The two most common explanations for the delay are:
- To make an accommodation to the kingdom or guardian of Persia
- To resist an evil intended by or suggested to the rulers of Persia
Accommodation to Persia
The view of an accommodation to Persia can be found primarily in church fathers like Jerome, Theodoret, and John Cassian. This view typically understands the "prince" to be an archangel who has oversight over Persia (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8) and who resists the work of the angel out of a sense of justice for his own people. Thus, Jerome writes:
And so the prince or angel of the Persians offered resistance, acting on behalf of the province entrusted to him, in order that the entire captive nation [Israel] might not be released. [...] The prince of Persia opposed him for twenty-one days, enumerating the sins of the Jewish people as a ground for their justly being kept in captivity and as proof that they ought not to be released.1
This guardian, says Theodoret, was "displeased" that Israel would be blessed, despite their sins being worse than those of his own people, and thus the angel is delayed due to his debate with the Persian guardian over Israel's merit and God's plan for them.2
John Cassian's view of the prince is similar but less positive: he calls it a "hostile power" and says that it was out of "jealousy" that it delayed the angel.3
Resistance to an evil
The other common view, that the angel's delay was due to his resisting an evil, is held widely by Protestants in particular. John Gill's explanation is typical:
Gabriel's business in the court of Persia was to work upon the minds of the king of Persia and his nobles, and to influence their counsels, and put them on such measures as would be in favour of the Jews, and be encouraging to them to go on in the rebuilding of their city and temple: in this he was withstood and opposed by an evil spirit that counterworked him; by exasperating the spirit of Cambyses against them.4
The Geneva Study Bible explains the angel's words by suggesting that Persia's rulers would have committed further evil against Israel:
Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.5
John Calvin,6 Matthew Poole,7 and John Wesley8 see the matter similarly. Adam Clarke's interpretation is more gracious, seeing the "prince" as the fearful, not malicious, ruler of Persia:
Fearing, probably, the greatness of the work, and not being fully satisfied of his ability to execute it, [the king] therefore for a time resisted the secret inspirations which God had sent him.9
Who is the Prince?
The preferred interpretation of this verse has often depended on one's understanding of the "prince" of Persia: if a good angel, then the accommodation view, and if a bad angel or man, then the resistance view. Albert Barnes notes that the language does not indicate whether the "prince" was good or bad, but because of his resistance to Daniel's angel, presumes him to be a bad angel.10 Haydock finds this argument wanting, saying that no angel, good or bad, can resist God's will.11
References:
- Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Gleason L. Archer.
- Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Robert C. Hill, p 273–75
- Conferences of John Cassian, 1.8.13
- Gill, Exposition
- Geneva Study Bible
- Calvin, Commentary on Daniel
- Poole, Annotations
- Wesley, Notes
- Clarke, Commentary
- Barnes, Notes
- Haydock, Catholic Bible Commentary