Dan 10:6 | KD | STEP | His body shone like תּרשׁישׁ, i.e., the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under ); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and the place of his feet like the sight of polished brass (קלל, see under ).מרגּלות, place of the feet , does not stand for feet , but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass. The voice of his words, i.e., the sound of his speaking, was like המון קול, for which in המלּה קול ( the voice of noise ), and by מחנה קול ( ) the noise of a host is denoted. This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel, , but all the other features, as here described - the shining of his body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glistering brass, the sound of his speaking-all these point to the revelation of the יהוה כּבוד, the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with , where the form of the Son of man whom John saw walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel. The place where this heavenly being was, is not here specially stated. In he appears hovering over the waters of the river, the Tigris. This agrees also with the verse before us, according to which Daniel, while standing on the banks of the river, on lifting up his eyes beheld the vision. Hence it further follows, that the אישׁ seen here by Daniel is the same heavenly being whose voice he heard, , from the waters of the Ulai, without seeing his form. When now he whose voice Daniel heard from thence presents himself before him here on the Tigris in a majesty which human nature is not able to endure, and announces to him the future, and finally, Dan 12:6., with a solemn oath attests the completion of the divine counsel, he thereby shows himself, as C. B. Michaelis ad Daniel p. 372, Schmieder in Gerlach’s Bibelw ., and Oehler (Art. Messias in Herz.'s Realenc . ix. p. 417) have acknowledged, to be the Angel of Jehovah κατ ̓ἐξοχὴν, as the “Angel of His presence.” The combination of this angel with that in the form of a son of man appearing in the clouds ( ) is natural; and this combination is placed beyond a doubt by the comparison with , where John sees the glorified Christ, who is described by a name definitely referring to , as ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου. On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated ( Beitr. i. p. 165ff.; Christol . iii. 2, p. 50ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to , , where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, , and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, , , and is identical with the angel Gabriel. But the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, חמות אישׁ, , , cf. with , partly on the similarity of the circumstances, , cf. with and Dan 12:5. But the address to Daniel חמות אישׁ proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is המדות, i.e., a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of with , so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in Daniel 8 and also in Daniel 9 Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in , , that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of , Dan 10:21. To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, , and him who appears, , , is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vv. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, , is in the midst of the Tigris, and in of this chapter ( ) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, v. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον, and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger ( ). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others. But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, , a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, Dan 10:11. The words of the text, “a hand touched me,” leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in , , where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, אדם בּני כּדּמוּת, like the similitude of the sons of men , , and אדם כּמראה, like the appearance of a man , , do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in , besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in Dan 10:5. The words, “Then I looked and saw other two, the one,” etc., , much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In Daniel 10 he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this “great sight” that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him. Nothing is here, as in , said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, “and he spake to me ... “ ( ), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition. He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel ( ); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help ( , ). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zec 2:13, 15; Zec 4:9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also and Isa 61:1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zec 1:15 עזר denotes help which men render to God; and in 1Ch 12:21. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e., under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia. There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him who speaks as the same, then in one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, Daniel 10 and 11, the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others (אהרים שׁנים), and the אהרים excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as אהרים with reference to the Angel of the Lord, , for the reference of the אהרים to that which follows is inconsistent with the context; see under Dan 12:5. Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he who speaks, , is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in Daniel 10 names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes ( ). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks.

‏ Daniel 10:6

His body shone like תּרשׁישׁ, i.e., the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under Eze 1:16); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and the place of his feet like the sight of polished brass (קלל, see under Eze 1:7).מרגּלות, place of the feet, does not stand for feet, but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass. The voice of his words, i.e., the sound of his speaking, was like המון קול, for which in Eze 1:24 המלּה קול (the voice of noise), and by מחנה קול (Eze 1:24) the noise of a host is denoted.

This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel, Eze 9:9, but all the other features, as here described - the shining of his body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glistering brass, the sound of his speaking-all these point to the revelation of the יהוה כּבוד, the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with Rev 1:13-15, where the form of the Son of man whom John saw walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel.

The place where this heavenly being was, is not here specially stated. In Dan 12:6 he appears hovering over the waters of the river, the Tigris. This agrees also with the verse before us, according to which Daniel, while standing on the banks of the river, on lifting up his eyes beheld the vision. Hence it further follows, that the אישׁ seen here by Daniel is the same heavenly being whose voice he heard, Dan 8:16, from the waters of the Ulai, without seeing his form.

When now he whose voice Daniel heard from thence presents himself before him here on the Tigris in a majesty which human nature is not able to endure, and announces to him the future, and finally, Dan 12:6., with a solemn oath attests the completion of the divine counsel, he thereby shows himself, as C. B. Michaelis ad Daniel p. 372, Schmieder in Gerlach’s Bibelw., and Oehler (Art. Messias in Herz.'s Realenc. ix. p. 417) have acknowledged, to be the Angel of Jehovah κατ ̓ἐξοχὴν, as the “Angel of His presence.” The combination of this angel with that in the form of a son of man appearing in the clouds (Dan 7:13) is natural; and this combination is placed beyond a doubt by the comparison with Rev 1:13, where John sees the glorified Christ, who is described by a name definitely referring to Dan 7:13, as ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου.

On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated (Beitr. i. p. 165ff.; Christol. iii. 2, p. 50ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21, where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, Dan 10:11, and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, Dan 10:5, Dan 10:6, and is identical with the angel Gabriel. But the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, חמות אישׁ, Dan 10:11, Dan 10:19, cf. with Dan 9:23, partly on the similarity of the circumstances, Dan 8:17-18, cf. with Dan 10:10 and Dan 12:5. But the address to Daniel חמות אישׁ proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in Dan 9:23 does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is המדות, i.e., a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with Dan 8:17-18 proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of Dan 8:13 with Dan 12:5, so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in Dan 8:16 directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in Daniel 8 and also in Daniel 9 Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in Dan 10:5, Dan 10:6, that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of Dan 10:9, Dan 10:21.

To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, Dan 10:11, and him who appears, Dan 10:5, Dan 10:6, is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vv. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, Dan 12:1-13, is in the midst of the Tigris, and in Dan 10:5 of this chapter (Dan 12:1-13) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, v. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον, and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger (Dan 12:7). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others.

But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, Dan 10:10, a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, Dan 10:11. The words of the text, “a hand touched me,” leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in Dan 10:16, Dan 10:18, where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, אדם בּני כּדּמוּת, like the similitude of the sons of men, Dan 10:16, and אדם כּמראה, like the appearance of a man, Dan 10:18, do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in Dan 12:1-13, besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in Dan 10:5. The words, “Then I looked and saw other two, the one,” etc., Dan 12:5, much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In Daniel 10 he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this “great sight” that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him. Nothing is here, as in Dan 8:15, said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, “and he spake to me ... “ (Dan 10:11), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition.

He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel (Dan 10:11); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help (Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zec 2:13, 15; Zec 4:9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also Isa 48:16 and Isa 61:1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zec 1:15 עזר denotes help which men render to God; and in 1Ch 12:21. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e., under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia.

There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him who speaks as the same, then in Dan 12:5 one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, Daniel 10 and 11, the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others (אהרים שׁנים), and the אהרים excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as אהרים with reference to the Angel of the Lord, Dan 10:6, for the reference of the אהרים to that which follows is inconsistent with the context; see under Dan 12:5.

Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he who speaks, Dan 10:11, is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in Daniel 10 names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes (Dan 12:5). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks.