an evil angel - an enemy of God and his people - had influenced the Persian rulers; and
(b) that the changes wrought in those counsels in favor of the Jews, facilitating their return to their own land, were such as we should expect to find on the supposition that those counsels and plans were overruled and changed by the interposition say of Gabriel and Michael.
And similar events often happen. There are such changes in the counsels of nations, and in the minds of rulers, as would occur on the supposition that superior beings were engaged in thwarting evil plans, and influencing those who have the power to do right. In reference to the Jews in their exile, there had been a long series of acts of opposition and oppression pursued by the governments of the East, as if under the direction of some malignant spirit; then a series of acts in their favor followed, as if the change had been brought about by the interposition of some benignant angel. These facts are the historical basis on which the representation is here made.
In reference to the third point suggested pertaining to this passage - the practical truths taught that may be of use to us - it may be remarked that the great truth is, that the answer to prayer is often delayed, not by any indisposition on the part of God to answer it, and not by any purpose not to answer it, and not by the mere intention of trying our faith, but “by the necessary arrangements to bring it about.” It is of such a nature that it cannot be answered at once. It requires time to make important changes; to influence the minds of men; to remove obstacles; to raise up friends; to put in operation agencies that shall secure the thing desired. There is some obstacle to be overcome. There is some plan of evil to be checked and stayed. There is some agency to be used which is not now in existence, and which is to be created. The opposition of the “prince of Persia” could not be overcome at once, and it was necessary to bring in the agency of a higher power - that of Michael - to effect the change.
This could not be done in a moment, a day, or a week, and hence, the long delay of three “full weeks” before Daniel had an assurance that his prayers would be answered. So it often happens now. We pray for the conversion of a child; yet there may be obstacles to his conversion, unseen by us, which are to be patiently removed, and perhaps by a foreign influence, before it can be done. Satan may have already secured a control over his heart, which, is to be broken gradually, before the prayer shall be answered. We pray for the removal of the evils of intemperance, of slavery, of superstition, of idolatry; yet these may be so interlocked with the customs of a country, with the interests of men, and with the laws, that they cannot be at once eradicated except by miracle, and the answer to the prayer seems to be long delayed. We pray for the universal spread of the gospel of Christ; yet how many obstacles are to be overcome, and how many arrangements made, before this prayer can be fully answered; and how many tears are to be shed, and perils encountered, and lives sacrificed, before the prayer of the church shall be fully answered, and the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. The duty, then, which is taught, is that of patience, of perseverance, of faith in God, of a firm belief that he is true to all his promises, and that he is a hearer of prayer - though the blessing seems long delayed.
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 The prince, &c. That is, the angel guardian of…
The prince, &c. That is, the angel guardian of Persia: who, according to his office, seeking the spiritual good of the Persians, was desirous that many of the Jews should remain among them. (Challoner) --- St. Jerome, &c. explain it of the angel guardian. (Worthington) --- Each country has an archangel over it, as individuals have an angel. Others assert that this was an evil angel; for how could a good one oppose so long the will of God? Yet this argument may be retorted, as evil spirits themselves must comply. It seems, therefore, that Cyrus was exhorted by the good angels to invade the Chaldeans, and thus to liberate God’s people. He was afraid of the hazardous attempt, and free-will may resist the inspirations of God. --- One, or "prince." (Calmet) --- Michael, and the guardian of Daniel, joined their prayers for the liberation of the Jews. (verse 20.) (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).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain prince of . . . Persia--the angel of darkness…
prince of . . . Persia--the angel of darkness that represented the Persian world power, to which Israel was then subject. This verse gives the reason why, though Daniel's "words were heard from the first day" (Dan 10:12), the good angel did not come to him until more than three weeks had elapsed (Dan 10:4).
one and twenty days--answering to the three weeks of Daniel's mourning (Dan 10:2).
Read full note →
Michael--that is, "Who is like God?" Though an archangel, "one of the chief princes," Michael was not to be compared to God.
help me--Michael, as patron of Israel before God (Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1), "helped" to influence the Persian king to permit the Jews' return to Jerusalem.
