4

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. [Daniel 10:21 KJV]

Daniel 10:21 KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/dan.10.21.KJV

2
  • Edited only to demonstrate highlighting of quotes. Please feel free to roll back if you wish.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 5:34
  • 1
    Michael is the (angelic) prince of the Israelites, whereas the other heavenly beings mentioned therein (10:13, 10:20) are the (angelic) princes of the gentile nations.
    – Lucian
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 12:29

3 Answers 3

4

Some clarity might come with Young's Literal Translation. First, the context of the verse in question.

A few verses earlier Daniel had been told by the heavenly messenger, Gabriel, that "From the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem till Messiah the leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks..." (Daniel 9:25). Notice how this prophecy speaks of the future Messiah as being the leader? We here have the Christ in the text, though not identified as Jesus Christ. Bear that in mind.

In Cyrus's first year as king, he issued the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem - 2 Chronicles 36:22 & Ezra 1:1-4. Cyrus's first year began on 24 March, 538 B.C.E. (This is according to a Nisan to Nisan Jewish calendar.) The significance of such details is that it can be worked out (with hindsight) that 483 years passed from the issuing of that decree until Jesus rode into Jerusalem, being acclaimed King.

A few years later Daniel is given a vision about a future great war. By the time of the vision, it was the third year of Cyrus after his conquest of Babylonia, and now we are in Daniel chapter 10. A glorious messenger from heaven comes to Daniel to give him understanding about the 70 years of exile now being up. Notice the way others are described by this one:

"And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia; and I have come to cause thee to understand that which doth happen to thy people in the latter end of the days, for yet the vision [is] after days." Daniel 10:13-14

Daniel is able to reply to this heavenly one, speaking of him as "my lord" (vss. 17 & 19). This one adds, "Now I turn back to fight with the head of Persia; yea, I am going forth, and lo, the head of Javan hath come; but I declare to thee that which is noted down in the Writing of Truth, and there is not one strengthening himself with me, concerning these, except Michael your head." (Daniel 10:21, the verse you ask about. All italics mine.)

From this it seems clear that there are several 'heads' over nations, there are several 'chief heads,' with Michael being the chief head of those other chief heads. Michael is 'head of heads' and that is because he is head over the nation of Israel, Daniel's nation, God's chosen nation. That is why Michael is both named and declared to be Daniel's head.

However, the Messiah, the King, is the leader. He is over all the chief heads, and all other leaders. That is perfectly shown in the New Testament letter to Hebrew Christians, chapters 1 and 2. None of the angels are equal to him, for he is over all the angels, who all have to bow down to him (Hebrews 1:6). He has a throne, and a sceptre of righteousness over which to rule all the nations, and he has power over the devil, to destroy that one. No created angel (heavenly messenger) has that power! Only the Son of God, Christ the Messiah, has that power (see also Revelation 19:11-16, noting that in verse 10 an angelic messenger forbids John to prostrate himself before him; cf. Heb. 1:6).

So, Michael is certainly the prince (or, 'head') over the nation of Israel, and, therefore, Daniel's prince (or, 'head'). However, the Messiah is distinguished, even in Daniel's prophecy, hundreds of years before he made his earthly appearance, as being the leader - leader over all the heavenly messengers (angels) and 'heads' of nations. Of course, Daniel would be bone-dead before the promised Messiah was proclaimed King by his people, the people of Israel, and he would save those proclaiming him such from their sins. No created angel can save any human from their sins!

3
  • "No created angel can save any human from their sins!", Well, in Isaiah 6:5-7 a seraph takes away Isaiah's 'sin' saving him from being 'lost.' But, of course these could be uncreated seraphim.
    – Austin
    Commented Aug 9 at 18:10
  • 1
    +1 however. The response overall is helpful.
    – Austin
    Commented Aug 9 at 18:13
  • 1
    @Austin, consider that the seraph couldn't do this outright, but had to take a burning coal from the altar. Compare this with Ezekiel 10:2. What gets burned on an altar?
    – Dieter
    Commented Aug 29 at 2:26
3

Why is Michael called “[Daniel's] prince”?

Short Answer: Michael is Christ.

