John Calvin Commentary Daniel 10

We observe the Prophet by no means content with the usual method of address, for the purpose of stirring up the attention of the pious, and of assuring them how worthy of special notice are the prophecies that follow. He marks the time, the third year of King Cyrus, as the Jews were then forbidden by a new edict to build their temple, although liberty to do so had been previously granted to them.

He says, a word was made known to him, and he adds, the word was true, although the time was long. The time is treated more at length in the next verse. By saying, a word was manifested to him, he is thought to distinguish this prophecy from others, as it was not offered to him by either a dream or a vision.

He uses the word מראה, merah, a “vision,” at the end of this verse, but I do not see why the noun “word” should be taken in so restricted a sense. Interpreters, again, seek a reason why he mentions his own name as Belteshazzar; some think it celebrates some honor to which he was raised; others treat it as commending the superiority of his abilities, as the name implies—descended from heaven; while others bring forward various conjectures.

I have no hesitation in stating Daniel’s wish to erect some illustrious monument of his vocation among the Medes, Persians, and Chaldeans. There, most probably, he was usually called Belteshazzar, and the name Daniel was almost buried in oblivion, and so he wished to testify that he was no stranger to the people of God, although he endured having a foreign name imposed upon him; for we have already seen that it was impossible for him to avoid it.

I therefore think the Prophet had no other intention than to make this prophecy widely known throughout all those regions where he was well known under the name of Belteshazzar. Besides this, he wished to testify to his fellow countrymen that he was not entirely cut off from the Church because he was called Belteshazzar by the Chaldeans; for he was always the same and, while banished from his country, was endowed with the Spirit of prophecy, as we have seen previously. Since the name of Daniel was almost unknown in Chaldea, he wished to make both his names known.

It now follows, And there is truth in the word. Daniel here commends the certainty of the prophecy, as if he had said, "I bring nothing before you but what is firm and stable, and whose actual fulfillment the faithful ought confidently to expect." There is truth in the word, he says; meaning, there was no room for doubting his assertions, for he had been divinely instructed about events that would be fulfilled in their own time.

I understand what follows to mean, "although the time would be long." Some of the Rabbis take צבא, tzeba, for the angelic hosts, which is quite absurd here. The word signifies “army” as well as an appointed time, but the interpretation they force upon the passage cannot be sustained.

The particle “and,” I think, must here be understood adversatively, in the sense of “although.” Thus the Prophet proclaims our need for calmness of mind and patient endurance, until God will really complete and perform what He has verbally announced. This feeling ought to be extended to all prophecies.

We know how ardent human dispositions are, and how hastily they are carried away by their own desires. We are compelled, therefore, to curb our impetuosity if we wish to make progress in the school of God, and we must admit this general principle: If a promise should tarry, wait for it; for it will surely come, and will not delay (Habakkuk 2:3). Here Daniel affirms in a special sense, the time will be long; this would restrain the faithful from rushing headlong with too much haste. They would command their feelings and remain tranquil until the full maturity of the period arrives.

He afterwards adds, He understood the vision; by this assertion he confirms the prophecy that he is about to explain, and thus assures us that he is not uttering anything either perplexed or obscure. He also induces all the pious to hope for the exercise of the same understanding that he himself had attained.

It is as if he had said: "I know what God wished; He has explained to me by His angel various events that I will now set forth in their order. Let everyone peruse these prophecies attentively and reverently, and may God grant them the same gift of understanding and lead them to certain knowledge."

The information conveyed by the Prophet belongs to all the pious, to deter them from sluggishness and despair. At first glance this teaching may appear very obscure, but they must seek from the Lord that light of manifestation that He deigned to bestow upon the Prophet himself.

We gather from this passage why the angel appeared to the Prophet in the third year of Cyrus. He says, he was then in the greatest sorrow; and what was the cause of it? At that period, we know an interruption of the work of rebuilding the temple and city had taken place.