I remained--I was detained there with the kings of Persia, that is, with the angel of the Persian rulers, with whom I had to contend, and from whom I should not have got free, but for the help of Michael. GESENIUS translates, "I obtained the ascendency," that is, I gained my point against the adverse angel of Persia, so as to influence the Persian authorities to favor Israel's restoration.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 13. The angel would have reached Daniel with an…
13. The angel would have reached Daniel with an answer to his petition, that the future of his people might be a blessed future (see note Dan_10:2-4), on the very day when his fasting and prayer began (the third day of the month) — in which case he would have been able to enjoy the passover feast on the 14th — if it had not been for an unexpected delay and bitter struggle with the prince of the kingdom of Persia. (See note Dan_10:1.) This prince could hardly have been Cyrus, as so many commentators have supposed. The angel Gabriel could not have been detained in his mission by any earthly potentate. Rather, this prince of one of the beast kingdoms is imaged as a “prince of darkness” representing one of the “powers” and “spirits of wickedness” (Eph_6:12) which are at enmity with righteousness. This “war” could not mean simply an attempt of the angel to influence the mind of the prince of Persia and change his political designs against Israel. Rather, this “guardian angel” of a beast nation is supposed to be the adversary of any angel of light, and especially of one who bears a message of ruin for all the worldly kingdoms of evil and a message of eternal sovereignty for the new human Messianic kingdom of righteousness. The difficult and complicated questions which might arise concerning angels and demons cannot be discussed here. That God permits evil men to live in rebellion against his authority, and with a far-reaching harmful influence upon redeemed souls, is as mysterious as that he permits wicked angels to live. The Scriptures take the existence of angels for granted; but show a gradual development of belief or knowledge concerning them. Behrmann says of the angelology of Daniel, “In general we meet here no conceptions which had not been intimated or plainly begun in earlier or contemporary books.” He refers to Jdg_5:20, and Isa_24:21, where these celestial beings mix up in the struggle of earthly nations, and points out that even the idea of archangels acting as patrons or guardians of nations meets us in Deu_32:8 (LXX.), while Israel from the beginning has its national archangel or protector (Exo_14:19; Num_20:16; Zec_12:8). Dr. A.B. Davidson, however (art. “Angel,” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible), well shows that the “angel of Jehovah” mentioned in these latter references is positively identified in the Scriptures with Jehovah himself. (See Gen_16:10; Gen_31:11; Exo_3:2; Exo_3:6, etc.) Daniel is the only book of the Old Testament in which the angels are ever given names, and in which their difference of rank and national guardianship is emphasized.
How far this picturesque angelology may be due to the figurative speech so natural and necessary to orientals, cannot perhaps be determined. In the Persian angelology, at a period not much later than the exile, each angel represented some attribute of deity. This same method of speech undoubtedly meets us in other places in the Scriptures. God’s chariots and horses are said to be the storm clouds (Hab_3:8); the spirit of prophecy is “objectivized” as a man (Eze_40:3; 1Ki_22:21; Zec_1:13; Zec_1:19; Zec_3:3), while the operations of Jehovah among the nations are personified as horsemen and chariots, and the seven lamps of Zechariah’s vision are seven “eyes,” these seven eyes being the seven “spirits of God.” Much of what seems to us bald and literal may have really been symbolical. Both in Job and Zechariah we meet with the angelic Satan, the “opposer” or “accuser” who appears as the well-known enemy of good men; but of the archangels only Michael and Gabriel are mentioned by name in Scripture, though in the later Apocrypha the names of several others (Raphael, Uriel, etc.) are given. The Jews had a definite memory that they obtained the names of these angels in Babylon. Gabriel (or, as the name signifies, God’s hero — see note Dan_8:16), though never called “archangel” in Scripture, is always given especial dignity in work and the highest honor in the heavenly hierarchy. He has been well called “the heavenly evangelist” (Godet) who preludes the work of the Messiah as the Saviour of the world (Luk_1:19; Luk_1:26). Michael is distinctly called “the archangel” in the New Testament (Jud_1:9), and is given so lofty a position in both Old and New Testaments that many scholars have argued that Michael (“who is God,” or, “who is as God”) was merely the title of the “Angel