성경 주석서

The Theophany - Daniel 10-11:2a

The Introduction to the Following Manifestation of God - Daniel 10:1-3

This verse is to be regarded as an inscription or general statement of the substance of it. Therefore Daniel speaks of himself in the third person, as in Daniel 7:1, and in the historical portions Daniel 1-6. The definition of the time, “In the first year of Cores (Cyrus) king of Persia,” refers us back to Daniel 1:21, but it does not, as has been there already remarked, stand in contradiction to the first year of Cyrus named there. דּבר is the following revelation, which was communicated to the prophet not by a vision ( חזון ), but by a manifestation of God ( מראה ), and was given in the form of simple human discourse. The remark regarding Daniel, “whose name was Belteshazzar,” is designed only to make it obvious that the Daniel of the third year of Cyrus was the same who was carried by Babylon in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (seventy-two years before). To the question why Daniel did not return to his native land in the first year of Cyrus, which Hitzig has thus formulated for the purpose of framing an argument against the genuineness of this prophecy - ”How could he, who was a pattern of piety (Daniel 1:8; Ezekiel 14:14), so disregard the opportunity that was offered and the summons of Isaiah (Isaiah 48:20; Isaiah 52:11.) as if he stood on the side of those who forgot the holy mountain?” (Isaiah 65:11) - the supposition of his advanced old age (Häv.) is no sufficient answer. For, on the contrary, Hitzig has rightly replied that old men also, such as had even seen the former temple, had returned home (Ezra 3:12), and Daniel was not so infirm as to be unable for the journey. The correct answer is rather this, that Daniel, because divine revelations had been communicated to him, had obtained a position at the court of the world-rulers in which he was able to do much for the good of his people, and might not, without a special divine injunction, leave this place; that he thus, not from indifference toward the holy mountain or from neglect of the injunctions to flee from Babylon (Isaiah 48:20; Isaiah 52:11.), but from obedience to God, and for the furtherance of the cause of His kingdom, remained at his post till the Lord His God should call him away from it.

In the second hemistich the contents of this new divine revelation are characterized. הדּבר with the article points back to דּבר in the first half of the verse. Of this “word” Daniel says that it contains אמת and גּדול צבא . In the statement that “the thing was true,” Hitzig finds an intimation that thereby the author betrays his standpoint, namely, the time when “the thing” was realized, for Daniel could not say this before it happened. But this objection supposes that the author was a lying prophet, who spoke from his own heart (Jeremiah 29:8, Jeremiah 29:15). But if Daniel had actually received a “word” from God, he could before its fulfilment testify its truth. The testimony to the truth of the word here indicates, as it does in Daniel 8:26 in the mouth of the angel, that the word of God now communicated to the prophet contained things which it would be difficult for the human heart to believe. The second predicate גּדול צבא shows in what respect this is so. For that these words do not, with the lxx and Aquil., refer to what follows is obvious, as is acknowledged by all modern interpreters. צבא , warfare, military service, then the difficulty of this service, and figuratively difficulty, afflictions of life, Job 7:1; Job 10:17, and also here. “The word is, i.e., concerns, has as its contents, great afflictions” [E.V. “the time appointed was long”].

In the last clause of this verse בּין and בינה are not the imperative (v. Lengerke), because a summons to give heed, or understand, would not be here in place. בינה is a substantive, and the throwing of the accent on the penultima is occasioned by the accented לו which follows. בּין is the 3rd pers. perf., not the infinitive (Häv.). Understanding was to him בּמּראה , by that which was seen, i.e., by the appearance described in Daniel 10:5. בּמּראה cannot at all be referred (Klief.) to the earlier prophecies of Daniel 8:7, Daniel 8:9. The statement in these two passages serves for the confirmation of that which was said regarding the contents of the word from God, and stands in relation to Daniel 8:27, where Daniel was troubled because no one understood the vision. He was helped out of this state of non-understanding by the following revelation, cf. Daniel 10:14. But the objection that it cannot be here said that Daniel understood the word, because he himself, Daniel 12:8, says that he did not understand it, has been disposed of by Kliefoth, who justly remarks that the non-understanding in Daniel 12:8 regards a single point, namely, the duration of the affliction, regarding which, however, disclosures are given to the prophet in Daniel 12:10. The translation: “he heard the word, and understood the vision” (Kran.), is set aside by this circumstance, that it takes בּין in a different sense from בינה , contrary to the parallelism of the passages.

return to '

His body shone like תּרשׁישׁ , i.e., the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under Ezekiel 1:16); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and the place of his feet like the sight of polished brass ( קלל , see under Ezekiel 1:7). מרגּלות , place of the feet, does not stand for feet, but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass. The voice of his words, i.e., the sound of his speaking, was like המון קול , for which in Ezekiel 1:24 המלּה קול ( the voice of noise), and by מחנה קול (Ezekiel 1:24) the noise of a host is denoted.

This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel, Ezekiel 9:9, but all the other features, as here described - the shining of his body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glistering brass, the sound of his speaking-all these point to the revelation of the יהוה כּבוד , the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with Revelation 1:13-15, where the form of the Son of man whom John saw walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel.

The place where this heavenly being was, is not here specially stated. In Daniel 12:6 he appears hovering over the waters of the river, the Tigris. This agrees also with the verse before us, according to which Daniel, while standing on the banks of the river, on lifting up his eyes beheld the vision. Hence it further follows, that the אישׁ seen here by Daniel is the same heavenly being whose voice he heard, Daniel 8:16, from the waters of the Ulai, without seeing his form.

When now he whose voice Daniel heard from thence presents himself before him here on the Tigris in a majesty which human nature is not able to endure, and announces to him the future, and finally, Daniel 12:6., with a solemn oath attests the completion of the divine counsel, he thereby shows himself, as C. B. Michaelis ad Daniel p. 372, Schmieder in Gerlach's Bibelw., and Oehler (Art. Messias in Herz.'s Realenc. ix. p. 417) have acknowledged, to be the Angel of Jehovah κατ ̓ἐξοχὴν , as the “Angel of His presence.” The combination of this angel with that in the form of a son of man appearing in the clouds (Daniel 7:13) is natural; and this combination is placed beyond a doubt by the comparison with Revelation 1:13, where John sees the glorified Christ, who is described by a name definitely referring to Daniel 7:13, as ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου .

On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated ( Beitr. i. p. 165ff.; Christol. iii. 2, p. 50ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, Daniel 10:11, and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, and is identical with the angel Gabriel. But the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, חמות אישׁ , Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19, cf. with Daniel 9:23, partly on the similarity of the circumstances, Daniel 8:17-18, cf. with Daniel 10:10 and Daniel 12:5. But the address to Daniel חמות אישׁ proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in Daniel 9:23 does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is המדות , i.e., a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with Daniel 8:17-18 proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of Daniel 8:13 with Daniel 12:5, so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in Daniel 8:16 directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in Daniel 8 and also in Daniel 9 Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of Daniel 10:9, Daniel 10:21.

To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, Daniel 10:11, and him who appears, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vv. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, Daniel 12:1-13, is in the midst of the Tigris, and in Daniel 10:5 of this chapter (Daniel 12:1-13) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, v. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον , and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger (Daniel 12:7). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others.

But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, Daniel 10:10, a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, Daniel 10:11. The words of the text, “a hand touched me,” leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in Daniel 10:16, Daniel 10:18, where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, אדם בּני כּדּמוּת , like the similitude of the sons of men, Daniel 10:16, and אדם כּמראה , like the appearance of a man, Daniel 10:18, do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in Daniel 12:1-13, besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in Daniel 10:5. The words, “Then I looked and saw other two, the one,” etc., Daniel 12:5, much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In Daniel 10 he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this “great sight” that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him. Nothing is here, as in Daniel 8:15, said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, “and he spake to me ... “ (Daniel 10:11), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition.

He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel (Daniel 10:11); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zechariah 2:13, 15; Zechariah 4:9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 61:1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zechariah 1:15 עזר denotes help which men render to God; and in 1 Chronicles 12:21. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e., under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia.

There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him who speaks as the same, then in Daniel 12:5 one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον ; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, Daniel 10 and 11, the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others ( אהרים שׁנים ), and the אהרים excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as אהרים with reference to the Angel of the Lord, Daniel 10:6, for the reference of the אהרים to that which follows is inconsistent with the context; see under Daniel 12:5.

Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he who speaks, Daniel 10:11, is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in Daniel 10 names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes (Daniel 12:5). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks.

return to '

According to this verse, the form described in Daniel 10:5 and Daniel 10:6 was visible to Daniel alone. His companions saw not the appearance, but they were so alarmed by the invisible nearness of the heavenly being that they fled and hid themselves. What is here said resembles Acts 9:3., where Christ, after His exaltation, appeared to Paul and spoke to him - Paul's companions hearing only the voice, but seeing no one. In order to account for the flight of Daniel's companions, it is not necessary to suppose the existence of thunder and lightning, of which the text makes no mention. The supposition also of Theodor. and Hitzig, that the men indeed saw not the angel, but that they heard his voice, is incorrect; for the voice was not heard till after his companions had fled. המּראה , pointed as fem., that which was seen, the appearance, seems to be a more limited conception than מראה , visio. בּהחבא יברחוּ : they fled, for they hid themselves; so that the hiding is not to be regarded as the object of the fleeing, but the fleeing is made known in their hiding themselves.

return to '

Daniel here calls the appearance great with reference to the majesty displayed, such as had never hitherto been known to him. Its influence upon him is, therefore, also greater than that of the appearance of Gabriel, Daniel 8:17. There remained in him no strength, i.e., he felt himself overwhelmed, and as if about to perish. His הוד , splendour - the same as the Chald. זיו , Daniel 7:28; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9 - i.e., the fresh colour of life which marked his countenance, was changed למשׁחית , properly, to destruction, to entire disfigurement, to corruption. The last clause, “and I retained no strength,” gives greater force to the preceding statement.

return to '

With this joyful message the angel comes to Daniel, to open up to him what would befall his people in the last time. The punctuation of יקרה ( shall befall) is according to יקרא (Genesis 49:1); the Kethiv יקרה has the correct form. חימים בּאחרית as Daniel 2:28, the Messianic world-time, in Daniel 8:17 is called the time of the end. “For,” the angel adds, “the vision refers, or stretches itself out, to the days.” ליּמים , with the article, are the days of the אחרית ( the latter time), the Messianic world-time. חזון is the revelation which in Daniel 10:1 is called דּבר and מראה , the following revelation in Daniel 11. Kliefoth is incorrect in thinking on the revelations already given, Daniel 7, 8, 9, to Daniel, regarding which the angel now seeks to bring to him further understanding. For although those revelations stretch out to the last time, and the revelations in Daniel 11 only give further disclosures regarding it, yet neither does the angel who speaks to Daniel here thus represent the matter, nor does the form of the revelation Daniel 10-12, namely, the majestic appearance of the Angel of the Lord, not a common angel-revelation, correspond with this supposition. חזון also cannot, without further definition, refer to those earlier revelations; and the opinion that הבּין denotes the understanding, as distinguished from the revelation or proclamation, does not accord with the usual style of Daniel's language. הבּין denotes here, as in Daniel 8:16, the interpretation of the vision, which in both cases contains the things which shall befall the people of God in the future. Cf. Daniel 9:22, where יבּין is used of the announcement of the revelation of God regarding the seventy weeks.

return to '

But before he communicated to Daniel what would befall his people in the “latter days” (Daniel 10:14), he gives to him yet further disclosures regarding the proceedings in the spirit-kingdom which determine the fate of nations, and contain for Israel, in the times of persecution awaiting them, the comforting certainty that they had in the Angel of the Lord and in the guardian angel Michael a strong protection against the enmities of the heathen world. Kliefoth supposes that the angel who speaks in v. 20 - Daniel 11:1 gives a brief resumי of the contents of his previous statement (Daniel 10:12-14). But it is not so. These verses, 10:20-11:1, contain new disclosures not yet made known in Daniel 11:12-19, although resembling the contents of Daniel 10:13. Of the coming of the prince of Javan (v. 20 b), and the help which the angel-prince renders to Darius (Daniel 11:1), nothing is said in Daniel 10:13; also what the Angel of the Lord, Daniel 10:20, says regarding the conflict with the prince of Persia is different from that which is said in Daniel 10:13. In Daniel 10:13 he speaks of that which he has done before his coming to Daniel; in Daniel 10:20, of that which he will now do. To the question, “Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?” no answer follows; it has, however, an affirmative sense, and is only an animated mode of address to remind Daniel of that which is said in Daniel 10:12-14, and to impress it upon him as weighty and worthy of consideration. Then follows the new communication: “and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia,” i.e., to carry forward and bring to an end the victory gained for thee before my arrival over the demon of Persia, the spirit of the Persian kingdom.

The words which follow, ' וגו והנּה יוצא ואני (v. 20 b, and when I am gone forth, lo, etc.), present some difficulty. The ואני in comparison with אשׁוּב ( will I return) points to a contrast, and והנּה plainly indicates that which shall begin with the יוצא אני . By this, the union of the יוצא ואני with that which goes before and the adversative interpretation of והנּה (v. Leng.) is excluded. But יוצא is interpreted differently. Hävernick, Maurer, and others understand it of going forth to war; only we must not then think (with Maurer) of the war against the prince of Persia. “For he will do that even now (in the third year of Cyrus), and at this time the coming of the prince of Grecia has no meaning” (Hitzig). Hofmann and Hitzig understand, therefore, יוצא , in contrast to בּא , of a going forth from the conflict, as in 2 Kings 11:7 “they shall go forth on the Sabbath” is placed over against “that enter in on the Sabbath” in 2 Kings 11:5; but in an entirely different sense. Hitzig thus renders the clause: “when I have done with the Persians, and am on the point of departing, then shall the king of Grecia rise up against me.” יון must then be the Seleucidan kingdom, and the שׂר the guardian spirit of Egypt - suppositions which need no refutation, while the interpretation of the words themselves fails by the arbitrary interpolation “against me” after בּא . According to Hofmann, the angel says that “he had to return and contend further with the prince of the people of Persia; and that when he has retired from this conflict, then shall the prince of the Grecian people come, compelling him to enter on a new war.” This last clause Hofmann thus more fully illustrates: “Into the conflict with the prince of the people of Persia, which the angel retires from, the prince of the Grecian people enters, and against him he resumes it after that the Persian kingdom has fallen, and is then also helped by Michael, the prince of the Jewish people, in this war against the prince of Grecia, as he had been in the war against the prince of Persia” ( Schriftbew. i. pp. 333, 334f.). But Hitzig and Kliefoth have, in opposition to this, referred to the incongruity which lies in the thought that the prince of Javan shall enter into the war of the angel against the Persians, and assume and carry it forward. The angel fights against the demon of Persia, not to destroy the Persians, but to influence the Persian king in favour of the people of God; on the contrary, the prince of Javan comes to destroy the Persian king. According to this, we cannot say that the prince of Javan enters into the place of the angel in the war. “The Grecians and the Persians much rather stand,” as Hitzig rightly remarks, “on one side, and are adversaries of Michael and our שׂר ,” i.e., of the angel who spake to Daniel. Add to this, that although יצא , to go out, means also to go away, to go off, yet the meaning to go away from the conflict, to abandon it, is not confirmed: much rather יצא , sensu militari , always denotes only “to go out, forth, into the conflict;” cf. 1 Samuel 8:20; 1 Samuel 23:15; 1 Chronicles 20:1; Job 39:21, etc. We have to take the word in this signification here (with C. B. Michaelis, Klief., and Kran.), only we must not, with Kranichfeld, supply the clause, “to another more extensive conflict,” because this supplement is arbitrary, but rather, with Kliefoth, interpret the word generally as it stands of the going out of the angel to fight for the people of God, without excluding the war with the prince of Persia, or limiting it to this war. Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (Daniel 10:13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e., while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come ( הנּה with the partic. בּא of the future) - then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from Daniel 10:21. The warring with the prince, i.e., the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. יון שׂר is the spirit of the Macedonian world-kingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God.

return to '