Chapter 10

1 Daniel having humbled himself seeth a vision. 10 Being troubled with fear he is comforted by the angel.

1. Third year of Cyrus. Counted from the fall of Babylon by either the spring or the fall year, this would be 536/535 b.c. (see on Dan. 10:4; also on Ezra 1:1). Daniel was now apparently near the end of his life (see Dan. 12:13), about 88 years old, considering that he was 18 when he was taken captive (see 4T 570) in 605 b.c. (see on ch. 1:1). Dan. 10:1 introduces the final section of the book, ch. 10 providing the setting in Daniel’s experience for his fourth great prophecy, recorded in chs. 11 and 12. The main body of the prophetic narrative begins with ch. 11:12 and closes with ch. 12:4, the remainder of ch. 12 being a sort of postscript to the prophecy. On the year reckonings from the spring and the fall see Vol. II, pp. 109–111.

King of Persia. This is the only prophecy of Daniel’s dated in terms of Cyrus’ reign. Cyrus is here given the title “king of Persia,” which would seem to imply that the whole empire was ruled by the Persians, as contrasted with the more limited title, “king over the realm of the Chaldeans,” ascribed to Darius in ch. 9:1. Arising from comparative obscurity as prince of the little country of Anshan located in the highlands of Iran, Cyrus overthrew successively within a few years the Median, Lydian, and Babylonian kingdoms, and united them under his rule into the largest empire yet known. It was with such a monarch that Daniel and his people now had to deal, and with whom the powers of heaven are here revealed (ch. 10:13, 20) as striving.

A thing. A unique expression used by Daniel to describe his fourth great prophetic outline (chs. 10–12) which was apparently revealed without a preceding symbolic representation and without any allusion to symbols (cf. chs. 7:16–24; 8:20–26). The word marah, “vision,” of vs. 7, 8, 16 refers simply to the appearance of Daniel’s two celestial visitants, mentioned in vs. 5, 6 and 10–12 respectively. Accordingly, some have considered the fourth prophetic outline a further, more detailed explanation of events pictured symbolically in the “vision” of ch. 8:1–14. On this basis chs. 10–12 would be interpreted in terms of the vision of chs. 8, 9. However, the relationship between chs. 10–12 and 8, 9 is by no means so clear or certain as that between ch. 8 and ch. 9 (see on ch. 9:21).

Belteshazzar. See on ch. 1:7.

Time appointed. Heb. s\abaХ, the exact meaning of which here is doubtful. The phrase translates a single Hebrew word. S\abaХ occurs nearly 500 times in the OT in the sense of “army,” “host,” “warfare,” and “service” Its plural form, s\ebaХoth, forms part of the divine title “Lord God of Hosts.” The KJV translates s\abaХ “appointed time,” or “time appointed,” only three times (Job 7:1; 14:14; and here). Inasmuch as the word everywhere else apparently has to do with an army, or warfare, or hard service, and inasmuch as in these three passages the same ideas of warfare, or hard service, make excellent sense, these definitions probably ought to be retained here. The present text seems to emphasize an intensity of struggle rather than an extended period of time. The passage may be translated, “even a great warfare” (RV), or “it was a great conflict” (RSV).

He understood. In contrast with the three other visions (chs. 2; 7; 8–9), which were couched in highly symbolic terms, this final revelation was given largely in literal language. The angel stated specifically that he had come to make Daniel “understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days” (ch. 10:14). This is the subject matter of chs. 11 and 12. It is not until near the end of this vision (ch. 12:8) that Daniel encounters a revelation concerning which he confesses, “I heard, but I understood not.”

2. Mourning. Daniel does not state specifically the cause of mourning, but an indication of the reason may be found in the events that were occurring among the Jews in Palestine at this time. It was evidently a serious crisis that occasioned Daniel’s three weeks of mourning. It was probably about the time when opposition was raised by the Samaritans against the Jews who under Zerubbabel had recently returned from exile (Ezra 4:1–5; see PK 571, 572). Whether the events of this chapter occurred before or after the Jews had actually laid the foundation stone (Ezra 3:8–10) of the Temple depends upon varying interpretations of the chronology of this period (see Vol. III, p. 97), and on a possibility that Daniel might have used a different reckoning in Babylonia from that of the Jews in Palestine in that time of transition. Daniel’s period of mourning seems to have been contemporary with the serious threat that Cyrus’ decree might not be carried to completion after all, because of the false reports sent by the Samaritans to the court of Persia, in an attempt to stop the building operations. The significant fact that during these three weeks the angel was struggling to influence Cyrus (vs. 12, 13) indicates that a vital decision of the king was at stake. While praying for further light on subjects not yet fully explained in earlier visions, the prophet doubtless engaged in another period of intensive intercession (see ch. 9:3–19) that the work of the adversary might be checked and that God’s promises of restoration might be fulfilled to His chosen people.

3. Pleasant bread. That is, delicacies. During Daniel’s period of fasting, he took but the simplest of food, sufficient only to maintain his strength.

Anoint myself. The use of oils for soothing the skin was in great popularity among ancient peoples, especially among those who lived in countries where the climate was very hot and dry. During his period of fasting and prayer the prophet saw fit to forgo this personal luxury.

4. Four and twentieth day. This is the only date in the book of Daniel given to the exact day and month. Nothing is said, of course, as to whether the reckoning here is in terms of the Babylonian-Persian calendar (which Daniel’s contemporary Ezekiel may have used), or in accordance with the Jewish calendar (as Ezra and Nehemiah later reckoned). If Daniel’s date is on the basis of the Babylonian-Persian calendar (beginning the year in the spring), the first month of Cyrus’ third year would be about March/April, 536 b.c. If, on the other hand, Daniel reckoned by the Jewish method (which began the year in the fall), the first month of Cyrus’ third year would come 12 months later and would correspond roughly to March/April, 535 b.c. For an explanation of the differences between Babylonian and Jewish calendars, see Vol. II, pp. 112–122.

Since the three weeks of Daniel’s fasting ended on the 24th day of the first month, they must have begun on the 4th day, and thus his fast extended through the Passover season. But to what degree the feast was observed in captivity is not known.

Hiddekel. This Hebrew name represents the Akkadian Idiqlat, Old Persian Tigraµ, which has come into modern languages as Tigris. The Tigris is the smaller of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia. A river by the same name is mentioned in Gen. 2:14. However, there reference is to the antediluvian stream. Precisely where on the Tigris the incident occurred is not stated.

5. A certain man. The heavenly Being appeared in human form (see Gen. 18:2; Dan. 7:13; Rev. 1:13). The description closely resembles that given by John when Christ was revealed to him. It was, indeed, the same Being who appeared to Daniel (see SL 50; GC 470, 471).

Uphaz. The location of Uphaz is not known. The name occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Jer. 10:9, where Uphaz is again identified as a source of gold. Some have suggested that it is identical with Ophir, which was famous for its fine gold (see 1 Kings 9:28). Such an identification is not impossible. The names Uphaz and Ophir are similar when written in Hebrew characters.

6. Beryl. Heb. tarshish, perhaps indicating the place at which the product was obtained.

Lamps of fire. Compare Rev. 1:14.

Polished brass. Compare Rev. 1:15.

7. Daniel alone saw. The revelation was given only to the Lord’s chosen servant, yet the effect of the presence of a being from heaven was felt by those who were with the prophet. Compare the experience of Saul and his companions (Acts 9:3–7; 22:6–9).

8. Remained no strength. Compare Rev. 1:17. For discussion of the physical state of prophets in vision see F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 51–61.

9. Deep sleep. From the Heb. radam, a word occurring elsewhere only in Judges 4:21; Ps. 76:6; Dan. 8:18; Jonah 1:5, 6. Here it seems to mean “to be benumbed.”

10. Hand touched me. Compare Eze. 2:2; 3:24; Rev. 1:17. The hand is evidently that of Gabriel. (PK 571, 572).

Set. From the Heb. nuaФ. In the form here used nuaФ means literally, “to cause to tremble,” “to set tottering.” Though Daniel was lifted from his position of complete collapse upon the ground, his strength was still not such that he could support himself without trembling.

