Daniel 10:13

Prince. Heb. sar, 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 sar hassaba’, “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. sar] 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 sar 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 [sar] which standeth for the children of thy people” (eh. 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, sar 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 eh. 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. Mika’el, literally, “who [is] like God?” He is here described as “one of the chief princes [Heb. sarim].” Later He is described as Israel’s particular protector (eh. 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 (Goodspeed, 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.”