Daniel 10:13

Someone had delayed the arrival of God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer. He was the "prince of Persia," evidently a fallen angel who, under Satan’s authority, had a special responsibility for Persia (cf. Daniel 10:20; Ephesians 2:2). Clearly, "prince" here refers to an angel, since Michael was also called a "prince" (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21). [Note: See Zöckler, 7:2:228, in Lange’s commentary, for further support.] "The prince of Persia" must have been an evil angel since he opposed God’s purpose. Angelic hostility in the unseen world had resulted in the 21-day delay of this good angel’s arrival with God’s message (cf. Daniel 10:2).

"The powers of evil apparently have the capacity to bring about hindrances and delays, even of the delivery of the answers to believers whose requests God is minded to answer. . . .

"While God can, of course, override the united resistance of all the forces of hell if he chooses to do so, he accords to demons certain limited powers of obstruction and rebellion somewhat like those he allows humans. In both cases the exercise of free will in opposition to the Lord of heaven is permitted by him when he sees fit. But as Job 1:12; Job 2:6 indicate, the malignity of Satan is never allowed to go beyond the due limit set by God, who will not allow the believer to be tested beyond his limit (1 Corinthians 10:13)." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 124, 125.]

It seems unlikely to me that the prince of Persia could have resisted the Son of God this way, if He were the person addressing Daniel. Moreover, God’s messenger had received help from Michael, one of the chief princes (angels), so it seems unlikely that he was God Himself. Some angels have more authority and power than others do (Ephesians 1:21).

"Although the entire subject of the unseen struggle between the holy angels and the fallen angels is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures, from the rare glimpses which are afforded, as in this instance, it is plain that behind the political and social conditions of the world there is angelic influence-good on the part of the holy angels, evil on the part of the angels under satanic control. This is the struggle to which Paul referred in Ephesians 6:10-18." [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 247.]

"Bad angels, called demons in the New Testament, are, without a doubt, referred to here. In the course of time, these demonic powers gained a very strong influence over certain nations and the government of these nations. They became the controlling power. They used whatever resources they could muster to hamper God’s work and to thwart His purposes." [Note: Leupold, pp. 457-58.]

Evidently the good angel who spoke to Daniel had performed some duty in Persia that involved the kings or rulers of that land. However, having received a commission from God to visit Daniel, he was not able to break away to deliver it because of the influence of the bad angel who exercised strong influence over Persia. Michael visited the good angel and helped him break away from this wicked angel’s power so he could visit Daniel.

Keil projected this idea even further. His view is speculation.

"The plural [kings of Persia] denotes, that by the subjugation of the demon of the Persian kingdom, his influence not merely over Cyrus, but over all the following kings of Persia, was brought to an end, so that the whole of the Persian kings became accessible to the influence of the spirit proceeding from God and in advancing the welfare of Israel." [Note: Keil, p. 419.]

There has been much interest in spiritual warfare in recent years among professing Christians. [Note: See the bibliography at the end of these notes for some titles.] Certainly spiritual warfare is a biblical revelation, and we need to be aware of it and live accordingly. However, much that is being taught about spiritual warfare, and particularly about "territorial demons," goes beyond the teaching of Scripture. (The idea that there are "territorial demons" rests primarily on Daniel 10:13.) For example, there is no biblical instruction or precedent that would justify praying against, and claiming victory over certain demons by name, as some are doing and advocating today. Clearly, Daniel did not know about this heavenly conflict between these angels. Michael’s success was not due to Daniel’s praying, for or against, certain angels or demons.

"Daniel, while supporting the idea of territorial identification of certain angels especially in chap. 10, does not support any sort of human involvement in angelic warfare." [Note: Gerry Breshears, "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):14.]

There may be hindrances to our praying-about which we know nothing-as we wonder why an answer to our prayer does not come. Nevertheless we should keep on praying (Luke 18:1-8). This incident reminds us of the importance of persisting in prayer. If Daniel had stopped praying on the twentieth day, he might not have received the great revelation of chapter 11 on the twenty-first day.