Cyrus had gone to a distance; he had set out for Asia Minor and was carrying on war with the Scythians. His son Cambyses was corrupted by his couriers and forbade the Jews to proceed with the rebuilding of their city and temple. The freedom of the people might then seem in vain, for God had promised the Jews in glowing language a return to their country with their standards unfurled. Besides this, we know the splendid language of the prophets respecting the glory of the second temple (Isaiah 52:12; Haggai 2:9, and elsewhere).

When thus deprived of all opportunity of rebuilding their temple, what could the Jews determine except that they had been deluded after returning to their country, and God had made a show of disappointing expectations which had turned out a mere laughing-stock and deception? This was the cause of the grief and anxiety which oppressed the holy Prophet.

We now understand why he mentions the third year of Cyrus, as the circumstances of that period, even to this day, point out the reason for his abstinence from all delicacies.

He says, He was in affliction for three weeks of days. The Hebrews often use the phrase “weeks” or “times of days” for complete periods. Very possibly, Daniel uses the word “days” here to prevent a mistake that might easily occur from his having so recently spoken of weeks of years.

The distinction is thus more clearly marked between the seventy weeks of years previously explained and these three weeks of days here mentioned. And the angel appears to have purposely dwelt on the completion of these three weeks, as this was the third year of King Cyrus’s reign. He says, He did not eat delicate bread, and he abstained from flesh and wine, implying his practice of uniting fasting with mourning.

The holy Prophet is here represented as freely using flesh and other food while the Church of God remained in a state of tranquility; but when there was danger that the few who had returned home might be diminished, and many were still suffering in Babylon the grievous calamities to which they were subject during their exile from neighboring enemies, then the Prophet abstained from all delicacies.

In the beginning of this book, he had stated the contentment of himself and his companions with bread, pulse, and water for food and drink. This statement is not contrary to the present passage. There is no necessity to resort to that subtle interpretation which allows an old man to use wine that he never touched in his youth and the flower of his age.

This comment is far too unconvincing. We have shown that at the beginning of his exile, the only reason for the Prophet’s abstaining from the delicacies of the palace was his desire to preserve himself free from all corruption. For what was the object of the king’s designing shrewdness in commanding Daniel and his companions to be treated so daintily and luxuriously?

He wished them to forget their nation by degrees, to adopt the habits of the Chaldeans, and to be withdrawn by such enticements from the observance of the law, from the worship of God, and from the exercises of piety. When Daniel perceived the artful manner in which he and his companions were treated, he requested to be fed with pulse, refused to taste the king’s wine, and despised all his dainties.

His reason, therefore, concerned the exigencies of the times, as I then pointed out at full length. Meanwhile, we need not hesitate to suppose that after giving this proof of his constancy and escaping from these snares of the devil and of the Chaldean monarch, he lived rather freely than frugally, and made use of better bread, fresh food, and wine than before.

This passage, then, though it asserts his abstinence from flesh and wine, need not imply actual fasting. Daniel’s method of living was clearly according to the common practice of the Chaldeans and by no means implies the rejection of wine, flesh, or foods of any kind.

When he says, he did not eat delicate bread, this was a symbol of sorrow and mourning, like abstinence from flesh and wine. Daniel’s object in rejecting delicate bread and wine during those three weeks was not merely the promotion of temperance, but suppliantly to implore the Almighty not to permit a repetition of those sufferings to His Church under which it had previously suffered.

But I cannot here treat at length the object and use of fasting. I have done so elsewhere; even if I wished to do so, I have no time now. Tomorrow, perhaps, I may say a few words on the subject and then proceed with the rest of my observations.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You set before us so remarkable an example in Your holy Prophet, whom You adorned in so many ways that he wrestled even to extreme old age with various and almost innumerable trials, and yet was never mentally broken down: Grant that we may be endowed with the same untiring fortitude. May we proceed in the course of our holy calling without the slightest despondency, whatever may happen. When we see Your Church on the brink of ruin, and its enemies plotting desperately for its destruction, may we constantly look for that liberty which You have promised. May we strive with unbroken courage until at last we are discharged from our warfare and gathered into that blessed rest which we know to be laid up for us in heaven, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We yesterday stated the reason why Daniel abstained from flesh and wine for three weeks. It was the sorrowful and depressed condition of the Church while the Jews were prohibited from building their Temple. We have stated the fallacious views of those who think him to have been always so abstemious in the flower of his age.

