Who is the "Prince of Persia" in chapter 10 of Daniel? Why does he have power to detain God’s angel or Jesus for 21 days? Is this symbolic to some event that already happened?Is it a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (Daniel 11:31)/Jewish War (66-73 AD).
According to history record that I read, Antiochus ended up having mental diseases and disappreared–I thought that story mathes with Daniel 11:31. It was so facinating to study Daniel but chapter 10 is difficult for me to understand. I wonder if it’s talking about spiritual battle or the war that really happened between ancient kings (Darius of Mede got me confused)
Let me suggest you get a copy of my book on Daniel. It is coming into a new edition in May at www.ipibooks.com. In the mean time, I assume that the “Prince of Persia” is a demonic power with some sort of influence over Persia. The Bible is quite vague about such things. For this reason, we should probably remain cautious in our views. However, Daniel 10 appears to give us a behind-the-scenes look at the spiritual battle hinted at in such passages as Ephesians 6:10-18. Another glimpse is in Daniel 9:20-22. In Daniel 10:12-14 we have a picture of an (arch?)angel battling with Michael (presumable the archangel) against what we almost have to assume is a spiritually evil being. I will speculate that this is the equivalent of an evil archangel, but such speculation is not of much value.I assume that the spiritual battle described has a parallel in the human world. Whether the time frame is days, years or decades, I cannot say, as we do not know the angelic view of time. Sorry, but we are going to have to be left wondering. It will be speculation to identify an actual human battle, so I will leave you to do that if you like. My tendency would be to think this spiritual battle was happening in the time of Daniel, which rules out your proposals, for what it is worth.You are right about Antiochus. He left for battles in the East and disappeared from the scene as far as Palestine is concerned. Most likely he died within a year. For what it is worth (which is not much) I do not see this battle with the Persian king relating to Antiochus Epiphanes, as this lay almost four hundred years in the future when Daniel had this vision, and Antiochus was not Persian.Darius the Mede can be confusing because, unlike the other rulers mentioned in Daniel, we have no historical record of this person. He has been identified with a couple of known figures, but none is really convincing. Apparently, Darius the Mede was a person from Media put in charge of the province of Babylon in the immediate aftermath of the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus.John Oakes, PhD