The Doctrine of Imminence in Two Recent Eschatological Systems

By Robert L. Thomas

[Robert L. Thomas is Professor of New Testament, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, California.]

Throughout history imminence has been a prominent part of the church’s teaching about events connected with the second advent of Jesus Christ. It began with the church’s earliest writers[1] and continues to the present day. Expectation of an imminent happening was seemingly universal among the church fathers, even though their writings do not express complete agreement about what that happening would be. In supporting the posttribulational stance among early church writers, Ladd wrote, “The expectation of the coming of Christ included the events which would attend and precede His coming.”[2] Lea concludes regarding the fathers that the expectancy of the early church was a series of events that would precede and surround Christ’s actual advent.[3] Walvoord saw in these early writings a form of “incipient” pretribulationism with its associated idea of imminence.[4]

Both amillennialists and premillennialists endorse the teaching that the Lord could return at virtually any time.[5] Though they differ regarding the details, they agree that either the personal coming of Christ or the events associated with His coming could occur at any moment. Postmillennialists are alone in denying the New Testament doctrine of imminence in the present day.[6]

The widespread belief in the imminence of end-time events and Christ’s return is, of course, based on the Scriptures. The Book of Revelation builds its case around the imminence of His return. The phrase ἐν τάχει (“soon”) in the book’s opening verse offers encouragement to the faithful among the readers that their predicted deliverance is very close.[7] Moffatt appropriately called this focus on immediacy “the hinge and staple of the book.”[8] The repetition of ἐν τάχει and other literary indications in Revelation indicate that relief for the faithful from persecution along with judgment to the rest of the world, may happen at any moment. References to imminence in Revelation include the following: (a) ἐν τάχει in 1:1 and in 22:6; (b) ταχύ (“soon”) in 2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20; (c) the use of ἐγγύς (“near”) in 1:3 and 22:10; (d) the “thief” simile in 3:3 and 16:15; (e) the futuristic use of the present tense of ἔρχομαι[9] (“is coming”) in 1:7; 2:5, 16; 3:11; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20; (f) the metaphor of the judge at the door in 3:20; and (g) the use of μέλλω in 3:10, 16.[10] Compounded with many references to imminence in other New Testament books,[11] these literary devices show why the church from its beginning until the present has viewed end-time events, including the coming of Christ, as something that could occur or begin to occur at any moment.

This article surveys and evaluates how two recent eschatological schemes have responded to this understanding of the imminence of Christ’s return and its surrounding events.

Preterism

Preterism is the view that descriptions in Revelation pertain not to yet-future times but to events that have occurred in the past. Recently R. C. Sproul has adopted a kind of preterism—one that Greg Bahnsen held before his death, namely, that most of Jesus’ predictions about His future coming referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the events leading up to it.[12] The position interprets the occurrence of “soon” in Revelation 1:1 in light of Matthew 24:34, where Jesus promised, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” It accepts Jesus’ teaching of an imminent return, but also stipulates a time limit within which the predicted events must occur, a limit reached about forty years after Jesus spoke those words.

Gentry reasons this way: “If, as it seems likely, Revelation is indeed John’s exposition of the Olivet Discourse, we must remember that in the delivery of the Discourse, the Lord emphasized that it … was to occur in His generation (Matt. 24:34).”[13] From that point Gentry proceeds with a chapter on the temporal expectation of the Apocalypse.[14] Sproul has a similar chapter on Revelation, but he wrote that “this generation,” referred to in Matthew 24:34, limited the period during which Jesus’ coming would transpire to thirty or forty years,[15] a limitation similar to Gentry’s view.[16] DeMar[17] and Mathison[18] follow essentially the same approach regarding the meaning of “this generation.”

The above-named individuals fall into the camp of what may be called “moderate or partial preterism.” Because of a few passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, they support the teaching of a future resurrection and kingdom.[19] They distance themselves from “full or plenary preterism,” which denies the idea of a future bodily resurrection.[20] Sproul, Gentry, and others do allow for a future bodily resurrection and kingdom in the eternal state.

At least three facts negate the view held by both plenary and partial preterism on Matthew 24:34. First, when Jerusalem was destroyed, the gospel of the kingdom had not been preached to all nations, as Jesus had said it would be by the time of the end (24:14). Sproul responds to this objection by claiming that the gospel had been preached throughout the Roman Empire by A.D. 70.[21] However, “all nations” (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) in 24:14 covers more than just the Roman Empire; it includes the entire world of Gentile nations. The gospel had not spread that far by the time Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

Second, in A.D. 70 Christ did not personally return in the clouds, as He had promised He would (24:30). In response to this obstacle Sproul approvingly cites J. Stuart Russell, who says 24:29–31 is poetic and symbolic, in keeping with Old Testament passages that speak of God coming to judge.[22] Gentry’s response is the same; he states emphatically, “No scriptural statement is capable of more decided proof than that the coming of Christ is the destruction of Jerusalem, and the close of the Jewish dispensation.”[23]

Such answers are examples of resorting to a nonliteral interpretation when a literal interpretation does not fit into the eschatological system being espoused. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus plainly promised the Jewish nation that at some time in the future He would personally return to pass judgment on their response to His plea for repentance. The judgment against Jerusalem through the Romans in A.D. 70 clearly does not fulfill that promise.

Third, the most formidable obstacle is that Jesus could not have been stipulating a thirty-to-forty-year period in which His promised return would occur, because just two verses later He informed His listeners that no one, including Himself, knew when all His predictions would come to fruition: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (24:36). Since He did not know the time, as He stated, He could not have set a time period within which His coming must occur.

Sproul responds: “Because the day and hour are not known does not preclude the application of a time-frame as lengthy as a human generation. Someone, for example, could predict that an event will take place in the next forty years, and then qualify the prediction by saying, ‘I don’t know the particular day or hour’ within that span of time.”[24] Sproul’s response, however, is remarkable in light of the preterists’ criticism of contemporary date-setting for the return of Christ. DeMar, who is particularly critical of modern-day date-setters, subtitled his book Last Day Madness with the words The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return. Yet he, Sproul, and other preterists are guilty of the same practice in their analysis of the first-century outlook. Just as some recent students of prophecy suggested that Christ would return forty years after the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948,[25] so preterists claim that He had to return within forty years after His words in Matthew 24:34. Recent date-setters have said Christ’s declaration—that no one knows the day or hour of His return—does not preclude a knowledge of the general time period of His return. And preterists are currently interpreting His words similarly in reference to a first-century situation.

Clearly this was not the intent of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36. Less than two months after He said that no one knows that day or hour, Jesus said no one knows the “times or the epochs” (Acts 1:7). He thus answered His disciples’ question about the time of restoration for Israel’s kingdom. In conjunction with His comment about the day and hour Jesus clarified His meaning with three parables: those of the householder (Matt. 24:43), the wicked slave (24:48–51), and the foolish virgins (25:1–12).[26] The behavior of guilty characters in these parables makes sense only if they did not know when the thief, the master, or the bridegroom would arrive. They would not have grown tired of waiting if they had known that the time of arrival was no more than forty years away. The householder would not have been caught unaware by the thief, the wicked slave by his master, or the foolish virgins by the bridegroom if they had known even approximately how soon they would be visited or how long the delay would be. The householder was probably not “expecting” a thief; the evil slave did not expect his master to return “for a long time” (v. 48); and the virgins too underestimated the time of the groom’s arrival. All were surprised by the sudden unexpected return. Jesus’ words about the day and hour must include ignorance about the general time period too.

If “this generation” in 24:34 does not refer to a stipulated period of time, to what does it refer? Jesus’ use of the expression earlier in the same day as His Olivet Discourse is important in answering that question. Matthew recorded it as part of Jesus’ seventh woe against the scribes and Pharisees: “All these things shall come upon this generation” (23:36). A careful tracing of Jesus’ words in 23:29–39, observing the interchangeability of “this generation” with the second-person-plural pronouns shows that “this generation” is a qualitative expression without chronological or temporal connotations.[27] It refers to a kind of people Jesus encountered at His first advent and also to the same kind of people who rebelled against God’s leadership throughout the Old Testament. It refers to the kind of people who will not see Jesus again and who in the future will reject Him until the nation of Israel repents and says, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (23:39). In other words “this generation” sets no deadlines for the time when Jesus will return.

The preterist relegation of imminence to a prescribed period in the first century A.D. does not satisfy the criteria of the text, particularly its focus on imminence throughout the period of Christ’s absence.

“Pre-Wrath Rapturism” and Its Kinship to Posttribulationism

According to the “Pre-wrath Rapture” view the tribulation or seventieth week of Daniel is imminent or almost imminent, but prophesied events within that week must occur before Christ returns.[28] This view therefore opposes the teaching of Christ’s imminent return and in that regard is closely akin to a posttribulational view of His coming.[29] Both positions place the Day of the Lord at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week and then proceed to point out various prophesied events that must precede that day.[30] The difference between the two views is slight and pertains to the duration and exact location assigned to the Day of the Lord. Pre-wrath rapturism conceives of the day as a period of undefined length toward the end of the tribulation during which the trumpet and bowl judgments are fulfilled, while posttribulationism identifies the day as a brief, undefined period of divine judgment after the tribulation. Both positions deny the imminence of Christ’s coming for the church, the former by placing the imminence of the Day of the Lord within the seventieth week and the latter by substituting expectancy for imminence[31] (though in some instances both talk about expectancy rather than imminence).[32]

The Handling of Revelation 6:17

An exegetical point that pre-wrath rapturism and postribulationism have in common is their handling of Revelation 6:17. The key word in the verse is ἦλθεν in the statement “the great day of their wrath has come.” Both the pre-wrath and the posttribulational positions say that this aorist indicative verb does not refer to past action, as aorist indicatives normally do. Instead they say that it refers to action that is about to begin by calling it either an ingressive aorist[33] or a dramatic aorist.[34] They then theorize that the seventh seal in 8:1 will begin the Day of the Lord with the initiation of His wrath either at His second coming (posttribulationism) or at a time shortly before His second coming (pre-wrath rapturism). These two systems depend heavily on identifying that aorist verb in one of those three ways rather than calling it a constative aorist, which summarizes events that have taken place in the past.

All three alternatives rule themselves out, however. The ingressive aorist would indicate that the wrath of God will begin with the sixth seal, contrary to the theories of both systems. The dramatic aorist would have the force of depicting an event that has happened just recently, that is, “the wrath has come just now.”[35] The dramatic aorist, according to Dana and Mantey, states “a present reality with the certitude of a past event.”[36] Either meaning would stifle both the posttribulational and the pre-wrath views. Besides this, usage of the dramatic aorist in the New Testament is relatively rare. The proleptic aorist would project the writer’s perspective to a time in the future from which he was looking back on the completed wrath. Nor is this the meaning that the two views under discussion are seeking. They say that Revelation 6:17 means that God’s wrath will begin with the seventh seal, not that the verse summarizes the whole “package” of wrath. Also proleptic aorists in Revelation characterize the words that originate with heavenly singers or voices, not words from other sources.[37]

A burning question persists for those who believe that God’s wrath will begin with the seventh seal: How can an unbelieving world, whose cries are recorded in 6:16–17, know that the wrath of God is about to fall on them at the time represented by the sixth seal? The day of God’s wrath will catch them by surprise, as a thief catches his victims at night (3:3; 16:15; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2–3). The wrath to which these earth dwellers refer must be something that has already begun, and now for the first time they recognize it while experiencing the afflictions of the sixth seal.

To sustain the position that the wrath of God does not begin until the seventh seal judgment, pre-wrath rapturists must adopt two key positions. First, they must dispense with the doctrine of Christ’s imminent return and be satisfied with substituting expectancy of Daniel’s seventieth week, but not the imminent return of Christ.[38] Second, they must define the Day of the Lord as God’s climactic judgment, excluding the period of the seal judgments.[39] These two distinctives are also held by posttribulationists.[40]

In response to the first tenet, Christ’s coming to inflict wrath is simultaneous with His coming to deliver the faithful (Rev. 3:10–11). In response to the second tenet Isaiah 2:17–21 and other Old Testament prophecies show that events of the first six seals are part of the Day of the Lord. Those events cannot coincide with the personal return of Christ in judgment because at that time people will not have opportunity to hide in caves. The cosmic upheavals of the sixth seal are preliminary to the cosmic upheavals Jesus spoke of as coming after the tribulation of those days (Matt. 24:29).

Dispensing with the Imminence of Christ’s Return

About imminence Gundry writes, “By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ.”[41] He continues, “The concept [of imminence] incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment…. Imminence would only raise the possibility of pretribulationism on a sliding scale with mid- and posttribulationism.”[42] Carson writes, “ ‘The imminent return of Christ’ … means Christ may return at any time. But the evangelical writers who use the word divide on whether ‘imminent’ in the sense of ‘at any time’ should be pressed to mean ‘at any second’ or something looser such as ‘at any period’ or ‘in any generation.’ ”[43]

Trying to understand what representatives of this “not-imminent-but-imminent” group mean by imminence or expectation is extremely difficult. It is almost like listening to a “doublespeak” contest. Carson says, “Yet the terms ‘imminent’ and ‘imminency’ retain theological usefulness if they focus attention on the eager expectancy of the Lord’s return characteristic of many New Testament passages, a return that could take place soon, i.e., within a fairly brief period of time, without specifying that the period must be one second or less.”[44] Erickson puts it this way: “It is one thing to say we do not know when an event will occur; it is another thing to say that we know of no times when it will not occur. If on a time scale we have points 1 to 1,000, we may know that Christ will not come at points 46 and 79, but not know at just what point He will come. The instructions about watchfulness do not mean that Christ may come at any time.”[45] Erickson’s reasoning is difficult to follow.

Witherington’s wording is different: “In short, one cannot conclude that 1 Thessalonians 4:15 clearly means that Paul thought the Lord would definitely return during his lifetime. Possible imminence had to be conjured with, but certain imminence is not affirmed here.”[46] From a practical standpoint “possible imminence” is tantamount to “certain imminence.” Witherington’s distinction, too, is hard to grasp. Beker clarifies Paul’s attitude more accurately:

“Thus delay of the parousia is not a theological concern for Paul. It is not an embarrassment for him; it does not compel him to shift the center of his attention from apocalyptic imminence to a form of ‘realized eschatology,’ that is, to a conviction of the full presence of the kingdom of God in our present history. It is of the essence of his faith in Christ that adjustments in his expectations can occur without a surrender of these expectations (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 1 Cor. 15:15–51; 2 Cor 5:1–10; Phil. 2:21–24). Indeed, the hope in God’s imminent rule through Christ remains the constant in his letters from beginning to end.”[47]

All these “nonimminence” scholars must mean “imminent within a limited period of time” because all would agree that events of the Tribulation period will be recognizable. If that is their meaning, then Christ’s warnings to watch for His coming are meaningless until that future period arrives. And even then, imminence cannot have its full impact because His coming will not be totally unexpected. It will have specified events to signal at least approximately, if not exactly, how far away it is.

To say that the New Testament teaching of imminence has become garbled in the systems of pre-wrath rapturism and posttribulationism is probably not an overstatement. According to different advocates it may mean at any moment within the last half of the seventieth week, at any moment after the seventieth week, at any time rather than any moment, at an unexpected moment with some exceptions, or possibly at any moment but not certainly at any moment.

Pre-wrath rapturists and posttribulationists have to talk around the plain meaning of Christ’s words in Matthew 24:36 (“of that day and hour no one knows”) just as preterists do. Concerning these words Gundry writes that those in the Tribulation will not be able to count seven years from the beginning or three and a half years from “the abomination of desolation,” because Jesus said the days will be shortened (24:21–22).[48] Gundry says that they will know the general time period, but not the exact time. According to his theory the watchfulness urged by Jesus applies only to saints in the Tribulation, who will be able to set an approximate date for the Lord’s return. That is the type of date-setting engaged in by the preterists, the type strongly criticized in recent years. To do justice to Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36, one must acknowledge that He meant that no one would know even the general time period.

That is confirmed in His statement to the disciples in Acts 1:7: “It is not for you to know the times or the epochs [lit., ‘seasons’] which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” Gundry responds to this statement by claiming that Jesus was brushing aside the question of His disciples in order to emphasize to them that they should evangelize all peoples of the world (1:8) and not be thinking about the future kingdom.[49] That, however, attributes wrong interpersonal techniques to the Lord. Rather than dismissing their question by changing the subject, His words in 1:7 were another way of stating that no one knows the day or hour of His return.

Restricting the Day of the Lord

Gundry goes to great lengths to seek to demonstrate that the Day of the Lord does not include the Tribulation period.[50] Rosenthal and Van Kampen, pre-wrath rapturists, do the same.[51] Both systems restrict the day to a relatively brief period of God’s judgment against the world at the end of the Tribulation. To restrict the day in this manner and place it at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week is impossible, however. That definition and placement of the day would leave it with easily recognizable signs to precede it, thus removing it from the “complete-surprise” category. The day could not in that case come as a thief, as both Paul and Peter said it will (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10).

Furthermore Isaiah 2:19–21 shows that at least the sixth seal will be part of the Day of the Lord: “And men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the Lord, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble. In that day [i.e., in the Day of the Lord; italics added] men will cast away to the moles and the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, in order to go into the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs, before the terror of the Lord and the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble.” A good case exists for paralleling earlier seals with known Day-of-the-Lord events. So on these grounds too, it is improbable that the seventh seal will mark the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Some writers have supposed that in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 Paul named recognizable events that will precede the Day of the Lord. In fact Gundry apparently looks to this passage for the title of his recent book, First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come before the Antichrist Does.[52] That view is oblivious to what the passage teaches, being based on the way most English translations have rendered 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Three features related to the verse deserve emphasis.

First, in the preceding verse (v. 2) the verb ἐνέστηκεν is present in meaning, even though its form is the perfect tense. It combines the prepositional prefix ἐν with the frequent verb ἵστημι, which in all of its New Testament usages in the perfect tense is instransitive and intensive in emphasizing existing results.[53] That the perfect tense of ἵστημι means “is present” is confirmed by its usage elsewhere (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:9).[54] Recognition of this fact indicates that the false information among the Thessalonians that Paul was combating was the teaching that “the Day of the Lord is present,” not that it “has already come” (RSV), that it “is at hand” (KJV), that it “is just at hand” (ASV), that it “has come” (NASB, NIV), or that it “had come” (NKJV). I have found only three versions that render the verb correctly. Darby renders it, “the day of the Lord is present”; Weymouth has “the Day of the Lord is now here”; and the New Revised Standard Version has “the Day of the Lord is already here.” These capture the intensive force of the perfect tense of ἐνέστηκεν.

The Day of the Lord includes a number of events, as evidenced from various passages of Scripture.[55] Because of the increased severity of persecution against the Thessalonians, some were trying to convince them that they were already in that period of woes, a part of the Day of the Lord, that will precede the personal return of the Messiah.

Second, a feature in verse 3 to be noted is the suppressed apodosis that must be supplied with the conditional clause begun by ἐὰν. Clearly the apodosis to be supplied comes from the end of verse 2. Translations that have missed the sense of the end of verse 2 supply the wrong apodosis: “that day shall not come” (KJV), “it will not be” (ASV), “it will not come” (NASB), “that day will not come” (NIV, RSV), “that Day will not come” (NKJV). But even the three versions that render verse 2 correctly supply the wrong apodosis: “that day cannot come” (Weymouth), “that day will not come” (NRSV), “it will not be” (Darby). Some versions indicate the absence of an explicit apodosis, but others do not.

To be faithful to the context, the understood apodosis should be “the Day of the Lord is not present.”[56] Complying with the context in this manner yields grammatical criteria for labeling the last half of verse 3 as a present general condition. Most clauses with ἐὰν and the subjunctive in the New Testament are more probable future conditions, but when the verb of the apodosis has the force of a present indicative, that makes it a present general condition. Such a construction often expresses a maxim,[57] a generic condition in the present time.[58] It expresses a principle or a proverb.[59] In such cases the protasis makes an assumption in the present time, and the apodosis gives a conclusion in the form of a general rule.[60] Therefore the sense of Paul’s statement in verse 3 is as follows: “If the apostasy does not come first and the man of lawlessness is not revealed, the Day of the Lord is not present. That is a principle you can count on.”

Third is the adverb πρῶτον (“first”) in the first half of the protasis of verse 3. Two meanings are possible. It can mean that the Day of the Lord is not present before the coming of the apostasy and the Revelation of the man of lawlessness, or it can mean that within the Day of the Lord the apostasy will come first, followed by the revelation of the man of lawlessness.[61] Stated another way, does the “first” compare to the apodosis or does it compare to the last half of the protasis?

A close parallel to this set of criteria occurs in John 7:51, where there is (a) a present action in the apodosis, (b) a compound protasis introduced by ἐὰν μὴ with the action of both verbs included in the action of the apodosis, and (c) πρῶτον in the former member of the compound protasis. John 7:51 reads thus: “Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” The judicial process (present indicative of κρίνει) is not carried out unless two elements are present, namely, hearing from the defendant first and gaining a knowledge of what he is doing. Clearly in this instance, hearing from the defendant does not precede the judicial process; it is part of it. But it does precede a knowledge of what the man does. Here πρῶτον indicates that the first half of the compound protasis is prior to the last half.

Another verse relevant to this set of criteria is Mark 3:27: “But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” Here the apodosis is a present indicative statement followed by ἐὰν μὴ and a compound protasis. Because of τότε in the last half of the protasis, πρῶτον clearly evidences the priority of the first half of the protasis over the last half, namely, the binding of the strong man prior to the plundering of his house. This does not indicate that the whole protasis is prior to the apodosis, that is, that the binding of the strong man and the plundering of his house are prior to entering the house. In other words the verse indicates that the binding precedes the plundering, but not the entering, and the entering includes both the binding and the plundering.

Application of these data to 2 Thessalonians 2:3 results in the following translation: “The Day of the Lord is not present unless first in sequence within that day the apostasy comes, and following the apostasy’s beginning, the revealing of the man of lawlessness occurs.” Rather than the two events preceding the Day of the Lord, as has so often been suggested, these are conspicuous stages of that day after it has begun. By observing the fact that these events have not occurred, the Thessalonian readers could rest assured that the Day of the Lord had not yet begun.

This meaning of verse 3 frees Paul from the accusation of contradicting himself. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2 he wrote that the Day of the Lord will come as a thief. Yet, if that Day has precursors, as 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is often alleged to teach, it could hardly come as a thief. Thieves come without advance notice. Neither does the Day of the Lord have any prior signals before it arrives.[62] However, Paul does not contradict that meaning in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

What Is Left of Imminence?

The doctrine of imminence has fallen on hard times in contemporary evangelicalism. Preterism has relegated imminence to a thirty-to-forty-year span in the first century A.D. Pre-wrath rapturism and posttribulationism have limited it to a period of seven years or less in the future.

The imminence of Christ’s return, including His coming to deliver the faithful and His coming to begin inflicting wrath on the rest of the world, is repeatedly taught in the Apocalypse as well as in other portions of the New Testament. No prophecy of Scripture remains to be fulfilled before either of these events occurs.

Believers need to be watching so as not to be lulled into lethargy by thinking some other predicted event will signal the approach of His return. It may come at any moment in any hour, day, week, month, year, decade, and century and should motivate the church to repentance, holy living, and zealous activity. Beker portrays the balance between anticipating Christ’s imminent coming and remaining busy in reaching the world with the gospel.

For how is it possible for Paul to be engaged in two seemingly opposite activities? How can he simultaneously long for the future reign of God and yet be occupied with missionary strategy for the long run? How do this impatience and this patience cohere in his life? … Passion and sobriety go hand in hand in Paul’s life because the necessity of the imminent end is directly related to its incalculability. This gives Paul the freedom to be committed simultaneously to the imminence of the end and to the contingencies of historical circumstance. He … is able to allow God the freedom to choose the moment of his final glorious theophany, whereas he strains in the meantime to move God’s world into the direction of its appointed future destiny.[63]

That is the attitude Scripture prescribes for all Christians.

Notes

1. The First Epistle of Clement 23; Epistle to Polycarp 1.3; Ignatius, Ephesians 11, shorter and longer versions; The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles 16; Pastor of Hermas, Vision Fourth, chapter 2; Irenaeus against Heresies 5.29.1; 5.35.1; Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist; Tertullian, Apology, Part First, chapter 21; Tertullian, On Repentance 1; Tertullian, The Shows, Part First, 3.30; Cyprian, “On the Unity of the Church” 27; The Treatises of Cyprian 7.2; 12.3.89; The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 7.2.31; 7.2.32; Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh. See Thomas D. Lea, “A Survey of the Doctrine of the Return of Christ in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (June 1986): 170-72.
2. George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 20.
3. Lea, “A Survey of the Doctrine of the Return of Christ in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” 172.
4. John F. Walvoord, “A Review of The Blessed Hope, by George E. Ladd,” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (July 1956): 291-92.
5. Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 75.
6. Ibid.
7. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 54–56. Gerald B. Stanton has cited some of the arguments used by opponents of imminence (“The Doctrine of Imminency: Is It Biblical?” in When the Trumpet Sounds, ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995], 229–32). If the last book of the Bible teaches the imminence of Christ’s coming and the beginning of other end-time events, certain arguments against the New Testament’s teaching of imminence disappear. Opponents of imminence have cited the necessity of intervening events such as the death of Peter, the plan and content of Paul’s ministry, and the destruction of Jerusalem. These arguments are addressed by Robert G. Gromacki, “The Imminent Return of Jesus Christ,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (fall 1965): 14-16. However, all those lay in the past by the time the Book of Revelation was written and so were no obstacle to understanding the book’s emphasis on imminence.
8. James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 335.
9. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 82. Wallace notes that the futuristic present tense denotes either immediacy or certainty, depending on the context in which it appears (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 535–36). In the context of the Apocalypse its obvious connotation is immediacy.
10. H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1906), 55; Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 490; Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, n.d.), 112; see also Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 289–90, 309.
11. Matthew 24:42–25:13; Mark 13:32–37; Luke 12:39–40; 21:34–36; Romans 13:11–12; 1 Corinthians 1:4–7; 15:51–53; 16:22; 2 Corinthians 5:6–10; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 5:2–10; 2 Peter 3:10.
12. See R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); see also Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (winter 1976–77): 48-105.
13. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 131.
14. Ibid., 133-45.
15. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 56–57.
16. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 131.
17. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 100.
18. Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1999), 111–12.
19. See, for example, Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 167–70.
20. See, for example, J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming (1887; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983); and Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ: The Two Dimensions of One Age-Changing Eschaton (Warren, OH: Writing and Research Ministry, 1987).
21. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 48.
22. Ibid., 41-48.
23. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 131 (italics his).
24. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 42.
25. Hal Lindsey with C. C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 53–54.
26. Regarding these parables Charles L. Holman observes, “In the parables which exhort the disciples to watchfulness for the parousia (24:45–51; 25:1–13; 25:14–30) the idea of imminence is implicit; otherwise, why would the disciples need to watch for His coming?” (“The Idea of an Imminent Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 3 [March 1973]: 17).
27. See Evald Lövestam, Jesus and ‘This Generation’: A New Testament Study (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 81–87.
28. Robert Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming and the End of the Age, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1992), 98–99, 185. For further discussion of the “pre-wrath” position, see Gerald B. Stanton, “A Review of The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (January-March 1991): 90-111; and John A. McLean, “Another Look at Rosenthal’s ‘Pre-Wrath Rapture,’ ” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (October-December 1991): 187-98.
29. Robert Gundry has recently reaffirmed his stance in First the Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997). That along with other works such as Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology:Making Sense of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) allows consideration of that view under the heading of “recent” also.
30. Compare Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Nelson, 1990), 115–61, with Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 89–99.
31. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, 166, 285; and Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 29–37.
32. Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming, 274–78; and Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 29–43.
33. Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming, 294–95; idem, The Rapture Question Answered (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1997), 153–54; and Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 76.
34. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 76; and Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, 165.
35. Wallace says this about the dramatic aorist: “The aorist indicative can be used of an event that happened rather recently. Its force can usually be brought out with something like just now, as in just now I told you” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 564).
36. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (N.p.: Macmillan, 1955), 198.
37. The proposed supporting usages of ἦλθεν as the dramatic aorist in Mark 14:41 and the proleptic aorist in Revelation 19:7 (Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture, 165–66) come from different contexts. In Mark 14:41 the words “the hour has come” mean that the period of crucifixion, not the very moment of crucifixion, had already arrived. In Revelation 19:7 the aorist is proleptic as is often the case with heavenly singing in Revelation. Revelation 6:17 is not heavenly singing, however.
38. Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming, 276–77.
39. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, 117–34.
40. For example, Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 29–43, 89–99.
41. Ibid., 29 (italics his). A more accurate definition of imminence is, “By common consent imminence means that no predicted event will precede the coming of Christ.”
42. Ibid (italics added).
43. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 490.
44. Ibid. Carson’s reference to “one second or less” vividly recalls 1 Corinthians 15:52 in which Paul prophesied that Christ’s coming will be “in a moment [or ‘flash’], in the twinkling of an eye.”
45. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology, 181.
46. Ben Witherington III, “Transcending Imminence: The Gordian Knot of Pauline Eschatology,” Eschatology in the Bible and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 174.
47. J. Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 49.
48. Gundry, First the Antichrist, 26–27.
49. Ibid., 32.
50. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 89–93.
51. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, 115–61; and Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming, 348–52.
52. Gundry writes, “Paul says not only that ‘the Day of the Lord’ won’t arrive unless that evil figure ‘is revealed’ but also that ‘the rebellion’ which he will lead against all divinity except his own (claimed falsely, of course) ‘comes first’ (2 Thess. 2:1–4)” (First the Antichrist, 20). See also Erickson, Basic Guide to Eschatology, 175.
53. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 881; G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1937), 219; James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed., vol. 1: Prolegomena (Edinburgh: Clark, 1908), 147–48; and Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 579–80.
54. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1982), 165; and D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 227–28.
55. Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, rev. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 216.
56. Robert L. Thomas, “A Hermeneutical Ambiguity of Eschatology: The Analogy of Faith,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (March 1980): 51-52; cf. Gottlieb Lunemann, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1880), 208.
57. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1019.
58. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 696–97.
59. Ibid., 698.
60. Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn, Greek: An Intensive Course (New York: Fordham University Press, 1992), 1:95.
61. Martin notes, “Its [i.e., the adverb πρῶτον] placement in the sentence slightly favors the understanding that the apostasy comes ‘first’ and then the lawless one is revealed,” and adds that the adverb could indicate that the arrival of apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness will precede the Day of the Lord (1, 2 Thessalonians, 232).
62. To this effect Beker writes, “Paul emphasizes the unexpected, the suddenness and surprising character of the final theophany (1 Thess 5:2–10)” (Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel, 48).
63. Ibid., 51-52.