Though he lived on bread and pulse, it was only for the purpose of remaining pure without any leaning towards the habits of the Chaldeans, as it was the king’s design to withdraw both himself and his companions from God’s people, as if they had originally sprung from Chaldea. That, therefore, was only a temporary reason.

But he now states, He had not tasted delicate bread, that is, made of fine flour, and had not tasted either wine or flesh, during the time in which the building of the Temple had been impeded. We must diligently notice this, for many celebrate fasting as if it were a principal part of the worship of God.

They think it an act of obedience peculiarly pleasing to God. But this is a gross error, since fasting in itself should be treated as something unimportant and indifferent. It deserves no praise unless with reference to its object. Now the objects of fasting are various; the principal one is this: to enable the faithful suppliantly to deprecate God’s wrath with the solemn testimony of their repentance and to stimulate each other to greater fervor in their prayers.

Ordinary daily prayers do not require fasting; but when any great necessity presses upon us, that exercise is added as a help to increase the alertness and fervor of our minds in the pouring forth of prayer. For this reason, the Scriptures often connect fasting with sorrow, and Daniel here follows the usual practice.

We perceive then the reason for his rejecting all delicacies in food and drink, through his desire to withdraw himself entirely from all hindrances and to become more intent on his prayers.

I now touch only briefly on fasting, because I cannot stop on casual passages like these. We should notice, however, how foolishly and absurdly fasting is observed in these days among the Papists, who think they have discharged that duty by eating only once in the day and abstaining from flesh.

The rule of fasting among the Papists is to avoid flesh and not to partake of either supper or dinner. But real fasting requires something far different from this, namely, perfect abstinence from all delicacies. For Daniel extends this fasting even to bread. He says, He did not taste wine, meaning he abstained from all wine.

Then, as to the word “flesh,” he does not mean only that of oxen, or calves, or lambs, or fowls, or birds in general, but all food except bread is included under the term “flesh.” For Daniel did not trifle childishly with God, as the Papists do today, who feed without any religious scruple on the best and most exquisite foods, as long as they avoid flesh.

This appears more clearly from the statement—he did not eat pleasant bread, that is, made of fine flour or the very best of the wheat. He was content with plain bread to satisfy his necessities. This abundantly proves the superstition of those who distinguish between flesh, eggs, and fish.

Now, fasting consists in this—the imposition of a bridle on people’s lusts, eating only sparingly and lightly what is absolutely necessary, and being content with black bread and water. We now understand how fasting in this and similar passages is not taken for that temperance which God recommends to us throughout the whole course of our lives.

The faithful should be habitually temperate and, by frugality, observe a continual fast; they should not indulge in immoderate food and drink, or in luxurious habits, lest they debilitate the mind and weaken the body by such indulgences.

As a mark of mourning and an exercise of humility, the faithful may impose upon themselves the law of fasting beyond their ordinary habits of sobriety when they feel any sign of God’s wrath, and desire to stimulate themselves to fervor in prayer (as we previously stated), and to confess themselves guilty before the tribunal of God in the face of the whole world.

Such was Daniel’s intention in not permitting himself to taste pleasant bread, or to drink wine, or to eat flesh.

Daniel now narrates the acceptance of his prayers, because an angel appeared and instructed him about the future condition of the Church. Without the slightest doubt, the fasting already described was a preparation for prayer, as we have stated before, and as we may gather from many passages of Scripture, especially from the assertion of Christ, where he says, the demon could not be cast out except by prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:21).

Daniel, therefore, did not abstain from all food, and wine, and luxuries with the aim of rendering any obedience to God, but of testifying to his own grief. Then he was eager to rouse himself to prayer and, by that mark of humility, to prepare himself far better for repentance.

He says now — on the twenty-fourth day of the first month — meaning March, the first month of the Jewish year — he stood on the bank of the great river, namely, the Tigris. The word יד, yid, is metaphorically used for the bank, and interpreters are agreed in identifying Hiddekel with the Tigris.

