His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

And his body was like the chrysolite, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as a burning lamp: and his arms, and all downward even to the feet, like in appearance to glittering brass: and the voice of his word like the voice of a multitude.

and his body was like a chrysolite, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as torches of fire, and his arms and his feet as the look of burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

and his body as a beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet as the aspect of bright brass, and the voice of his words as the voice of a multitude.

And his body was like the beryl, and his face had the look of a thunder-flame, and his eyes were like burning lights, and his arms and feet like the colour of polished brass, and the sound of his voice was like the sound of an army.

his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as torches of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

His body was like beryl, and his face like the appearance of lightning, and his eyes like flaming torches, and his arms and his feet like burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.

Et corpus ejus sieut tharsis, et facies ejus quasi lampades ignis: et brachia ejus, et pedes ejus quasi conspectus aeris politi, [129] et vox sermonum ejus quasi vox multitudinis. [130]

His body also was like the beryl - There is a very striking resemblance between the description here given and that of the Saviour as he appeared to John in Patmos, Revelation 1:13-16. See the notes at that passage. It contains, however, no description of the appearance of the body. "Beryl" is "a mineral of great hardness, occurring in green and bluish-green six-sided prisms. It is identical with the emerald, except that the latter has a purer and richer color. " - Dana, in Webster's Dictionary. The Hebrew word used here is תרשׁישׁ tarshı̂ysh "Tarshish, Tartessus," and properly refers to a country supposed to be on the south of Spain, a place where this mineral was probably found. This was situated between the mouths of the river Baetis, or Guadalquivir, and was a flourishing mart of the Phoenicians, Genesis 10:4; Psalm 72:10; Isaiah 23:1, Isaiah 23:6, Isaiah 23:10, - Gesenius. The name was given to this gem because it was brought from that place. The true meaning of the word, as applied to a gem, is supposed to be the chrysolite, that is, the topaz of the moderns. "Tarshish, the chrysolite," says Rosenmuller ("Mineralogy and Botany of the Bible," pp. 38, 39), "is a crystal-line precious stone of the quartz kind, of a glassy fracture. The prevailing color is yellowish-green, and pistachio-green of every variety and degree of shade, but always with a yellow and gold luster. It is completely diaphanous, and has a strong double refraction. Most commonly the chrysolite is found solid and in grains, or in angular pieces. The Hebrew word "Tarshish" denotes the south of Spain, the Tartessus of the Greeks and Romans, a place to which the Phoenicians traded even in the earliest ages. Probably the Phoenicians first brought the chrysolite from Spain to Syria, and it was on that account called Tarshish stone."
And his face as the appearance of lightning - Bright, shining. In Revelation 1:16 it is, "And his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." See the notes at that passage.
And his eyes as lamps of fire - Keen, penetrating. So in Revelation 1:14 : "His eyes were as a flame of fire."
And his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass - So in Revelation 1:15 : "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace." See the notes at that passage. The meaning is, that they were bright - like burnished metal. The Hebrew here is, "like the eye of brass;" then, as the word eye comes to denote the "face or countenance," the meaning is, "like the face or appearance of brass." Complete Exodus 10:5, Exodus 10:15; Numbers 22:5, Numbers 22:11. It is easy to conceive of the appearance which one would make whose arms and feet resembled burnished brass.
And the voice of his words like the voice a multitude - A multitude of people - loud and strong. So in Revelation 1:15 : "And his voice as the sound of many waters."

His body also was like the beryl - The description of this person is very similar to that of our Lord in Revelation 1:13-15.

