Daniel 10
THE ANGELS OF THE NATIONS (vs. 1-21)
The three chapters (10, 11., and
12.) form a section apart from the rest of
Daniel. One marked peculiarity is the long and very old
interpolation which
occupies nearly the whole of ch. 11. Not improbably something has
dropped out, and. not a few things have been modified in
consequence of
this interpolation.
1 “In the third year
of Cyrus King of
revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar;
and the
thing was true, but the time appointed was long; and he
understood
the thing, and had understanding of the vision.” The
Septuagint
rendering is, “In the first year of Cyrus King of the
Persians.” This is at
variance with all other versions. As, however, these other
versions are
derived from the Palestinian recension, they unitedly do
not much more
than counterbalance the Septuagint, “A decree (πρόσταγμα - prostagma) was
revealed to Daniel who was called Beltasar, and the vision
is true and the decree.”
This is a case of doublet. Evidently some Egyptian
manuscripts read חָזון;
(hazon) instead of חַדָּבָר (haddabar), and this, or the rendering of it, has
slipped into the text from the margin. “And a strong
multitude understood
the decree.” The translator here has had יבין,
not ובין, before him.
has the same reading; here צָבָא; (tzaba)
is taken in its usual sense of
“host,” “And I understood it in vision.” Here the
Septuagint has לִי instead of לו
From the fact that the first person appears in the next
verse, there is at
least a probability in favor of this reading. Theodotion
is, as usual, closer
to the Massoretic. צָבָא ; is
rendered δύναμις – dunamis -
warfare. The text before him
has had ˆ
הוּבין,
the hophal, instead of ובין, which is possibly the kal. The Peshitta
seems to have used a text practically identical with that
of the Massoretes;
tile same is true of the Vulgate. The Peshitta renders צָבָא; by heel,
and the
Vulgate by fortitudo. In the third year of Cyrus. The various reading of
the
Septuagint is of value. It is not to be dismissed as due to
a desire to
harmonize this date with that in ch. 1:21, for the numeral “third”
might easily be an accidental mistake present in some few
Palestinian
manuscripts due to the beginning of the eighth chapter. The
first chapter,
as we have seen, has many traces that it is at once an
epitome and a
compilation. It is evident that the writer in the first
chapter would have the
rest of the book before him, and would mean to harmonize
his statements
with that of the chapter before us. It seems difficult to
imagine that the
compiler of the first chapter could have this statement
before him, and yet
write as he did. We should therefore be inclined to leave
the question
doubtful. Even if it should be admitted that the Massoretic
date is correct,
as we have already seen, the difficulties created are by no
means
insuperable. Hitzig has made it a difficulty that Daniel
did not avail himself
of the permission to return to his own country, granted by
Cyrus. Professor
Bevan says, “For those who believe Daniel to be an
ideal figure, no
explanation is necessary.” In that assertion he is
mistaken. If Daniel were
presented as an ideal Jew, why does he not conform to the
ideal of
Judaism? The statement that Daniel was a man of nearly ninety
years of age
at the date of Cyrus’s proclamation is a
sufficient answer to this difficulty.
Hitzig thinks he rebuts this answer of Havernick’s by
referring to the old
men (Ezra 3:12) who remembered the former temple; but these
might
have been children of ten or twelve when they were carried
away captive
eighteen years after Daniel, and thus might not be more
than sixty when
Cyrus’s decree came. Further, we know that only a very
limited number of
Jews returned, and that so many of the best of the Jews
remained that it
was declared that the
chaff came to
wheat remained in
was called
Belteshazzar. “Thing” is the general term dabar, which means
sometimes “decree,” sometimes “word,” or sometimes, as
rendered by the
Authorized, “ thing.”
This is to be taken as the title of the rest of the remaining
sections. The recurrence of the Babylonian name
“Belteshazzar” may be due to the
recency of the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. And the thing was true,
but the time
appointed was long. An editor might have added this clause, a man
might well be certain of the truth of a thing he had got
from God; he might wish to
impress this upon his hearers. The last clause here is
certainly mistranslated
in the Authorized. The time appointed was long. צָבָא (tzaba) never means
“appointed time,” although it is twice translated so in
Job, as here; but in
all these cases with greater accuracy render “warfare.” With
this sense is to
be compared the use we find in Numbers 15:23-41, where the
Levites’
service in the sanctuary is called צָבָא (tzaba).
If we are to keep to the
Massoretic reading, then the rendering of the Revised is
really the only one
to be thought of.
Some regard this word as meaning “difficulty,” “oppression.”
Something may, however, be said for the Septuagint
rendering, all the more that
it was adopted by
great hosts, צָבָא
גָדול, with
the next, which they understand read as third
person singular imperfect kal, or omit the conjunction, “And a great
multitude understood the decree.” “The host” in
this interpretation would
here naturally mean “the
host of heaven.” We find that
throughout this
chapter, and in the twelfth, we have to do with the angels,
so it is natural
that in this title and summary of what is to follow the
fact that the great
host of heaven understood this mystery should be stated. And he understood
the thing,
and had understanding of the vision. This
is a fairly correct rendering
of the Hebrew.
Von Lengerke would make the verbs imperative, which certainly
they might be, so far as form goes, but the intrusion of imperatives
here
into the title of a section seems violent. The main
difficulty, moreover, is
not touched. As they stand, these two clauses assert the
same thing, and if
with Von Lengerke we make them both imperatives, we
have the difficulty
still present with us. It may be a case of “doublet.”
This is an hypothesis we
scarcely would adopt except in necessity, since the
Septuagint has both
clauses. Theodotion, however, has only one of them. We feel
ourselves
inclined to follow the reading of the Septuagint. The angels understood the
matter, and he — Daniel — understood it also by the vision.
2 “In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.” The
versions are close to the Massoretic, only the Septuagint,
and, following it,
the Vetus, as quoted by Tertullian, omit “days,” in the
literal rendering of
the Hebrew phrase, “weeks of days”. Mourning. Zockler and Fuller think
this mourning due to the difficulties the released captives
had in carrying
out their desire of rebuilding the temple. It may have been
that he was
grieved that so few of the people were willing to avail
themselves of the
privilege. We are here assuming that the chronology of this
passage
reckons from the overthrow of Nabunahid, that is, from
Cyrus’s accession
to the throne of
reckoned from his assumption of the title King of Persia, San
Parsua, in
which case it may be the same year with that vision
narrated in the previous
chapter. Three
full weeks; literally, three weeks of days — to mark off the
duration of Daniel’s fast from the weeks of years referred
to in the ninth
chapter. Keil objects to this interpretation, but assigns
no reason. At the
same time, it is to be observed that “year of days” means a
full year, but a
week is such a short period that the necessity of saying
that it was
complete by defining it a “week of days” is not so obvious,
and is
unexampled.
3 “I ate no pleasant
bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my
mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole
weeks were
fulfilled.” The versions are in perfect agreement with the Massoretic
text.
Pleasant bread; “bread of desires”
is the rendering of the Septuagint and of
Theodotion; the word is the same in Hebrew and Greek as
that applied to
Daniel. Neither
came flesh nor wine in my mouth. This shows that the
practice adopted by Daniel and his fellows during their
training was not
regarded by Daniel, at least as incumbent on him after he
could regulate his
own affairs. His ordinary habit was to eat flesh and to
drink wine; but
during these weeks of fast, he denied himself these
dainties. Neither did I
anoint myself
at all, till three whole weeks were
fulfilled. The pleasure of
anointing the body with oil was highly esteemed among the
ancients. It is
impossible to fail to recognize, in this passage, the
origin of the Essenian
discipline. The Essenes abstained, from flesh, from wine,
and from
anointing themselves. Daniel thus abstained, as a sign of sorrow for the sin
of his people; they
made this fast a perpetual discipline. They waited for the
salvation of
the Lord.
Fasting (vs. 2-3)
The exercise of fasting seems to grow out of natural
spiritual instincts, as it
is found in nearly all religions, and is not forbidden but
recognized and
regulated in the teaching of Christ and His apostles (Luke
5:35;
Acts 13:2-3; 14:23). It is, however, an exercise which is
surrounded
with erroneous ideas, and which needs to be cleared of them
before it can
be admitted as healthy and profitable. Let us notice;
Ø
Ostentatious
fasting. Such was the vulgar fasting of the Pharisees
Ostentation in regard to an
expression of deep spiritual feelings tends
to destroy those very feelings.
The study of “effect” and anxiety about
the good opinion of men directly
counteracts the influence of those
emotions of spiritual grief and shame before God which fasting is
supposed to express. Thus
ostentatious lasting becomes hypocritical
(Matthew 6:16).
Ø
Formal fasting.
Fasting which implies no real self-denial,
though
certain rules of abstinence
are observed, is a mockery, and, if it is
relied
on for religious efficacy, a superstitious rite. It is then only
a bodily
exercise, and can have no
spiritual force (I Timothy 4:8).
Ø Meritorious
fasting.
o
If we are to depend on
God’s mercy, it is foolish to think
that we can win this by any
meritorious actions.
o
Even if we could merit
anything from God, it would be by
useful service, not by
merely putting ourselves to inconvenience.
There is no merit in
self-denial for its own sake. We cannot
please God by simply
displeasing ourselves. Any idea of the
kind is a relic of the
terror-worship of cruel deities.
o
Holiness in fasting. There is a foolish
conceit with some people
that fasting is more holy
than natural living. But Christ teaches
us that nature is holy and
that joy is holy. Holiness does not
imply abstinence, but purity and temperance.
Ø
Involuntary fasting. Strong emotion
destroys natural bodily appetite.
Sorrow, especially, has this
purely physical effect. Thus fasting is
often a natural result of
certain religious emotions. There is a sense of
harmony which makes lawful
worldly pleasures distasteful at a season
of spiritual darkness. At such
times fasting is exercised by instinct.
Daniel was in sorrow; therefore
he fasted.
Ø
Fasting to assist repentance. This is not
undertaken to win merit with
God, but simply for its effect
on our own souls. The feeling of repentance
is often too ephemeral. It is
soon counteracted by the influx of other
influences from the world
without. Yet there are times when a man
becomes convinced of some great
sin. He may then find his compunction
deepened and his repentance
strengthened if for a season he abstains
from lawful bodily comforts.
Ø
Fasting to assist spiritual thought. This cannot be
enforced as a duty
nor recommended for universal
practice. But experience teaches that there
are persons whose spiritual
perceptions are quickened while their bodily
nature is restrained. For all of
us the full indulgence of appetite — even
when this does not lead to what
is called excess — deadens the
spiritual
energies.
Ø
Mental fasting.
It is sometimes well to abstain from
active thinking,
from the assertion of our own
inclinations and reasonings, and to become
passive
recipients of truth, as it is borne in
to the mind by the influences
of nature and the active communings of the Divine Spirit (Zechariah
2:13).
4 “And in the four and
twentieth day of the first month, as I
was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel.” The Septuagint
differs
from this only in rendering Hiddekel by its Greek name “
Theodotion subjoins to
on the margin of our Bibles different renderings from those
in the text. The
Peshitta makes the river the
Septuagint. There seems no reasonable doubt that Behrmann
is right in
regarding the Phrat of the Syriac as a gloss. It
certainly was a natural
suggestion, that, as
found walking there at the termination of his fast, than
forty or fifty miles
off. The four and
twentieth day of the first month; that is, the month Nisan
or Abib — the month in which the Passover was celebrated in
every Jewish
home. It would seem that Daniel did not join in this
festival at this time. It
is noted that, from the days of Saul, the two first days of
every month were
devoted to a feast, and hence, that Daniel’s fast could
only begin on the
third day. Since he must have refrained from partaking of
the Paschal lamb,
we cannot deduce that he might not occupy the opening days
of the month
with sadness rather than feasting. If Daniel is an ideal
figure, intended to
represent the model Jew resident in a foreign land, why is
he thus
represented as not partaking of the Paschal feast? It is
true that, with the
temple in ruins, the Paschal lamb could not be slain in the
way enjoined in
the Law; but the modern Jew keeps the Passover without the
lamb. I was
by the side of
the great river, which is Hiddekel. The name is a
transference of the Assyrian name Iddiklat. It would
seem that Daniel was
then on the banks of the
there is no reference, as in ch. 8:2, to his being there in
vision; the
mention of attendants also renders it unlikely that it was
only in vision that
Daniel was on the banks of the
probably governmental, as he had attendants with him.
5 “Then I lifted up mine
eyes, and looked, and behold a
certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine
gold of
Uphas: 6 His body also was like
the beryl, and his face as the
appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and
his arms
and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice
of his words
like the voice of a multitude.” The version given by the Septuagint exhibits
traces of confluence, “And it was [apparently reading וַיִּהִי (vayyehee)] on
the four and twentieth day of the first month, I was upon
the bank of the
great river
clothed in (βύσσινα
–
bussina - fine linen), and girt about the loins with
(βυσσίνῳ - bussino - fine linen), and from his middle there was light, and his
month was as the sea, and his face as the appearance of
lightning, and his eyes as
lamps of fire, his arms and feet as gleaming brass, and the
(φωνὴ -phonae –
voice)of his speech as the voice of a multitude.” It would seem
that the translator
had בַּדִּים twice;
that might be due to blunder, or may be a case of doublet —
a phenomenon so frequent. The difficult word Uphaz,
which only occurs
elsewhere in Jeremiah 10:9, is omitted; “from his middle
there was
light” is probably an effort to render this clause, which
the translator seems
to have read mithoq ‘or. Possibly the mysterious
clause, “and his mouth
was like the sea,” may be another attempt to render these
unaccustomed
words. Theodotion merely transliterates בדים into βαδδιν – baddin – linen;
a word for the material of which the
garments of the high priest were made, and
בדים into θαρσις – tharsis -
beryl, and regards Uphaz as a garment,
which,
in
the case before us, was (χρυσίῳ - chrusio golden). In the Syriac of
the Peshitta,
the translator escapes the difficulty of baddeem by
rendering it “glory.” The next
clause
is also paraphrastic, “the girdle of his loins
(back) was of splendid
magnificence:” this last is his rendering of Uphaz. The
next verse does not
call for remark. Jerome, in the Vulgate, renders tarsheesh
as chrysolithus
— an interpretation very generally followed now. In the
Massoretic text,
the use of the numeral “one,” almost as our indefinite
article, has to be
noted. Baddeem is the plural of a word used mainly
for the material of
which the garments of the priests were made; it occurs also
in the vision of
Ezekiel. The singularity is that in Ezekiel, as in Daniel,
the word is always
plural whereas in the rest of Scripture it is always
singular. Uphaz occurs,
as above mentioned, only in Jeremiah 10:9; it is by some
supposed to
be a variation on Ophir. As here, it is connected in
Jeremiah with Tarshish.
Fiirst suggests paz, “fine
gold” (Job 28:17), and אוּ - אִי. “coast or
island,” thus making it equivalent to “Gold Coast.” Kethem,
“fine gold,” is
associated in Isaiah 13:12 with “Ophir,” as here with”
Uphaz;” this
might hint at the identity of the two places. That,
however, is an uncertain
basis. The fact that Tarshish and Uphaz are brought
together, would
indicate that, like Tarshish, it was in
‘Bibellexikon,’ decides for Hy-phasis,
ground of the sound of the name. Bochart would place it in
Ceylon,
because Ptolemy mentions a harbor and river of the name of
Phasis.
Tarshish is the Tartessus of the Greeks and the modern
Tharsis; here the
chrysolite or topaz, as brought from thence. Margelothayo,
“his feet,” is
the most common rendering; but von Lengerke would render,
“the place
where his feet rested” — a rendering which, while it suits
the form of the
word, does not suit the context. It occurs four times in
Ruth in one
connection, and not elsewhere, save here. “Like
in color to polished
brass” is a phrase
which occurs in Ezekiel 1:7. Professor Bevan says,
“What meaning the author attached to קָלָל (qalal),’ ‘polished,’ it is
impossible to say.” All the versions render” gleaming,” in
both passages;
there seems no need to suggest a corruption of the text. The
vision here
has a great resemblance, though with many pointsof
contrast, to
Ezekiel 1:4-25; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1-22. Many passages in the
Apocalypse
show traces of its influence: thus Revelation 1:14-15, the
appearance
of our Lord; also Revelation 10:1-3. The vision in Ezekiel
1. is a
theophany; this, however, is not the appearance of a direct
symbol of God,
but the appearance of one of His angels. The whole aspect
is one of terror
and splendor. It has been noted that the yellow gleam of
the topaz suits
well the tint of the Oriental complexion. When we compare
this with
Ezekiel’s vision, we find a reticence in Ezekiel’s
description; he does not
affirm (Ezekiel 1:27) that it is a man he sees, but only
one in human
likeness. Whereas Daniel distinctly says that it was a man.
In the case of
Ezekiel, it was a theophany which he saw; it was an
angelophany which
appeared to Daniel. “The voice of a multitude” refers to
the sound of the
shout of a multitude; the effect it produces is not merely
the volume of
sound, but the difference of tones and the difference of
moment of
utterance give a sense of vastness
and multitudinousness, always
impressive, and indeed awe-inspiring.
7 “And I Daniel alone saw
the vision; for the men that were
with me saw not the vision.; but a great quaking fell upon
them, so
that they fled to hide themselves.” The
Septuagint in the main agrees with
this, but seems to have read lemahar, “in haste,”
instead of behayhabay.
Theodotion renders the last word, φόβῳ - phobo – flight; fear; fright -implying
that he read behaga’. The reading of the Massoretic is
superior, as being less
expected. The Peshitta renders in accordance with
Theodotion. Jerome agrees
very exactly with the Massoretic text. And I Daniel alone saw the vision
(compare Acts 9:7; 22:9). The Apostle Paul was
solitary in hearing intelligible
words and seeing Christ; his attendants saw the bright
light and heard a
voice, but neither saw the speaker nor were able to
distinguish the purport
of the words. For
the men that were with me saw not the vision. Who
those were that were with Daniel we cannot tell; probably
they were the
ordinary attendants of an officer of rank in the court of
the great king.
