The final three chapters of the book of Daniel record an extensive revelation of the prophetic future that is without parallel in Scripture. This final vision is a grand prophetic panorama of events from the time of Cyrus to the final establishment of God’s kingdom. The entire panorama begins with an introduction (10:1–11:1), indicating the expansive character of the prophecy to follow. The next section, 11:2–12:4, is divided into two major divisions. The first, 11:2–35, deals with the immediate future, from Darius to Antiochus; and the second, 11:36–12:4, with the far future, the end times just before the second advent of Christ. A final message and revelation is given to Daniel in 12:5–13.
These last three chapters constitute Daniel’s fourth vision, gathering together the significant threads of prophecy, especially as they relate to the Holy Land and to the people of Israel.
10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision.
Almost every detail of this verse has been subject to debate. The date of the vision (536 B.C.) has been attacked as a discrepancy when compared with Daniel 1:21 where Daniel is said to have continued “until the first year of King Cyrus.” As was noted in the exposition of chapter 1, Daniel 1:21 does not say that Daniel died or terminated his career in Cyrus’s first year, but that he continued until this important event that introduced the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. Although the Septuagint changes Daniel 10:1 to “the first year,” this is a needless harmonization.1
Critical objection has also been leveled at the expression “Cyrus king of Persia.” Montgomery says, “The designation of Cyrus as ‘king of Persia’ was not contemporary usage; the Pers. king was entitled ‘the king,’ ‘the great king,’ ‘king of kings,’ or after his conquest of the Babylonian empire ‘king of Babel,’ ‘king of the lands’; Dr. [Driver], Int., 345f. Cyrus was ‘the Persian king’ only later [according] to Hellenistic use.”2 Although scholars agree that Cyrus was not normally called “king of Persia” under ordinary circumstances until later, at least one contemporary usage of the term has been found.3 And, after all, why should not Cyrus be called “king of Persia” even if it was not the ordinary way of referring to him? Young states flatly, “This designation of Cyrus was contemporary usage (despite M [Montgomery]).”4 Why should the scriptural designation have to conform precisely to ancient usage? The statement is clear and pinpoints the time of the vision.
It was in this third year of Cyrus, late in Daniel’s career (about seventy-two years after he had been carried away as a youth to Babylon), that this revelation came to him. By way of identification, his Babylonian name Belteshazzar was given to make clear that he was the same Daniel who was so named by Nebuchadnezzar many decades before.
The general nature of the revelation is described in the verses that follow. Daniel first affirmed that the message was true, as would be expected of a revelation from God. The second fact concerning the prophecy is that it involved “a great conflict.” This is a very difficult expression; the Hebrew, sābā’ gādôl, has been variously translated “great warfare,”5 “a great task,”6 or, more freely, “involved great suffering.”7 The implication is that this period involves great conflict and trouble for the people of God.
In contrast to the previous visions, Daniel stated that he understood what was revealed to him. The previous visions recorded in the book of Daniel had left questions in his mind that were not fully resolved, although he had faithfully recorded what he had seen and heard. It is doubtful whether Daniel completely understood all of the vision that followed, but at least he comprehended its general characteristics and was not left in a state of perplexity, as he was in 8:27 where he was physically sick as a result of the extensive vision given to him. The introductory statement is sufficient, however, to alert the reader that a tremendous revelation is about to be presented.
10:2–3 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.
Daniel’s self-inflicted preparation to receive this vision was extensive. During these three weeks, he did not eat the dainties of the king’s table, abstained from meat and wine, and did not anoint himself at all. “Delicacies” are literally “bread of pleasures, of desires,” in contrast to “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3), that is, the unleavened bread that was eaten during the Passover. During this period, Daniel apparently limited himself to basic nourishment, but followed a meager diet.
The duration of the period is obviously three weeks composed of days in contrast to the seventy “weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27. Although Leupold resists the idea that the Hebrew expression here, literally, “three weeks of days,” is used in contrast to Daniel 9, that may be precisely the point; that is, Daniel wanted to make clear that normal days were in view in this prophecy.8 Practically everyone agrees that twenty-one days is the resulting sense.9 In any case, the three weeks included the normal week for the Passover season, as can be learned by comparison with Daniel 10:4. Passover occurred on the fourteenth day of the first month, and was followed by seven days in which unleavened bread was eaten.
The reason for Daniel’s fasting probably was his concern for the pilgrims who had returned to Jerusalem two years before, anticipated in his prayer in Daniel 9. As the book of Ezra makes plain, the Israelites had encountered great difficulty in getting settled in the land. Although the altar had been set up and the foundation of the temple laid (Ezra 3), the work had been suspended because of opposition by the people of the land (Ezra 4:1–5, 24). All of this was a great concern to Daniel, for his primary purpose in encouraging the expedition had been the restoration of the temple as well as the city of Jerusalem.
Humanly speaking, there was ground for anxiety. But Daniel did not understand that the seventy years of the captivity that expired with the return of the exiles in Ezra 1 did not fulfill the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. This required an additional twenty years (the difference between 605 B.C., the first deportation of the Jews, and 586 B.C., the date of the destruction of Jerusalem). From God’s point of view, things were moving exactly on schedule. In a sense, the vision that followed was a reply to Daniel’s questions concerning God’s purposes for the future of Israel in relation to the Gentiles.
These purposes involved a far more extensive program than that fulfilled in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. While the saints of God may justly be concerned over what seems to be a defeat of God’s purpose, the suffering saint should never forget the majesty of the sovereignty of God, which ultimately proves that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). From the divine viewpoint, while we should pray, we should be delivered from anxiety—as Paul stated (Phil. 4:6–7). This period of fasting was, for Daniel, a divine preparation for the revelation. No doubt abstinence from all but absolutely necessary food and drink, and the omission of anointing oil—indicative of his grief for Israel’s affliction (Amos 6:6; 2 Sam. 14:2)—helped prepare Daniel for his great experience.
10:4–6 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.
The time of this vision was the twenty-fourth of Abib, the first month on the Jewish calendar (Exod. 23:15). This month was later renamed Nisan (Neh. 2:1). Scripture does not reveal when Daniel’s three weeks of mourning began, but it seems clear that they had concluded by the twenty-fourth day of the month. The new year was normally begun with a festival of two days celebrating the advent of the new moon (1 Sam. 20:18–19, 34),10 and it was unsuitable for him to fast while that joyous festival continued. Daniel probably had observed the Passover on the fourteenth day of Abib and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed from the fifteenth to the twenty-first. If the vision came to Daniel immediately after his days of mourning, his fast must have begun immediately after the new moon celebration, concluding just before the vision was given to him.11
The place of the vision was “on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris).” Here we learn for the first time that Daniel did not accompany the pilgrims who returned to Jerusalem. Liberal scholars attempt to turn this into an argument against the historicity of Daniel, assuming that he would automatically return to his native land as soon as permitted. Young points out, however, that if Daniel was merely a fictitious character, an ideal created by a writer in the Maccabean period, it would have been far more natural to have him return triumphantly to his native land. Young concludes, “The fact that Dan. does not return to Palestine is a strong argument against the view that the book is a product of the Maccabean age.”12 The obvious explanation of Daniel’s failure to return is that he was quite old, probably eighty-five years of age, and, according to chapter 6, had been given a prominent place in the government and was not free to leave as were the others. Probably he could do Israel more good by remaining at his post than by accompanying them in the limitations of his age back to the land of Israel.