of Jehovah” and the “Messenger of the covenant,” who was the second person in the Godhead and afterward manifested as Immanuel, “God with us.” He is here called one of the chief princes, and later more clearly the prince who “standeth” for Israel (Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1). Some writers would even infer from the various references to these two angels that “Michael was the son of God as the strong contestant against Satan for his people, and Gabriel was the son of God in his loving proclamation of the good tidings.” While these views are homiletically attractive, they are not generally approved by critical scholars. It may perhaps be better to understand, with Davidson, that here, according to the oriental style, the “spirits” of Persia and Greece (Dan_10:20) are personified as angelic or demonic beings, while the “spirit” of Israel is represented by this mighty, victorious, divinely endowed archangel Michael. This vision of a heavenly conflict between the nations’ angelic representatives would thus be entirely analogous to the vision of the Battle of the Beasts previously described (7, 8). Each nation is here pictorially represented with an angelic prince at its head as each Church with a special angel at its head (Rev_2:2; Rev_2:8; Rev_2:12; Rev_2:18, etc.). Persia’s representative could not be subdued until this angelic prince of the Jewish people took part in the conflict. It is not at all unlikely that the Babylonians were familiar with this idea that each nation had a protecting genius. (See closing note Dan_10:21.)
Read full note →
And I remained there with the kings of Persia — Out of the numberless translations of these obscure words, the best is that of Prince, “While I was left alone there, contending with the kings of Persia,” or that of the original LXX., “And I left him there with the commander of the Persian king.” According to the former interpretation the emphasis is placed upon the help afforded by Israel’s angel to the solitary warrior of Jehovah, the victory being inferred. According to the latter, Michael takes Gabriel’s place in the battle while he, being relieved from attack, hastens on his way to deliver God’s message to Daniel.
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 13. The opposition, for 21 days (cf. Dan_10:2), of…
13. The opposition, for 21 days (cf. Dan_10:2), of the ‘prince,’ i.e. the patron-angel, of Persia, prevented the dazzling being from reaching Daniel sooner.
the prince of the kingdom of Persia] its patron- or guardian-angel. The doctrine of tutelary angels, presiding over the destinies of particular nations, though there appears a trace of the idea in Isa_24:21, and according to some commentators, in Psalms 82, is found for the first time distinctly in the O.T. in this prophecy of Dan. (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20-21, Dan_11:1, Dan_12:1). In the earlier books of the O.T. angels appear merely as the ‘messengers’ of Jehovah, with little or no personal character or distinctness of their own: in the later books of the O.T. grades and differences begin to be recognised among them; particular angels are appropriated to particular purposes or functions; and they begin to receive individual names (see below). The origin of the idea of patron-angels is matter of conjecture: even as applied to Israel, it evidently signifies more than is implied in such passages as Exo_23:20; Exo_23:23; Exo_32:34; Exo_33:2 (which speak of an angel leading Israel to its home in Canaan). According to some (see the art. Angel in the Encycl. Biblica, col. 108), they are the ancient ‘gods of the nations,’—which, according to Deu_29:26 (cf. Dan_4:19), are ‘allotted’ by Jehovah to the several peoples of the earth,—transformed into ‘angels,’ under the teachings of a more consistent monotheism, for the purpose of being more distinctly subordinated to Him; according to others (see the art. Angel in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, p. 96 b), the idea is due to the tendencies which arose in later times, (1) of conceiving God as ruling the world by intermediate agencies, and (2) of personifying abstract conceptions, such as the ‘spirit,’ or genius, of a nation, and of locating such personified forces in the supersensible world, whence they ruled the destinies of men. Other passages in which the same idea is found are Sir_17:17 ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον); and Deu_32:8 LXX. (‘he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [אל for ישראל],’ a reading thought by some moderns to be the original). The later Jews developed the doctrine further, teaching, for instance, that each of the 70 nations mentioned in Genesis 10 had its Angel-Prince, who defended its interests, and pleaded its cause with God (cf. the Targ. of Ps.-Jon. on Gen_11:7-8 and Deu_32:8; and Weber, System der Altsynag. Theol., p. 165 f.).
