An exegetical and theological study of the identity and role of Prince of Persia in Daniel 10

Abstract

The identity of the prince of Persia in Daniel 10:13 has generated diverse opinions among scholars. Whereas some claim that the prince of Persia is Cyrus, the king of Persia, others assert that he is Cambyses, the crown prince. Yet, some believe he is the guardian angel of Persia assigned the sponsorship and control of the Persian realm. The question still remains: Who is actually the prince of Persia? And what is his role in Daniel 10? Thus, the study attempts to ascertain the identity and role of the prince of Persia in the narrative of conflict in Daniel 10:13-21. This study is exegetical in nature taking into consideration the historicist view of interpreting the book of Daniel. The study of the entire book of Daniel reveals conflict between the people of God in exile and their captors (c.f. Dan 1:1; 2:44-45; 3:6-30; 7:25; 8:25). Daniel chapter 10 tells of the coming of an angelic messenger to give vital information in response to Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9). However, the prince of Persia opposed God’s messenger (Dan 10:13) which delayed answer to Daniel’s prayers for twenty one days. The conflict is so fierce that it necessitated the intervention of Michael, “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13). In the OT, the term שַׂר , “prince” is associated with warlord or military leader or captain of the host (Judg 4:2, c.f. 1 Sam 17:55). In the book of Daniel, שר is evenly used to refer to human and heavenly beings. However, the activities of the prince of Persia in the narrative of conflict between שר of Persia and Michael (see Dan 10:13-21) is indicated with the expression עמֵֹד לְנֶגְדִּי “withstood me.” The Hebrew נֶגֶד means “opposite” “counterpart” “in front” or “facing” (c.f. Gen 2:18) “over against” (c.f. Exod 19:2). By implication, the prince of Persia did not only stand against the heavenly messenger but also held him in hostage for twenty one days until Michael (literally “Who is like God?”), one mightier than the messenger was sent to intervene, before an answer is delivered to Daniel as he later reported. The exegetical analysis of Daniel 10:13 reveals conflict between celestial beings (unnamed prince of Persia versus the angelic messenger and Michael), not humans. If this is true, it removes the possibility of a literal interpretation of this unnamed prince of Persia as either Cyrus or Cambyses. This is plausible because human agencies, as powerful as they can be, seem to lack the capacity to withhold God’s angelic messengers in a conflict (let alone for three weeks). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that apocalyptic literature makes wide use of symbols. Hence, the possibility of the title “prince of Persia” used in Daniel 10:13 not in literal terms, but symbolically to designate a celestial being powerful enough to withhold God’s angelic messenger, which required the intervention of Michael, a superior angel. An intertextual analysis of conflict motifs involving celestial beings in the OT and NT reveals that whenever Michael is involved in a spiritual warfare, it is always with Satan, the Devil (Dan 10:13, 21; cf. Jude 9; Rev 12:7). Satan always עָמַׂד , “stood” against God’s messenger/people as an antagonist and accuser while Michael עָמַׂד “stands” for His people as helper, defender and deliverer (see Dan 12:1). However, the conflict does not preclude the use of human instruments like Daniel or Cambyses as evident in the study. Consequently, the study conceivably identifies the prince of Persia in Daniel 10:13 as Satan, the antagonist of God’s people (c.f. Eph 2:2; 6:12, John 14:30), who, however employs human instruments to perpetrate his evil plans as evident in the life and activities of Cambyses, the crown prince of Persia, in frustrating the efforts of postexilic Jews while rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.