Geographers state that the name of this river is in some places, and especially near its source, Digliton, which corresponds to the common Hebrew name Hidekel. Without doubt, this river is called Phison by Moses, since the Tigris has three names among secular nations. Its usual name is Tigris, and in one part of its course it becomes the Hidekel, and it also has the names of Pasitigris and Phasis, which is equivalent to Phison.

The Prophet relates, his standing on the bank of this great river. It is uncertain whether he was then in that part of the world, or whether God set before him the sight of the river, as we have seen elsewhere. I rather incline to the opinion that he was rapt in the prophetic spirit, obtaining a vision of the river, and not that he was really there.

Possibly, that province might have been placed under his government in the course of the great changes which took place in those times. While Belshazzar lived, he could not have been at Susa, and so we were compelled to explain his former account by the prophetic rapture.

And as to the present passage, I shall not quarrel with the opinion of anyone who supposes Daniel to have dwelt in that district; but, as I have stated before, I think it most probable that this spectacle was offered to the holy Prophet when he was far distant from the river’s bank and only able to behold it, having commenced his abstinence from flesh, and food, and all pleasant delicacies, and then relaxed his fast for three weeks, as he here marks the date on the twenty-fourth day. But I leave this doubtful, due to the impossibility of ascertaining the point with certainty.

Regarding the word Uphaz, some think it is a pearl or precious stone, and they take the word כתם, kethem, which precedes it, for pure gold. Others take Uphaz adjectivally, for pure gold. I do not suppose it is an epithet; I rather subscribe to the view of those who understand it as the proper name of a place, because this view is in accordance with the phraseology of Jeremiah 10.

There is another opinion, which is unsuitable: that Uphaz is derived from the noun Phaz and is called “pure,” with the letter Aleph being redundant. The previously mentioned passage of Jeremiah is sufficient to prove my assertion that it signifies a certain region, and so some have translated it as Ophir.

The word תרשש, tharsis, is thought to mean chrysolite. Some think it denotes the color of the sea, and then, by a figure of speech, take it generally for any sea. It is also said to mean sky-colored.

Daniel now begins to relate the manner in which the vision was offered to him. He says, when he stood on the bank of the river a man appeared to him, different from the common order of men. He calls him a man, but shows him to be endowed, or adorned, with attributes which inspire full confidence in his celestial glory.

We have elsewhere stated how angels are called men whenever God wished them to put on this outward form. The name of men is therefore used metaphorically whenever they assumed that form by God’s command, and now Daniel speaks in the accustomed manner. Meanwhile, some absurdly imagine angels to have been really men, since they assumed this appearance and were clothed in a human body.

We ought not to believe them to be really men because they appeared under a human form. Christ, indeed, was really man, as a consequence of His springing from the seed of Abraham, David, and Adam. But as regards angels, God clothes them for a single day or a short period in bodies, for a distinct purpose and a special use.

Therefore, I assert the gross error of those who suppose angels to become men whenever they are corporeally visible in a human form. Still, they may be called men, because Scripture accommodates itself to our senses, as we know sufficiently well. Daniel therefore says, he saw a man, and afterwards distinguishes him from the human race, and shows fixed and conspicuous marks inscribed upon him, which reveal him to be an angel sent down from heaven, and not a mere earthly mortal.

Some philosophize subtly on the word raised, as if Daniel raised his eyes upwards so as to be unconscious of all earthly objects; but this does not appear to me sufficiently certain. The Prophet wishes to impress the certainty of the vision; not only was his mind composed and collected, but he applied all his senses to the one object before him—the attainment of some consolation from God.

The Prophet, therefore, indicates the earnestness of his desire, for when he looked around he found himself subject to many cares and anxieties.

Again, with reference to the marks by which Daniel might infer the object of his vision to be neither earthly nor mortal, he first says, he was clothed in linen. This kind of garment was common enough among the people of the East. Those regions are remarkably warm, and their inhabitants do not need to protect themselves against the cold, as we are necessarily compelled to do. They seldom wear woolen clothing. But on special occasions when they wish to use more splendid attire, they put on linen tunics, as we learn not only from many passages of Scripture but also from secular writers. Therefore, I interpret this passage as if Daniel had said the man appeared to him in splendid apparel. For בדים, bedim, is supposed not to mean common linen, but a more exquisite kind of fabric. This is one point.

He next says, He was girt with pure gold; that is, with a golden belt. Eastern peoples were formerly accustomed to gird themselves with belts or girdles, as their garments were long and reached almost down to the feet. Therefore, it became necessary for those who wished to move expeditiously to gird themselves with belts.

When the angel appeared with attire of this kind, the difference between himself and other men was displayed to the Prophet. Some refer the linen garment to the priesthood of Christ, and treat the girdle as an emblem of rigor. But these are mere refinements, and seem to me destitute of all reality.

I therefore am content with the simple opinion I have touched upon: namely, that this form of clothing distinguished the angel from ordinary mortals. But this will appear clearer from the following verse.

For Daniel says, His body was sky-colored, or like the precious stone called beryl, of a golden hue. Without doubt, the Prophet beheld something different from a human form, so that he could clearly ascertain that the vision was not of a man, but an angel in the form of a man.

I leave the allegory here, although it could be extended throughout the whole verse. I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this: nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

We ought never to seek out subtle explanations from afar, for the true sense will, as I have previously expressed it, flow naturally from a passage when it is weighed with more mature deliberation.

He says, His face was like the appearance of lightning. This, again, assured the Prophet that he was more than an earthly mortal. His eyes would lead to the same conclusion; they were like lamps of fire. Then his arms and feet were like polished or burnished brass; lastly, the voice of his words was the voice of a tumult, or noise, or multitude.

The sum of the whole is this: the angel, though clothed in human form, possessed certain conspicuous marks by which God separated him from the common crowd of men. Thus Daniel clearly perceived the divine mission of the angel, and God wished to establish confidence in and certainty of those prophecies which will afterwards follow in Daniel 11.

Let us proceed.

He pursues his own narrative, in which he appears detailed, but not without design.

This prophecy required every kind of confirmation to inspire unhesitating confidence in it, not only among the Jews of that generation but also among all future generations.

Although the predictions of the eleventh chapter have been fulfilled, their usefulness is still evident to us in the following ways:

1. First, we see in them God’s perpetual care for His Church.
2. Second, we observe that the pious are never left without any necessary consolation.
3. Lastly, we perceive, as in a mirror or a living picture, the Spirit of God speaking in the prophets, as I have observed before and will have occasion to remark again.

Daniel, therefore, has good reasons for emphasizing to us the certainty of the vision and whatever tends to prove its reality. He says, I alone saw the vision; but the men who were with me did not see it; just as the companions of Paul did not hear Christ’s voice, but only a confused sound: they did not understand His language, as Paul alone was permitted to comprehend it (Acts 9:7).

This is related to promote belief in the prophecy. Daniel’s power of hearing was not superior to his companions, but God intended to address him alone. Thus the voice, although like the voice of a multitude, did not penetrate the ears of those who were with him. He alone was the recipient of these prophecies, as he alone was endowed with the power of predicting future events, and of consoling and exhorting the pious by imparting to them knowledge of the future, even to the last day.

Should anyone ask how he had his companions with him while he was probably lying on his bed at a distance from the bank of the river, the answer is easy. He had his household members with him; the river’s bank only existed in the vision, and he was transported beyond himself. Thus, his household would have been aware of his ecstatic state without knowing the cause.

Daniel then remained at his own home and only visited the bank of the river during the vision. Although many witnesses were present, God struck them all with astonishment, while Daniel alone perceived what is later recounted. God considered him worthy of this singular honor to equip him to become a teacher and instructor to others.

The men who were with me, he says, saw not the vision; but a great terror fell upon them. This distinction, as I have stated, shows that Daniel was selected as the sole listener to the angel’s voice and as the one receiving the information he was later to convey to others.

Meanwhile, God intended for many witnesses to notice Daniel’s complete freedom from any delusion, whether from a dream or a fleeting imagination. His companions, then, were fright-eyed. This terror proves that the Prophet was divinely instructed and not suffering from any delirium. They fled, therefore, into hiding-places. It then continues: