Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 10:15-21
15 When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. 16 And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. 17 How can my lord’s servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.”
18 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19 And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” 20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.
__________________________
We mentioned this earlier in the chapter, but these verses are some of the most explicit textual confirmations that we have from the Bible regarding concepts like cosmic geography, and the roles and purposes of angels and fallen angels.
Daniel’s text here is part of a larger Old Testament framework, going back to the Torah – specifically Deuteronomy 32 and the Tower of Babel story from the Book of Genesis:
The belief in the ancient world – and a view corroborated by the Old Testament, though not in quite the same way that everyone else did it – was that each nation was governed by a supernatural entity (or entities) and that the rule of those celestial beings had fixed borders. That’s why when two nations fought wars, the people in those nations viewed it as their gods fighting each other. The things of the physical realm are reflected in the spiritual realm, and vice versa. You could find out whose god is strongest when two nations go to war. It’s also why a people might believe that if their god lost, it is because the other nation had a better god, or that they had not been faithful enough to cause their own god to fight hard enough to win.
The difference among the Israelites, compared with their neighbors, was that they had a unique explanation for how this came to be. *Originally* according to the Torah, the entire world belonged to their God. After the disobedience at Babel, their God disinherited all the nations, giving them over to rule by “the sons of God” (what we might think of as angels, but entities viewed as gods in any case.) God retained to Himself a people, though, through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In Christian theology, the plan then was always to reclaim the nations through this line of people retained by God to Himself – hence so much language in the New Testament about “Kingdom.” Pentecost was the beginning of that reclamation. That’s why the scene’s attendees, described in the Book of Acts, have homes that so closely mirror the geography described in Genesis 10-11’s table of nations (which accompanies the Tower of Babel story.) Pentecost and the Tower of Babel are intentionally linked. It’s also why we see the specific supernatural sign that we see – namely differing languages become universal and comprehensible to everyone. That moment was a direct reversal of Babel and demonstrated the mission of the Church. The sign was a signal that the nations are being reclaimed by God after their disinheritance in Genesis 10-11.
Alright, so with that background out of the way, let’s jump into the text with the commentaries. First we’ll look at The Pulpit Commentaries note on verse 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 dots 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, and, still more, in what is related in the following verse.
The ESV settles the debate between “silent” and “dumb” with the word “mute” – which could be either silent or dumb or both. Continuing in TPC to 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 LXX. rendering differs from this, “And behold, as the likeness of the hand of a man”âdue, more likely to explanatory paraphrase than to various reading of ×ר for ×× ×; still the phrase, “a likeness of sons of man,” is somewhat violent, and not to be paralleled by Psalms 45:3â”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 צ××× (tzeedee) has been read by mistake for צ××¨× (tzeeree). The sense of the Massoretic is difficult; but this is nonsense. “And there was no strength in me,” reading ××××× instead of עצרת×. 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 (ÏÎ¿Ì ÎµÌνÏοÌÏ Î¼Î¿Ï ) were turned in me, and I had no strength.” Theodotion has evidently had the singular ×Ö¶Ö¼× instead of ×Ö°× Öµ×, 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 צ×ר××, that we have εÌνÏοÌÏ. 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 favour of the reading of the LXX; it would be much preferable to any other, as we have the description of the visitant whose hand touched Daniel, in verses 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 verses 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, verse 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 thisâthat it was the lips that were touched. In Isaiah 6:6 and Isaiah 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”âa 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 (1 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 1 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 Proverbs 25:13 it means “messenger,” and this is the meaning it most frequently bears (Proverbs 13:17; Isaiah 18:2; Jeremiah 49:14; Obadiah 1:1). Neither of these meanings is at all suitable. In Psalms 49:16 we have the word appearing in the K’thib, and translated “beauty;” hence it would be equivalent to ×××× (hodee) of Psalms 49:8. The LXX. 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.
The TPC note here focuses – as it often does – on source material variance in an effort to get closest to the most likely intended meaning. However you parse the text, the same general story seems to play out. A celestial being (an angel) touches Daniel and gives him strength to speak.
It is worth remembering – though I won’t get into it in great detail here – that a significant percentage of angelic communication in Scripture results in overwhelming fear. This is why angels so frequently tell the recipient of their messages “Do not be afraid.” The phrase appears over 70 times in the Bible.
We’ll go next to Ellicott’s Bible Commentary for its note on verse 17:
(17) For how.âThe whole verse must be regarded as addressed by Daniel to the angel. On the phrase âneither is there any breath in meâ comp. 1 Kings 17:17. Here we may notice the same fear which possessed Isaiah at the time of his vision (Isaiah 6:5).
Isaiah 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Making the comparison with Isaiah, we notice that both Prophets had their lips touched – the Isaiah’s touching was done with a coal to atone for Isaiah’s sin. I am reminded of the saying, and it seems true Scripturally and anecdotally, that the closer one is to God, the more aware of one’s own sin one becomes. True holiness thus lives hand in hand with humility.
These encounters also put me in mind of the following verse:
Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
I feel some concern that a Christianity of cheap grace and flippancy has gained too much of a foothold in the modern Church.
We’ll look next at TPC’s note for verse 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.
Daniel is again strengthened. As the note says, there is not a lot to add here except to just think on the nature of the encounter itself. Daniel is a very holy man. He has had previous visions. He has survived threats to his life. But encountering an angel turns him into water.
Looking next at Ellicott and verses 19 and 20:
(19) Be strong.âComp. 2 Samuel 10:12.
(20) Then said he.âThe meaning of this verse is obscure. Apparently the person who is speaking refers back to what he had said (Daniel 10:12-14); and from the question âKnowest thou?â &c., we are to infer that Daniel was perfectly aware of the reasons which caused him to come, viz., âto make thee understand what shall befal thy people in the latter days.â But before he proceeds to make this revelation, he prepares Danielâs mind for a portion of what is about to be revealed, by mentioning the spiritual powers which ruled over Greece. âI shall return to fight,â referring to the Providence which watched over Israel during the Persian sovereignty; âbut while I am gone forthâ (the word being used in a military sense, as in Joshua 14:11) âthe prince of Javan will come,â this word being also used in a hostile sense. The prophet is in this manner prepared for troublous times, which shall occur under the Macedonian supremacy.
The mention of the Prince of Persia is somewhat understandable but the Prince of Greece coming next (apparently as a foe of the Prince of Persia) is less so. One theory as to this meaning is that this refers to the rise of Alexander the Great who will eventually topple their empire. However, another is that this refers to Greek resistance to Medo-Persian rule, which was already underway at the time of Cyrus. In light of the other visions of Daniel, though, the comparison between the Prince of Greece and the Third Beast is compelling.
At the very least, we can look at this Prince of Greece as an instrument of God to limit the power of the Prince of Persia. Thus – even if we also view the nations as being ruled by supernatural agents independent of God (in one sense) we can also view them as His instruments. We already encountered the idea that God used Babylon as an instrument for the punishment of His people Judah. Maybe that idea that they’re both disinherited but also under His rule makes sense in a context where Deuteronomy 32 describes the new rulers as “sons of God” (ben Elohim.)
Job 12:23 “He makes the nations great, then destroys them;
He enlarges the nations, then leads them away.
Psalm 22:28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s
And He rules over the nations.
Finally, we’ll finish up the chapter in Ellicott and verse 21:
(21) But.âA further contrast is introduced by the adversative. This may be brought out by paraphrasing the verse as follows: âIt is true that the prince of Javan will attack you, but do not despair at the thought of one persecuting empire succeeding another. It is all written in the Scripture of truth:â that is, in the revelations which God had already conveyed, or shortly would convey, to Daniel, and in the book of Providence (Psalms 139:16). We have here a striking parallel to our Saviourâs words, âLo, I have told you before.â
And there is none . . .âA still further ground of encouragement. Michael, who stood up as Israelâs champion under the Persian troubles, will prove himself strong against the evil powers which lead Javan.
You might notice from the note that the Prince of Greece is described as the Prince of “Javan.” I mentioned earlier “the table of nations” chapters – Genesis 10 and 11 surrounding the Tower of Babel story – but those chapters describe how the descendants of Noah spread out over the earth after the flood. Javan is a reference one of Japheth’s sons who is synonymous with Greece (explained via wiki)
Javan (Hebrew: יָוָן, romanized: Yāwān) was the fourth son of Noah‘s son Japheth according to the “Generations of Noah” (Book of Genesis, chapter 10) in the Hebrew Bible. Josephus states the traditional belief that this individual was the ancestor of the Greeks.
Also serving as the Hebrew name for Greece or Greeks in general, יָוָן Yavan or Yāwān has long been considered cognate with the name of the eastern Greeks, the Ionians (Greek Ἴωνες Iōnes, Homeric Greek Ἰάονες Iáones; Mycenaean Greek *Ιαϝονες Iawones). Giving that all Torah scrolls are strictly unpunctuated reading the word יון can give Yon, given as the letter Waw may just as equally function as consonant (read “w”) or vowel (read “o” or “ʊ“). Cognate names were applied to the ancient Greeks throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East and beyond such as the Sanskrit and Prakrit Yona.
In Greek mythology, the eponymous forefather of the Ionians is similarly called Ion, a son of Apollo. The opinion that Javan is synonymous with Greek Ion and thus fathered the Ionians is common to numerous writers of the early modern period, including Sir Walter Raleigh, Samuel Bochart, John Mill and Jonathan Edwards, and is still frequently encountered today.
Javan is also found in apocalyptic literature in the Book of Daniel, 8:21-22 and 11:2, about the King of Yawan—most commonly interpreted as a reference to Alexander the Great.
While Javan is generally associated with the ancient Greeks and Greece (cf. Gen. 10:2, Dan. 8:21, Zech. 9:13, etc.), his sons (as listed in Genesis 10) have usually been associated with locations in the Northeastern Mediterranean Sea and Anatolia: Elishah (Magna Graecia), Tarshish (Tarsus in Cilicia, but after 1646 often identified with Tartessus in Spain), Kittim (modern Cyprus), and Dodanim (alt. 1 Chron. 1:7 ‘Rodanim,’ the island of Rhodes, west of modern Turkey between Cyprus and the mainland of Greece).
The chapter ends with the angel giving Daniel encouragement over the fact that Michael (Israel’s celestial prince) remains the protector of his people.
The actual vision (referred to in this chapter) is shared in Chapter 11. Most of Daniel’s chapters stand alone, however, Chapters 10-12 are all kind of one unit. We should thus let the text interpret itself. We’ll need all three chapters to help interpret each other. We may encounter information in the next two chapters which better helps us to understand what was happening here in chapter 10.