Daniel 10 and the Notion of Territorial Spirits

By David E. Stevens

[David E. Stevens is Senior Pastor, Central Bible Church, Portland Oregon.]

A plethora of books and articles testify to a renewed interest in the mysterious realm of celestial powers and their relationship to the terrestrial world.[1] In spite of such interest the study of this important theme has often been ignored or relegated to the periphery of serious biblical and theological study.[2] In the 1950s Scottish theologian James Stewart noted that the study of the celestial powers—and in particular malevolent powers—was a neglected aspect of New Testament theology.[3] More recently, however, the writings of such authors as Walter Wink and Peter Wagner have highlighted the existence of cosmic powers and “territorial spirits” that exert influence in the world.[4]

In the 1989 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism, held in Manila, five workshops were devoted to the subject of “territorial spirits.” Since then many books and articles have been published on this much-debated topic,[5] and they frequently refer to Daniel 10 as a chapter that speaks explicitly of territorial spirits. For example Wagner states, “The Bible teaches that the things we today call ‘territorial spirits’ do exist. A key passage is found in Daniel 10 where the ‘prince of Persia’ and the ‘prince of Greece’ are mentioned specifically”[6] in verse 20. Speaking of the spirit princes of Persia and Greece, Otis writes, “Here we have a well-defined case of an evil spiritual being ruling over an area with explicitly defined boundaries.”[7]

Priest, Campbell, and Mullen underscore the determinative nature of this passage in relation to the contemporary notion of territorial spirits. “All other passages which advocates of spiritual mapping, and spiritual warfare based on that mapping, have appealed to, are read in the light of this passage as well as in the light of anecdotes, native beliefs and demonic revelations. This passage is crucial. If this passage is discovered not to teach the notion of demonic territoriality—the notion that demonic power is linked to and exercised over territories—then the other passages fail to persuade.”[8]

Daniel 10 is crucial for the study of cosmic powers over the peoples of the earth. Driver affirms that the doctrine of tutelary angels set over the nations is found explicitly for the first time in the Old Testament in Daniel 10:13.[9] Delcor is of the same opinion. “This verse supposes, on the one hand—the notion of guardian angels over the nations—and on the other, the existence of angelic warfare in the heavens. For the first time the idea is expressed that each people has a protective angel, but the origin of this speculation is not clear.”[10]

On the other hand Calvin, Clarke, d’Envieu, and Shea[11] hold that the “prince of Persia” (Dan. 10:13, 20)[12] was one of the political authorities in Persia who opposed the reconstruction of the Jewish temple. Shea writes, “If one looks for an earthly human prince of Persia in the 3rd year of Cyrus, there is one specific candidate for that historical position: Cambyses, the son and crown prince of Cyrus…. This is the one interpretation which takes cognizance of both (a) the potentiality for interpreting the word ‘prince’ as a human being, and (b) the actual political situation that obtained in the 3rd year of Cyrus. In my opinion, therefore, Calvin was correct in this identification.”[13]

Do Daniel 10:13 and 20 speak of demons governing their respective nations? Or was the one who transmitted this revelation to Daniel referring to human princes who opposed God’s intervention in favor of Israel?

This article proposes that (a) the use of the term “prince” (שַׂר) in the Old Testament as well as certain contextual indications underline the angelic nature of these princes; (b) the historical context of Daniel 10 helps explain the malevolent intentions and strategy of these demonic “princes” in relation to the Jewish nation; and (c) the influence exerted by these angelic princes is personal and sociopolitical in nature and not territorial.

The View that the Princes of Persia and Greece Were Human Leaders

Shea’s view that the princes in Daniel 10 were human political leaders is based on two principal arguments: the use of the term “prince” in Daniel and other biblical passages to refer to human leaders, and the plural expression “with the kings of Persia” (v. 13).

The Hebrew term שַׂר, used more than four hundred times in the Old Testament, carries the following meanings: captain, leader (Num. 21:18; 1 Sam. 22:2); vassal, noble, official under a king who functions (a) as a ruler or counselor (Gen. 12:15; 1 Kings 20:14–17), (b) the sovereign or magistrate of a region (2 Chron. 32:31), or (c) the ruler of a city (Judg. 9:30; Neh. 7:2); commander (Gen. 21:22, 32); head of a group of people, that is, an official (Neh. 4:10; Ps. 68:27 [28, Heb.]; Dan. 1:7–11, 18); one who carries a certain religious responsibility (Ezra 8:24, 29; Isa. 43:28); or a person in an elevated position (Ps. 45:16 [17, Heb.]; Isa. 23:8).[14] The common denominator in these diverse uses is the concept of “one who commands.” As van der Ploeg summarizes, “The sar is everywhere the one who commands; it is thus clear why the term is preferentially applied to military commanders.”[15]

Given these examples, it is not surprising that certain commentators say that the princes of Persia and Greece were human leaders. In fact in the Book of Daniel the term שַׂר is found nine times outside the angelic references and often carries the meaning of “one who commands.” Six times in chapter 1 the term refers to a Babylonian officer (vv. 7–11, 18); on two occasions in Daniel’s prayer the term designates the princes of Judah (9:6, 8); and once (11:5) the term is applied to Seleucus I Nicator, chief officer under the command of Ptolemy I.

Shea proposes a second argument in favor of seeing these princes as humans. While conceding that the term שַׂר in Daniel may in certain passages designate celestial beings, Shea insists that in such cases the term always indicates benevolent angels. “Even when ‘prince’ is used of an angelic figure, elsewhere in Daniel, it is consistently used only of such angelic beings on God’s side, never for fallen angels, demons, or Satan…. the powers opposing God are identified in other ways in Daniel, not by this term.”[16]

Shea’s third argument is that the title שַׂר is equivalent to the modern-day term “crown prince.” He then attempts to demonstrate that Cambyses could have been simultaneously the king of Babylon and crown prince to the throne of his father, Cyrus, king of Persia.[17] Shea further concludes that the phrase “with the kings of Persia” (v. 13, צֶל מַלְי פָרָס) means that those kings were at the same place the angel encountered the “prince of Persia.” If Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was named king of Babylon before the third year of Cyrus (v. 1), he would be considered both “crown prince” (of Persia) and “king” (of Babylon) at the moment of the struggle described in verse 13. In this case the title “kings of Persia” would refer to two “kings”—Cambyses, king of Babylon, and Cyrus, king of Persia.[18]

According to this interpretation Daniel 10 says nothing about the intervention of malevolent angelic powers. Instead, Cyrus (the view of Clark and d’Envieu) or Cambyses his son (the view of Calvin and Shea) were the ones who resisted Gabriel and Michael.

The View That the Princes of Persia and Greece Were National Angels (Demons)

While the word “prince” may seem to allow for the view that the princes of Persia and Greece are human leaders, a study of the term and its use in Daniel 10 demonstrates otherwise. While שַׂר designates “leaders,” “vassals,” “captains,” or “heads of groups” (in 1:7–11, 18; 8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 11:5), elsewhere in Daniel the term obviously refers to celestial beings. The angel Michael is called “one of the chief princes” (10:13), “your prince” (v. 21), and “the great prince” (12:1). Two other usages of שַׂר are of particular interest: “commander of the host” (שַׂר־הַצָּבָא, 8:11) and “prince of princes” (,שַׂר־שָׂרִים 8:25). These are three irrefutable examples in the same book where שַׂר refers not to human princes but to God Himself, an angelic prince, or the Messiah. Outside the Book of Daniel the use of שַׂר as an appellation of celestial beings is also found in the expression “captain of the host of the Lord” (שַׂר־צְבָא־יְהוָה, Josh. 5:14–15). Also the expression “prince of peace” (,שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם Isa. 9:5) refers to the Messiah.

As already noted, Shea contends that when the term שַׂר refers elsewhere to angelic powers, it always designates good angels, not evil ones. The context, however, must remain the decisive factor. For example the term employed most frequently in Daniel to speak of the dominion of God (שָׁלְטָן, 6:26 [27, Aramaic]; 7:6, 12, 14, 26) is also used of evil powers that will one day serve and obey God (7:27).[19] Moreover, the use of שַׂר in reference to evil celestial powers is abundantly attested in late Hebrew usage.[20] Though the interpretation of the term in Daniel 10 must not depend entirely on these extrabiblical examples, they at least demonstrate the versatility of the Hebrew term.

In this regard the evident parallel between the שַׂר of Persia and Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, must not be overlooked. This same parallel is also found in 10:20–21 between the “prince of Greece” and “Michael your prince.” If שַׂר refers in a context of conflict to the benevolent angel Michael, who represented God’s interests, it is not surprising to find the same term used to designate a malevolent angel (a demon) representing the interests of an earthly kingdom. Many commentators conclude that this parallelism in itself is sufficient to assert that the prince of Persia is of a demonic nature.[21] As already noted, the immediate context is important in determining the meaning of terms.[22]

By saying that Cambyses was simultaneously king of Babylon and crown prince (שַׂר) to the throne of his father, Cyrus,[23] Shea attributes to the term שַׂר a meaning that is foreign to the Old Testament usage of this appellation.[24] Furthermore even if it could be shown that שַׂר carried the meaning “crown prince,” such an interpretation could not apply in verse 20 to the שַׂר of Greece. Alexander the Great was no other than the king of Greece from the age of twenty and during his military campaigns.[25]

Shea further argues that the term “king” (מֶלֶךְ) in verse 13 is crucial in determining the meaning of the designation “prince” (שָׂר) in the same verse.[26] While he rightly notes that מֶלֶךְ is never used in the Old Testament in reference to angels, he does not take into account that the term שָׂר is never used to designate those who are kings. This clear distinction between שָׂר and מֶלֶךְ is seen in many Old Testament passages (e.g., 2 Chron. 30:2, 6, 12; 36:18; Neh. 9:32; Esth. 3:12; Isa. 10:8; Jer. 24:8; 25:18; Lam. 2:9; Ezek. 17:12; Hos. 3:4). The only exception to this may be in Isaiah 10:8: “Are not my princes [שָׂרַי] all kings [מְלָכִים]?” However, the context here is poetic. According to Young the term שָׂר is chosen in this passage in order to reflect the Akkadian šarru, even though the exact relationship of the two terms is not certain.[27]

This distinction between שָׂר and מֶלֶךְ is also seen in Daniel 9:6, 8; and 11:5. Moreover, other terms were available to the author if he had wanted to convey a meaning comprising the two concepts of “prince” and “king.” For example the terms נָגִיד (9:25–26) and נָשִׂיא (1 Kings 1:35; Ezek. 12:12) can include the two meanings.[29] If, according to Shea, the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” (Dan. 10:13) and the “prince of Greece” (v. 20) designate Cambyses and Alexander the Great, respectively—both of whom are called מֶלֶךְ in 8:20–21—why did Daniel not use here one of the synonyms of שָׂר, such as נָגִיד or נָשִׂיא? Instead it seems that Gabriel carefully chose the term שָׂר in order to distinguish clearly in this context between human kings and angelic princes.

Theodotion, who best reflects the original reading of the Septuagint,[29] translates שָׂר by ἄρχων and not by στρατηγός.[30] Beginning in the intertestamental period the literature has many examples in which ἀρχή and ἄρχων are used to designate celestial powers.[31] Furthermore Paul and other New Testament authors employ these terms in reference to angelic powers (e.g., John 12:31; Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:54; Eph. 1:21–22; 2:2).

In conclusion several factors indicate that “prince” (שַׂר) in Daniel 10:13 refers to a demon, not to a “human ruler”: (a) the use of the term שַׂר in the Old Testament as a designation of celestial beings; (b) the use of שַׂר to designate malevolent angels as attested in later Hebrew and Assyrian usage and supported by the immediate context of Daniel 10; (c) the clear parallel between the prince of Persia and the angel Michael; (d) the absence of the use of שַׂר in the Old Testament to designate a “crown prince” to the throne; (e) the clear distinction between the terms מֶלֶךְ and שַׂר in verse 13; and (f) the translation of שַׂר by ἄρχων (Theodotion).

According to this interpretation the princes of Persia and Greece were demonic princes established over their respective nations. Their intentions were malevolent, standing in opposition to the angels Gabriel and Michael, the latter being one of the “chief princes” and defender of the Jewish nation.

The Interpretation of the Angelic Battle

Beyond the identity of these princes, it is important to understand the nature of the angelic battle as explained by the two descriptive phrases found in verse 13: עֹד לְנֶגְדִּי “[he] was withstanding me” and וַאֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי שָׁם “I had been left there.” Certain commentators conclude concerning the first phrase (“[he] was withstanding me”) that, if the angel sent to Daniel was (during twenty-one days) “withstood, held back, or deterred” from the accomplishment of his primary mission, then it is reasonable to believe that the “prince of Persia” is no other than a malevolent angelic power. For example Bruce concludes that these “princes,” “who are powerful enough to impede an angel of the divine presence in the execution of his commission, are plainly not the human rulers of the empires mentioned; they are superior angel-princes.”[32]

Apparently the mission of the angel Gabriel had at least a twofold objective: to strengthen the prophet Daniel (v. 12) and to convey the revelation of chapters 11 and 12. But was there more than this? Was the struggle nothing more than an impediment to the angel’s primary mission?

Daniel 8:25 shows that it is certainly possible for a human being, in this case Antiochus IV Epiphanes, to “oppose” (עָמַד with עַל) a celestial being, whether it be an angel or the Messiah Himself (“Prince of princes”). Given this fact, the argument of Bruce cited above is not convincing. That the “prince” of Daniel 10:13 is powerful enough to oppose the angel of God does not, in and of itself, lead one to the conclusion that this prince is angelic. As has been demonstrated, the angelic interpretation of the princes of Persia and Greece depends rather on the use of שַׂר in this context. On the other hand 1 Chronicles 21:1 (“Satan stood up against [עָמַד with עַל] Israel and moved David to number Israel”) does not exclude the possibility that these malevolent, celestial powers are working through the intermediary of a man or a nation so as to oppose the will of God.[33]

If then the phrase ע עֹד לְנֶגְדִּיhe “was withstanding me,” Dan. 10:13) does not help in defining the identity of the prince of Persia, it does explain the reason for the delay of twenty-one days. Gabriel was doing more than simply strengthening the prophet or conveying the revelation of chapters 11–12. He was also engaged in spiritual warfare, opposing the malevolent influence of the angelic prince of Persia on human political authorities. This celestial conflict is an integral part of Gabriel’s mission. The angelic prince of Persia, who in this case is working through the intermediary of human political authorities, must be countered in his destructive schemes against Israel; this is the first objective of Gabriel’s mission. This seems to be confirmed by the clause “for I [Gabriel] had been left there with the kings of Persia” (v. 13).

The New International Version renders this clause, “because I was detained there with the king of Persia.” According to this translation the angel sent to Daniel was “detained” from accomplishing his primary revelatory mission. However, the verb יָתַר in the Niphal never carries this meaning in the Old Testament; the primary meaning is “to stay, to remain.”[34] The King James Version reads, “As I remained there with the king of Persia.” In this rendering Gabriel stayed with the king of Persia either in order to continue to influence him in favor of Israel (d’Envieu)[35] or to counteract his malevolent enterprises against Israel (Shea). However, as has been demonstrated, this interpretation of the text does not take into account the clear distinction of meaning of the two terms שַׂר and מֶלֶךְ. On the other hand the term יָתַר can carry the meaning “to have advantage over.”[36] Young translates the phrase, “I had the advantage,” adding, “the Speaker prevailed and was left near the kings of Persia (i.e., victorious), the Prince having been worsted.”[37] Driver’s translation is “[I] was left over there” (i.e., I had nothing more to do),[38] and Wood comments, “The word … carries the thought of being left in a position of preeminence.”[39] It seems then that, with the help of the archangel Michael, Gabriel was in an advantageous position with respect to the angelic prince of Persia. Michael moved to the front of the battle, leaving Gabriel free to accomplish another aspect of his mission, now[40] toward Daniel.

In conclusion the two phrases he “withstood me” and “I was left over there,” though not crucial in determining the identity of the prince of Persia, contribute to an understanding of the reason for the twenty-one-day period of prayer and fasting by Daniel. Spiritual warfare was being waged in the heavenly places and the angel Gabriel was encountering the malevolent influence of the angelic (demonic) prince of Persia on the contemporary political situation. As Boyd states, “Daniel 10 clearly affirms not only the existence of powerful angelic beings but also their ability either to cooperate with or to resist God’s will. This passage further implies that at least part of what may be in the balance, as these beings either cooperate with or resist God’s will, is our welfare.”[41] The particular historical and political circumstances of Daniel 10 will now be examined in order to better understand the strategy of the angelic prince of Persia as he stood in opposition to the welfare of God’s people.

The Historical Analysis of Daniel 10 by William Shea

Daniel mourned for three weeks in the “third year of Cyrus” (10:1–2), three weeks that ended on the twenty-fourth day of the first month (v. 4), that is, Nisan 24, 535 B.C.[42] Based on this historical precision Shea proposes four arguments in favor of identifying the “prince” of Persia with Cambyses, the son of Cyrus: (a) the opposition in question in Daniel 10, (b) the reputation of Cambyses as an adversary of foreign religions, (c) the position of Cambyses at that time in the Persian government, and (d) the significance of the expression “with the kings of Persia” (צֶל מַלְי פָרָס, v. 13).[43] Though these princes, as already discussed, are demonic—and thus Shea’s view that the “prince” of Persia was Cambyses is to be rejected—a historical analysis of the contemporary context is helpful.

The Opposition In Question

What opposition was Israel facing in Daniel 10? When the events recorded in that chapter are read in their historical context, it seems that the reconstruction of the temple was the primary preoccupation of Daniel and his people (Ezra 1–4).[44] Though Cyrus had already allowed some of the Jewish exiles to return to their homeland, many were still dispersed in the Mesopotamian cities of Babylon, Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana. The first wave of returnees to Jerusalem encountered opposition in their efforts to rebuild the temple. According to Ezra 4:4–5 certain counselors from among the local inhabitants had been hired by the Persian government. Cyrus, either directly or by means of his representatives, yielded to the pressure of these counselors and suspended the reconstruction of the temple. As indicated in Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra 5–6, this delay stemmed from local opposition.

In this regard it is significant that the theophany in Daniel 10:5–9, which manifested the glory of God, was situated to the east of the Tigris River. Why? For the simple reason that the temple, the abode of God, had not yet been reconstructed. According to Ezekiel the abominations committed in Israel caused the Shekinah glory of God to leave His sanctuary (Ezek. 8:6; 10:18–19; 11:23). Later, however, the prophet said this same glory of God will once again fill the temple (Ezek. 43). It seems then that the mourning of Daniel and the vision of God’s glory in Daniel 10:5–9 took place between these two critical events, that is, between the departure of the Shekinah glory from the temple (Ezek. 10) and the return of the Shekinah glory (Ezek. 43) to the temple.[45] However, who was responsible for this opposition? Was it Cyrus himself or one of his representatives?

The Reputation Of Cambyses

Shea includes several citations from Herodotus, certain Egyptian texts, and later classical historians in an effort to demonstrate the intense antagonism of Cambyses with respect to foreign religions.46 Shea and others have rightly noted that the reconstruction of the temple was interrupted during the entire reign of Cambyses and not undertaken again until the more conciliatory reign of Darius I Hystaspes (521-486 B.C.). Dandamaev concurs. “If we can believe the information which is provided by Josephus Flavius in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ (II 249, 315), it was Cambyses, when he had become king, who even forbade the rebuilding of the temple. The building was only started at the commencement of Darius’ reign.”[47]

The Position Of Cambyses In The Persian Empire

A third important factor in Shea’s historical analysis concerns Cambyses’ political position at that time in the Persian Empire. The question of the coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus has been debated by biblical historians. While Briant places the coregency at the beginning of Cyrus’s reign,[48] Dubberstein situates it nearly eight years later in 530 B.C.[49] Shea, on the other hand, convincingly argues that their coregency began in 535 B.C. and that this set the stage for the events described in Daniel 10.[50] Shea mentions a document cited by Oppenheim, which seems to speak of Cambyses’ enthronement as king of Babylon during the New Year’s festivities: “From the 27th day of Arahshamnu till the 3rd day of Nisanu a(n official) ‘weeping’ was performed in Akkad, all the people (went around) with their hair disheveled. When, the 4th day, Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to the temple … priest of Nebo … came (and) made the ‘weaving’ by means of the handles and when [he le]d the image of Ne[bo … Nebo returned to Esagila, sheep-offerings in front of Bel and the god Mâ[r]-b[iti].[51]

Though admitting that the chronology of this text is not clear, Shea underscores the possible parallels with Daniel 10.

What we find when these dates are compared is that the period of Daniel’s mourning (during which also the angels wrestled with the prince of Persia)—twenty-one days—is the exact equivalent of the length of time between the date in Nisan on which Cambyses entered the temple during the New Year’s festival, the 4th, and the date in Nisan on which the events of Dan 10 are described as occurring, the 24th. If the 24th of Nisan was the twenty-first day of Daniel’s mourning, then by working backwards we find that the first day of Daniel’s mourning was the 4th of Nisan, the same day on which Cambyses entered the temple during the New Year’s festival.[52]

Though this observation says nothing about the duration of Cambyses’ reign, it does point up the circumstances that may have provoked the prophet’s three weeks of prayer and fasting. Given Cambyses’ bellicose character and his hatred of foreign religions, one can understand why Daniel would have devoted himself to prayer and fasting on behalf of his people and the project of reconstructing the temple already undertaken in Jerusalem.

The possible relationship between Daniel 10 and this text on Cambyses’ enthronement is interesting but not conclusive. However, if the chronology proposed by Shea is correct, this points up a close relationship between the celestial activity of angels and demons and the affairs of people and kingdoms.

The Meaning of the Phrase “with the Kings of Persia” (Dan. 10:13)

If the title “prince of Persia” (v. 20) denotes a demonic being, what then is the significance of the problematic expression “with the kings of Persia” (v. 13)? What is the identity of these kings and their relationship to the “prince” (שַׂר) of Persia? And how does one explain the plural “kings” (מַלְי) in verse 13?

At least three solutions are proposed. Several commentators amend the Masoretic text by replacing “kings” (מַלְי) with “kingdom” (מַלְכוּת). The Revised Standard Version adopts this solution with the translation “so I left him there with the prince of the Kingdom of Persia.”[53]

Another solution loosely interprets the plural “kings” (מַלְי) as meaning “succession of kings.” This option is proposed by d’Envieu: “It becomes evident, however, from the entire narrative that the angel indicates that he will remain near the present Persian king and his successors.”[54]

A third approach, similar to the second solution, suggests that the author was imprecise in his use of the plural and singular. The Vulgate, for example, translates with the singular: “et ego remansi ibi juxta regem Persarum.”[55]

However, Shea’s conclusion here is preferable. The designation “kings of Persia” refers to the two kings—Cambyses, the Babylonian head of state,[56] and Cyrus, the king of Persia—without identifying either one or the other with the “prince of Persia.” Such an interpretation does not understand the mention of the “kings of Persia” to be a definition of the designation “prince of the kingdom of Persia.” As previously noted, the clear distinction between the terms שַׂר and מֶלֶךְ in the Old Testament and the parallel between the prince (שַׂר) of Persia and the angel Michael argue against such an interpretation. However, it is true (as Shea rightly observes) that verse 13 implies that the “kings” were located at the same place where the angel Gabriel experienced opposition from the prince of Persia. It seems, then, that the explanation of this apparently close rapport is found in the strategy of the prince of Persia rather than in his identity. Even as Satan rose against Israel to incite King David to oppose the will of God (1 Chron. 21:1), so this malevolent angelic “kingdom-prince” attempted to accomplish his evil intentions by the intermediary of two heads of state, Cyrus and his son Cambyses. This latter one, by his belligerent and impudent character, opposed God’s people. As Boyd states, “What occurs on earth, again, is a replica and a mirror of what occurs in heaven. Indeed, it is a microcosmic example of the macrocosmic spiritual struggle.”[57]

Daniel 10 in Its Broader Context

This intimate relationship between celestial and terrestrial activity is indicated elsewhere in Daniel. Daniel 11:1 reads, “I [Gabriel] took my stand to support and protect him” (NIV). To whom does “him” refer? Though it is possible to understand that Gabriel came to the aid of Darius the Mede, it is preferable to understand that Gabriel protected Michael. The immediate context implies this interpretation: “No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince” (10:21, NIV). Also in light of Daniel 6 it is difficult to imagine in what way Gabriel could have supported Darius.[58] Michael, Israel’s primary angelic defender, needed the help of Gabriel during the reign of Darius. And in the same way Gabriel, Israel’s primary angelic messenger, called on Michael in his struggle against the prince of Persia. However, to understand that Michael needed the help of Gabriel during the reign of Darius, in the same way that Gabriel called on Michael in his struggle against the prince of Persia, affords the reader unusual insight into angelic activity in favor of the people of God.

Daniel 6:5–16 speaks of efforts on the part of Babylonian dignitaries to influence Darius against Daniel. However, God sent His angel to shut the mouths of the lions (v. 22). This miraculous intervention obligated Darius to reformulate his political stance to favor the Hebrews (vv. 24–27). Walvoord concludes, “The beginning of the second great empire with the fall of Babylon in chapter 5 was, then, more than a military conquest or triumph of the armies of the Medes and Persians. It was a new chapter in the divine drama of angelic warfare behind the scenes.”[59]

The immediate context of Daniel 11:1 also addresses this intimate relationship between celestial activity and the terrestrial scene. For example beginning in 10:21 a complex and intentional literary structure demonstrates that 11:1 is not an incidental phrase that needs to be reformulated or amended (the verse belongs to the central body of revelation that begins in 10:20), and 10:20–11:1 and 12:1–3 form an inclusio frame around the revelation of 11:2–45.[60] David summarizes the implications of these observations this way: “First, he [Gabriel] discloses to Daniel the heavenly battle that goes on behind the terrestrial scene: 10:13, 20-21; 11:1. Second, he reveals the historical consequences of the preceding supra-historical battle: 11:2b–45. Lastly, he returns to the celestial scene and the vindication of his people: 12:1–3 … the terrestrial struggle involving the accession into world power of a new kingdom bound to persecute Israel (11:2–45) presumes a whole heavenly battle going on behind it.”[61]

While Daniel 1–5 depicts the history of world empires, chapters 6–12 (and especially chapters 10–12) unfold the reality of the conflict that rages in the supraterrestrial scene (cf. Isa. 24:21).[62] As Lincoln states, these chapters depict “war in heaven between the angels of the nations which has its counterpart in events on earth.”[63]

The Angelic Princes of Daniel 10 and the Contemporary Notion of Territorial Spirits

Though the limits of this study do not allow for an exhaustive analysis of the contemporary doctrine, several observations can be made based on the preceding study of Daniel 10. First, angelic princes mentioned in Daniel do not rule over geographical areas with “explicitly defined boundaries.” The archangel Michael, for example, is described as “the great prince who protects your people” (12:1, NIV, italics added). This emphasizes the protective role of Michael in relation to the people of God rather than with respect to a given territory. Michael remained the guardian angel of the people of God, whether Israel was in the Promised Land or was dispersed in exile among the nations. And in view of the parallel between Michael and the angelic princes of Persia and Greece, one can conclude that the same correspondence exists for the latter, that is, the “princes” are over the people of Persia and Greece and their sociopolitical structure rather than their respective geographical boundaries.

This same emphasis on peoples and sociopolitical structures is seen throughout the Book of Daniel. The Babylonians conquered Judah (Dan. 1–5), but were soon supplanted by the Persians (Dan. 6–10), who themselves were conquered by the Greek Empire (11:2). Then the Greek Empire split into four kingdoms (11:4–36). As Lowe concludes, “The princes of Daniel 10 rule not over … fixed geographical regions, but over imperialistic empires whose boundaries expand and contract…. So the respective princes may be tutelary powers, but if so, then they are expansionistic—not geographical—spirits.”[64] Taken in this sense, they are better termed “empire spirits” rather than territorial spirits.[65]

This emphasis on the peoples of the earth and their sociopolitical structures is found throughout the Old Testament and distinguishes the biblical literature from the traditions of the surrounding nations. In pagan nations around Israel the identity of a people was defined first in terms of a false god’s relationship to his territory. These deities were depicted only secondarily with respect to the inhabitants of those areas.[66] However, the biblical literature stands in contrast to such mythical and animistic notions. In contrast to this pagan concept (Judg. 11:24; 1 Sam. 26:19–20; 2 Kings 3:27), the Old Testament never accepts such thinking as God’s view. The emphasis is rather on the relationship between God (or the “gods”) and the peoples of the earth.[67]

The fact that the angelic princes of Persia and Greece do not rule over explicitly defined geographical territories is also demonstrated by the previous exegesis of Daniel 10:13. The prince of the kingdom of Persia was not trying to fight his way through, in a geographical sense, to Daniel. The issue at stake was not territorial, but political and personal. The political authorities, Cyrus and his son, Cambyses, opposed God’s program through His people Israel, while influenced by a malevolent celestial power.

Second, those who promote the notion of territorial spirits suggest the need for “warfare prayer” or “strategic-level intercession” in which one contends with “an even more ominous concentration of demonic power; namely, territorial spirits.”[68] Such intercession frequently involves both the naming of the territorial powers that influence a specific geographical area as well as aggressive prayer against these demonic spirits in order to lessen their grip on the region and prepare the way for more effective evangelism.[69] Furthermore Wagner states that Daniel 10 “shows us clearly that the only weapon Daniel had [by which] to combat these rulers of darkness was warfare prayer.”[70] Is this true?

