Daniel 9 - The "Prince"

[rhutchin]

We read in Daniel--


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

Is there any reason not to regard the terms consistently through these verses so that we would read it as--


25 ...from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince [comes],...
26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of [Messiah] the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary....

As I read it, the prince in v26 should be the same prince identified in v25. Yet some people make it a different prince. What in the short space between "Messiah the Prince" and "the prince of the people" leads the reader to think that two different people are in view?

[Zguy28]

We read in Daniel--


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

Is there any reason not to regard the terms consistently through these verses so that we would read it as--


25 ...from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince [comes],...
26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of [Messiah] the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary....

As I read it, the prince in v26 should be the same prince identified in v25. Yet some people make it a different prince. What in the short space between "Messiah the Prince" and "the prince of the people" leads the reader to think that two different people are in view?Angels are often called princes, especially in Daniel.

[nikolai_42]

Is there any reason not to regard the terms consistently through these verses so that we would read it as--

Daniel 9


25 ...from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince [comes],...
26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of [Messiah] the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary....


As I read it, the prince in v26 should be the same prince identified in v25. Yet some people make it a different prince. What in the short space between "Messiah the Prince" and "the prince of the people" leads the reader to think that two different people are in view?

I believe that is a consistent reading and applicable. Just as devil's advocate, the only way I can see justifying another rendering is by saying that "the prince who is to come" is a contrast with "Messiah the prince". That's why (I think) some read it to be a depiction of AntiChrist rather than Christ.

Frankly, I think a consideration of the entire passage shows it to be referring all to Christ. Otherwise, the covenant that "AntiChrist" supposedly makes with some Jews is elevated above the covenant that Jesus explicitly makes with the disciples (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20) and the Jews are justified in rejecting Christ's covenant made in blood. So I think it is very dangerous to interpret this as anything other than a)having to do with Christ and b)having to do with the Jews in Jesus' day (the people of the prince to come could well refer to the Romans and their destruction of Jerusalem).

[dizzle]

It is ALL referring to Christ. You are correct. And consider then the implications of the dispensational interpretation claiming that the "prince that shall come" is antichrist - this is precisely one of the reasons I say that the dispensational interpretation has blasphemous implications.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Is there any reason not to regard the terms consistently through these verses so that we would read it as--


25 ...from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince [comes],...
26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of [Messiah] the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary....

As I read it, the prince in v26 should be the same prince identified in v25. Yet some people make it a different prince. What in the short space between "Messiah the Prince" and "the prince of the people" leads the reader to think that two different people are in view?

nikolai_42
I believe that is a consistent reading and applicable. Just as devil's advocate, the only way I can see justifying another rendering is by saying that "the prince who is to come" is a contrast with "Messiah the prince". That's why (I think) some read it to be a depiction of AntiChrist rather than Christ.

That is a possibility. I think the burden of proof would be on those who would take that position.


Frankly, I think a consideration of the entire passage shows it to be referring all to Christ. Otherwise, the covenant that "AntiChrist" supposedly makes with some Jews is elevated above the covenant that Jesus explicitly makes with the disciples (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20) and the Jews are justified in rejecting Christ's covenant made in blood. So I think it is very dangerous to interpret this as anything other than a)having to do with Christ and b)having to do with the Jews in Jesus' day (the people of the prince to come could well refer to the Romans and their destruction of Jerusalem).

Agreed.

[Ted]

Without question, the Hebrew grammar requires the reading in the OP.

BTW, there's no such species as an angel. The malak yahweh that we translate "angel of God" literally means "messenger of God." angellos in the Greek means the same thing.

There are many "el's" (gods). See 1 Cor 8:5. But that doesn't mean they're equal to Yahweh. Rather, el is more a street address. The word merely means an inhabitant of the realm we can't see. The angel of God then is an el with a job description: messenger. Thus, the messenger can be God himself (Exod 3) or some other heavenly being. See Mike Heiser's website http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ for detailed discussion. BTW, Mike is the languages guru at Logos Research.

Ted

[Zguy28]

Without question, the Hebrew grammar requires the reading in the OP.

BTW, there's no such species as an angel. The malak yahweh that we translate "angel of God" literally means "messenger of God." angellos in the Greek means the same thing. I assume your response was to my comment about angels being called princes?

So Michael is not an angel and a chief prince? What is he then?

[nikolai_42]

I assume your response was to my comment about angels being called princes?

So Michael is not an angel and a chief prince? What is he then?

I don't want to speak for Ted, but the way I took his post was that the term was more generic than being a specific form of heavenly being. Not that Michael isn't an angel in the classic sense of the word, but that when a specification is made (like "Messiah") that that should be used as the qualifier of our understanding of the being under examination (rather than the more generic "messenger" or "angel"). So because "Messiah" was already used in v.26, we should understand the "prince" of verse 27 in the same context.

But that's just my uneducated perception.

[rhutchin]

Ted
Without question, the Hebrew grammar requires the reading in the OP.

BTW, there's no such species as an angel. The malak yahweh that we translate "angel of God" literally means "messenger of God." angellos in the Greek means the same thing.

Zguy28
I assume your response was to my comment about angels being called princes?

So Michael is not an angel and a chief prince? What is he then?

Your earlier comment kinda slid past and I did not really think about it. After reviewing the use of "prince" in the Scriptures, I am not so sure that "angels" can be princes.

First, I don't think that Ted's comment that there is no such species as angels is exactly correct. Satan is something (I don't know that we would call him a species) but he is not human. There are a bunch of beings like Satan most of whom did not join Satan and rebel against God. I think we can refer to them as angels. These beings are messengers of God. At the same time, God can be an angel (messenger) as can Christ as can believers (I think). So when the Bible uses the term, angel, it can refer to any of several different people/beings.

The term, "prince," in the Bible always seems to refer to a ruler or one who helps rule. For example, there is the prince of the tribe of Dan who apparently rules over Dan and kings have princes to help them rule over their kingdom. I don't think the role of angels is to help God rule. I think Christ can be referred to as a prince as can believers, but not the ordinary run-of-the-mill angels.

Now this brings us the interesting question of Michael--


21 “But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

If ordinary run-of-the-mill angels cannot be princes, then Michael would have to be Christ. I tend to think that is correct (which puts me in bed with the JWs who, I think, also say this).

[Zguy28]

Your earlier comment kinda slid past and I did not really think about it. After reviewing the use of "prince" in the Scriptures, I am not so sure that "angels" can be princes.

First, I don't think that Ted's comment that there is no such species as angels is exactly correct. Satan is something (I don't know that we would call him a species) but he is not human. There are a bunch of beings like Satan most of whom did not join Satan and rebel against God. I think we can refer to them as angels. These beings are messengers of God. At the same time, God can be an angel (messenger) as can Christ as can believers (I think). So when the Bible uses the term, angel, it can refer to any of several different people/beings.

The term, "prince," in the Bible always seems to refer to a ruler or one who helps rule. For example, there is the prince of the tribe of Dan who apparently rules over Dan and kings have princes to help them rule over their kingdom. I don't think the role of angels is to help God rule. I think Christ can be referred to as a prince as can believers, but not the ordinary run-of-the-mill angels.

Now this brings us the interesting question of Michael--


21 “But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

If ordinary run-of-the-mill angels cannot be princes, then Michael would have to be Christ. I tend to think that is correct (which puts me in bed with the JWs who, I think, also say this).

Yet its apparent that Christ is not Michael from verse 13 of Chapter 10.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me for 21 days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me after I had been left there with the kings of Persia.Obviously Michael is only one of the what are called Archangels.

Jude and Revelation testify to this as well.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Dn%2010:21;%2012:1;%20Jude%209;%20Rv%2012:7;&version=77

Also, I understand where Ted is coming from now. The fact that angel could mean any kind of messenger from God that is.

But then what do we call these beings such as Michael? "princes"? :wink:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Your earlier comment kinda slid past and I did not really think about it. After reviewing the use of "prince" in the Scriptures, I am not so sure that "angels" can be princes.

First, I don't think that Ted's comment that there is no such species as angels is exactly correct. Satan is something (I don't know that we would call him a species) but he is not human. There are a bunch of beings like Satan most of whom did not join Satan and rebel against God. I think we can refer to them as angels. These beings are messengers of God. At the same time, God can be an angel (messenger) as can Christ as can believers (I think). So when the Bible uses the term, angel, it can refer to any of several different people/beings.

The term, "prince," in the Bible always seems to refer to a ruler or one who helps rule. For example, there is the prince of the tribe of Dan who apparently rules over Dan and kings have princes to help them rule over their kingdom. I don't think the role of angels is to help God rule. I think Christ can be referred to as a prince as can believers, but not the ordinary run-of-the-mill angels.

Now this brings us the interesting question of Michael--


21 “But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

If ordinary run-of-the-mill angels cannot be princes, then Michael would have to be Christ. I tend to think that is correct (which puts me in bed with the JWs who, I think, also say this).

Zguy28
Yet its apparent that Christ is not Michael from verse 13 of Chapter 10.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me for 21 days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me after I had been left there with the kings of Persia.Obviously Michael is only one of the what are called Archangels.

Jude and Revelation testify to this as well.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Dn%2010:21;%2012:1;%20Jude%209;%20Rv%2012:7;&version=77

Also, I understand where Ted is coming from now. The fact that angel could mean any kind of messenger from God that is.

But then what do we call these beings such as Michael? "princes"? :wink:


I do not see that it is apparent.

Later in Daniel 10, we read--


20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come.
21 “But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

Here Michael is "your prince," or Daniel's (maybe Israel's] ruler. But only Christ can be labeled such -- the ruler of Israel. Neither Jude nor Revelation resolve the issue as you suggest. However, Revelation refers to Michael and "his" angels. Since the angels belong to God, the term "his angels" would seem to apply only to God (Christ) or with reference to those angels who rebelled against God, to Satan.

You have not really made an argument for the identity of Michael other than to cite verses which don't specify exactly who Michael is. There is nothing in the Bible that I have found that would suggest that angels could be rulers but Christ can be referred to as an angel as He is God's messenger and Christ is a prince; the Prince of peace.

This would mean that there are two chief princes, Christ and Satan.

[Ted]

I don't want to speak for Ted, but the way I took his post was that the term was more generic than being a specific form of heavenly being. Not that Michael isn't an angel in the classic sense of the word, but that when a specification is made (like "Messiah") that that should be used as the qualifier of our understanding of the being under examination (rather than the more generic "messenger" or "angel"). So because "Messiah" was already used in v.26, we should understand the "prince" of verse 27 in the same context.

But that's just my uneducated perception.
My point on angels is simple. "Angel" is a job description. It's not a genus identifier. An angel is simply a divine being sent with a message. In this sense, "divine" merely means a person who dwells in the spiritual realm we can't see. Thus, that person is an el (Hebrew) or theos (Greek). Those are genus terms. But all they really tell us is the "street address" of the individual. They don't tell us anything more. Thus, in Psalm 82, Yahweh is speaking to true els. But those els have been rebellious and will die like men.

Further, Yahweh is an el. But He is unique in that He is pre-existent and made the other els.

As for angels, in Exodus 3, the angel is clearly Yahweh, and based on other passages, probably the pre-incarnate Jesus. In Revelation 10, the strong angel is Jesus, dressed in the garb of the Almighty as judge from various passages. In Daniel 12, Michael, is "one who is like God." Given that this messenger is the one who "stands for your people" (the advocate), this has to be Jesus. Our modern misunderstanding that "angel" is a genus identifier keeps us from seeing this. The Hebrew of the OT is quite clear.

Ted

[Ted]

As for the "princes," I would propose that that is also a job description. I haven't gone through the detailed study, nor do I know anyone who has, but it fits best. The title suggests an area of authority.

Ted

[rhutchin]

As for the "princes," I would propose that that is also a job description. I haven't gone through the detailed study, nor do I know anyone who has, but it fits best. The title suggests an area of authority.

Ted

The hebrew word translated as "prince," also is translated as "leader" and "commander [of an army]" among other things (I did not go further). I did not find the term used with reference to what might be ordinary angels. It is used with "archangel" and here, it fits the character and authority of Christ. Because of the very few verses involved and there obtuseness, it is difficult to say for sure. However, the prince of Daniel 10 could be Christ. Nothing I saw suggests that it could not.

[Zguy28]

This would mean that there are two chief princes, Christ and Satan.Are you implying that Christ and Satan are equal?

This is why I do not believe Michael is Christ. Because of the plurality of the statement in Dan 10. Michael is only one of the chief princes.

So either there is more than one Christ. Or there is one or more who are equal to Him. If you believe He is Michael, then which is it?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin

This would mean that there are two chief princes, Christ and Satan.

Zguy28
Are you implying that Christ and Satan are equal?

No, not equal. Similar, in that both can be said to have authority over people.


This is why I do not believe Michael is Christ. Because of the plurality of the statement in Dan 10. Michael is only one of the chief princes.

So either there is more than one Christ. Or there is one or more who are equal to Him. If you believe He is Michael, then which is it?

It only means that there are more than one entity who could be described as a chief prince. There can be more than one chief prince, or authorities. Who else has been given any authority in this world other than Christ and Satan (if we can agree that human kings are not in view here)? I don't see how ordinary angels (messengers) fit the description.

[Ted]

No, not equal. Similar, in that both can be said to have authority over people.


It only means that there are more than one entity who could be described as a chief prince. There can be more than one chief prince, or authorities. Who else has been given any authority in this world other than Christ and Satan (if we can agree that human kings are not in view here)? I don't see how ordinary angels (messengers) fit the description.
Very good. Just as an angel is a job description, prince is a job description. Satan has a realm in which he is chief, and Jesus has one as well. That doesn't make them equal. It merely describes a comparable job description in that specific context only.

Ted

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
No, not equal. Similar, in that both can be said to have authority over people.

It only means that there are more than one entity who could be described as a chief prince. There can be more than one chief prince, or authorities. Who else has been given any authority in this world other than Christ and Satan (if we can agree that human kings are not in view here)? I don't see how ordinary angels (messengers) fit the description.

Ted
Very good. Just as an angel is a job description, prince is a job description. Satan has a realm in which he is chief, and Jesus has one as well. That doesn't make them equal. It merely describes a comparable job description in that specific context only.

OK. Does that help us determine whether Michael could be Christ because he is called a chief prince? Satan and Christ can be unequal but have the same job description. Could an angel other than Christ or Satan have that same job description? Could an ordinary angel named Michael be a chief prince.

[Zguy28]

OK. Does that help us determine whether Michael could be Christ because he is called a chief prince? Satan and Christ can be unequal but have the same job description. Could an angel other than Christ or Satan have that same job description? Could an ordinary angel named Michael be a chief prince.And who is the "Prince of Persia" that Michael and the other angel fought against?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. Does that help us determine whether Michael could be Christ because he is called a chief prince? Satan and Christ can be unequal but have the same job description. Could an angel other than Christ or Satan have that same job description? Could an ordinary angel named Michael be a chief prince.

Zguy28
And who is the "Prince of Persia" that Michael and the other angel fought against?

I am not sure. If we look at "prince" as symonymous with ruler, then it is the ruler of Persia and later the ruler of Greece against which the messenger must fight. All this occurs in the spiritual realm and I haven't read any good explanations of the meaning of these titles. I tend to think that the ruler of Persia and the ruler of Greece are the same, Satan. However, that is my suspicion and I have not gone through Daniel to figure out the symbolism of the visions that Daniel is having.

Do you know who they are or why they are introduced here and then are not spoken of again in the Bible?

[Zguy28]

I am not sure. If we look at "prince" as symonymous with ruler, then it is the ruler of Persia and later the ruler of Greece against which the messenger must fight. All this occurs in the spiritual realm and I haven't read any good explanations of the meaning of these titles. I tend to think that the ruler of Persia and the ruler of Greece are the same, Satan. However, that is my suspicion and I have not gone through Daniel to figure out the symbolism of the visions that Daniel is having.

Do you know who they are or why they are introduced here and then are not spoken of again in the Bible?I am of the traditional opinion that they are some form of angelic being who is assigned to a nation.

Perhaps one who has sided with Satan.

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.

I like Albert Barnes view of it.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia - In explaining this very difficult verse it may be proper
(1) to consider the literal sense of the words;
(2) to deduce the fair meaning of the passage as thus explained; and
(3) to notice the practical truths taught.
The word rendered “prince” - שׂר s'ar - means, properly, a leader, commander, chief, as of troops, Gen_21:22; of a king’s body-guard, Gen_37:36; of cup-bearers, Gen_41:9; of a prison, Gen_39:21-22; of a flock, Gen_47:6. Then it means a prince, a noble, a chief in the state, Gen_12:15. In Dan_8:25, in the phrase “Prince of princes,” it refers to God. So far as the word is concerned in the phrase “prince of the kingdom of Persia,” it might refer to a prince ruling over that kingdom, or to a prime minister of the state; but the language also is such that it is applicable to an angelic being supposed to preside over a state, or to influence its counsels. If this idea is admitted; if it is believed that angels do thus preside over particular states, this language would properly express that fact. Gesenius (Lexicon) explains it in this passage as denoting the “chiefs, princes, and angels; i. e., the archangels acting as patrons and advocates of particular nations before God.” That this is the proper meaning here as deduced from the words is apparent, for
(a) it is an angel that is speaking, and it would seem most natural to suppose that he had encountered one of his own rank;
(b) the mention of Michael who came to his aid - a name which, as we shall see, properly denotes an angel, leads to the same conclusion;
(c) it accords, also, with the prevailing belief on the subject.
Undoubtedly, one who takes into view all the circumstances referred to in this passage would most naturally understand this of an angelic being, having some kind of jurisdiction over the kingdom of Persia. What was the character of this “prince,” however, whether he was a good or bad angel, is not intimated by the language. It is only implied that he had a chieftainship, or some species of guardian care over that kingdom - watching over its interests and directing its affairs. As he offered resistance, however, to this heavenly messenger on his way to Daniel, as it was necessary to counteract his plans, and as the aid of Michael was required to overcome his opposition, the fair construction is, that he belonged to the class of evil angels.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I am not sure. If we look at "prince" as symonymous with ruler, then it is the ruler of Persia and later the ruler of Greece against which the messenger must fight. All this occurs in the spiritual realm and I haven't read any good explanations of the meaning of these titles. I tend to think that the ruler of Persia and the ruler of Greece are the same, Satan. However, that is my suspicion and I have not gone through Daniel to figure out the symbolism of the visions that Daniel is having.

Do you know who they are or why they are introduced here and then are not spoken of again in the Bible?

Zguy28
I am of the traditional opinion that they are some form of angelic being who is assigned to a nation.

Perhaps one who has sided with Satan.

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.

I like Albert Barnes view of it.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia - In explaining this very difficult verse it may be proper
(1) to consider the literal sense of the words;
(2) to deduce the fair meaning of the passage as thus explained; and
(3) to notice the practical truths taught.
The word rendered “prince” - שׂר s'ar - means, properly, a leader, commander, chief, as of troops, Gen_21:22; of a king’s body-guard, Gen_37:36; of cup-bearers, Gen_41:9; of a prison, Gen_39:21-22; of a flock, Gen_47:6. Then it means a prince, a noble, a chief in the state, Gen_12:15. In Dan_8:25, in the phrase “Prince of princes,” it refers to God. So far as the word is concerned in the phrase “prince of the kingdom of Persia,” it might refer to a prince ruling over that kingdom, or to a prime minister of the state; but the language also is such that it is applicable to an angelic being supposed to preside over a state, or to influence its counsels. If this idea is admitted; if it is believed that angels do thus preside over particular states, this language would properly express that fact. Gesenius (Lexicon) explains it in this passage as denoting the “chiefs, princes, and angels; i. e., the archangels acting as patrons and advocates of particular nations before God.” That this is the proper meaning here as deduced from the words is apparent, for
(a) it is an angel that is speaking, and it would seem most natural to suppose that he had encountered one of his own rank;
(b) the mention of Michael who came to his aid - a name which, as we shall see, properly denotes an angel, leads to the same conclusion;
(c) it accords, also, with the prevailing belief on the subject.
Undoubtedly, one who takes into view all the circumstances referred to in this passage would most naturally understand this of an angelic being, having some kind of jurisdiction over the kingdom of Persia. What was the character of this “prince,” however, whether he was a good or bad angel, is not intimated by the language. It is only implied that he had a chieftainship, or some species of guardian care over that kingdom - watching over its interests and directing its affairs. As he offered resistance, however, to this heavenly messenger on his way to Daniel, as it was necessary to counteract his plans, and as the aid of Michael was required to overcome his opposition, the fair construction is, that he belonged to the class of evil angels.


Barnes essentially says nothing that might explain what is happenning. Barnes says that the prince of Persia is an angelic being. We had already figured that out.

I don't know what you like about Barnes' given that he really has no view. He basically says that he is as clueless as everyone else (given that he cites no other opinion - of course there are none) and ends up concluding, "...he belonged to the class of evil angels," and although Barnes does not venture to say this here, he is inferior in power to Michael.