Another way to ask this is: "Is Michael the Archangel the pre-incarnate Christ?"

John Wesley wrote:

"Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."

John Gill wrote similarly:

"[And] is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes."

Wikipedia on "Michael" (the Protestant section) states:

Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." [esp. Dan. 10:21.]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Trinitarian, stated:

Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”, and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.

In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)

The following is a quote from John Calvin:

"Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people [Dan. 10:21, 12:1]. The angel... calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people" (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65).

How interesting it is that no one connects the dots between Jude vs. 9 and Zech. 3:2! In that volume we have the following exchange:

Zechariah 3:2: "The LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!'" (emphasis added).

Where else do we read of this? We read it here:

Jude vs. 9: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'"

Here, it should be understood that, in the Old Testament, the "body of Moses" was analogous to the "body of Christ" in the N/T. That is, the "body" that the Lord (Michael) and the Devil were "arguing about" was the Nation of Israel: the body of Moses, represented by Joshua the High Priest.

It is Christ Himself, the Lord, that protected Israel. If Michael is the one characterized as the protector of Israel, then Michael must be Christ.

5
  • 1
    What about "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Daniel 10:13 KJV" bible.com/bible/1/dan.10.13.KJV
    – Dini
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:30
  • 1
    One of the chief princes?
    – Dini
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:30
  • 2
    @Lifeforbetter Here's an interesting quote from the N/T: "[The Israelites in the wilderness] were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed [and protected] them; and the rock was Christ" Spurgeon recognizes a vital distinction: "In his view, "archangel" ["over the angels"] means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel" and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." This Leader of the angelic host is described in Daniel 8:11: '[The mighty, evil horn] even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the [Lord's] host...'". Christ is that Commander.
    – Xeno
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 16:54
  • Do you guys support trinity
    – Dini
    Commented Aug 24, 2021 at 1:42
  • 2
    @Lifeforbetter If this question is directed to me, yes, I am convinced that God is One, comprised of 3 distinct personalities: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which makes me a Trinitarian. However, I cannot speak for others. Perhaps your question arises because of my belief that Michael is Christ? My reasons have nothing to do with JWs. My doctrine aligns with the churches of Christ.
    – Xeno
    Commented Aug 24, 2021 at 1:46
1

Michael is called "your prince" because there are two princes referenced in the Bible. Jesus, of course, is the true Prince (son of the King), and is called Michael. But there is a usurper who claims the title, and who is called "the prince of this world."

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31, KJV)

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. (John 14:30, KJV)

The "prince" is identified in the previous chapter in Daniel as being the Messiah.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (Daniel 9:25, KJV)

When we see this prince named in chapter 10, therefore, we know who it is.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13, KJV)

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. (Daniel 10:21, KJV)

And in Daniel 12 we see this prince once more.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Daniel 12:1, KJV)

So, there are two chief princes: Michael (Jesus) and Satan.

7
  • 1
    What about "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Daniel 10:13 KJV" bible.com/bible/1/dan.10.13.KJV
    – Dini
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:28
  • One of the chief princes?
    – Dini
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:29
  • 1
    @Lifeforbetter Clearly, this "prince of the kingdom of Persia" is withstanding (going against) God. This cannot be any other than Satan, the one also called "the prince of this world," or one on his side. The kingdom of Persia was the greatest kingdom in the "known world" at that time, so we know that whomever this "prince" is, he is of high rank.
    – Polyhat
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:33
  • 1
    @Lifeforbetter The plural for "princes" is used in the text, but no indication of how many is given. There are two of these non-human "princes" actually referenced in Daniel, and I would submit that those are the only "princes" within this context. Jesus, as the Son of God (the King), is entitled to the title of "prince." The other "prince" strives to replace Jesus as a usurper; he is not actually the King's son. These are the two "chief princes."
    – Polyhat
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 6:58
  • 1
    @Polyhat, aren't there at least 3 non-human princes? For you also have the prince of Greece (Dan 10:20). Also it's arguable that the speaker of Dan 10:20 may also be himself a prince... though perhaps not one of the chief princes.
    – Austin
    Commented Aug 21, 2022 at 6:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.