Read full note →
Michael] the patron-angel of the Jews (Dan_10:21, Dan_12:1). The idea of the passage is that the fortunes of nations are determined by the angels representing them in heaven: the success or failure of these regulating the success or failure of the nations themselves. Cf. Isa_24:21.
As was remarked in the last note but one, it is not till the later books of the O.T. that angels begin to receive names. The only angels mentioned by name in O.T. and N.T. are ‘the Satan’ (i.e. the unfriendly Opposer or Thwarter: see Davidson’s note on Job_1:6), Job 1-2, Zec_3:1-2, 1Ch_21:1 [altered from the parallel, 2Sa_24:1], and frequently in the N.T.; Michael, here and Dan_10:21, Dan_12:1, Judges 9, Rev_12:7; and Gabriel, Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21, Luk_1:19; Luk_1:26.
In the extra-canonical books other names of angels appear. Thus in the Book of Tobit, an angel Raphael is named, who, disguised as a man, performs various offices for Tobit and Tobias (Tob_3:17, Tob_5:4, &c.); in Tob_12:15 (cf. Dan_10:12), he is said to be ‘one of the seven holy angels [cf. Enoch lxxxi. 5 ‘those seven holy ones,’ xc. 21, 22] which present the prayers of the saints’ to God. In 2 (4) Esdr. 4:1, 5:20, 10:28, Uriel is mentioned; and in Dan_4:36 (R.V.) Jeremiel, the ‘archangel.’ In the book of Enoch many names of angels occur: in ix. 1 [see the Greek text, in Charles’ ed., p. 333] and elsewhere, Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel; in xx. 1–7 (p. 356f., Charles) the names and offices of seven principal angels, or ‘archangels,’ are enumerated (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Remeiel); in xl. 2–10, those of four principal angels, called here ‘presences’ (cf. Isa_63:9), Michael, Rufael (Raphael), Gabriel, and Phanuel (פנואל): the names of many fallen angels, who seduced the children of men (Gen_6:2; Gen_6:5), are also given (vi. 7, viii. 1–3, lxix. 1–15, &c.). See, further, on the names and functions of angels in the later Jewish Angelology, Weber, l. c. p. 161 ff.; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, ii. 745 ff.; and cf. A. B. Davidson’s art. Angel in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible.
one of the chief princes] The reference is evidently to some group of superior angels, or (to adopt the later Greek expression) ‘archangels.’ In the book of Enoch, as has just been shewn, sometimes four angels (see esp. xl. 2–9), sometimes seven, are distinguished above the rest. Among the later Jews (Edersheim, l.c. p. 748 f.; Midrash Rabba on Num_2:20) Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael were usually regarded as the four principal angels, privileged to stand immediately about the throne of God; but seven are mentioned, not only in Enoch xx. 1–7, lxxxi. 5, xc. 21, but also in Tob_12:15 (see the last note), and Rev_8:2 (‘the seven angels which stand before God’); and probably these seven are alluded to here. Cf. Judges 9, where Michael is called the ‘archangel.’
Michael is the warrior-angel (cf. Rev_12:7), whose special office it is to protect the interests of Israel; in Enoch xx. 5 he is described as ὁ εῖς τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὃς ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγαθῶν τέτακται [καὶ] ἐπὶ τῷ λαῷ; in the Assumption of Moses x. 2 (ed. Charles, 1897) he appears to be the ‘angel’ who avenges Israel on their enemies at the end of the world; in the legend quoted in Judges 9 (see the patristic quotations, in Charles, l. c. p. 106 ff.), it is he who, as the angelic patron of Israel, defends the body of Moses against the devil (who claims it on the ground that Moses has been guilty of the murder of the Egyptians). For other extra-Biblical references to Michael, see Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, s. v.
remained there] properly, was left over there (the word used implying that others had departed, or been destroyed, Gen_32:24; 1Sa_30:9; 1Ki_19:10; Amo_6:9), though the meaning of the expression here is far from certain. According to some it is simply I remained there, which, however, does not do justice to the word used; according to v. Lengerke, Ges., and Keil, it is I had the superiority, i.e. obtained the victory (cf. Luther, da behielt ich den Sieg), the ‘prince’ of Persia having been, at least temporarily (see Dan_10:20), disabled; according to Ewald, it is I was superfluous there, i.e. (R.V. marg.) I was no longer needed. Meinh. and Behrm. follow LXX. and Theod. in reading and I left him there (הותרתיו for נותרתי); but this verb means not to leave simply, but to leave over or remaining (viz. from what has been taken elsewhere, Eze_39:28, or destroyed, Exo_10:15; Exo_16:19 al.): so that it is doubtful whether it would here be suitable. Perhaps, on the whole, we may acquiesce in the rend. was left over (viz. in the conflict): the ‘prince of Persia,’ for the time, succumbed; the angel, with Michael’s aid, overcame his opposition, and so was able to come to Daniel.
beside (Neh_8:4) the kings of Persia] Both the plural, and also the statement itself that the angel, after his conflict, should have found himself ‘beside’ the kings of Persia, are strange. It is probable that we should read (with LXX., Meinh., Behrm.) ‘beside the prince of the kings of Persia.’
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 (13) The prince of the kingdom.—Perhaps no single verse…
(13) The prince of the kingdom.—Perhaps no single verse in the whole of the Scriptures speaks more clearly than this upon the invisible powers which rule and influence nations. If we were without a revelation, we should have thought it congruent that God Himself should direct all events in the world without using any intervening means. But revelation points out that as spiritual beings carry out God’s purpose in the natural world (Exo_12:23; 2Sa_24:16) and in the moral world (Luk_15:10), so also they do in the political world. From this chapter we not only learn that Israel had a spiritual champion (Dan_10:21) to protect her in her national life, and to watch over her interests, but also that the powers opposed to Israel had their princes, or saviours, which were antagonists of those which watched over Israel. The “princes” of the heathen powers are devils, according to 1Co_10:20. The doctrine of the ministry of angels is taught in Psa_34:7; Psa_91:11; Psa_96:5 (LXX.); Isa_24:21; Isa_46:2; Jer_46:25; Jer_49:3. Further passages in the New Testament bearing upon the question are 1Co_8:5; Col_1:16.
Withstood me.—The phrase is identical with “stood over against him” (Jos_5:13). The verse implies that the spiritual powers attached to Persia were influencing Cyrus in a manner that was prejudicial to the interests of God’s people. It must be borne in mind that the vision occurred at the time of the Samaritan intrigues with the Persian Court in opposition to Zerubbabel.
Read full note →
Michael.—Mentioned only in the Book of Daniel and Jud_1:9, Rev_12:7. The title “chief princes,” rightly explained in the margin, shows that the charge of Israel had been entrusted by God to the highest of the heavenly powers; but the name “first prince” points out that, great though he is, he is inconsiderable when compared with God.
I remained there.—Literally, I prevailed there, as Gen_49:4. The person is explaining to Daniel how it had happened that he had received no visible answer to a prayer that had been offered with success three weeks previously. There had been a conflict between the powers of light and darkness, in which the former had gained the victory, which had been decisive. By the kings of Persia are meant all the successors of Cyrus. It may be remarked that from this time onward the Persian kings were, upon the whole, favourable to the interests of Israel.
