Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 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.
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 ); and Deu 32:8 LXX. (‘he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [ for ],’ 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.).
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 ( ): 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 [ ] ; 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 ( for ); 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.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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;
(2) to deduce the fair meaning of the passage as thus explained; and
(3) to notice the practical truths taught.
The word rendered prince – s’ar – means, properly, a leader, commander, chief, as of troops, Gen 21:22; of a kings 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 ( myka’el) 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 yathar 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 10:13
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 monarchys 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.
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 churchs 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 churchs 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. prince of . . . Persiatheangel of darkness that represented the Persian world power, to whichIsrael was then subject. This verse gives the reason why, thoughDaniel’s “words were heard from the first day” (Da10:12), the good angel did not come to him until more than threeweeks had elapsed (Da 10:4).
one and twenty daysansweringto the three weeks of Daniel’s mourning (Da10:2).
Michaelthat is, “Whois like God?” Though an archangel, “one of the chiefprinces,” Michael was not to be compared to God.
help meMichael, aspatron of Israel before God (Dan 10:21;Dan 12:1), “helped” toinfluence the Persian king to permit the Jews’ return to Jerusalem.
I remainedI wasdetained there with the kings of Persia, that is, with the angelof the Persian rulers, with whom I had to contend, and from whom Ishould not have got free, but for the help of Michael. GESENIUStranslates, “I obtained the ascendency,” that is, I gainedmy point against the adverse angel of Persia, so as to influence thePersian authorities to favor Israel’s restoration.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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, Da 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, Zec 3:1 and to Michael and the devil disputing about the body of Moses, Jude 1:9 and to Michael and his angels, and the devil and his angels, warring in heaven, Re 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:
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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.
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 Psa 34:0 (Psa 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. (2Ch 14:11; 1Sa 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 —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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 Gods 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 Gods 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.
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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Dan 10:13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me “Stood before me.” Purver. This is thought by some to be either Cyrus or Cambyses, making opposition to the building of the temple, and becoming hostile to the people of God: but as this is not at all probable so soon after passing the decree in their favour, so neither could it be properly deemed resisting an angel. Others have thought that there is an allusion in this verse, and at Dan 10:20 to the guardian or tutelary angels of different countries; which doctrine seems countenanced by several passages in Scripture, and especially by Zec 6:5. Grotius is of this opinion. Mr. Lowth has treated this matter very fully, and to his note I would refer the reader; he adds also, that others suppose the contest may be between a good and an evil angel, as in Zec 3:1 and St. Jude, Dan 10:9. Which latter opinion is perhaps the most just, as there should seem to be no dispute or contest between the ministering spirits of heavens who are always obedient to the pleasure of their Lord. And when the Almighty sent a superior angel, Michael, 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. 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.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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
But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,
And I remained there with the kings of Persia.
a Melanchthon, Osiander, Pappus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the prince = ruler. Hebrew. sar = a ruler (from sarar = to rule). Hence Caesar, Tzar or Czar. Generally rendered “prince” in this book. See Dan 1:7, Dan 1:8, Dan 1:9, Dan 1:10, Dan 1:11, Dan 1:18; Dan 8:11, Dan 8:25; Dan 9:6, Dan 9:8; Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20, Dan 10:21; Dan 11:5; Dan 12:1. The rulers may be good, angelic (good or evil), or the world-rulers of Eph 6:12.
withstood = was standing confronting me.
one and twenty days. See verses: Dan 10:2, Dan 10:3.
Michael = who is like GOD (Hebrew El)? The second angel named in this book. The special angelic ruler for Israel (Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1. Compare Jud 1:9, and Rev 12:7).
princes. Hebrew. sar = chief. Not the same word as in Dan 11:8, Dan 11:18, Dan 11:22.
I remained = I was superfluous: i.e. not needed. Hence we may render, “I left him there”. Not the same word as in Dan 10:17.
with = beside.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 10:13
Dan 10:13 But the princeH8269 of the kingdomH4438 of PersiaH6539 withstoodH5975 H5048 me oneH259 and twentyH6242 days:H3117 but, lo,H2009 Michael,H4317 oneH259 of the chiefH7223 princes,H8269 cameH935 to helpH5826 me; and IH589 remainedH3498 thereH8033 withH681 the kingsH4428 of Persia.H6539
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.
Daniel’s heavenly visitor here says that he had been detained by the prince of Persia for the exact same time period that Daniel had been fasting. This is not in reference to any physical conflict as we know them, rather this visitor was giving Daniel a glimpse into a spiritual conflict going on behind the perception of mankind. The prince of the kingdom of Persia is an interesting character.
The Hebrew word rendered “prince” is “sar”, which means a leader, commander, chief, as of troops. 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 workings. I believe this to be the proper meaning here as deduced from the words because:
1) A spiritual being is speaking to Daniel and it would seem most natural to suppose that he had encountered one of his own kind.
2) The mention of Michael who came to his aid denotes a well known angel and leads us to the same conclusion.
3) The prevailing belief among the scholars is that the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” is a reference to a spiritual being.
When we take into view all the circumstances referred to in this passage, it seems logical that we are dealing with a spiritual being, having some kind of jurisdiction over the kingdom of Persia. The character of this “prince of the kingdom of Persia” is obviously bad in that we see he withstood and resisted the will of the heavenly messenger who was speaking to Daniel. So much so that Michael, an archangel (Jud 1:9) was sent to assist and this resistance continued until Daniel’s heavenly messenger took leave of the affair leaving Michael behind in charge. It is my conviction that the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” in this vision is referring to a member of the class of fallen angels who sinned and were cast out of heaven (2Pe 2:4).
If this is true then one must ask what their role is in God’s overall plan and what purpose they fulfill. Let’s speculate for a little bit here but first, let’s look at some basic facts.
1) Scripture makes the implicit statement that God tempts no man, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (Jas 1:13). We are surrounded by temptation and since temptation cannot come from God, then it must come from another source. This source of temptation must operate independently of God and in opposition of His divine nature in order to be totally separated from Him. So then what is the active agent of this temptation? From where does it arise and from where does it come from? Since God is not responsible for it, then who is?
2) 1Pe 5:8, “…your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”. Our adversary is malicious and tries to tempt us, causing us to sin so that we will be overcome and destroyed.
3) 1Co 10:13, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” The temptation which is inflicted upon us is common to everyone, meaning it is universally applied, and it is limited to what each person can withstand. Nobody is allowed to be tempted beyond what they are able to bear.
4) Rom 8:38-39, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Nothing can force us away from God. Only by a free will act of our own will we sin.
5) Mat 25:41, “…Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”. The Devil, who we know as Satan has angels.
6) 2Pe 2:4, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment”. There were certain angels who sinned and were cast from the presence of God. The text says they were delivered to the Hadean realm and placed in chains of darkness.
We know that God cannot tempt man, therefore he cannot be held responsible for the temptations which are common to all mankind. Therefore there must be an agent operating independently of God in order to bring about that temptation. We also know that this temptation is regulated. Since temptation is regulated then there must be some sort of regulating agent in place which does operate in accordance with the divine will.
One of the great Bible truths is that of man’s free will choice. God granted mankind the freedom to choose in the garden of Eden and has never rescinded that freedom. God neither forces people to come to Him, neither does he allow mankind to be forced to sin against Him. In Dan 10:13 we are given a brief glimpse into how the temptation and the regulation of that temptation may be accomplished in the spirit realm outside our perception. In speculation, there may be hosts of angels in conflict outside our perception, the evil spirits doing the will of Satan and trying to bring about our destruction with the Angels of God working to regulate their influence so that our freewill is not compromised in either direction.