The statement that the vision occurred by the Tigris River has been subject to criticism on two counts. First, the question has been raised whether this should be considered a literal, geographic statement or part of the vision. In Daniel 8:2, Daniel’s vision occurred at “the Ulai canal,” but the context makes plain that he was only there in vision and not in reality. In chapter 10, however, the context and narrative make plain that he was actually by the Tigris, as the following verses relate how the men who were with him, but who did not see the vision, fled. Liberal scholars like Montgomery, however, consider the identification of the Tigris as “the great river” to be a contradiction since the Euphrates is normally called “the great river.”13
Montgomery regards this “as an early gloss” in the text, with the only alternative that “otherwise we must attribute a solecism or gross error to the writer.”14 The Syriac version substitutes “Euphrates,” for “Tigris.” All of this, however, is quite arbitrary as there is no reason why the Tigris should not also be called a great river; and if that expression uniformly referred to the Euphrates, it would be all the more strange for a copyist to insert “Tigris.” Conservative scholars generally agree that the river is the Tigris.15 The probability is that Daniel had come to this area in connection with his duties as a chief government administrator. No great amount of travel need be assumed because just above Babylon the Euphrates and Tigris are only about thirty-five miles apart.
There Daniel had a vision of a glorious man, who is described in verse 5. All commentators agree that the personage was not a man, but either a glorious angel or a theophany, that is, an appearance of God Himself. Leupold concludes that the personage is a mighty angel on the fact that he requires the help of Michael, mentioned in verse 13, which would not be true of deity. If an angel, it may have been Gabriel, who appeared to Daniel in chapter 8. However, Leupold prefers to identify him with an unknown angel of equal stature with Michael.16 Young notes that Hengstenberg identified him as Michael and that the Jews considered the figure an angel.17
Although there is room for debate, there is at least some evidence for considering this to be a theophany. If it is, the man of 10:5–6 would need to be distinguished from the angel of 10:10–14 as well as from Michael, mentioned in 10:13. Although mighty angels are frequently difficult to distinguish from God Himself, as in other visions such as those in Ezekiel and Revelation, the similarity between the man described in 10:5–6 and the glorified Christ (Rev. 1:13–15) has led some conservative expositors to consider the man a genuine theophany or an appearance of Christ as the Angel of Yahweh.18 Others, however, believe that only an angel is in view in these verses.19
The linen of the personage in the vision was probably the fine white linen which characterized the priests’ garments (cf. Exod. 28:39–43). In other instances, linen formed the clothing of heavenly visitors (cf. Ezek. 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7). The angels at the tomb of Christ are said to have had long white garments of brilliant character without specifying that they are linen (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:12; cf. Acts 1:10). The belt girdle was probably also linen embroidered with fine gold. The reference to the “fine gold from Uphaz” has only one other similar reference in the Bible (Jer. 10:9), and it is not clear whether Uphaz is geographic or poetic. No clear identification has ever been made, although some have equated Uphaz with Ophir (Isa. 13:12) on the basis that this word is substituted for Uphaz in a Syriac version of Jeremiah 10:9.20 It is sufficient to consider the belt as being embroidered with fine gold of unusual quality.21
The appearance of the body as a jewel called “beryl” is from the Hebrew tarshish, translated “chrysolite” in the Septuagint, and considered by Driver as a topaz. He characterizes it as “the topaz of the moderns—a flashing stone, described by Pliny as ‘a transparent stone with a refulgence like that of gold.’”22 The same stone seems to be mentioned in Exodus 28:20 and Ezekiel 1:16; 10:9. It is called tarshish as if originating in Spain.23 Porteous identifies it as the yellow jasper.24 The impression given to Daniel was that the man’s entire body was like a gigantic transparent jewel reflecting the glory of the rest of the vision.
The description of the face illumined as it were by lightning, with eyes like flaming torches, is quite similar to the reference to Christ in Revelation 1:14–16. The burnished bronze of the arms and feet is similar to the “were like burnished bronze” of Christ (Rev. 1:15). And the lightning compares to Christ’s countenance likened to the sun in brilliance (Rev. 1:16), and to similar references in Ezekiel 1:13–14. Accompanying the visual image of glory was the mighty sound of the voice of a multitude, apparently not words which could be understood, but giving the impression of great power (cf. Rev. 1:15). As Driver expresses it, “An impressive, but inarticulate, sound seems to be what the comparison is intended to suggest.”25 The total impression upon Daniel, described in the verses that follow, must have been tremendous and similar to that of John the apostle when he saw the glorified Christ (Rev. 1:17).
