The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 321

tendornoee. Ziiolclor eeee in it tho.t in the rlelinorl the JewiHh irlcnR a.a to the nnm~a Divine oouneel Go.briel wo.e commieeioned, of the o.ngcla, they began to ho.vo cl~11rer but wo.e hindered for reo.eone o.esigned in ideas of their functions. 'fhey reache,l tli~ the next vereo. ideo. that every race ho.d its gmutlian nn.,cl. Ver. 18.-But the prinoe of the kingdom This view is expressed in Dent. xxxiC R, ot Peraia withstood me one and twenty day1: according to the Beptnagin t, " Ha set • but, lo, llliohael, one of the ohlef prlnoea, bounds for the nations according to the oame to help me ; and I remained there nnmbar of the angels of God." To o. with the kings of l'eraia. The rendering of similar pnrport is Ecclus. xvii. 17, "To the LXX. ie, "And the general (0''1'pc&'1''1'Ybs) each of the nations he appointed a leo.dcr, of the King of the Pereio.ne withstood me e.nd Israel is the portion of the Lore I." one nnd twenty de.ye, o.nd behold Michael, There seems, however, a preparation for one of the first prinoes, co.me to help me, this in lea. x.xiv. 21 (comp. also PBB. xxix. and I left him there with the genero.l 1 ; cvi. 9). As independent of revela.tion of the King of the Pereio.ne." The sense there is o. strong inherent probability that of Theodotion is nco.rly the same o.s the there are ro.ces of beings of intelligence LXX., only he has fJci0'1l\du IlepO'wv in- and might vastly superior to man, there stead of fJci0'1l\lo,s, Like the LXX., Theo- is nothing inherently improbable in these dotion declo.res tho.t Michael was left with intelligences being employed by the Al- the Prince of Pereio.. The Peshitte. agrees mighty in furthering his providentio.l more with the Me.ssoretio, but, like the scheme. Men are instruments of God; is LXX. and Theodotion, it is with the it not a.t least not improbable that, if there "Prince" of Persia that there is some are angels, they, too, co-operate with God one reme.mmg. The Peshitta. here, in in the working out of his greo.t purpose? opposition to the Greek versions, he.e That every nation should have an angeli<J the statement that Gabriel remo.ined, not prince over it is not more extraordinary Michael. The Vulge.te agrees still further than that every Church should have a. with the Me.ssoretio, only instead of the special a.ngel over it (Rev. i. 20: ii. 2, etc.). plure.l "kings," it has "king." The most That there should be conflicts between these important differences are in the le.et cla.use, angelio princes is simply to say they are where the LXX. and Theodotion must ha.ve finite. Hitzig's reference to Rev. xii. 7 had the hiphil of -ii:,: where the Me.ssoretio is not to the point, for there is no indica- ha.e the niphal. Gratz adopts this read- tion of warlike opposition here. By the ing, which certs.inly he.a the e.dve.nto.ge of indico.tions here, we might judge that the ma.king sense of e.n otherwise unintelligible opposition of the Prince of Persia. was to pe.sse.ge. Professor Beva.n, in his easy wa.y, the coming of Gabriel to reveal to Daniel suggests this to be proha.bly a. mere guess, lhe purpose of God. We know nothing the insertion of ab'l'bv a.nd the substitutit1n or the mea.ns employed in the opposition, of a. transitive for a.n intransitive verb o:r of the rea.son of it. Keil and Kliefoth a.re quite in the ma.nner of the LXX. ha.ve the idea. that Gabriel was striving translators. He forgets tha.t Theodo- to infl.uenoe the King of Persia, but was tion a.lso has this 'l"!Lrie.tion, a.nd a.lso that, hindered in hie efforts by the " Prince without any justi.fica.tion from the versions, of Persia.;" this is scarcely borne out by he himself he.a suggested various readings. the context. But, lo, Jlichael, one oj the He does not observe that this interpreta.tion chief prince,, came to help me. Michael affords a. reason for Ge.briel's presence (" Who is like God?") is, in the twenty- with Do.niel. Michael relieved him in first verse, declared to be the •• prince " of :his opposition to the Prince of Persia.. the Jewish people, therefore equivalent to The other variant, "prince" instead of "the captain of the host of the Lord " " king," he.s the support of o.11 the ver- (Josh. v. 14). He is referred to in Rev. sions. But the p.-ince of the kingdom of xii. 7 o.nd Jude 9. Where he is ca.lled one Persia withstood me one and twenty days. of "the chief princes," there is referenct> That is to se.y, during the whole of Do.niel's to o.n angelio hierarchy, whether the same fo.st. The o.ngelology of lo.tor Juda.ism is 11 as that we find developed in the Book of very complico.ted, not to so.y confused,subject. Enoch or not cannot be decided certainly. The angelology of one o.ge is not tho.t of In the Book of Tobit xii. 15 Raphael de- another: o.nd the angelology of the Jews in clares himself "one of the seven holy one country is not tho.t of the Jews in another. angels who prcsen t the prayers of tbo The J ewe themselves understood tho.t the saints, o.ncl who go in and out before the, Bo.bylonio.n co.ptivity did o. greo.t deal to glory of the Iloly One." 'rho Book of develop the doctrine of the angels : the '!'obit seems to have been written about Jewish tradition wo.s tha.t they brought B.O. 400; hence this is o.n indication of be.ck from Babylon the no.mes of the o.ngels. opinion before the Books of Enoch. Iu Not only ho.d their rosidenoe ill Babylon the Enoch books not only are the great  THE BOOK OF DANIEL. (ou. x. 1-21.