11. Greatly beloved. Heb. chamudoth, translated “pleasant” in v. 3. This was the second time that Daniel had been so wonderfully reassured of God’s love for him (see ch. 9:23).

12. Fear not. Compare Rev. 1:17. These words doubtless encouraged the prophet personally in the presence of the angel, for he “stood trembling” (v. 11), and also reassured Daniel that even though he had been praying for three weeks without an apparent answer, yet from the very first God had heard his supplication and set Himself to answer it. Daniel needed not to fear for his people; God had heard him, and God was in control.

13. Prince. Heb. sЊar, a word occurring 420 times in the OT, but apparently never with the meaning “king.” It refers to a king’s chief servants (Gen. 40:2, translated “chief”), to local rulers (1 Kings 22:26, translated “governor”), to Moses’ subordinates (Ex. 18:21, translated “rulers”), to the nobles and officials of Israel (1 Chron. 22:17; Jer. 34:21, translated “princes”), and especially to military commanders (1 Kings 1:25; 1 Chron. 12:21, translated “captains”). In this last sense it appears in the expression sЊar has\s\abaХ, “commander of the army” (the same expression translated “prince of the host,” Dan. 8:11), on one of the Lachish ostraca, a letter written by a Judean army officer to his superior, probably at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Judah in 588–586 b.c., during the time that Daniel was in Babylon (see Vol. II, pp. 97, 98; see Jer. 34:7).

The heavenly Being who appeared to Joshua at Jericho is termed “the captain [Heb. sЊar] of the Lord’s host” (Joshua 5:14, 15). Daniel frequently uses this word in reference to supernatural beings (Dan. 8:11, 25; 10:13, 21; 12:1). On the basis of these observations some have conjectured that sЊar denotes a supernatural being who at that time was standing in opposition to the angels of God, and who was trying to direct the course of the kingdom of Persia against the best interests of God’s people. Satan has ever been eager to declare himself the prince of this world. The basic issue here was the welfare of God’s people as against their heathen neighbors. Inasmuch as Michael is declared to be the “prince [sЊar] which standeth for the children of thy people” (ch. 12:1), it does not seem unreasonable that the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” would be a self-styled “guardian angel” for that country from among the hosts of the adversary. That the conflict was against the powers of darkness is clear: “For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus. … All that heaven could do in behalf of the people of God was done. The victory was finally gained; the forces of the enemy were held in check all the days of Cyrus, and all the days of his son Cambyses” (PK 571, 572).

On the other hand, sЊar may be used in the common sense of “ruler,” and in that sense would refer to Cyrus, king of Persia. So understood, the angels of heaven are seen striving with the king, that he might render a verdict favorable to the Jews.

Withstood me. The prophet provides a glimpse of the mighty struggle going on between the forces of good and the forces of evil. The question may be asked, Why did the Lord allow the powers of evil to struggle for control of Cyrus’ mind for 21 days, while Daniel continued in mourning and supplication? This question must be answered with the truth in mind that these events have to be understood in the light of the “broader and deeper purpose” of the plan of redemption, which “was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. … Before all the universe it [the death of Christ] would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan” (PP 68, 69; cf. DA 625). “Yet Satan was not then destroyed [at the death of Christ]. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed” (DA 761). See on ch. 4:17.

In order to refute Satan’s claim that God is a tyrant, the heavenly Father has seen fit to withhold His hand and allow the adversary an opportunity to demonstrate his methods and seek to win men to his cause. God does not force men’s wills. He allows Satan a degree of freedom, while through His Spirit and His angels He pleads with men to resist evil and follow the right. Thus God demonstrates to the onlooking universe that He is a God of love, and not the tyrant Satan has accused Him of being. It was for this reason that Daniel’s prayer was not immediately answered. The answer waited until the king of Persia made his choice for good and against evil, by his own free will.

Here is revealed the true philosophy of history. God has set the ultimate goal, which most surely will be reached. By His Spirit He works on the hearts of men to cooperate with Him in attaining that goal. But the question as to which way any individual chooses to go is entirely his own decision to make. Thus the events of history are the product both of supernatural agencies and of human free choice. But the final outcome is God’s. In this chapter, as perhaps nowhere else in Scripture, the veil that separates heaven from earth is drawn aside, and the struggle between the powers of light and darkness is revealed.

Michael. Heb. MikaХel, literally, “who [is] like God?” He is here described as “one of the chief princes [Heb. sЊarim].” Later He is described as Israel’s particular protector (ch. 12:1). His identity is not definitely stated here, but a comparison with other scriptures identifies Him as Christ. Jude 9 terms Him “the archangel.” According to 1 Thess. 4:16, the “voice of the archangel” is associated with the resurrection of the saints at the coming of Jesus. Christ declared that the dead will come forth from their graves when they hear the voice of the Son of man (John 5:28). It thus seems clear that Michael is none other than the Lord Jesus Himself (see EW 164; cf. DA 421).

The name Michael as the name of a heavenly being appears in the Bible only in apocalyptic passages (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7), in instances where Christ is in direct conflict with Satan. The name in Hebrew, signifying “who is like God?” is at once a question and a challenge. In view of the fact that Satan’s rebellion is essentially an attempt to install himself on the throne of God and “be like the most High” (Isa. 14:14), the name Michael is a most fitting one for Him who has undertaken to vindicate the character of God and disprove Satan’s claims.

I remained there. The LXX, followed by Theodotion, reads: “and I left him [Michael] there.” Such a reading has been adopted by several modern versions (Good-speed, Moffatt, RSV), doubtless because it did not seem clear why the angel should state that he was left with the kings of Persia when Michael had come to his aid. Compare with this reading the statement, “But Michael came to his help, and then he remained with the kings of Persia” (EGW, Supplementary Material, on Dan. 10:12, 13).

Some see another possible meaning in the Hebrew text as it stands. The struggle here described was essentially one between the angels of God and “the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus” (see PK 571, 572). With the entrance into the contest of Michael, the Son of God, the powers of heaven gained the victory, and the evil one was forced to retreat. The word translated “remained” is elsewhere used in the sense of “to remain over” when others have left or been taken away. Thus this verb is used of Jacob when he remained behind at the brook Jabbok (Gen. 32:24), and of those heathen whom Israel allowed to remain in the land (1 Kings 9:20, 21). It is also the word applied by Elijah to himself when he believed that everyone else had departed from the true worship of Jehovah: “I, even I only, am left” (1 Kings 19:10, 14). As used by the angel in the present passage, it could mean that with the coming of Michael, the evil angel was forced to leave, and God’s angel “was left remaining there beside the kings of Persia.” “The victory was finally gained; the forces of the enemy were held in check” (PK 572). Two translations that have suggested this same thought are those of Luther, “there I gained the victory with the kings in Persia,” and Knox, “and there, at Persia’s court, I was left master of the field.”

Kings of Persia. Two Hebrew manuscripts read, “kingdom of Persia.” The ancient versions read, “king of Persia.”

14. In the latter days. Heb. beХacharith hayyamim, “in the latter part [or end] of the days.” This is an expression frequently used in Biblical prophecy, pointing to the final part of whatever period of history the prophet has in view. Thus Jacob used the term “last days” in reference to the ultimate fortune of each of the twelve tribes in the land of Canaan (Gen. 49:1); Balaam applied the term to the first advent of Christ (Num. 24:14); Moses used it in a general sense of the distant future, when Israel would suffer tribulation (Deut. 4:30). The expression may, and often does, refer directly to the final events of history. See on Isa. 2:2.

For many days. As indicated by italics, there is no word for “many” in the Hebrew text. The word “days” here seems to have the same meaning as in the clause immediately preceding. The angel came to tell Daniel what would befall the saints throughout the centuries until Christ’s second coming. The emphasis of this final clause of the verse is not so much upon the length of time in prospect, as upon the fact that the Lord has still further truth to be conveyed to Daniel by a vision. Translated literally, this verse reads, “And I have come to cause you to understand that which will happen to your people in the latter part of the days, for still there is a vision for the days.”

16. Like the similitude. Gabriel veiled his brightness and appeared in human form (see SL 52).

The vision. Some commentators consider that Daniel here refers to the vision of chs. 8 and 9; others believe that it was the present revelation that afflicted the prophet so acutely. In view of the fact that the term “vision” in both vs. 1 and 14 seems to apply to the revelation in chs. 10–12, and also because Daniel’s statement here in ch. 10:16 is a logical continuation of his reaction (v. 15) to the angel’s declaration concerning “the vision” (v. 14), it seems reasonable to conclude that the prophet is here speaking of the vision of divine glory he was witnessing.

19. Greatly beloved. See on v. 11.

20. With the prince. The KJV may be understood as meaning either that the angel was to fight on the side of the prince of Persia, or that he was to fight against him. The Greek versions are likewise ambiguous. The preposition meta, “with,” which it employs, may imply either alliance, as in 1 John 1:3, or hostility, as in Rev. 2:16. The Hebrew of this passage, however, seems to give a clear indication of its meaning. The verb lacham, “to fight,” is used 28 times in the OT, followed, as here, by the preposition Фim, “with.” In these instances the context clearly indicates that the word is to be taken in the sense of “against” (see Deut. 20:4; 2 Kings 13:12; Jer. 41:12; Dan. 11:11). It seems certain, then, that the angel is here speaking of further conflict between himself and the “prince of Persia.” That this struggle did continue long after the time of Daniel’s vision is shown by Ezra 4:4–24. “The forces of the enemy were held in check all the days of Cyrus, and all the days of his son Cambyses, who reigned about seven and a half years” (PK 572).

Prince of Grecia. The Hebrew word here for “prince,” sЊar, is the same as that employed previously (see on v. 13). The angel had told Daniel that he was returning to continue the struggle with the powers of darkness that contended for control of the mind of the king of Persia. Then he looked further toward the future and indicated that when he finally would withdraw from the struggle, a revolution would ensue in world affairs. As long as God’s angel held at bay the evil forces seeking to dominate the Persian government, that empire stood. But when divine influence was withdrawn and the control of the leaders of the nation was left entirely to the powers of darkness, ruin for their empire quickly followed. Led by Alexander, the armies of Greece swept over the world and quickly extinguished the Persian Empire.

The truth stated by the angel in this verse throws light on the revelation that follows. The ensuing prophecy, a record of war upon war, assumes greater meaning when understood in the light of what the angel has here observed. While men struggle with one another for earthly power, behind the scenes, and hidden from human eyes, an even greater struggle is going on, of which the ebb and flow of earthly affairs is a reflection (see Ed 173). As God’s people are shown to be preserved throughout their troubled history—recorded prophetically by Daniel—so it is sure that in that greater struggle, the legions of light will have the victory over the powers of darkness.

21. Noted. Heb. rasham, “to inscribe,” “to write down.”

Scripture. Heb. kethab, literally, “a writing,” from the verb kathab, “to write.” The eternal plans and purposes of God are here represented as written down. Compare Ps 139:16; Acts 17:26; see on Dan. 4:17.

None that holdeth. This phrase may also be translated, “there is no one who exerts himself.” This cannot be taken to mean that all were oblivious of the struggle except the two heavenly beings mentioned here. “The controversy was one in which all heaven was interested” (PK 571). The probable meaning of the passage is that Christ and Gabriel assumed the special work of contending with the hosts of Satan who attempted to secure control of the empires of this earth.

Your prince. The fact that Michael is spoken of specifically as your (the Hebrew pronoun is plural) prince, places Him in sharp contrast with the “prince of Persia” (vs. 13, 20) and “the prince of Grecia” (v. 20). Michael was the champion on God’s side of the great controversy.

Ellen G. White comments

1 6T 406

2–6SL 49

7, 8 SL 50

8 DA 246; GC 471; MB 15; SC 29

11 GC 470

11–13 SL 51

13 PK 572

15, 16, 19 SL 51

21 DA 99