10:7–9 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground.
The situation with Daniel’s vision was somewhat similar to that of the men who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:7; 22:9), except that here the men saw and heard nothing, but apparently sensed something that gave them great fear. Certainly they saw Daniel’s reaction and realized he saw something they couldn’t see. Daniel’s companions ran away, leaving him alone. Clearly, the choice of Daniel and no one else to see this vision was made by divine will. Those who accompanied Daniel were not allowed to see the vision because it was intended for him only. This incident makes it clear that this was an actual event that occurred near the Tigris River and that Daniel is not there merely in vision.
The sight of the vision affected Daniel physically, robbing him of physical strength; and his normal appearance of health was affected in a way similar to the appearance of Christ in Isaiah 52:14. The Hebrew of “fearfully changed” (Dan. 10:8) and “marred” (Isa. 52:14) are from the same root.
Although apparently rendered immobile by his lack of strength, Daniel was still able to hear “the sound of his words”; but this only increased his incapacity, and he fell in a swoon with his face toward the ground (cf. Exod. 19:16–22). Daniel’s experience illustrates the difficulty that mortal, sinful creatures, even a prophet like Daniel, have when encountering the glory of God, or even one of His heavenly messengers, in relation to which the holiest of people come short (Rom. 3:23). It was in this posture of weakness and semiconsciousness that Daniel was to be strengthened to receive additional revelation.
10:10–11 And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling.
If the original person who appeared was a theophany, then this has to be another personage, probably an angel. However, it appears that the person who touches Daniel is the same as the one who first appeared to him in the vision. If so, then what follows would indicate it was an angel rather than a theophany. Daniel’s reaction here was much like arousing one from sleep.
The angel addressed Daniel with the title a “man greatly loved.” Although God loves the entire world so much that He provided His Son as its Savior, certain individuals, because of their special relationship to God, are the objects of unusual divine love. David, in spite of his sins, was sought by the Lord as “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14; cf. Acts 13:22); and John the apostle was “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23). As a parent loves all of his children but may love one or more in a special way, so the heart of God responds to those who love Him most.
The angel exhorted Daniel to understand his message and to stand upright to receive it, for this was the purpose of the angel’s coming. Daniel was then able to stand upright, although trembling. The angel’s message naturally tended to reassure Daniel that God’s purpose in giving him the vision was gracious and loving, and that Daniel had nothing to fear.
10:12–14 Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”
To further quiet Daniel’s fears, the angel informed him that from the very beginning of his intercession, three weeks before, God had undertaken to answer his prayers and send the angelic messenger to him. What a reassurance it is that when we come to God as Daniel did, setting our hearts to understand and chastening ourselves before God, we may expect Daniel’s experience. God will hear our words and answer. The delay is explained in verse 13 as being occasioned by the opposition of “the prince of the kingdom of Persia.” This prince is not the human king of Persia, but rather the angelic leader of Persia, a fallen angel under the direction of Satan, in contrast to the angelic prince Michael who leads and protects Israel. That the angel described as “the prince” of Persia is a wicked angel is clear from the fact that his opposition to the angelic messenger to Daniel was given as the reason for the twenty-one-day delay in the answer.
All during the period of Daniel’s fasting and prayer, a spiritual conflict was under way. This was resolved by the coming of Michael described as “one of the chief princes” (cf. Dan. 10:21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). Michael seems to be th emost powerful of the holy angels, and with his assistance the messenger to Daniel was released to fulfill his mission. The statement “I was left there with the kings of Persia” means that having been delivered from the prince of Persia, the angelic messenger was permitted to go on his way unattended.