A marked difference stands between the nature of Daniel’s prayer and what is presently termed “strategic-level intercession.” Daniel never sought the names of these cosmic powers nor did he employ their names in his intercession—a practice more in keeping with occultic arts.[71] In fact there is no indication that Daniel was aware of what was taking place in the heavenlies during his three-week period of prayer and fasting. It is not until after this period that Daniel received revelation about the identity of the angels engaged in this heavenly struggle.[72] And even then, the only angel who was named was Michael (10:13), who fought on behalf of Israel. The evil angelic princes of Persia and Greece were identified by their generic titles. In light of this, Lowe concludes, “If this passage teaches the importance of names, it is angelic names which are consequential. Generic titles are sufficient for demons.”[73]

Also Daniel did not engage in aggressive prayer against such powers with the expectation of “binding” or “evicting” them. The prophet did not pray against cosmic powers but for the people of God and the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes (cf. Eph. 6:18–20). Apparently Daniel’s focus in prayer was not on the celestial warfare in the heavenlies, but on the promises of God (Dan. 10:12; cf. Jer. 25:11; 29:10) and their fulfillment on the terrestrial scene. Indeed, these promises were fulfilled, but not immediately. Historically the immediate obstacles to the reconstruction of the temple were not overcome for another decade and a half. Furthermore the prince of Persia continued to exert his influence for another two hundred years until the time of the Greek Empire. Nevertheless in direct response to Daniel’s prayer God sent an angel[74] to counteract the evil intentions of the prince of Persia and to reveal God’s unfolding program to the prophet. Such historical facts underscore the absolute sovereignty of God in the outworking of His purposes and in response to the prayers of His people. Indeed, “he does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth” (Dan. 4:35, NIV).

Conclusion

Several factors related to the use of the term שַׂר in Daniel 10:13, 20 confirm the view that the designations “prince of Persia” and “prince of Greece” refer to angelic (demonic) beings. These were not mere human princes nor were they “territorial spirits”; they were powerful national angels or “empire spirits” who opposed God’s carrying out His purposes through His people Israel. While Cyrus and his son Cambyses opposed the reconstruction of the Jewish temple in the terrestrial sphere, spiritual warfare was being waged in the heavenlies as the angel Gabriel countered the malevolent influence of the angelic prince of Persia on the political situation on earth. In this celestial warfare Daniel’s prayer was not without significance. The angel Gabriel was sent to Daniel in direct response to his prayer (v. 12). But in addition, Daniel gained victory over the opposing prince of Persia as the prophet continued to pray. As a result of Daniel’s intercession God unveiled in chapter 11 His program for Israel’s future. The fruit of Daniel’s intercession is not only the revelation of chapter 11, which unveils God’s program for Israel’s future, but also the eventual removal of the immediate obstacles to the rebuilding of the temple.