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 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood…
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the ohief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. The rendering of the LXX is, "And the general (strathgov) of the King of the Persians withstood me one and twenty days, and behold Michael, one of the first princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the general of the King of the Persians." The sense of Theedotion is nearly the same as the LXX, only he has basileiav Perswn instead of basilewv. Like the LXX, Thee-dotion declares that Michael was left with the Prince of Persia. The Peshitta agrees more with the Massoretic, but, like the LXX and Theedotion, it is with the "Prince" of Persia that there is some one remaining. The Peshitta here, in opposition to the Greek versions, has the statement that Gabriel remained, not Michael. The Vulgate agrees still further with the Massoretic, only instead of the plural "kings," it has "king." The most important differences are in the last clause, where the LXX and Theodotion must have had the hiphil of rtiy; where the Massoretic has the niphal. Gratz adopts this reading, which certainly has the advantage of making sense of an otherwise unintelligible passage. Professor Bevan, in his easy way, suggests this to be probably a mere guess, the insertion of aujton, and the substitution of a transitive for an intransitive verb are quite in the manner of the LXX translators. He forgets that Theodotion also has this variation, and also that, without any justification from the versions, he himself has suggested various readings. He does not observe that this interpretation affords a reason for Gabriel"s presence with Daniel. Michael relieved him in his opposition to the Prince of Persia. The other variant, "prince" instead of "king," has the support of all the versions. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days. That is to say, during the whole of Daniel"s fast. The angelology of later Judaism is a very complicated, not to say confused, subject. The angelology of one age is not that of another; and the angelology of the Jews in one country is not that of the Jews in another. The Jews themselves understood that the Babylonian captivity did a great deal to develop the doctrine of the angels; the Jewish tradition was that they brought back from Babylon the names of the angels. Not only had their residence in Babylon defined the Jewish ideas as to the names f the angels, they began to have clearer ideas of their functions. They reached the idea that every race had its guardian angel. This view is expressed in Deu_32:8, according to the Septuagint, "He set bounds for the nations according to the number of the angels of God." To a similar purport is Ecc 17:17, "To each of the nations he appointed a leader, and Israel is the portion of the Lord." There seems, however, a preparation for this in Isa_24:21. (comp. also Psa_29:1 Psa_106:9) As independent of revelation there is a strong inherent probability that there are races of beings of intelligence and might vastly superior to man, there is nothing inherently improbable in these intelligences being employed by the Almighty in furthering his providential scheme. Men are instruments of God; is it not at least not improbable that, if there are angels, they, too, cooperate with God in the working out of his great purpose? That every nation should have an angelic prince over it is not more extraordinary than that every Church should have a special angel over it. (Rev_1:20 Rev_2:2, etc.) That there should be conflicts between these angelic princes is simply to say they are finite. Hitzig"s reference to Rev_12:7 is not to the point, for there is no indication of warlike opposition here. By the indications here, we might judge that the opposition of the Prince of Persia was to the coming of Gabriel to reveal to Daniel the purpose of God. We know nothing of the means employed in the opposition, or of the reason of it. Keil and Kliefoth have the idea that Gabriel was striving to influence the King of Persia, but was hindered in his efforts by the "Prince of Persia;" this is scarcely berne out by the context. But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me. Michael ("Who is like God?") is, in the twenty-first verse, declared to be the "prince" of the Jewish people, therefore equivalent to "the captain of the host of the Lord". (Jos_5:14) He is referred to in Rev_12:7 and Jud_1:9. Where he is called one of "the chief princes," there is reference to an angelic hierarchy, whether the same as that we find developed in the Book of Enoch or not cannot be decided certainly. In the Book of RAPC Tob 12:15 Raphael declares himself "one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints, and who go in and out before the glory of the Holy One." The Book of Tobit seems to have been written about B.C. 400; hence this is an indication of opinion before the Books of Enoch. In the Enoch books not only are the great angels mentioned, but their names arc given, and functions are assigned to them; but they are numbered as four, not seven. Enoch is posterior to Tobit, and finds a place for Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel. We have no means of testing whether the number of the chief angelic princes, of whom Michael was one, was four or seven, according to the opinion of Daniel. From the fact that Enoch is, so to speak, in the direct line of apocalyptic descent from Daniel, and Tobit is not, and, moreover, as the angelology of Tobit is in close connection with the Persian hierarchy of am-haspentas, of which there were seven, we may regard four as the more genuinely Jewish number. The later Jewish angel-elegy has many Persian elements, as shown by Dr. Kohut, in his "Angelologie und Demonologie." Whether the number of the archangels be made four or seven, both Gabriel and Michael are of the number, whereas Gabriel"s words would rather indicate that, though Michael belonged to the rank of chief prince, he did not. As we cannot tell the nature of the opposition, we cannot tell the nature of the help afforded. And I remained there with the kings of Persia. It is very difficult to interpret this if we retain the Massoretic reading. In the first place, the sense given to nothartee in the Authorized and Revised is unsuitable. The angel is explaining how, after having delayed three whole weeks, he has now come. The sentence, as interpreted above,would have explained why he could not come at all to Daniel. It is attempted to get over this by explaining that Gabriel had beaten off the "Prince" of Persia, and that Michael remained with the King of Persia instead of him. This view, however, contradicts the function assigned to angels of nations, and implies a quasi-omnipresence on the part of Gabriel, and would render his explanation no explanation. The explanation of Gesenius, Havernick, and yon Lengerke, that nothartee is to be taken as meaning "I received the pre-eminence," as Wirier, "superior discessi apud reges Persarum," has no justification in usage. Gescnius would bring in the Syriac use of the hithpael of this verb, but though both Castell and Brockehuann assign meanings suitable, none of their quotations represents a sense precisely similar to that assigned to the verb here Hitzig"s interpretation, "I was delayed," fails to explain his coming. Ewald"s explanation, "I was superfluous," is logical, but has no grammatical justification. Professor Bevan"s explanation, which would take this last clause as parenthetical, is untenable, as it supplies no redden for the presence of Gabriel with Daniel. We must follow the LXX and Theodotion in reading, either as Meinhold and Behrmann, yTirtwOhw or better, as Gratz, yTirtwho wOTai, as the vav in the former ease would naturally be read conversively. Besides, Gratz"s reading explains the needlessly emphatic ynia) Further, it seems needful to accept the reading of the two Greek versions and the Peshitta, and instead of ykelm read d None of the old versions support the Massoretic; the Vulgate is the nearest; and all of them have either read or regarded yklm as a form of the construct state, and so vocalized differently. Further, the later context here implies the contiuance of the conflict or controversy (vers. 20, 21). We must understand, then, that Gabriel left Michael to maintain the conflict against the angelic "Prince" of Persia, while he came in obedience to Daniel"s prayer. We can have but little idea of what is meant by this conflict in the heavenlies between angelic beings.
Vers. 13, 20-ch. Dan_11:1)
Read full note →
(2) Michael. His name means, "Who is like unto God?" and implies that, however high is the scale of being, there is an infinite distance between him and God. (see Dan_12:1; Jud_1:7; Rev_12:7) The following propositions seem clear about him: He is not the Loges; for he is here distinguished from him. "One of the chief princes," one of the principal in the hierarchy of heaven. "Your prince," the angelic representative and guardian of the Jewish nation. "The great prince who standeth for the children of thy people." An archangel.
2. On the side of the world. The "princes" here named are the supernatural power standing behind the daimoniae, who stood behind the national gods, and were represented by them. They are spirits of evil, inspiring the worldly anti-Divine action of the great empires of earth.
(1) The "Prince of Persia.
(2) The Prince of Javan; i.e. Greece.
II THE WAR. The war was on behalf of Israel, and may be described as being prosecuted through three supernatural campaigns. We consider them separately.
1. The first campaign. (Dan_11:1)
(1) The antagonist. Not mentioned here by name, but, following the analogy of the rest of the description, is certainly the celestial "Prince" of Babylonia.
(2) The casus belli. The occasion of conflict. This, doubtless, was the necessity of placing on the Babylonian throne one who would be favourable to the return of Israel from the Captivity.
(3) Speciatlities.
(a) Michael carried on the war.
(b) The Christ supported him. This order is reversed in the next campaign.
(4) The victory. Lies with the Divine in every case.
2. The second campaign. (Ver. 15.)
(1) The antagonist. "The Prince of Persia.
(2) The casus belli. The obstruction raised against the restoration of the temple, at the instigation of Israel"s enemies.
(3) Specialities.
(a) This campaign was carried on by the Angel-God himself.
(b) But aided by Michael. Here should be noted the doctrine that angels and men may be co-workers together with God.
(c) Was synchronous with Daniels prayer. All the way through the twenty-one days the prayer was being answered through a mighty conflict carried on in a higher world.
(4) The victory. Specially mentioned: "And I gained the superiority there by the side of the kings of Persia.
3. The third campaign. (Vers. 20, 21.)
(1) The antagonists. The "princes" of Persia and Javan.
(2) The casus belli. All that, in their worldliness, was attempted by Persia afterwards, by Greece, by Alexander and his successors, especially Antiochus, to the sore detriment of the Jewish people.
(3) A speciality. Only Michael in this great contention was on the Christ-side. Note:
(a) There is, then, liberty in heaven as on earth to do or not to do to go forth to war or to rest in peace.
(b) Michael made a noble use of liberty.
(c) By endowment he towered above others "One of the chief princes.
(d) Therefore to him were great responsibilities entrusted. He was made the guardian spirit of the Hebrew nation and Church. "To whom much is given" etc., seems to be a law of all moral worlds. "Michael your prince. " "To a subordinate spirit God will not entrust a work demanding special power and greatness.
(4) The victory. Again not expressly mentioned, but sure.
The following deductions from the whole subject should, perhaps, have special mention and emphasis:
1. The Church has many and powerful enemies.
2. It abides under most powerful protection. What Michael was to Israel of old, that, and more than that, is the Lord Jesus to Israel now; and he has many helpers.
3. Its destiny is in conflict in the worlds above, as well as here below.
4. In the holy war here, the humblest may take a share. The Son of God stooped to avail himself of the help of Michael; so he ever stoops to accept the humblest contribution, the lowliest service.
The Son of God goes forth to war, A kingly crown to gain; His blood-red banner streams afar; Who follows in his train?
R.
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 Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help…
Dan_10:13
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
Read full note →
The Festival of Michael and all Angels
It has been shown that Daniels doctrine of the angels is to be found, much of it, in both the Old Testament and the New. The existence of the angels, their number, their nature and occupation, are all amply revealed in the Word of God. The text describes a mysterious contention; and the arrival of an invaluable ally.
I. THE CONTENTION.
1. It has been a common belief that every man has an unseen attendant, a guardian angel. This guardianship appertains to man in his natural order.
2. This lesson appears to teach that not only individuals, but nations and kingdoms, have their angelic guardians. We see, behind the curtain, how spiritual beings are interested in, and seek to direct, the movements of nations.
3. The angel of the Persians, having their good first in view, would have detained the Jews in captivity, so that by their longer residence the heathen might gain some knowledge of the true God.
4. The angel of the Hebrews, on the other hand, urged their release and restoration to their own land, lest through long delay, they should be drawn aside from the worship of God to idolatry.
5. Some have gone further than this, and have thought that the angels are Gods ministers which supply the motive force to the natural world.
II. THE ALLY. Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
1. There is a limit to angelic knowledge of what is Gods will.
2. Michael is the guardian of the church. (see Jud_1:9; Jud_1:1-25 Mess. 4:16: Rev_12:7).
3. Michael appears to have been the guardian angel of the Hebrews.
Lessons,
1. The subject reminds us of the existence of an invisible world, which is interested in mankind.
2. There may be divergence of opinion and judgment upon matters about which the will of God has not yet been revealed, without sin or loss of charity.
3. As soon as the will of God is known, angelic contention at once ceases.
4. The thought of the presence of these spiritual beings, especially in our churches, may aid us to worship God, and quicken our perceptions of a supra-sensuous world, and of the majesty of him, whose name is The Lord of Hosts.--(The Thinker.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain prince of Dan 10:20.
prince of Dan 10:20.
The intimation is clear that as the holy angels are sent forth in behalf of the heirs of salvation, so demons are concerned in behalf of the world-system of Satan. Joh 7:7; Rev 13:8.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 10:13 the spirit prince: The spiritual forces behind the…
10:13 the spirit prince: The spiritual forces behind the various nations, such as the spirit prince of Persia or the spirit prince of Greece, blocked the way of God’s messenger who responded to the prayers of God’s people (see 10:20–11:1). • one of the archangels: An archangel was a chief among God’s heavenly messengers. • Daniel’s world, and ours, is populated by more than meets the human eye. Daniel is shown the great events of history enacted against the background of a real spiritual world where spiritual beings support or hinder God’s people, where the conflicts of the ages are also carried out. Behind all of this, the Ancient One sovereignly guides all things and sits in judgment upon the process and its conclusion. God’s covenant with his people, and their relationship with him through prayer, are central to this process—the world is not ultimately governed by angels and spirit princes, but by the Ancient One, who hears the prayers of his people.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.