Driver suggests that the phrase “I was left there” actually means “I was superfluous there,” inasmuch as Michael, who was more powerful, had relieved him. The Hebrew word translated “I was left there” (nôtarti, from yātar) does not properly signify “to remain behind” but “to remain over, to be superfluous.” Driver renders Daniel 10:13, “I was left over there beside the kings (i.e., I had nothing more to do).”26
Zöckler refutes Calvin and others who understand the angel’s conflict as being with an earthly king rather than an angelic being. Calvin says, “If we weigh these words too judiciously, we shall readily conclude, that the angel fought rather against the king of the Persians than for him.”27 Zöckler supports the idea that this is angelic warfare on the basis of the following considerations:
(1) in chap xi.5, where [sar] is unquestionably employed in the latter sense, the connection is entirely different from the character of the present passage, where the hassārîm [“chief princes”] which immediately follows obviously denotes angelic princes; (2) the Persian kings, on the other hand, are termed [malkê pārās] at the end of the verse; (3) the idea of an angel’s conflict with a human king seems very inappropriate; (4) the angel Michael was Israel’s ‘prince,’ i.e., guardian angel, according to 5:21; chap, 12:1; and corresponding to this, the prince of Persia who is here noticed, and the prince of Graecia mentioned in 5:20, were, without doubt, the angels of Persia and Javan respectively; (5) the idea of guardian angels over entire realms, whether friendly or hostile in their disposition toward the theocracy, is attested by various Old-Test parallels, particularly by Isa. 24:21 …; Isa. 46:2; Jer. 46:25; 49:3 (where the gods of the pagan nations take the place of the guardian angels); Deut. 32:8; and Psa. 96:4, 70; also Bar. 4:7 and Ecclus. 17:17 …—to say nothing of New Test passages such as 1 Cor. 8:5; 10:20 et seq.28
The subject of the unseen struggle between the holy angels and the fallen angels is not fully revealed in the Scriptures. But from the rare glimpses which are afforded, as in this instance, it is plain that behind the political and social conditions of the world is angelic influence—good on the part of the holy angels, evil on the part of the angels under satanic control. Ezekiel described the human ruler of Tyre (called the “prince” in Ezek. 28:1–10) and the Satanic “king” who was the true power behind the throne (28:11–19). The struggle experienced by this angel is the same struggle to which Paul referred in Ephesians 6:10–18.
Keil interprets the expression “I was left there with the kings of Persia” as meaning that a victory of major character was won against the demonic forces that had previously controlled the kingdom of Persia, with the result that Persia now would become the object of divine direction through angelic ministry. He understands the plural of “kings of Persia” to indicate all the kings of Persia who followed. Keil states, “The plural 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.”29
Leupold summarizes the correct interpretation in these words,
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…. We get a rare glimpse behind the scene of world history. There are spiritual forces at work that are far in excess of what men who disregard revelation would suppose. They struggle behind the struggles that are written on the pages of history.30
The fact that the angelic messenger needed Michael’s help refutes Young’s interpretation that the one speaking with Daniel was the Angel of Yahweh or the Lord Himself.31 While even an important angel might need the help of Michael, it is hardly acceptable that Christ in the Old Testament, prior to the incarnation, would need angelic help to gain a victory over a fallen angel. The circumstances seem to indicate that this must be an angel, not a theophany.
The angelic messenger explained to Daniel that his purpose in coming was to make Daniel understand what would befall “your people,” that is, Israel, “in the latter days.” The angel explained that the vision’s fulfillment was still future.
The expression “in the latter days” is an important chronological term in the prophetic program that is unfolded in the book of Daniel. As previously noted in the exposition of Daniel 2:28, this phrase is seen to refer to the entire history of Israel, beginning as early as the predictions of Jacob, who declared to his sons “what shall happen to you in days to come” (Gen. 49:1), and climaxing in the second coming of Christ to the earth. The latter days view the entire history of Israel as culminating in the climax of the second advent and the establishment of the earthly kingdom.
Daniel’s concern for his people, which probably occasioned his three weeks’ fast and prayer, is now to be somewhat relieved by a specific revelation in addition to that already given in Daniel 9:24–27. The particulars of the vision include the experiences of Israel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and culminate in the great tribulation just before the second advent. Although Daniel probably did not understand the details, he could be reassured that God had a plan that ended in the ultimate victory of divine power. Although the prophecies made clear that there were powerful forces at work against Israel that would inflict upon them much suffering and loss, in the end the power of God would triumph and Israel would be exalted as a nation.
10:15–17 When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. How can my lord’s servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.”
Daniel’s weakness once again overwhelmed him. Calvin, opposing the notion that Daniel was falling on his face in repentance, states, “By becoming prostrate on the ground, he manifested his reverence, and by becoming dumb, displayed his astonishment.”32 Whether Daniel actually fell to the ground is not clearly stated, but the effect may well be what Calvin intimates.
And once again, Daniel experienced strengthening from God. As noted above, whether the personage here—“one in the likeness of the children of man”—was a theophany, that is, Christ as the Angel of Yahweh, or another angel is not clear. Probably it was another angelic messenger. Once Daniel’s strength and speech were restored, he again confessed his weakness and lack of strength. His pains, as well as his weakness, had returned with the additional vision. Daniel’s lack of breath made it difficult for him to speak. As Charles interprets it, “The sense then is ‘How can so mean a servant of my lord talk with so great a one as my lord?’”33 Daniel had great difficulty carrying on normal conversation with the angelic messenger.
10:18–19 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”
For the third time in this chapter, Daniel was supernaturally strengthened. Leupold believes that the same angel mentioned in verse 10 and following is the one who strengthened Daniel in each instance.34 However, in view of the plurality of angelic ministry, there is no special reason Daniel should not have had the ministry of more than one angel. The context of verses 18 and 19, however, seems to link this angel to the one who addressed Daniel in verses 11–12.
The detail given to this experience leaves the impression that the revelation to follow must be of tremendous character, as indeed it is. The triple strengthening of Daniel in this agonizing experience has sometimes been compared to that of the Lord’s temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39–44; Mark 14:35–41; Luke 22:39–44).35 In both cases, an angel was the source of strength (Luke 22:43). This is the last time in this vision Daniel required additional strength to be administered by the angel.
10:20–21 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.”
Critics have found fault with these concluding verses as needlessly repetitious and confusing.36 Montgomery is sure that the text here is faulty. Such criticism, however, does not take into consideration Daniel’s weak and confused state. It would be quite natural after his experience of swooning and being unable to speak, now to consider the purpose of the angelic message. The angel revealed that he was obligated to return to “fight against the prince of Persia,” and by implication, later with “the prince of Greece.” Goldingay actually finds strong structural harmony in these verses.37
This also has been assailed as unnecessary due to the previous victory. But the implication is that constant warfare is required for spiritual victory, and this would require the angel’s further attention. The mention of both Persia and Greece also directs our attention to the second and third major empires that are involved in the prophecies of Daniel 11:1–35. From this we can learn that, behind the many details of prophecy relating to the history of this period, there was an unseen struggle between angelic forces that the will of God might be accomplished.
An unusual phrase is found in verse 21, “the book of truth.” This term is literally “the writing of truth” (ketāb ‘emĕt), a reference to God’s record of truth in general, of which the Bible is one expression. The facts to be revealed are already in God’s record and are now to become part of the Holy Scriptures. The plan of God is obviously greater than that which is revealed in the Bible itself.
Verse 21 is introduced by “But” (‘ăbāl), a strong adversative particle that serves to introduce the antidote to the fears surrounding the warfare cited in verse 20. The angelic conflict, great though it is, is subject to “the book of truth.” Zöckler describes the book as “a Divine document upon which ‘the yet unrevealed (Deut. 32:34) fortunes of nations (Rev. 5:1) as well as of individuals (Psa. 139:60) in the future are entered’ (Hitzig). Cf. the books of judgment in chap. 7:10 and also the term [‘emĕt] in chap. 11:2, which briefly comprehends the contents of the book of truth.”38
Concerning the “book of truth,” Jeffery notes, “in the Talmud (Rosh-ha-Shana 16b) we read how on New Year’s Day the books were opened and fates recorded. These tablets in the book are frequently mentioned in Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the Prayer of Joseph preserved in Origen, Philocalia 23, 15 we read, ‘For I have read in the tablets of heaven all that shall befall you and your sons.’”39 The sovereignty of God reflected in His plan revealed in the Scriptures was Daniel’s assurance in this hour of uncertainty and need.
In regard to the coming revelation and the spiritual struggle it records, the angelic messenger was given unusual responsibility that is exceeded only by Michael. Daniel in this way was reminded of the special angelic ministry that God had provided him all through life, and especially in this present period of detailed divine revelation. The entire experience of Daniel in this chapter is on the one hand a reminder of human weakness and insufficiency, and on the other, of divine enablement that strengthened Daniel for his task of recording this great revelation. The fact that an entire chapter is devoted to this preparation makes clear that the revelation to follow is important in the consummation of God’s purposes in the world.
1 For discussion from the liberal point of view, see J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 137–39; 404–5.
2 Ibid., 405.
3 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 442.
4 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 223. Young cites in support several articles by Robert Dick Wilson, such as “The Title ‘king of Persia’ in the Scriptures,” Princeton Theological Review, 15:90–145, and “Royal Titles in Antiquity: An Essay in Criticism,” Princeton Theological Review, 2:257–82; 465–97; 618–64; 3:55–80; 238–67; 422–40; 558–72. In the first of these articles Wilson does a masterful job of demonstrating the fallacy of those arguing against the historicity of the title. He concludes by noting, “The term ‘X king of Persia’ alone is used of the Persian kings in documents purporting to be from the times preceding Alexander. (1) Outside the Scriptures, of Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, Xerxes, and Darius II; (2) inside the Scriptures, of Cyrus, Darius I, Artaxerxes I, and Darius II” (117–18).
5 Cf. Young, Daniel, 223; Leupold, Daniel, 443.
6 Montgomery, Daniel, 404.
7 Leupold, Daniel, 443.
8 Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 266.
9 Leupold, Daniel, 446.
10 Ibid.
11 Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 279.
12 Young, Daniel, 223.
13 See Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 1:7; and Joshua 1:4 for this designation of the Euphrates.
14 Montgomery, Daniel, 407.
15 C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 409; Leupold, Daniel, 447; Young, Daniel, 224. Contrast Montgomery, Daniel, 407.
16 Leupold, Daniel, 447–48.
17 Young, Daniel, 225.
18 Keil, Daniel, 409; Young, Daniel, 225.
19 Wood, Daniel, 267–68; and Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 123.
20 Montgomery, Daniel, 408.
21 Archer describes it as gold “in the form of chain-links, hinged panels, or gold thread embroidery” (Archer, “Daniel,” 123).
22 Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 154.
23 Ibid.; Leupold, Daniel, 449.
24 Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 152.
25 Driver, Daniel, 155.
26 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 451.
27 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:252.
28 Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, John Peter Lange, ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 228.
29 Keil, Daniel, 419.
30 Leupold, Daniel, 457–58.
31 Young, Daniel, 227.
32 Calvin, Daniel, 2:257.
33 Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 116.
34 Leupold, Daniel, 463.
35 Ibid., 464.
36 Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 416–18.
37 “Three comments about the messenger’s purpose in coming and his intention with regard to the message … are interwoven with two sayings about his conflicts … In an a–b–a–b–a arrangement…. The effect is to tie the delivering of the earthly message and the reality of the heavenly conflicts closely together, and to underline in yet another way the importance of the message, if its delivery was worth the turning of the messenger’s attention away from such crucial conflicts” (John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. [Dallas: Word, 1989], 292).
38 Zöckler, “Daniel,” 231.
39 A. Arthur Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 510.