---

Does Daniel 10 really support the teaching of territorial spirits and spiritual mapping?
by Sandy Simpson, 11/15/10

You cannot have the teaching of spiritual mapping without the concept of territorial demons, and you cannot have the idea of territorial demons without Daniel 10.  This is the "go to" story that those who teach spiritual mapping always "go to".  But does this story really support the idea of territorial spirits?  The answer is no.  If you read the commentaries on this passage you will find that, up until the mid seventeen hundreds, the commentators all focused on the human aspect of this story.  After that the commentators began to adopt the idea that it is focused on territorial spirits.  As usual the older commentators were correct.  They did not take a leap of interpretation but rather followed generally accepted rules of hermeneutics.

Let me start by summarizing what we can learn from Daniel 10 and Mark 5 and then I will expand to prove these points.

(1) There is no biblical proof that there are assigned territorial spirits to any particular region of the world.  This is not to say that there are not demonic spirits roaming the earth seeking whom they may devour as does Satan.
(2) There is no biblical proof of the need for spiritual mapping from Daniel 10 or Luke 5.  The true spiritual warfare model is to be seen in passages such as Eph. 6.
(3) Daniel was not practicing New Apostolic type spiritual warfare when he was praying for God to forgive the sins of Israel and to intervene to set them free as He promised Jeremiah (Jer 29:10)
(4) The overwhelming use of the word "prince" in the Bible refers to men, not demons. (111 instances of prince/princes referring to men who rule and 6 instances referring to the Devil, the "prince of this world" and the "prince of demons".  In those few cases the word "prince" does not refer to any demons, only Satan).
(5) The spiritual warfare teaching of binding and loosing demons from Matt. 18:18 is not valid since Daniel was not even aware what kind of spiritual battle was going on and this passage is talking about the authority of the Apostles to accept or reject a person into the assembly based on whether they were obeying the Lord or living in worldly sin or the sin of heresy.
(6) All the commentaries I could find prior to the mid 1700's interpreted Daniel 10 as being about a struggle for the mind and heart of Cyrus and not as a struggle against territorial demons.  There is certainly always a struggle against demonic temptation and influence and this was likely part of what was happening, but the passage is about the struggle of the angel and Michael to convince Cyrus to free the Jews, for which Daniel had been faithful in prayer.
(7) Daniel's visitation by the angel coincides biblically with the time of Cyrus deciding to let the Jews go back to Israel. (Daniel lived approximately from 604-534 BC.  Cyrus allowed the Jews to go back to Israel in 538 BC.  Therefore the struggle of Michael, the protector of Israel, was to gain the freedom of the Jews from Cyrus, the prince or king of Persia.)

Daniel 10:4-21  On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold round his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come." While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face towards the ground and was speechless. Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe." Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. "Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed," he said. "Peace! Be strong now; be strong." When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, "Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength." So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No-one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.)

In the Dan. 10 account it states that when the angel and Michael returned to Persia they would continue the fight with the prince.  But notice that it states that "when I go, the prince of Greece will come". This is speaking of the Grecian empire rising which had not yet come into being, even though Daniel knew it was coming because of the interpretation God had given him to Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the statue in Dan. 2:31-43.  But this is a further confirmation that the angel was talking about earthly kings and not necessarily demonic territorial spirits.

(2) There is no biblical proof of the need for spiritual mapping from Daniel 10 or Luke 5.  Those teaching false spiritual warfare like John Dawson formerly of YWAM, C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, Chuck Kraft and a whole host of other New Apostolic Reformation proponents also use the account in Mark 5 to try to justify a demonology that includes territorial spirits that have to be named in order to be cast out.  Never mind that the Bible never gives Christians the authority to cast out territorial spirits, if they are indeed organized in that manner, only the casting out of demons from individuals as in the following account.

Mark 5:2-17  When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil {Greek unclean; also in verses 8 and 13} spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no-one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No-one was strong enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones. When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!" Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned. Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

(3) Daniel was not practicing New Apostolic type spiritual warfare when he was praying for God to forgive the sins of Israel and to intervene to set them free as He promised Jeremiah.  Daniel was simply being faithful to pray for the sins of his people and for their deliverance as promised in Jer. 29:10.  He knew nothing of what the angels were doing until they told him.  That means that there was no "spiritual mapping", "binding or loosing" or "warfare in the heavenlies" being practiced by Daniel.

(4) The overwhelming use of the word "prince" in the Bible refers to men, not demons. The Bible has 111 instances of the word for prince/princes referring to men who rule and only 6 instances referring to the devil, the "prince of this world" and the "prince of demons".  The word prince in the six instances referring to the devil does not refer to any demons, however.  From this we have to infer that either the angel was saying that the prince of Persia was the devil himself or that he was referring to the king of Persia.  In context we can see that the plain interpretation is that the angel was refering to Cyrus, the king of Persia.

(5) The spiritual warfare teaching of binding and loosing demons from Matt. 18:18 is not valid since Daniel was not even aware what kind of spiritual battle was going on and this passage is talking about the authority of the Apostles to accept or reject a person into the assembly based on whether they were obeying the Lord or living in worldly sin or the sin of heresy.  This passage used by NAR and Word of Faith adherants is talking about the authority of the Apostles to accept or reject a person into the assembly of believers based on whether they were obeying the Lord or living in worldly sin or the sin of heresy.

Matt. 18:1 & 15-20  At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" ... "If your brother sins against you, {Some manuscripts do not have against you.} go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.  But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ {Deut. 19:15} If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be {Or have been} bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be {Or have been} loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

2 Cor. 10:4-5  The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

(6) All commentaries prior to the mid 1700's interpreted Daniel 10 as being about a struggle for the mind and heart of Cyrus and not as a struggle against territorial demons.   Following are some examples.

Geneva (1599 Geneva Bible Footnotes)

10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the {p} prince of Grecia shall come. (p) Meaning that he would not only himself bridle the rage of Cambyses, but also the other kings of Persia by Alexander the King of Macedonia.

Poole (1624–1679)

To fight with the prince of Persia; Cyrus, or Cambyses, who by his counsels and captains hinder the work of God; and to bring the prince of Greece upon him, viz. Alexander the Great, who utterly ruined the Persian monarchy, which is ushered with the word to, because it was a wonder that the prince of Greece with thirty thousand men should do it. Thus the Lord sets and disposeth the fates of empires, and changeth them as he lists; especially in his church’s quarrel.

Matthew Henry Commentary (1662 – 1714)

(1.) The kings of the earth are and will be its adversaries; for they set themselves against the Lord, and against his Anointed, #Ps 2:2. The angel told Daniel that he was to have come to him with a gracious answer to his prayers, but that the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him one and twenty days, just the three weeks that Daniel had been fasting and praying. Cambyses king of Persia had been very busy to embarrass the affairs of the Jews, and to do them all the mischief he could, and the angel had been all that time employed to counter work him; so that he had been constrained to defer his visit to Daniel till now, for angels can be but in one place at a time. Or, as Dr. Lightfoot says, This new king of Persia, by hindering the temple, had hindered those good tidings which otherwise he should have brought him. The kings and kingdoms of the world were indeed sometimes helpful to the church, but more often they were injurious to it.

#Da 10:20. The Grecian monarchy, though favorable to the Jews at first, as the Persian was, will yet come to be vexatious to them. Such is the state of the church militant; when it has got clear of one enemy it has another to encounter: and such a hydra’s head is that of the old serpent; when one storm has blown over it is not long before another rises.

Adam Clarke Commentary (1762–1832)

To fight with the king of Persia
To remove all the scruples of Cyrus, and to excite him to do all that God designs him to do for the restoration of my people, and the rebuilding of the city and temple of Jerusalem. Nothing less than a supernatural agency in the mind of Cyrus can account for his decree in favour of the Jews. He had no natural, no political inclination to it; and his reluctance to obey the heavenly motions is here represented as a fight between him and the angel.

The prince of Grecia shall come.
I believe this refers to Alexander the Great, who was to destroy the Persian empire. See the second and third verses of the following chapter. See Clarke on Daniel 11:2.; "Da 11:3".

Later in the mid 1700's the focus went from human rulers to the spirit world.  This can be seen in the commentaries by John Gill (1697-1771), John Wesley Notes (1703 –1791), JFB (1870), Burton Coffman (1905 – 2006 - Church of Christ) and others.  Now I am not saying that these commentators were wrong because of a popular teaching that began to surface or that they were involved in any way, but this new idea that Dan. 10 is about territorial spirits is possibly due to the influence of groups like the Philadelphian Society. That Society's key leader was Jane Leade (1624–1704), who experienced a number of visions and later published them in her book "A Fountain of Gardens". The group incorporated as The Philadelphian Society for the Advancement of Piety and Divine Philosophy in 1694.  Together, the group held views that were somewhat similar to Panentheism, regarding the belief in the presence of God in all things, and with a Nondualist component, in that they also believed the presence of the Holy Spirit exists in each and everyone's soul, and that one can become enlightened and illuminated by living a virtuous life and seeking truth through the wisdom of God.  Mrs. Leade's visions were a central part of the group. Around 1694, she became a Christian Universalist, rejecting the "Doctrine that hath been preached of an endless Misery and Torment" which had "wrought little effect in frightening or terrifying 'em from their evil Courses." She believed that punishment after death was purgative, not punitive.[1] The group's views were spread to continental Europe by Francis Lee, a non-juror at the accession of William III. The group drew up a formal confession of beliefs in 1703. However, after the death of Mrs. Leade in 1704, the group's numbers dwindled quickly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphians)  But their influence did not dwindle and, through a number of subsequent like-minded groups, resurfaced again as The New Order of the Latter Rain starting in 1948.  This group followed the teachings of William Branham. “[The New Apostolic Reformation] belief that “God is restoring the office of Apostles and Prophets.” … can be traced to the “1679 Prophecy” by the occult Christian Kabbalist sect called the Philadelphian Society. The Philadelphians believed in the Kabbalah doctrine of “Gilgul” or the Transmigration of souls. They believed that the souls of ancient Israel would reincarnate into their genetic descendants, which include to souls of the *original* apostles and prophets. Mike Bickle, Bob Weiner, John Wimber, Bill Hamon, Rick Joyner, C. Peter Wagner and all the many Latter Rain “Apostles and Prophets” get their “Apostolic Authority” through doctrines of reincarnation and it is because of this that *ALL* of the Latter Rain “Apostles and Prophets” can be rightly labeled “occult” in both senses of the word i.e. 1) hidden and 2) inherently evil. Though this idea is not taught in public by the current crop of NAR that I know of, it is certainly a tenet of their "faith" behind their idea that they are equal to or greater than the original foundational apostles.  The idea behind these teachings not only comes from Jane Leade but also Jack Boehme whom Leade followed.  The doctrines of the "manifest sons of God" came out of their teachings which include the idea that we have the authority to bind and loose territorial demons because they have the same authority as God on earth, or are virtually God on earth.  The idea that Christians have the same authority as Christ in matters of the supernatural comes from their misinterpretation of John 14:12.  But this statement by Jesus was not saying that the Apostles would do greater miracles or would be able to do battle in the heavenlies, though positionally we are seated with Christ there if we are born again (Eph. 2:6),  but that because of the limited geographical area of Christ's ministry the Apostles would reach far beyond Israel with the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth.  Christians will not be walking on water, instantly calming storms or feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes.  We do see the Gospel being proclaimed everywhere, then the Lord will come (Matt. 24:14).

(7) Daniel's visitation by the angel coincides biblically with the time of Cyrus deciding to let the Jews go back to Israel. Daniel lived from approximately 604-534 BC.  Cyrus allowed the Jews to go back to Israel in 538 BC.  Therefore the struggle of Michael, the protector of Israel, was to gain the freedom of the Jews from Cyrus, the prince or king of Persia.  There is certainly always a struggle against demonic temptation and influence, but the passage is about the struggle of the angel and Michael to convince Cyrus to free the Jews, for which Daniel had been faithful in prayer.