But a great
quaking fell upon them, so that they
fled to hide themselves
(compare Exodus 20:18; Genesis 3:8 [compare Revelation 6:14-17 at
the end of the world! – CY – 2014). Another parallel is Job
4:12-16.
Eliphaz there describes a spirit passing before him, although invisible; yet
in the horror of contact with the spiritual, all his bones shook and the hair
of his flesh stood up. There is a difference to be noted here between the
conduct of the attendants of Daniel and those of the Apostle Paul. As we
read here, the attendants of Daniel flee to hide themselves, those of the
apostle are first struck to the earth and then stand stupefied.
8 “Therefore I was left
alone, and saw this great vision, and
there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was
turned in
me into corruption, and I retained no strength.” The versions do not call
for much remark. The Septuagint renders “glory” by “spirit”
or “breath;” and
the Peshitta renders it by “body.” The Massoretic is
superior, as more
difficult and more likely to be the source of the other two
than either of
them. Theodotion’s rendering, δόξα – doxa – wholesomeness
- confirms this.
Daniel explains how he alone had seen the vision, and
narrates the effects
contact with the spiritual had on him, “There remained no strength in me;…
And I retained no strength” — a redoubled statement of weakness
probably due merely to the great impression this sudden
powerlessness
made on him. For my comeliness was turned in me into
corruption. From
the natural brightness of the skin in life the face assumed
the yellow pallor
of death (compare ch. 7:28). “And my countenance was changed in
me;” compare also Habakkuk 3:16, “When I heard, my belly trembled; my
lips quivered at
the voice: rottenness entered into my bones.” While the
ideas here are the same, the parallelism is made more
striking by the
difference of the terms.
9 “Yet heard I the voice of
his words: and when I heard the
voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face,
and my face
toward the ground.” The Septuagint rendering here is briefer than the
Massoretic, “And I heard the sound of his speech (λαλιᾶς - lalias - talking), and
I was fallen upon my face upon the earth.” The Septuagint
translator seems
to
have read נְפַלְתִּי (nephalti) instead of נִרְדַם (nir’dam). Theodotion is
somewhat nearer the Massoretic text, but renders nirdam by
“stupefied.”
The Pesifitta is an accurate rendering of the text behind
the Septuagint.
Jerome agrees with Theodotion, rendering nirdam by consternatus;
he
strengthens the phrase, “my face toward the ground,” by
inserting
haerebat. It would
seem that nirdam is of doubtful authenticity. It may be
said this was omitted because of the difficulty of
imagining the prophet
seeing while in a deep sleep. But a state of sleep does not
preclude the
possibility of seeing a vision. In the parallel passage
(ch. 8:18) the
Septuagint has no difficulty in translating, נִרְדַמְתִּי, ἐκοιμήθην -
- ekoimaethaen –
deep sleep. By assuming the reading of the Septuagint and
the Peshitta to be correct, we make the process of events
more natural; according
to
the Massoretic reading, though we have an account of his sense of weakness,
we
have no record that he fell to the ground, and yet we are told that he
was
“in a deep sleep, with his face toward the ground” The
resemblance is very
great to Job 4:12-13, “A
thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received
a little thereof
in thoughts from the vision of the night, when sleep falleth on men
(תַּרְדֵמָה, tardaymah).” If there has been imitation, the originality and
beauty of the passage in Job render it certain that it is
the original. It seems
more likely to be a change introduced to bring the
revelation to Daniel in
line with other prophetic revelations. The attitude Daniel
assumed was one
which implied the deepest abasement — the envoy of the
great king kisses
the ground at the feet of the envoy of the King of kings.
Even the
revelation given while sleep had fallen on the subject of
the revelation,
seems paralleled with what took place at the
Transfiguration (Luke
9:32, “And Peter and those that were with him were
heavy with sleep,” yet
it was when they were awaked that
they saw the glory). So with
taken out of the side of Adam; he then was asleep — a deep
sleep had fallen
on
him, תַּרְדֵמָה (tardaymah).” (For further illustrations,
see Ezekiel
1:28; 3:23; Zechariah 4:1; Revelation 1:17.)
10 “And, behold, an hand
touched me, which set me upon my
knees and upon the palms of my hands.” The Septuagint agrees with this, but
does not bring out any more than this the pregnant sense of
the Hebrew.
This is given in the margin of the Revised, “Set me
tottering on my knees,”
etc. Strangely enough, the Septuagint renders, “soles of my
feet “ — an
impossible attitude; that this is the true reading of the
Septuagint, is confirmed
by Paulus Telleusis. Theodotion omits “the palms of the
hands.” The
Peshitta renders as the Septuagint. The Vulgate renders כַּפות by articulos,
“joints.” An hand
touched me. The hand of him that appeared to him —
though Daniel does not say. It is needless to multiply
angelic agencies. A
discussion has been raised on the question whether this is
Gabriel who
appeared to Daniel in the eighth chapter, or Michael, or the angel of the
presence. It is
not a matter of importance, but Michael is excluded by
v. 13, and also, to our thinking, “the angel of the presence,” if by that title the
Second Person of the Trinity is indicated. Which set me upon my knees and
upon the palms
of my hands. Although the touch communicated to Daniel
some strength, yet he was unable to raise himself so as to
look up — his
face was still to the ground, his attitude was still one
of abasement, and he
was trembling.
Man’s Foolish Terror in the Presence
of a Heavenly Visitor
(vs. 1-10)
In accepting the testimony of others, with respect to
matters beyond the
reach of our own senses and experience, we must be satisfied on
three
points.
(1) Is the
subject-matter of the testimony opposed to reason?
(2) Was the witness
himself deceived?
(3) Is the witness
truthful?
Now, on all these points the record of Daniel is thoroughly
reliable.
The matter of this vision is most reasonable in itself. We
have an
accumulation of proof that Daniel was not deceived. It was not a
subjective
hallucination, but an objective reality. As evidence of Daniel’s
thorough
truthfulness, he places on record the minutest circumstances of time
and
place. If there had been any inaccuracy here it would have been
detected in
the
age while Daniel’s contemporaries were yet alive. In many parts of the
narrative we have the confirmations of secular historians; and best
evidence
of
all have we that this was a real visit of an angel, viz. that his
predictions
of events have been
verified in history.
·
THERE WAS PERSONAL PREPARATION TO RECEIVE THIS
HEAVENLY VISION. The
habit which Daniel formed in youth was of
inestimable service to him in old age. Incidentally we may observe how
self-consistent are the several parts of this prophetical book. The flesh has
always been, more or less, hostile to the spirit. Daniel had wisely repressed
and held in control his bodily appetites in the days of his
youth; and by
reason of this the finer feelings and loftier faculties of his
soul had been
gradually developed. The practice of abstinence and self-denial had
become
easy. Yet he did not abstain from food because the act
possessed in itself
any meritorious excellence. He abstained because his soul was
so absorbed
in nobler occupation that appetite had lost its edge and food
its charm. We
are not told the particular reason of this long mourning, yet we can easily
infer that his grief was excited by the
depressed condition of his people
rejoiced in
eye of the soul for the perception of heavenly things.
·
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE VISION. It was the vision of a celestial
being, in the form and raiment of a man. To what extent this
august person,
as he appeared to Daniel, appeared in his native essence, or
accommodated
himself to human eyes, no living man can say. Whether the unfallen
angels
have any definite form apprehensible to human eyes, is a question more
curious than important. But certain it is that in many vital respects men
resemble angels.
Ø
They have
understanding of God’s works.
Ø
They can appreciate
truth.
Ø
Both angels and
regenerate men love righteousness and
hate wickedness.
Ø
Both are gifted with
benevolence.
Ø
Both have conscience, affection,
choice, will.
Here are ample grounds for
intercourse and friendship — a joint occupation
of heaven. In this resplendent vision we may see what
ransomed man shall be.
Precious stones, fire, electric flame, burnished brass, —
these are the
emblems of our
transfigured nature. Earthly dullness and deformity
shall give place to the refinements
of celestial splendour. What we call,
in our ignorance, supernatural, is but Nature in her
higher forms and essences.
Whether communication of thought among
the angels is by means of outward
signs — something akin to words — we cannot tell. On this occasion there
was not only the form of a glorious man, there was also the language of a
man and the sympathy of a
man. To
accommodate themselves to the
necessities of men is a delight to angelic natures AS IT IS TO GOD!
·
THE STRANGE EFFECTS OF THIS VISION UPON MEN. One
might have supposed that this visit of a heavenly stranger would
be to
Daniel, if not
to his attendants, an occasion of unmixed delight. It was,
without doubt, a special mark of God’s favor. When we wish to show
a
distinguishing mark of respect to a friend we send our messages, not by a
menial servant, but by a person of distinction. And that God should have
sent a special despatch to Daniel — not a mere voice, not a
human
messenger, not an ordinary angel — but
Gabriel himself, this ought to have
been welcomed as a high mark of Divine kindness. To be assured
that God
has other orders of servants beside ourselves, this is
a pleasure. To be
assured that these nobler and more loyal natures regard us,
not as
dangerous rivals of their privileges, but as fellow-heirs of their home, this
ought to be rich delight. On what ground, then, does this pious
man shrink
from contact with this glorious servant of Jehovah? We can
conceive of no
other ground than this, viz. THE SENSE OF PERSONAL SIN!
Notwithstanding Daniel’s
penitence for sin, and his faith in God’s mercy,
there yet remained the consciousness of great unworthiness.
Hence a
messenger from God may be an instrument to visit just recompense.
Still, we
must note that the effect on Daniel was very different from the
effect on his
companions. At the sound of the angel’s overpowering voice the
attendants
on this aged statesman fled. Regardful chiefly of their own
safety, they fled
to hide themselves. Like the Graveling companions of
voice but saw no person. There is such a thing, even in our
present life, as a
refinement of the bodily senses — a development and quickening of the
sensitive capacity — to discern immaterial things. On the eve of the
Saviour’s crucifixion the Father’s
voice pierced the blue sky.
Bystanders, with dull and stolid
souls, said that it thundered. Others,
having a finer perception of things, caught an articulate sound,
and averred
that an angel spake. Yet One at least detected the very words,
and
recognized them as the response of the eternal God. Daniel’s senses
were
overpowered by the splendor of this distinguished visitor. Strength
failed
him. He was prostrate with awe, yet his mind was awake and
active, so
that he heard the words which this glorious spirit spake.
·
THE PROOFS THAT THIS VISION HAD AN OBJECTIVE
REALITY. The
votaries of science make a demand for facts. Theologians
respond to the demand, and supply them with facts in abundance —
facts
which cannot be gainsaid. Here was the fact that Daniel’s
companions
heard a voice so novel and so startling that they ran to hide
themselves —
a type this of what guilty men do in every age of the
world. Here was the
fact of which Daniel’s eye
was witness, the fact to which Daniel’s ear
testified, the fact to which Daniel’s sense of touch responded.
Here is an
accumulation of evidence — one faculty corroborated the testimony of
another faculty. Here were facts attested by the organs of
his body, and
confirmed by all the powers of his mind. Here were facts which
entered
into the inmost experiences of the man — clear answers to prayer, which
satisfied his wish, and expanded his knowledge, and invigorated his
hope.
Here were facts predicted which, in due time, were
verified in the actual
history of the nations. If anything in history or in science is credible, this is
certain — that Daniel’s vision was no subjective illusion, no
hallucination
of the brain, but an objective reality. He obtained
positive information,
which has served ever since for the instruction
of mankind. He received
from his distinguished visitor strength — a positive
communication of
blessing. Here are solid facts, which refuse to evaporate before
the breath
of honest inquiry.
11 “And he said unto me, O
Daniel, a man greatly beloved,
understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand
upright: for
unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me,
I stood trembling.” The versions do not afford cause for remark. O Daniel,
a man greatly
beloved. This is the same term as that applied to Daniel
(ch. 9:23), “man of
desires” (which see). Understand
the words that
I speak unto
thee;
“have understanding in the words,” or better, “matters,
which I am speaking or telling to thee.” As the language
used was one
intelligible to Daniel, it was needless to command him to
understand the
words, but the “matters” communicated by the words might require a
special effort of attention to comprehend. Debareem means “matters” as
well as “words.” And
stand upright; “‘stand upon thy standing.” Gesenius
would render this word when it occurs before (ch. 8:18), “place;”
but both here and there the contrast is in the attitude.
From being
absolutely prone, as in the eighth chapter, or on hands and
knees as here,
he is to be upright, and, taking his previous
attitude into account, this is
not merely to stand where he is, and neither approach nor
depart. The
Septuagint renders, τόπου
- topou – place; spot ; Theodotion, stasei - στάσει –
stand upright - ;the
Vulgate has gradu. For unto thee am I
now sent. This assigns
a reason for the command to stand upon his feet. In
the Assyrian marbles, however
lowly the obeisance made to the monarch by any one
admitted to his presence, he
stands when he receives the monarch’s commands. Standing implies attention.
And when he
had spoken this word unto me, I stood
trembling. He obeyed the
command, but still trembling took hold of him in the
angelic presence.
12 “Then said he unto me,
Fear not, Daniel; for from the first
day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to
chasten
thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come
for thy
words.” Both the Septuagint and Theodotion insert κυρίου
- kuriou – Lord
before θεοῦ - theou – God. This is the more remarkable as κυρίος
– kurios – Lord - stands for “Jehovah” usually in the Greek versions — a title
rarely occurring
in Daniel in, and only in, the prayer of the preceding chapter.
This addition does not occur in the Peshitta or Vulgate. He said unto me,
Fear not, Daniel. Still the signs of terror were manifest in Daniel, and the
angel
spoke encouragingly to him. For from the first day, etc. When Daniel had begun
his petition to God and his effort to understand God’s
purpose concerning His
people, then God had commissioned Gabriel. The whole
process of humiliation,
fasting, and prayer was allowed to go on to its completion
before Gabriel came, in
order to deepen in Daniel the desire for the hoped-for
revelation, and thus
enhance the joy of it when it came, and, perchance, also to
justify to higher
intelligences the giving of this special communication
(compare ch. 9:20)
as to the answer being ready even while the petition was
being put
up. And I am come
for thy words. This an additional tenderness that
the Divine counsel Gabriel was commissioned to give, but
was hindered
for reasons assigned in the next verse.
13 “But the prince of the
and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief
princes, came to
help me; and I remained there with the kings of
of the Septuagint. is, “And the (στρατηγὸς – strataegos -
general) of the King
of the Persians
withstood me one and twenty days, and behold Michael, one of
the first princes, came to help me, and I left him there
with the general of the King
of the Persians.” The sense of Theedotion is nearly the
same as the Septuagint ,
only he has βασιλείας – basileias – kingdom - instead of βασιλέως – basileos –
kingdom. Like the Septuagint, Theodotion
declares that Michael was left with
the Prince of
the Septuagint and Theodotion, it is with the “Prince” of
one remaining. The Peshitta here, in opposition to the
Greek versions, has the
statement that Gabriel remained, not Michael. The Vulgate
agrees still
further with the Massoretic, only instead of the plural
“kings,” it has
“king.” The most important differences are in the last
clause, where the
Septuagint and Theodotion must have had the hiphil of יָתִר where
the
Massoretic has the niphal. This interpretation affords a reason for Gabriel’s
presence with Daniel. Michael relieved him in his opposition to the
Prince
of
all the versions. But
the prince of the
and twenty
days. That is to say, during the whole of Daniel’s fast. The
angelology of later Judaism is a very complicated, not to
say confused,
subject. The angelology of one age is not that of another;
and the
angelology of the Jews in one country is not that of the
Jews in another.
The Jews themselves understood that the Babylonian
captivity did a great
deal to develop the doctrine of the angels; the Jewish
tradition was that
they brought back from
their residence in
angels, they began to have clearer ideas of their
functions. They reached
the idea that every race had its guardian angel. This view
is expressed in
Deuteronomy 32:8, according to the Septuagint, “He set bounds for
the nations
according to the number of the angels of God.” To a similar
purport is Ecclesiasticus. 17:17, “To each of the nations
he appointed a leader,
and
for this in Isaiah 24:21 (compare also Psalm 29:1). As
independent
of revelation there is a strong inherent probability that
there are races
of beings of intelligence and might vastly superior to man,
there is
nothing inherently improbable in these intelligences being
employed by the
Almighty in furthering His providential scheme. Men are instruments of
God; is it not at least not improbable that, if there are
angels, they, too,
cooperate with God in the working out of His great purpose?
That every
nation should have an angelic prince over it is not more
extraordinary than
that every Church should have a special angel over it
(Revelation 1:20).
That there should be conflicts between these angelic
princes is
simply to say they are finite. By the indications here, we might judge that
the opposition of the Prince of Persia was to the coming of
Gabriel to reveal
to Daniel the purpose of God. We know nothing of the means
employed in
the opposition, or of the reason of it. But,
lo, Michael, one
of the chief
princes, came to help me. Michael (“Who is like God?”) is, in
the twenty-first verse, declared to be the “prince”
of the Jewish people,
therefore equivalent to “the captain of the host of the
Lord” (Joshua
5:14 – I have always thought the captain of the Lord’s host
there was
Christ! – CY - 2014). He is referred to in Revelation 12:7
and Jude 1:9.
Where he is called one of “the chief princes,” there is reference to an angelic
hierarchy, whether the same as that we find developed in
the Book of
Enoch or not cannot be decided certainly. In the Book of
Tobit 12:15
Raphael declares himself “one of the seven holy angels who
present the
prayers of the saints, and who go in and out before the
glory of the Holy
One.” The Book of Tobit seems to have been written about B.C. 400;
hence this is an indication of opinion before the Books of
Enoch. In the
Enoch books not only are the great angels mentioned, but their
names arc
given, and functions are assigned to them; but they are
numbered as four,
not seven. Enoch is posterior to Tobit, and finds a place
for Michael,
Raphael, and Gabriel. We have no means of testing whether
the number of
the chief angelic princes, of whom Michael was one, was
four or seven,
according to the opinion of Daniel. From the fact that
Enoch is, so to
speak, in the direct line of apocalyptic descent from
Daniel, and Tobit is
not, and, moreover, as the angelology of Tobit is in close
connection with
the Persian hierarchy of amhaspentas, of which there
were seven, — we
may regard four as the more genuinely Jewish number. The
later Jewish
angelology has many Persian elements. Whether the number of the archangels be
made four or seven, both Gabriel and Michael are of the
number, whereas
Gabriel’s words would rather indicate that, though Michael
belonged to the
rank of chief prince, he did not. As we cannot tell the
nature of the
opposition, we cannot tell the nature of the help afforded.
And I remained
there with the
kings of
retain the Massoretic reading. In the first place, the
sense given to
nothartee in the
Authorized and Revised is unsuitable. The angel is
explaining how, after having delayed three whole weeks, he
has now come.
The sentence, as interpreted above,would have explained why
he could not
come at all to Daniel. It is attempted to get over this by
explaining that
Gabriel had beaten off the “Prince” of
with the King of Persia instead of him. This view, however,
contradicts the
function assigned to angels of nations, and implies a
quasi-omnipresence on
the part of Gabriel, and would render his explanation no
explanation. We must
follow the Septuagint and Theodotion in reading, either as ˆ as Meinhold and
Behrmann וְהותַרְתִּין or better, as Gratz, אִתּו
הֹותַרְתִּי, as the vav in the former case
would naturally be read conversively.
Besides, Gratz’s reading explains the
needlessly emphatic אֲנִי. Further, it seems
needful to accept the reading of
the
two Greek versions and the Peshitta, and instead of מַלְכֵי read שד.
None of the old versions support the Massoretic; the
Vulgate is the
nearest; and all of them have either read מֶלֶך, or
regarded מלכי as a
form
of the construct state, and so vocalized differently.
Further, the later
context here implies the contiuance of the conflict or
controversy (vs. 20-21).
We must understand, then, that Gabriel left Michael to
maintain the
conflict against the angelic “Prince” of
to Daniel’s prayer. We can have but little idea of what is meant
by this
conflict in the heavenlies between angelic beings.
14 “Now I am come to make thee understand what shall
befall
thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many
days.” None
of the versions call for remark. The Peshitta inserts lesooph,
“at the end,”
before “days.” The Massoretic Hebrew has a peculiarity
unsupported by
the curlier versions: it has “for the days.” Of
course, these versions may
simply have neglected the article, as have our English
versions, Authorized
and Revised. In
the latter days. Kranichfeld holds that this refers to the
latter portion of the vision in ch. 8., not at the end of
time. For yet the
vision is for
many days. Professor Bevan would translate, “since there is
yet a vision for the days,” i.e. for the days
already referred to in the eighth
chapter. This would make both clauses have practically the
same meaning,
which this logical connection implies. There seems no need
to take the
“end of days,” as the end of the world.
15 “And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set
my
face toward the ground, and I became dumb.” The versions agree with
the above. I set
my face toward the ground does not mean that Daniel
again fell prostrate, but that his eyes naturally sought
the ground. And I
became dumb. Not to be regarded as equivalent to “I remained silent,”
though there is nothing in the narrative to indicate that
Daniel had been
speaking; he may have had the sensation of paralyzed vocal
cords.
Certainly the verb ‘alam means “to be dumb,”
although, as with ourselves,
this phrase does not mean always physiological dumbness, but
simply a
silence which, from shyness or fear, one is unable
to break. This is the
meaning the versions attach to it. The opinion we indicate
finds support in
the dumbness of Zacharias, the father of John Baptist,
after Gabriel
appeared to him,
(Luke 1) and, still more, in what is related in the following
verse.
16 “And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of
men
touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto
him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows
are
turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.” The Septuagint rendering
differs from this, “And behold, as the likeness of the hand
of a man” —
due,
more likely to explanatory paraphrase than to various reading of יר for בני;
still the phrase, “a likeness of sons of man,” is somewhat
violent,
and
not to be paralleled by Psalm 45:2 — “touched my lips, and I
opened my mouth, and spake, and I said to him who stood before
me,
Lord, even when the vision was turned upon my side to me.” Clearly צידי
(tzeedee) has been read by
mistake for צירי (tzeeree).
The sense of the
Massoretic is difficult; but this is nonsense. “And there
was no strength in
me,”
reading איולי instead
of עצרתי [.
Theodotion renders, “And behold,
as the likeness of a son of man touched my lips, and I
opened my mouth,
and spake, and said to him that stood before me, In thy
appearance my
bowels (τὰ ἐντός μου - ta entos mou – turned) were turned in me, and I had
no strength.” Theodotion has evidently had the singular בֶּן instead of בְנֵי
or perhaps regarded it as a survival of the old form of the construct. It is probably
not due to a different reading, but to a different meaning
given to צירים, that
we
have ἐντός . The Peshitta resembles Theodotion very closely, having,
however, enosh, “man,” instead of “son of man.” We
have also go’,
“body,” or “viscera,” as the translation of tzeereem. The
Vulgate renders to
the
same purport; the last portion of the verse runs thus: In visions tua
dissolutas sunt compages meae et nihil in me remansit virium. It also has,
in the first clause, similitudo filii hominis. It
seems difficult to avoid the
conclusion that we should read “son of man” instead of
“sons of man”
Were there any diplomatic or other evidence in favor of the
reading of the
Septuagint, it would be much preferable to any other, as we
have the
description of the visitant whose hand touched Daniel, in
vs. 5 and 6.
Hence the assertion here, that the likeness of a son of man
touched him,
does not harmonize with this, as it seems to introduce a
new person. There
is no reference to hands in the description in vs. 5 and 6, “the hand as of
a man” there would not be the introduction of something
already
mentioned. Touched
my lips. In the previous chapter, v. 21, the angel
Gabriel “touches”
Daniel. The emphasis of the act, in the present instance,
does not be in the fact of touching, but in this — that it
was the lips that
were touched. In Isaiah 6:6-7 one of the seraphim touches
the lips
of the prophet with “a live coal from off the altar.”
In Isaiah the object is
purification; in the case before us it is the restoration
of the power of
speech. Then I
opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood
before me. This is the result
of the touch of the angelic hand. O
my lord, by
the vision my
sorrows are turned upon me, and I have
retained no
strength. “Lord” here is not “Jehovah,” but “Adonai” — a title of respect,
certainly, but not necessarily of adoration. Theodotion and
the Vulgate
render “thy vision,” understanding by that “thy
appearance.” The meaning
is the same as that of the ordinary reading. Hence it is
probably due to a
desire to emphasize this rather than to any difference of
reading. “My
sorrows are turned upon me.” This is a term that involves great difficulty.
The term is used of the pangs of childbirth (I Samuel
4:19), and
transferred to sorrows (Isaiah 13:8). And this is the sense
in which it
has generally been taken here; the more readily that in I
Samuel 4:19
the same phrase is used as here But the sense does not seem
very good; the
appearance of the angel was not an occasion of sorrow,
however much of
awe there might be in it. The word has a number of
meanings, which it is
certainly difficult to bring into relationship with each
other. Thus in
Proverbs 26:14 it means a “hinge;” in Ibid. ch.25:13 it means
“messenger,” and this is the meaning it most frequently bears (Ibid.
ch.
13:17; Isaiah 18:2; Jeremiah 49:14; Obadiah 1:1). Neither
of
these meanings is at all suitable. In Psalm 49:16 we have
the word
appearing in the K’thib, and translated “beauty;” hence it would be
equivalent to הודי (hodee)
of v. 8. The Septuagint is out of court.
Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate differ from each
other, so that
nothing is to be drawn from them. We would, then, take this
phrase as
equivalent to that in the eighth verse, “I have retained no strength.” This
fitly follows up what has been already stated.
17 “For how can the servant of this my lord talk
with this my
lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in
me,
neither is there breath left in me.” The Septuagint does not preserve the
peculiar use of the demonstrative which we have here.
Theodotion has it in
the second case only; the Peshitta retains it; but the
Vulgate omits it
altogether. The rendering of neshama by πνεῦμα - pneuma – spirit - in the Greek
versions may be noted. Jerome renders, halitus. The
Aramaic influence is seen in
הֵיך (hayeh)
instead of אֵיך (‘ayeh).
“How can the servant,” etc., exhibits
respect and humility. For
as for me, etc. This seems
not to be part of
Daniel’s address to the angel, but a note which he has
added to indicate his
condition while he was speaking. Neither is there breath left in me. There
is no certainty whether this is to be taken in the physical
or metaphysical
sense; whether we should regard the prophet as declaring
that awe
deprived him of the power of breath, or he felt his
consciousness so
numbed as that he seemed to be without it.
18 “Then there came again and touched me one like
the
appearance of a man, and he strengthened me.” The versions here call
for no remark. The prophet still stood, but trembling and
powerless, unable
to comprehend fully the revelation; but now again the
strengthening hand
touches him. It cannot be regarded as a strain put upon the
meaning here, if
we see in this repeated presence of one in the form of man a symbol of
Christ, who took
upon Him the form of a servant, and was found in fashion
as a man.
(Philippians 2:7)
19 “And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not; peace
be unto
thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken
unto me, I
was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast
strengthened me. The
Septuagint has its ordinary translation of the phrase
rendered, “man
greatly beloved (ἄνθρωπος ἐλεεινὸς
εἶ - anthropos eleeinos ei).”
They give three words for the repetition of the command, “be
strong”:
·
ὑγίαινε -
hugiane - be
in good health;
·
ἀνδρίζου
– andrizou –play the man;
·
ἴσχυε
- ischue - be strong.
In the last clause the third person is retained, “Let my
lord speak, for he
Strengthened me” — a change made for symmetry. Theodotion
is much closer to
the Massoretic text, only he, too, varies the words in the
command, and has
ἀνδρίζου
καὶ ἴσχυε - andrizou kai ischus. The
Peshitta, like Theodotion, varies
the word in the command, In the last clause the verb is put
in the passive, “and I
was strengthened,” For the command the Vulgate has, confortare
et esto
robustus; but the last
clause is in strict agreement with the Massoretic. It is
to be noted that the repetition of the imperative, united
by ray, is
unexampled; the various renderings in the versions point to
this being felt a
difficulty, but do not suggest any variations of reading.
Not only is the
strengthening touch given, but consoling words are added, “Be
strong, yea,
be strong.” Daniel was called upon to put forth energy, to
summon his
forces mental and spiritual.
He had received the strengthening touch, but
his own volition must go along with the aid divinely
afforded. It is the
combination which we find in our Lord’s life; without faith
even the
miraculous power of our Lord could not be put forth. As we
have noted,
there is some uncertainty as to the reading, but no change
would alter the
sense of the passage, “And when he had spoken unto me, I was
strengthened.” The
words spoken called forth the power that was latent,
and had been imparted to Daniel. And said, Let my lord speak, for thou
hast
strengthened me. Even to hold converse with angelic beings, entailed
expenditure of vital energy. The overpowering sense of the
spiritual has to
be resisted, at least so far, in order that mental action may
go on. Had
strength not been imparted, the revelations bestowed would
not have
produced any permanent impression on the mind.
The Vision of The Christ (vs. 1-12, 14-19)
“I was left
alone, and saw this great vision” (v. 8).
It is well to begin by
clearing up the context. We have now only one more prophecy
in Daniel.
This occupies the eleventh chapter. The tenth contains a
prologue to the
prophecy; the twelfth, an epilogue. In v.1 the character of
the prophecy is
indicated:
ü
Its
subject-matter is afflictive.
“The conflict is great.”
It covers a time of
great calamities (see the
Hebrew).
ü
The prophecy
was to be unusually intelligible.
“And
he understood the
word, and
understanding was there to him in the vision.” Some haze of
mystery there might be, but not
the thick darkness which had enrobed
preceding revelations.
ü
It would
certainly be true. “A
word was revealed to Daniel… and true
the word.” The prophecy of ch. 11. is the most minute of Scripture;
and
hence men have been tempted to disbelieve
in it as prophecy, and to regard
it as prophecy written after the
event. Men might have disregarded it before
fulfillment; hence Daniel gives
this assurance. We now here concern
ourselves with Daniel’s vision of THE CHRIST!
impossible that he should have
joined in it. He may have been on the
Ø Either on an embassage,
Ø
Or retired from
all official life.
Ø
Two years after the first migration back from captivity
(v. 1).
Ø
A time of sorrow. Mourning was usually for seven
days: Daniel mourned
for three times seven. Fasting,
etc. Why? Realize the circumstances. The
temple was indeed rising; but
neighboring peoples were exerting all their
influence with the Persian king
to frustrate the work. Therefore anxiety and
fear. Daniel’s affliction would
be in proportion as success seemed certain.
Good men grieve
over slow progress of the Divine
kingdom, and the
fierceness of the opposition. (See Ezekiel 9:4)
Ø
Time of the Passover. On the
twenty-fourth day of the first month came
the vision. We infer that Daniel
had consecrated the first three weeks of
the new year to devotion. This
included the Passover week — a time of
unusual solemnity — when he
would be in earnest sympathy with his
nation.
Lord appears:
Ø
From the
after-developments of the scene.
Ø
From a
comparison with the vision of Christ in the Apocalypse.
(Revelation 1.)
Compare the two descriptions of
clothing — the girdle, the countenance,
the eyes, the feet, the voice.
Daniel adds, “His body also was like the
beryl.” John adds, “His head and his hairs were white,”
etc. In drawing out
the description into detail,
note: the clothing was of the finest, purest —
the garb of priests, prophets,
saints, and angels; the uncovered portions of
the body shone with gem-like
splendor; all the symbols suggest
light-splendor; the girdle of
fine gold; the arms and feet “like the eye of
polished brass,” the part that catches the blaze of sunlight and throws
it
back; the face as lightning, and
the eyes as fire; the voice majestic. All this
may be spiritually expanded.
Ø
On the
companions of the seer. (v. 7.) Compare
effect on Paul’s
companions on the way to
(Acts 9:7)
Ø
On the seer.
(vs. 8-9.) He swooned; but the mighty
voice came
rolling into his ear, as the
roar of ocean breaks into the caves upon the
shore. Here we have a picture of
the inability of man to stand before
the
unveiled revelations of God (compare
Revelation 1:17).
Ø
Sets man erect
in the presence of Divine revelations. (v.11.) No
need of cringing. We
ourselves are made in the image of God, and
have affinity
with the Divine.
Ø
He does so
gradually. Daniel was first flat on his
face; then on all fours;
then half-raised and trembling;
and finally stood upright on his feet. In
this, see how man is gradually
led up to all the light which God has to
give. In heaven the unveiling
may be gradual (vs. 9-11 – It will take
an eternity to do
so! – CY – 2014).
Ø
Sympathetically.
“Behold, a hand touched me” (vs. 10, 16-19).
Ø Assures man that his devout aspirations are recognized
beyond the sky.
Daniel’s was the attitude of a
devout truth-seeker. He “had set his heart to
understand,” and “to chasten himself before his God.”
We should have
more uniformity of Scripture
interpretation, were the interpreter always of
THE HOLY SPIRIT!
Ø
And of the
sure answer to his prayers. (v. 12.) As
soon as prayer was
offered, it was heard, and
secret agencies were evoked for its answer; but
there were many obstacles to be
overcome. The later part of the chapter
shows this. So may it ever be,
before our prayers can be answered, long
lines and
combinations of secondary causes may have to be set in
operation, and
formidable hostilities subdued. Patience
in waiting for, as
well as faith in expecting the answer,
are both necessary in the matter of
prayer.
Divine Encouragement (vs. 18-19)
Ø
In trouble. It is difficult to work bravely and earnestly in the midst
of
calamity. The calamities of
the service of God.
Ø
In guilt. Daniel had been confessing the sins of himself and his nation
(ch.9:5). Nothing is so
depressing as the feeling of failure and the
knowledge that it has come by our
own fault.
Ø
In weakness.
The burden of the mystery of life
oppresses all who feel it,
as it oppressed Daniel. Before
the needs of the world and the tasks of
life the strongest man may well
feel weak in his own resources, and then
his weakness may damp his zeal
for service.
Ø
In fear. When the mystery of the future begins to unveil itself and
future
troubles appear to be drawing
near, the vagueness with which they are
seen magnifies the terror of them.
The fear which is then roused paralyzes
our energies.
Ø
They are found
in God. God sends the
angel to strengthen Daniel. Until
we know God, we dread His
presence; but when we know Him, the
more we enter into His presence,
the more peace and confidence shall
we receive.
Ø
They spring
from the
love of God. Daniel
is “greatly beloved.” The
assurance of God’s love is His
greatest encouragement. If we know God
loves us, we may be assured that
He will ward off all real harm, and thus
we may lose our fear in His love
(I John 4:18).
Ø
They flow to
us through channels of brotherly
sympathy. “One like the
appearance of a
man” touched Daniel. God comes to us
in “the
Son of
man,” and through the brotherly sympathy of Christ
communicates His
Divine
encouragement.
Ø They manifest themselves by practical results in communicating real
strength. Daniel was strengthened. There is a real supply of
spiritual
strength which
is bestowed by the gift of THE HOLY SPIRIT. The
encouragement this gives is not
only in idea, it is in fact. The weak man
is encouraged by finding himself
becoming strong in the strength of
God (Isaiah 40:29; (II
Corinthians 12:10).
Ø
By humility and contritions. Daniel had
humbled himself and confessed
sin, and thus was prepared for
God’s help. We can only be filled with
God’s strength when we are emptied
of our own self-confidence.
Ø
By prayer. Daniel was a man of prayer (v. 12). God encourages us in
proportion as we seek His
help.
Ø
By faith As we trust God, He strengthens us, because His strength
is
spiritual and can only
enter us as we voluntarily submit to His influence
(Hebrews 11:33-34).
20 “Then
said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?
and now will I return to fight with the Prince of
am gone forth, lo, the Prince of Grecia shall come.” The versions here
are in close agreement with the Massoretic text. Theodetion,
since he
begins the speech of the angel with εἰ - ei - if, may have read הֵן (hayn), “if,”
instead of הֲ (ha),
the sign of interrogation. The Peshitta has, “to make
war,”
instead of “fight,” indicating a beginning of hostilities, not a
continuance of them. Then
said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto
thee? This question appears to be abruptly put, and to be put
without
awaiting an answer. Probably the meaning would be better
brought out by
rendering, somewhat colloquially, “You know, don’t you? After I have
revealed the
future to you, I must return.” In
considering this whole
subject, we must beware of taking everything literally. We
may not deduce,
because of the statement here, that angels are under the
limitations of time
and space, or that there is actual warfare. We must regard
the matter as, to
a large extent, figurative. And now will I return to fight with the Prince of
the progress of the race, the evolution of that ultimate
ideal state — the
kingdom of heaven among men — is accomplished by successive
steps,
and over each step a nationality presides. This nationality
represents the
special moment of spiritual force necessary to secure the
new step the race
is required to take. While in the lower plane of history
the nations
themselves do these things; in the higher sphere it is
their angels who are
the actors. A nation has in it much of the characteristics
of a living
organism, and the angel of the nation is the life of that
organism. As a finite
being, the angel of any nation of necessity is imperfect;
his knowledge of
the Divine plan only limited. His instrument — the nation
committed to his
charge — is yet more imperfect. Let an imperfect being,
however holy,
have a piece of work to do, that work must assume, to him,
an exaggerated
importance; let him be associated as patron with sentient
beings, and his
affections must go forth to these beings in a special way.
He will resist any
attempt to limit in any way the function of that race which
is specially his,
and will be apt to interpret too widely this function, and
be loath to
recognize that its time is past, or this or that region is
beyond its province.
If we regard Gabriel as an angel of the kingdom of heaven,
and by this the
angel of prophecy,
then he must exercise a watchful care over the actions
of each nationality, and therefore of its angel, lest the
ultimate purpose of God
be in any way hindered. The angel of
independence allowed to the Jews as hindering the evolution
of the idea exhibited
by the Persian race. The Persian rule allowed races a good
deal of license if
tribute were paid. It was required to specialize its
treatment of the Jews; to
convey them back from
to assist them to set up a quasi-independence. All
this was contrary to the
negative character of the Persian rule, in contradiction to
its spirit, and
therefore opposed by its angel, who represented this
spirit. Michael, the
special angel of the Jews, naturally came to assist
Gabriel. What a conflict
between angelic spirits may mean, what may be the weapons
of their
warfare, we know not; we do know that, though not carnal,
they are
mighty. And when
I am gone forth. To this phrase several meanings have
been attached. Havernick, Maurer, and Ewald take it as
meaning “going
forth to war.” Ewald renders, “I will return to contend
against the Prince of
connection it is very doubtful whether יָצָא (yatza’) can mean “going forth
to battle.” Motion to the field of battle is indicated by
“return.” Yatza’
simply means to go from a given place; the purpose
may be indicated by
some other word. A
great deal of the difficulty is due to
maintaining
that angels are under the time-relation of human beings.
The matter is
clearer if we take it as meaning simply that when Gabriel
went out from the
presence of Daniel, the “Prince of Grecia”would come. Lo, the Prince of
Grecia
shall come. This does not refer to Alexander the Great, or
the overthrow of the Persian
Empire, still less to the Seleucids and their persecutions.
Before his Babylonian reign,
Cyrus encountered the Greeks, and roused their opposition.
The angel, then, of
the Greek nation began to stir up his people. Then came the
Ionian revolt,
and the successive invasions of
leave the “holy people” alone. The angelic Prince of Grecia
appears first as
an instrument of the angel of prophecy, to limit the power
of
after prolonged conflicts, the empire of
21 “But I will show thee that which is noted in the
scripture of
truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these
things, but
Michael your prince.” The
Septuagint rendering is, “And in very truth
(μάλα – mala - wholly) I will show
thee the first things in the writing of truth: and
there was no one helping with me against these, but Michael
the angel.” The
Septuagint translator read הָרָאשִׁים
(hara’sheem), “the heads,” instead of הָרָשׁוּם
(harashoom), written with a
inserted as mater lectionis. Theodotion is in
accordance with our English Version. The Peshitta renders,
“Yet will I
show thee something noted in the writing of truth; and
there was none in
all these who helped me but Michael your prince.” The
Vulgate agrees with
the
Massoretic and the English. But I
will show thee that which is noted in
the scripture
of truth. אָבֲל (‘abal) is a strongly adversative conjunction.
The use of it is explained by Kranichfeld and Zockler as
due to the fears for
the theocracy aroused by the thought that the Greek power
was rising
against
his post because of the threatened approach of the Prince
of Grecia, then it
might be defended; only even then either the fact of the
necessity for
speedy return to the Persian court would have been
emphasized, or the fact
that he is delaying to make known the contents of the
writing of truth. It is,
perhaps, better rendered by “nevertheless,” as it is in II Chronicles 19:3.
We can see the force of this particle by turning to v. 7, “I
Daniel alone
saw the
vision, for the men that were with me saw not the vision, but
(equivalent to ‘nevertheless’) a great quaking fell upon them.”
This clause,
we see, then, has all the appearance of being intruded
violently into the
text; it interrupts the progress of thought, and does not
suit the context.
There is no indication that he, Gabriel, will have to
hasten back to the court
of
(abal), “nevertheless.” But
even so, why revert in the next clause to the
contents of v. 20, without the slightest indication that
the line of thought
in the past clause was dropped as soon as taken up? The
last clause of this
verse reads much better in connection with v. 20 than with
v. 21a. “The
scripture of
truth” is a phrase that might have been
suggested by Psalm
139:16, “In thy book
were all my members written.” It is in line with a
great number of phrases in apocalyptic literature; thus
Enoch 93:1, “And
after that Enoch began to recount from the books;” the Book
of Jubilees,
1:24; 4:31; 5:15, etc., “the tablets of the heavens.” The
idea was that all the
events that were to happen in the world’s history were
recorded
beforehand in the books or tablets of the heavens. At the same
time, the form the representation of the heavenly books, which note
beforehand what was to happen, assumes here is simpler than
that in Enoch
or the Book of Jubilees. And there is none that holdeth with me in these
things, but Michael your prince. As we have above said, this clause is
closely connected with v. 20. In these things. This
is rendered in the
Revised Version “against these,” in accordance with many
majority of recent
commentators but none of the older versions have it. The
Septuagint renders,
ὑπὲρ τούτων - huper touton –
against; Theodotion, περὶ τούτων - peri touton –
against these; the Peshitta has the
preposition; the Vulgate renders, in his omnibus.
With these Calvin agrees, though Luther renders, wider
jene (against those).
Certainly, the most common
meaning of עַל in such a connection is “against.” So,
notwithstanding the weight of the
versions, we feel constrained to translate,
“against these persons,” and not “in regard
to these things.” In the first place,
“in” is a far less frequent meaning of the
preposition, and next, אֵלֵה (aylayh),
“these,” most naturally refers to
the persons last named. Although “the Prince
of Grecia” was to be the instrument
of the overthrow of the power of
it
was to become oppressive afterwards, as had been
revealed to Daniel in the
vision of the ram and the he-goat.
Gabriel, the angel of prophecy, the special
guardian of God’s great ideal kingdom of
heaven, was assisted in his guardianship
only by Michael, the angelic Prince of Israel. The fact that along the line of
the development of
concerning the kingdom of
heaven, made it natural that Michael should
favor that which
furthered the interests of the race that was more specially
under his care. As we have already said, we cannot even guess at the
nature of these angelic conflicts.
Variety of Angelic Service (vs. 11-21)
It is quite legitimate for us to reason from God’s conduct
towards men in
the past to His probable conduct towards men now. If in His
wisdom He
employed His angels to be ministers of good to Daniel and
to
thousand years ago, we may conclude that it is an exercise
of wisdom to do
the like to-day. Perfect wisdom will only change its plans,
so far as new
circumstances and needs arise. Hence there is instruction and
consolation
for us in this Scripture.
THEIR ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD. This angel, who was probably
Gabriel, was commissioned to
assure Daniel that he was “greatly beloved.”
Every doubt upon that head was
completely removed. The angel knew
what were God’s dispositions of
mind towards Daniel, and he was
empowered to convey the
intelligence. There is nothing unreasonable in
this; no improbability that beings of refined nature exist in
nearer relation
to God than do men; no
improbability that they perform acts of service for
men. That which is
naturally probable is made certain by the written
revelation. It is often the case
that we cannot account for our moods of
feeling, our hopefulness and our
despondency, by any known events. Who
shall say that these states of
mind are not the result of angelic visitation?
That we are not conscious of
the presence of angels is no proof that they
do not visit us. Their ethereal
natures may be impervious to human sight,
except by miraculous
interposition. Elisha’s servant did not perceive the
angelic host sent for their
protection until God had specially opened his
eyes. (II Kings 6:17) Once and again this angel assured Daniel of
his interest
in God’s love, charged him to
dismiss his fears, and brought to him heavenly
peace.
UNDERSTANDING. One
main object of Gabriel’s visit to Daniel was to
shed light upon passing events,
and to enlarge Daniel’s comprehension of
God’s government. So high was
God’s esteem for Daniel, that Gabriel was
dispatched on purpose to
dislodge ignorance and doubt from his mind. He
assures him that
the want of visible answer to prayer is no proof that God
has not heard,
nor that he is unwilling to reply. On
the contrary, Daniel’s
prayer had taken effect from the
very beginning, and measures were at
once set in motion in accordance
therewith. The prayers and fastings of
good men are
links (ordained by God) in
the chain of causes and effects.
As soon as man interceded for
of high importance to the
charged to unfold to Daniel what
was in the volume of God’s purposes —
the series of vicissitudes
through which
God’s thoughts were loftier than
Daniel’s; His designs had a wider scope
and range than His servant’s.
Nothing short of the establishment of
permanent
righteousness will satisfy God.
is noteworthy that as Daniel’s
needs arose one after the other, the angel
was prepared to meet each one.
Daniel was prostrate; the angel set him
upright. Daniel was so stunned
with the intelligence, that he was dumb; the
angel opened his mouth, and gave
him speech. Daniel fainted under a sense
of awe and wonder; the angel
imparted new strength with his touch. We
are impressed with
the considerateness, the tenderness, the thoughtful
sympathy, of this
angelic visitor. There was strength
imparted to his
physical nature by a touch; there
was strength imparted to his soul by the
angel’s words. According to the
constitution of man’s nature is the agency
employed by God. The
angel who strengthened Christ Jesus in the garden
of suffering can also strengthen us. (Luke 22:43)
THE CHURCH IN PALACES AND IN COUNCILS OF STATE. There
are times when they can best
serve us, not at our side, but at a distance
from us. Probably Daniel was
agitated in soul, because for three weeks no
sign of answer came from heaven.
Yet, all the while, answer had come,
though he was unconscious of it.
Daniel was concerned, not for himself,
but for the well-being and
fortunes of
God had more at heart these
interests — than man, however zealous, ever
can. This report of Gabriel
opens to our minds a new view of angelic
ministration. It is evident that
they do perform their service on earth, for
the most part, unseen by human
eyes. Gabriel had been with the kings and
statesmen of
that court, that for three weeks
he had remained there. His power was
limited; he could not be in two
places at once, nor could he accomplish his
mission without the assistance
of Michael. For the time being, it was better
that Daniel should remain in
ignorance of the fact. His continued fasting
and prayer were essential to
complete success. In what fashion Gabriel
rendered service we are not
told. Most probably he had power to influence
the views, the motives, the
ambitious of men. A thousand subtle agencies
were at his command, by which he
could direct the counsels of men and
bring about the purposes of God.
Angelic
influence, then, is a factor in
state concerns which we do well not to ignore. (I dare say that they
were a lot more likely to have been in
Constitutional Convention than in the present halls of congress,
the Oval Office or the Supreme Court Building during the last
half century, where it often seems that a majority of those 545
men and women have made policies that are attempting to
undermine the influence of God’s governance in the world!
CY – 2014)
FULFILLING THE BEHESTS OF GOD. There can be little doubt that
the language here employed by
Gabriel, viz. “the prince of the kingdom of
angels. There are principalities
and powers in hell. Satan is termed the
“prince of this
world,” “the prince of the power of the air.” (This explains
what is going on in our society
in the 21st century. We are
dealing with
“spiritual
wickedness in high places.” -
Ephesians 6:12 – an
on slaught of drugs, sensuality
and ungodly behavior from hell
itself. Revelation 20:7-8 – CY – 2014) An antagonist of Gabriel
would be fittingly an evil
spirit. Gabriel speaks of fighting with him.
There was hot warfare. So we
read in the Epistle of Jude 1:7 that Michael
disputed with the devil about
the body of Moses. That some bold and
crafty spirit, in the
confederate host of hell, should be told off to do some
particular evil work is probable
enough; and that such, having subordinates
under him, should be styled
leader or prince of a particular earthly empire
is equally probable. This
earth, then, is the scene of mighty conflicts.
Angels here have their combats
as well as men. Here, perhaps, is being
fought out the crucial conflict
between the Creator and His rebellious
creatures — the conflict between
righteousness and wickedness. Gabriel,
though “excelling in power,” is
not omnipotent. Some things even an angel
alone cannot do. They learn
that in union is strength. Michael is sent to
help him — Michael, who
is set apart as the prince or protector of
Gabriel cannot be long spared
from the particular scene of conflict. During
a temporary truce he visits
Daniel This accomplished, he returns to the
troublesome scene
in the court of Persia.
War in the Realm Supernatural (vs. 13-20 – ch. 11:1)
“And now
will I return to fight with the Prince of
these verses we
have opened out the fact that there is war in the realm
supernatural. To
understand them, it is absolutely necessary to revise the
English
version. We read thus: “And the prince of the
stood against
me twenty and one days, and behold Michael one of the chief
princes came
to help me, and I gained the superiority there by the side of
the kings of
And now I will
return to war with the Prince of
go forth [to war], behold the Prince
of Javan will come. But yet I will show
to thee that
which is written in the book of truth. And not one is there
showing himself
strong with me against these [the princes of
Javan] except
Michael your prince; I also in the first year of Darius the
Mede stood in
order to strengthen and for a fortress to him” (i.e. Michael).
This reading of
ours is necessary to make clear the meaning of our
homiletical
culture. Lest any should be surprised at the fullness of the
revelation in
Daniel as to angels and the angel-world, we may observe that
there are two
epochs in Hebrew history, when angels are specially prominent.
ü The time of the judges. Destitute
of direct revelation or prophetic
guidance.
ü The period of the Captivity. One of special trial, incident to contact
with
heathenism.
Ø On the side of God.
o The Angel-God. The Logos. The “certain man” of v. 5.
The
Lord Jesus. The speaker
throughout (vs. 13,20; ch. 11:1).
o Michael. His name means, “Who is like unto God?” and implies
that, however high is the scale of being, there is an infinite
distance between him and God (see ch. 12:1; Jude 1:9;
Revelation 12:7). The following propositions seem clear
about him: He is not the Logos; for he is here distinguished
from Him. “One of the chief princes,” one of the
principal in the hierarchy of heaven. “Your prince,” the
angelic
representative and guardian of the Jewish nation. “The
great prince who standeth for the children of thy people.”
An archangel.
Ø On the side of the world. The “princes” here
named are the supernatural
power standing
behind the daimoniae, who stood behind the national
gods,and were
represented by them. They are spirits of evil, inspiring the
worldly
anti-Divine action of the great empires of earth.
o The “Prince
of Persia.”
o The Prince of Javan; i.e. Greece.
being
prosecuted through three supernatural campaigns. We consider them
separately.
Ø The first campaign. (ch. 11:1.)
o The antagonist. Not mentioned here by name, but, following the
analogy
of the rest of the description, is certainly the celestial
“Prince” of Babylonia.
o The casus belli. The occasion of conflict. This, doubtless, was the
necessity
of placing on the Babylonian throne one who would be
favorable
to the return of Israel from the Captivity.
o Speciatlities.
§ Michael carried on the war.
§ The Christ supported him.
This
order is reversed in the next campaign.
o The
victory. Lies with the Divine in every case.
Ø The second campaign. (v. 15.)
o The antagonist. “The Prince of
o The casus belli. The obstruction raised against the restoration of
the temple,
at the instigation of
o Specialities.
§ This campaign was carried on by the Angel-God Himself.
§ But aided by Michael. Here should be noted the doctrine
that angels and men may be co-workers together with
God.
(Someday the heavenly and earthly beings will be
brought
together through JESUS
CHRIST! - Ephesians 1:10 –
CY
- 2014)
§ Was
synchronous with Daniel’s prayer. All the way
through the twenty-one days
the prayer was being
answered through a mighty conflict carried on in a
higher world.
o The
victory. Specially mentioned: “And I gained the
superiority
Ø The third campaign. (vs. 20-21.)
o The antagonists. The “princes” of
Persia and Javan.
o The casus belli. All
that, in their worldliness, was attempted by
o A speciality. Only Michael
in this great contention was on the Christ
side. Note:
§ There
is, then, liberty in heaven as on earth to do or not to
do
— to go forth to war or to rest
in peace.
§ Michael made a noble use of liberty.
§ By
endowment he towered above others “One of the
§ Therefore
to him were great responsibilities entrusted.
He was made the guardian spirit of the Hebrew nation
and
Church. “To whom much is given much
is required”
(Luke 12:48) seems to
be a law of all moral worlds.
“Michael your prince.” To a subordinate spirit God will
not
entrust a work demanding special power and greatness.”
o The victory. Again not
expressly mentioned, but sure.
The following deductions from the whole subject should, perhaps,
have special mention and emphasis:
§ The Church has many and powerful enemies.
§ It abides under most powerful protection. What
Michael was to
IS THE LORD JESUS TO
many helpers
§ Its destiny is in conflict in the worlds above, as well as here
below.
§ In the holy war here, the humblest may take a share.
The Son
of God stooped to avail Himself of the help of Michael;
so
He ever stoops to accept the humblest contribution, the
lowliest service.
“The Son of God goes forth to war,
A kingly crown to gain;
His blood-red banner streams afar;
Who follows in His train?”
Materials are reproduced by
permission."