Notes

1. See, for example, Frank E. Peretti, This Present Darkness (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1986); and idem, Piercing the Darkness (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1989); see also note 5 of the present article.
2. G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), viii; and George M. Landes, “Shall We Neglect the Angels ?” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 14 (1959): 19-25.
3. James Stewart, “On a Neglected Emphasis in New Testament Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 292.
4. Walter Wink, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); idem, Unmasking the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998); and idem, Engaging the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994). For the writings of Peter Wagner, see note 5 of this article.
5. John Dawson, Taking our Cities for God—How to Break Spiritual Strongholds (Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1989); C. Peter Wagner and F. Douglas Pennoyer, Wrestling with Dark Angels: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Supernatural Forces in Spiritual Warfare (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1990); Cindy Jacobs, Possessing the Gates of the Enemy: A Training Manual for Militant Intercession (Grand Rapids: Chosen, 1991); George Otis, The Last of the Giants (New York: Chosen, 1991); idem, The Twilight Labyrinth: Why Does Spiritual Darkness Linger Where It Does? (Grand Rapids: Chosen, 1997); C. Peter Wagner, Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1991); idem, Warfare Prayer: Strategies for Combating the Rulers of Darkness (Kent, UK: Monarch, 1992); idem, ed., Breaking Strongholds in Your City: How to Use Spiritual Mapping to Make Your Prayers More Strategic, Effective and Targeted (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1993); idem, Confronting the Powers: How the New Testament Church Experienced the Power of Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1996); idem, Confronting the Queen of Heaven (Colorado Springs: Wagner Institute for Practical Ministry, 1998); idem, “The World Congress on Prayer, Spiritual Warfare and Evangelism,” Prayer Track News 6 (July-September 1997): 1, 7; and Art Moore, “Spiritual Mapping Gains Credibility among Leaders,” Christianity Today, January 12, 1998, 55. Recent books and articles that present an opposing opinion are Chuck Lowe, Territorial Spirits and World Evangelisation? (Kent, UK: OMF, 1998); Robert A. Guelich, “Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti,” Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 13 (1991): 33-64; Mike R. Taylor, “ ‘Territorial Spirits’: The New Mythology,” Evangel 11 (1993): 61-65; Clinton E. Arnold, “What about Territorial Spirits?” Discipleship Journal 81 (1993): 47; idem, ThreeCrucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 143–99; Gerry Breshears, “The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 3-26; Robert J. Priest, Thomas Campbell, and Bradford A. Mullen, “Missiological Syncretism: The New Animistic Paradigm,” in Spiritual Power and Missions: Raising the Issues, ed. Edward Rommen (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 29; Mike Wakely, “A Critical Look at a New ‘Key’ to Evangelization,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 31 (April 1995): 152-65; Duane A. Garrett, Angels and the New Spirituality (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 215–33; and John F. Hart, “The Gospel and Spiritual Warfare: A Review of Peter Wagner’s Confronting the Powers,”Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 10 (1997): 19-39.
6. Wagner, Confronting the Powers, 172–73.
7. George Otis, “An Overview of Spiritual Mapping,” in Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits, 35. The appeal to Daniel 10 in support of the notion of “territoriality” is a frequent theme in the above-mentioned literature.
8. Priest, Campbell, and Mullen, “Missiological Syncretism,” 23.
9. S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 157. The angelic interpretation of Daniel 10:13 can be dated at least to the time of Origen (Homilies on Luke 35). For an overview of all the passages where Origen spoke of the “angels of the nations” see Jean Daniélou, Origne“Le Génie du Christianisme” (Paris: La Table Ronde, 1948), 222–35; and idem, “Les sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origne,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 38 (1951): 132-37. On this topic see David E. Stevens, “Does Deuteronomy 32:8 Refer to ‘Sons of God’ or ‘Sons of Israel’?” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (April-June 1997): 131-41. Since the writing of that article, however, new evidence was brought to my attention, which has led to a decisively different conclusion. See my more recent doctoral dissertation La notion juive des “anges des nations” à la lumire du texte biblique (Vaux-sur-Seine: Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique, 1999), 28–99. See also Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the ‘Sons of God,’” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January-March 2001), forthcoming. Driver denies that Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to angelic beings over nations.
10. M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Editeurs, 1971), 205. All citations from French are my translations.
11. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 2:252; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (Londres: W. Tegg, 1851), 606; J. Fabre d’Envieu, Le Livre du Prophte Daniel (Paris: Ernest Horin, 1891), 1339; and William H. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10, ” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (1983): 234.
12. Verse 20 refers to שַׂר־יָוָן (“prince of Greece”). Given the parallel between the two designations, the meaning of שַׂר in שַׂר פָּרָס (“prince of Persia”) applies equally to the designation שַׂר־יָוָן.
13. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 234, 249 (italics added).
14. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 3 (פ-שׂ), rev. Walter Baumgartner and Johann J. Stamm (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1350–53.
15. J. van der Ploeg, “Les chefs du peuple d’Israël et leurs titres,” Revue Biblique 57 (1950): 40.
16. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 234. Unfortunately Shea does not specifiy which terms are used to designate the demonic powers.
17. Ibid., 249.
18. Ibid., 242. Shea admits that, according to his proposed chronology, Cambyses was considered at this time the king of Babylon and only the prince of Persia. He suggests, however, that the relationship between the two rulers was sufficient to justify the designation “kings of Persia.”
19. In Daniel 7:2–7 four of these evil powers (ἄρχήν, Septuagint) are depicted by beasts that come out of the sea. The fourth one will directly oppose the Most High (v. 25).
20. J. Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran-4Q SEREK SIROT `OLAT HASSABBAT,” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7 (1960): 324, n. 1. See also the examples cited in “שַׂר,” in A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, ed. Marcus Jastrow (New York: Pardes, 1950), 1627. The term is also used in Assyrian in reference to various demons and angels who protect geographical regions (The Assyrian Dictionary [Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1992] 17/2, 86).
21. For example Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 226–27; and Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 38 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986), 70.
22. Anthony C. Thiselton underscores this principle in this way: “The meaning of a word depends not on what it is in itself, but on its relation to other words and to other sentences which form its context. Dictionary-entries about words are rule-of-thumb generalizations based on assumptions about characteristic contexts…. Nevertheless, the most urgent priority is to point out the fallacy of an atomizing exegesis which pays insufficient attention to context” (“Semantics and New Testament Interpretation,” in New Testament Interpretation:Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 75–104).
23. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 249.
24. William Baur, “Prince,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 4:2453–54. However, נָגִיד may carry this meaning in 2 Chronicles 11:22.
25. Alexander the Great is called the “mighty king” in Daniel 11:3 (cf. 8:21). Interestingly Shea makes no reference whatever to the “prince of Greece” in his article.
26. “The term ‘kings’ occurs in connection with ‘prince’ in v. 13, and commentators do not view that former term as a reference to tutelary deities of Persia” (Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 234).
27. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:361, n. 36.
28. The term נָשִׂיא is found 128 times in the Old Testament, of which 60 designate various leaders in Israel (Num. 1:16 and chapters 2, 7, 34). While in many passages the term is translated “prince,” in at least two passages נָשִׂיא refers to a king: Solomon in 1 Kings 11:34 (cf. 1 Kings 1:35, where מֶלֶךְ and also נָגִיד refer to Solomon) and Zedekiah in Ezekiel 12:10. Several times the term נָגִיד (“the one who is in front”) also designates a king (1 Sam. 9:16; 2 Sam. 7:8 [cf. 1 Sam. 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 1 Chron. 29:22]; 2 Kings 20:5; etc.). See especially Daniel 9:25, “an anointed king [נָגִיד],” and 9:26, “the people of a king [נָגִיד] who is to come.” See J. van der Ploeg, “Les chefs du peuple d’Israël et leurs titres,” 40–61; and Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 10–57.
29. Wink, Naming the Powers, 27, n. 43. Concerning the translation of the Septuagint of Daniel, Bruce M. Metzger says, “The translation of the Book of Daniel was so deficient that it was wholly rejected by the Christian church, and a translation made in the second century A.D. by Theodotion was used from the fourth century onward in its place” (“Important Early Translations of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 [1993]: 39).
30. The Septuagint employs ἄρχων only in reference to Michael, and it designates the princes of Persia and Greece by the term στρατηγός, meaning “military commander” or “governor” (Otto Bauernfeind, “στρατεύομαι et al.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 7:704). On the other hand Theodotion used the term ἄρχων six times in Daniel 10, of which five designate the guardian angels of Persia, Greece, and Israel (Gerhard Delling, “ἄρχων,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 [1964], 488).
31. For examples that predate the New Testament see Jubilees 10:1–13; Testament of Judah 19:4; Testament of Simeon 2:7; Testament of Dan 5:6; 1 Enoch 21:5, 75:1, 80:6–7. For other examples see Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–4; 10:11–15; 1 Enoch 61:10–11; 2 Enoch 7:32; 18:32; and Apocalypse of Baruch 59:11.
32. F. F. Bruce, “Paul and ‘The Powers That Be,’ ” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 66 (1983–84): 86.
33. Such direct influence of malevolent spiritual powers on religious and spiritual authorities is also illustrated in Ascension of Isaiah 2:2–4: “And Manasseh ceased from serving the God of his father and served Satan and his angels and powers … for the prince of unrighteousness who rules this world is Beliar … Now this Beliar rejoiced in Jerusalem over Manasseh and strengthened him in his leading to apostasy and in the lawlessness which was spread abroad in Jerusalem” (italics added).
34. T. Kronholm, “יָתַר,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 6:482–91. Occasionally the Hiphil carries this nuance (2 Sam. 8:4; Ruth 2:18; 1 Chron. 18:4).
35. D’Envieu, Le Livre du Prophte Daniel, 1345.
36. Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handworterbuch uber das Alte Testament (reprint; Berlin: Springer, 1987), 515.
37. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 227. The New English Bible has “seeing that I had held out there, Michael, one of the chief princes… .”
38. Driver, The Book of Daniel, 159.
39. Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 273.
40. The term ע עַתָּה“now”) is not found in verse 14, but is inferred. This understanding of the narrative seems to be confirmed by the renewed spiritual battle mentioned in verses 20–21.
41. Gregory Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 11.
42. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 225–43. Probably Daniel employed here his own Hebrew fall-to-fall calendar. In this case the first year of Cyrus would not have begun until the autumn (the month of Tishri) of 538, since Cyrus was named the king of Babylon after Tishri 1, 539. So his third regnal year mentioned in Daniel 10:1 would have begun in the autumn of 536. The first month (10:4) would have been the first month of the Babylonian calendar and of Israel’s religious calendar, that is, Nisan. The Julian equivalent of Nisan 24, 535, is May 11 of that year. See R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956), 29; and A. F. Johns, “The Military Strategy of Sabbath Attacks on the Jews,” Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 482-86. For the details concerning the different calendars, see D. J. A. Clines, “The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-exilic Israel Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1947): 22-40; S. H. Horn, “The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 5 (1967): 22-25; Edwin R. Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 14–20; Leslie McFall, “Has the Chronology of the Hebrew Kings Been Finally Settled?” Themelios 17 (October-November 1991): 7-8; and idem, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (January-March 1991): 3-45.
43. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 231–32.
44. Daniel 9:25 alludes to the reconstruction of the city: “It will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.”
45. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 233.
46. Ibid., 236-39; cf. Herodotus, History 3.16-17, 25–29, 37; and Strabo, Geography of Strabo 17.1.27.
47. M. A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, trans. W. J. Vogelsang (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 64. Two authors who attempt to interpret Cambyses in a more positive light are W. Spiegelberg, Die sog. demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothque Nationale zu Paris (Leipzig: 1914), 32–33; and Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 66–68, 109–10, 495–96. However, Shea rightly concludes, “While some exaggeration may have crept into the … traditions in the course of time, they probably contain more than a kernel of truth” (Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 238).
48. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 82.
49. Dubberstein, “The Chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 55 (1938): 417-19.
50. Shea, “Prince of Persia,” 239–44; and idem, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 9 (1971): 101-3.
51. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 244. See A. L. Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3d ed. (New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press, 1969), 306. This text was first published by T. G. Pinches, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London, 1872–1893), and later by Sidney Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts, Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen, 1924), plates XI-XIV, 110. See also Jean-Jacques Glassner, ed., Chroniques mésopotamiennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1993), 204; and Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, 64.
52. Shea, “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia,” 245–46 (italics added).
53. This modification also necessitates the addition of the term “prince” (see ibid., 241).
54. D’Envieu, Le Livre du Prophte Daniel, 1345 (italics added). See also René Peter-Contesse, Manuel du Traducteur pour le livre de Daniel (Stuttgart: Alliance Biblique Universelle, 1986), 163.
55. Cf. the NIV rendering “I was detained there with the king of Persia.”
56. Whatever may have been the precise political position of Cambyses on May 11, 535 B.C., the term מַלְי is quite adequate for describing the role of Cambyses and his father Cyrus. See Robert D. Culver, “מלך,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:507–10.
57. Boyd, God at War, 90. The scene evokes the apocalyptic account of Satan who, in the form of a dragon (Rev. 12:9) will give his “power and his throne and great authority” to the beast (13:2). Such a conclusion concerning these angelic princes is in stark contradiction to Wesley Carr, who affirms, “These beings never have anything to do with the concrete acts or persons of government. Indeed even in Daniel they relate only to past empires, and are only a device for explaining history” (Angels and Principalities:The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 42 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 35).
58. I agree with Shea that Darius was in fact Gubaru, general of the Persian army under Cyrus, who conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. (William H. Shea, “Darius the Mede: An Update,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 [1982]: 230).
59. John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 255.
60. Pablo David, “Daniel 11, 1: A Late Gloss?” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven: University Press, 1993), 512.
61. Ibid., 509, 512 (italics added).
62. This is understandable, as chapters 2–5 consist of revelations given to pagan monarchs, while chapters 7–12 convey revelations given to the prophet Daniel himself.
63. A. T. Lincoln, “Liberation from the Powers: Supernatural Spirits or Societal Structures?” in The Bible in Human Society, ed. M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 350.
64. Lowe, Territorial Spirits and World Evangelisation? 34.
65. Arnold, Three Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare, 151.
66. Daniel Isaac Block, The Gods of the Nations, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Theology (Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 23; cf. Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 367. For examples of this “territorial” emphasis in Ugaritic literature, see Manfried Dietrich, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976), 1.3:iii.30; 1.3:iv.20; 1.3:vi.11–16.
67. Block, The Gods of the Nations, 28–29; A. Scott Moreau, “Religious Borrowing as a Two-Way Street: An Introduction to Animistic Tendencies in the Euro-North American Context,” in Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold Netland (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 166–77. The relationship between the gods and the nations of the earth is often conveyed by the expressions גּוֹיִם(הַ) אַוֹּי (Deut. 29:17; 2 Kings 18:33 [cf. Isa. 36:18]; 19:12 [cf. Isa. 37:12]; 2 Chron. 32:13–14, 17); and עַמִּים(הָ) אַוֹּי (Deut. 6:14; 13:7 [8, Heb.]; Judg. 2:12; Ps. 96:5 [cf. 1 Chron. 16:26]; 1 Chron. 5:25; 2 Chron. 32:19. (See also Exodus 12:12; Joshua 24:15; Judges 6:10; 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Chronicles 25:14; Jeremiah 43:12–13.) Block concludes, “It is perhaps a measure of the people-centeredness of the Hebrew perspective that, although references to Jahweh’s abandonment of his people are common, only rarely is the focus on his forsaking the land of Israel” (The Gods of the Nations, 150). Intertestamental and later Jewish literature also addresses this relationship between the angelic princes and the peoples of the earth (Sirach 17:17; Jubilees 15:30–32; 1 Enoch 20:1–2; 2 Enoch 19:5; Testament of Nephtali 8:3–10:2; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 32:8 and Gen. 11:7; Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 24).
68. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, 18. Such “strategic-level intercession” is to be distinguished from what is termed in the literature “ground-level spiritual warfare” (which involves casting demons out of individuals) and “occult-level spiritual warfare” (which confronts demonic forces released through occultic activity). See Wagner, Confronting the Powers, 21–22.
69. Concerning the importance of identifying and naming the spirits, see Wagner, Warfare Prayer, 148; idem., Confronting the Powers, 200–201; Bob Beckett, “Practical Steps toward Community Deliverance,” in Breaking Strongholds in Your City: How to Use Spiritual Mapping to Make Your Prayers More Strategic, Effective and Targeted, 155. Such a practice reflects the assumption that the discerning of the name of a spiritual being gives a person power over that spirit.
70. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, 66.
71. Clinton Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 54–55.
72. Walvoord states, “Daniel probably had observed the Passover on the fourteenth day and the Feast of Unleavened Bread which followed from the fifteenth day to the twenty-first. If the vision came to Daniel immediately after his twenty-one days of mourning, his fast must have begun immediately after the new moon celebration, concluding just before the vision was given to him” (The Book of Daniel, 241).
73. Lowe, Territorial Spirits and World Evangelisation? 47. This observation underscores a distinguishing feature of the biblical literature in contrast to the noncanonical literature of later Judaism. In the latter the emphasis on names and angelic hierarchies is quite frequent. For example Sammaêl is the angelic prince of Rome, and Dubbiêl is the angelic prince of Persia (1 Enoch 26:11, 12; and Babylonian Talmud Yoma 77a).
74. There are at least three angelic manifestations in this narrative. The “man dressed in linen” (Dan. 10:5) is possibly a theophany manifesting God’s glory. The literary structure of the passage suggests that the angels of verses 10 and 16 are identical and refer to one who was engaged in the conflict against the “prince of the kingdom of Persia.” Then there is Michael, the guardian angel of Israel. See Christopher Rowland, “A Man Clothed in Linen: Daniel 10.6ff. and Jewish Angelology,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985): 99-110.