I would call our attention to the occasions when Jesus encountered both Satan and evil spirits during His life on earth. Jesus was a man subject to the same physical limitations we are. Either Satan or the evil spirits could have destroyed Him at any time but they didn’t. Satan tempted Jesus but did not physically attack Him. An entire legion of evil spirits obeyed Jesus without doing him any harm whatsoever. Jesus even gave the power to cast devils out of others to his disciples in Mar 3:15, Luk 9:1 and other occasions. One must ask why the evil spirits did not harm Jesus and by what means was he protected from them and by what means did the disciples have any power whatsoever over the evil spirits?
We know from the New Testament that angels played a role in the following events:
1) They bear away the souls of the departed in death (Luk 16:22).
2) They exercise diligence to watch over little children (Mat 18:11).
3) Angels are engaged in the service of those who shall inherit salvation (Heb 1:14).
4) They aided providentially in bringing the Ethiopian Eunuch in contact with the gospel (Act 8:26).
5) They executed the sentence of God in the destruction of Herod whose transgression justified his immediate removal from the earth (Act 12:23).
Hereby we know that the good angels are working God’s will behind the scenes. Why cannot the evil angels be working behind the scenes in a restricted manner to work toward the grand plan God has for the unfolding of his purpose upon the earth? I say restricted because if they were allowed free reign to impact mankind without restrictions of any kind, we would doubtless be enduring sufferings that would pale the trials of Job into insignificance.
Satan plays a redemptive role through the destruction of the flesh (1Co 5:5). It is quite certain that Satan’s goal in this is not to redeem the lost soul, rather to destroy him. But Satan is a unwilling participant in this process and without a doubt works within the boundaries of some sort of restrictions lest the unfortunate soul perish instantly with no opportunity to repent whatsoever.
As I mentioned earlier, this is entirely speculation on my part and must not be taught as the absolute truth. However, given the evidence, there is sufficient reason to draw the conclusion that there is a spiritual warfare being fought on a continual basis between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. This warfare is being fought outside of our ability to perceive it. The whole affair is being conducted in order to bring about the completion of God’s grand plan for mankind. The temptation of man serves God’s purpose in that it is used as a test of our faithfulness. Where there is no temptation, there is no test of faith. If mankind knew of this warfare and could perceive it, then the choice to come to God of our own freewill and because we want to would be compromised. If we could see the warfare going on between good and evil, nobody would be unbelievers. Where there is no free will, there is no choice. We must come to God because we love Him and are seeking Him and His righteousness. It is God’s purpose that we truly and entirely come to Him based on our own desire and choice to do so. It makes no difference that God already knows whether or not we will be obedient or not. What does make a difference is that nobody who is lost will be able to say they didn’t have a choice. And no accountable person who is saved will be in heaven if they don’t want to be there.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
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.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the prince: Dan 10:20, Ezr 4:4-6, Ezr 4:24, Zec 3:1, Zec 3:2, Eph 6:12, 1Th 2:18
Michael: Dan 10:21, Dan 12:1, Jud 1:9, Rev 12:7
one: or, the first, Col 2:10, 1Pe 3:22
Reciprocal: Jos 5:14 – but as captain
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 10:13. In this verse the ”man’ (or angel) will explain to Daniel why his prayer was not acknowledged sooner, although it was observed favorably from the start. To use a familiar form of speech, the man was engaged in other business which detained him. Some commentators think that Daniel was contending with this prince of the kingdom of Persia to persuade him to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem. I do not understand how that would be, for according to Ezr 1:1-4 that privilege had been granted them two years before. If this controversy had anything to do with that subject, it must have been with some outstanding men of Persia who were not in full accord with the edict of Cyrus. Whatever it was, it pertained to the interests of the Jews, and this man or angel could not go to the relief of Daniel for a while. He finally had reinforcements” in the person ot Michael, and together they got matters in shape so that the latter could hold the fort for a time, which released the “man to go and comfort Daniel.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 10:13-14. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me Hebrew, , 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 Deitys accommodating himself and his measures to the manners of men. See De Sacra Poes. Hebrews, Prl. 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 Alexanders successors, the kings of Syria and Egypt.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
(h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father’s absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.
(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Someone had delayed the arrival of God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer. He was the "prince of Persia," evidently a fallen angel who, under Satan’s authority, had a special responsibility for Persia (cf. Dan 10:20; Eph 2:2). Clearly, "prince" here refers to an angel, since Michael was also called a "prince" (Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21). [Note: See Zöckler, 7:2:228, in Lange’s commentary, for further support.] "The prince of Persia" must have been an evil angel since he opposed God’s purpose. Angelic hostility in the unseen world had resulted in the 21-day delay of this good angel’s arrival with God’s message (cf. Dan 10:2).
"The powers of evil apparently have the capacity to bring about hindrances and delays, even of the delivery of the answers to believers whose requests God is minded to answer. . . .
"While God can, of course, override the united resistance of all the forces of hell if he chooses to do so, he accords to demons certain limited powers of obstruction and rebellion somewhat like those he allows humans. In both cases the exercise of free will in opposition to the Lord of heaven is permitted by him when he sees fit. But as Job 1:12; Job 2:6 indicate, the malignity of Satan is never allowed to go beyond the due limit set by God, who will not allow the believer to be tested beyond his limit (1Co 10:13)." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 124, 125.]
It seems unlikely to me that the prince of Persia could have resisted the Son of God this way, if He were the person addressing Daniel. Moreover, God’s messenger had received help from Michael, one of the chief princes (angels), so it seems unlikely that he was God Himself. Some angels have more authority and power than others do (Eph 1:21).
"Although the entire subject of the unseen struggle between the holy angels and the fallen angels is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures, from the rare glimpses which are afforded, as in this instance, it is plain that behind the political and social conditions of the world there is angelic influence-good on the part of the holy angels, evil on the part of the angels under satanic control. This is the struggle to which Paul referred in Eph 6:10-18." [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 247.]
"Bad angels, called demons in the New Testament, are, without a doubt, referred to here. In the course of time, these demonic powers gained a very strong influence over certain nations and the government of these nations. They became the controlling power. They used whatever resources they could muster to hamper God’s work and to thwart His purposes." [Note: Leupold, pp. 457-58.]
Evidently the good angel who spoke to Daniel had performed some duty in Persia that involved the kings or rulers of that land. However, having received a commission from God to visit Daniel, he was not able to break away to deliver it because of the influence of the bad angel who exercised strong influence over Persia. Michael visited the good angel and helped him break away from this wicked angel’s power so he could visit Daniel.
Keil projected this idea even further. His view is speculation.
"The plural [kings of Persia] denotes, that by the subjugation of the demon of the Persian kingdom, his influence not merely over Cyrus, but over all the following kings of Persia, was brought to an end, so that the whole of the Persian kings became accessible to the influence of the spirit proceeding from God and in advancing the welfare of Israel." [Note: Keil, p. 419.]
There has been much interest in spiritual warfare in recent years among professing Christians. [Note: See the bibliography at the end of these notes for some titles.] Certainly spiritual warfare is a biblical revelation, and we need to be aware of it and live accordingly. However, much that is being taught about spiritual warfare, and particularly about "territorial demons," goes beyond the teaching of Scripture. (The idea that there are "territorial demons" rests primarily on Dan 10:13.) For example, there is no biblical instruction or precedent that would justify praying against, and claiming victory over certain demons by name, as some are doing and advocating today. Clearly, Daniel did not know about this heavenly conflict between these angels. Michael’s success was not due to Daniel’s praying, for or against, certain angels or demons.
"Daniel, while supporting the idea of territorial identification of certain angels especially in chap. 10, does not support any sort of human involvement in angelic warfare." [Note: Gerry Breshears, "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):14.]
There may be hindrances to our praying-about which we know nothing-as we wonder why an answer to our prayer does not come. Nevertheless we should keep on praying (Luk 18:1-8). This incident reminds us of the importance of persisting in prayer. If Daniel had stopped praying on the twentieth day, he might not have received the great revelation of chapter 11 on the twenty-first day.