His body also was like the beryl,.... That is, that part of it which was not covered with the linen garment, and was seen, was like such a precious stone, said to be of an azure and sky colour, signifying he was the Lord from heaven; though, according to its name, it should be of a sea colour, greenish; and so, according to some, the beryl is. Cocceius thinks the sardonyx is meant, which is of a flesh colour, and so more fit to express the comeliness of a human body; the beryl, being of a different colour, seems not so apt to set forth the agreeable colour of a man. Braunius (p) is of opinion that the chrysolite is meant, a stone of a golden colour; and takes the sense to be, that such was the lustre of the golden girdle about his loins, that the rest of the parts of the body about it appeared as if all of gold:
and his face the appearance of lightning; exceeding bright, very dazzling to the eye, and striking terror to the mind; expressive of something very awful and majestic; and agrees well with Christ the sun of righteousness, whose face or countenance at his transfiguration on the mount, and when John saw him in a visionary way, was as the sun shineth in his strength, in the summer solstice, or at noonday, Matthew 17:2, from whom is all the light of knowledge and truth, of joy, peace, and comfort, of grace and glory; and which darts as swiftly and as powerfully from him as the rays of the sun, or as lightning from one end of the heaven to the other; and irradiates and illuminates as brightly and clearly:
and his eyes as lamps of fire; denoting his omniscience of all persons and things; and how piercing and penetrating his eyes are into the affairs of men and states, by whom they are clearly seen, and to whom they are exactly known; and how fierce and terrible his wrath is towards his enemies, and whose looks must inject dread and terror into them; see Revelation 19:12,
and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass; denoting his great strength for action, his stability and firmness, and the glory of his power, in trampling upon his enemies, and subduing them; especially as displayed in the redemption of his people, when his own arm wrought salvation for them; when he came travelling in the greatness of his strength, and trod the winepress of his father's wrath alone; when he set his feet on the necks of his and his people's enemies, and got an entire victory over sin, Satan, and the world, under whose feet they are, and ever will be subject:
and the voice of his words; not of the law, which was a voice of words, which they that heard entreated they might hear no more, and were very sonorous and dreadful; but rather of the Gospel, of the words and doctrines of grace and truth, which proceeded out of the mouth of Christ, and were such as were wondered at; which is a voice of love, grace, and mercy, sweet, charming, and alluring, powerful and efficacious; and the words of it are the words of peace, pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation; yea, this voice of Christ may take in his voice and words of commands, his ordinances and institutions, which he requires an obedience unto; and even his threatenings of wrath and ruin to wicked men, as well as his gracious and precious promises to his people: and this voice of his is said to be
like the voice of a multitude; of a great many men together; whose voice is heard a long way off, and is very strong and powerful: or,
as the voice of noise (q); which may be understood either of the noise of a multitude of men, or of the sea, or of many waters; see Revelation 1:15 and may intend the power and efficacy of his words, whether in his doctrines, or in his judgments, in a way of grace and comfort, or of wrath and vengeance.
(p) De Vestitu Sacerdot. Hebr. l. 2. c. 17. sect 10, 11, 12. p. 721, 722. (q) "ut vox tumultus", Montanus, "vel strepitus", Piscator, Michaelis.

beryl--literally, "Tarshish," in Spain. The beryl, identical with the chrysolite or topaz, was imported into the East from Tarshish, and therefore is called "the Tarshish stone."

His body shone like תּרשׁישׁ, i.e., the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under Ezekiel 1:16); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and the place of his feet like the sight of polished brass (קלל, see under Ezekiel 1:7).מרגּלות, place of the feet, does not stand for feet, but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass. The voice of his words, i.e., the sound of his speaking, was like המון קול, for which in Ezekiel 1:24 המלּה קול (the voice of noise), and by מחנה קול (Ezekiel 1:24) the noise of a host is denoted.
This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel, Ezekiel 9:9, but all the other features, as here described - the shining of his body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glistering brass, the sound of his speaking-all these point to the revelation of the יהוה כּבוד, the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with Revelation 1:13-15, where the form of the Son of man whom John saw walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel.
The place where this heavenly being was, is not here specially stated. In Daniel 12:6 he appears hovering over the waters of the river, the Tigris. This agrees also with the verse before us, according to which Daniel, while standing on the banks of the river, on lifting up his eyes beheld the vision. Hence it further follows, that the אישׁ seen here by Daniel is the same heavenly being whose voice he heard, Daniel 8:16, from the waters of the Ulai, without seeing his form.
When now he whose voice Daniel heard from thence presents himself before him here on the Tigris in a majesty which human nature is not able to endure, and announces to him the future, and finally, Daniel 12:6., with a solemn oath attests the completion of the divine counsel, he thereby shows himself, as C. B. Michaelis ad Daniel p. 372, Schmieder in Gerlach's Bibelw., and Oehler (Art. Messias in Herz.'s Realenc. ix. p. 417) have acknowledged, to be the Angel of Jehovah κατ ̓ἐξοχὴν, as the "Angel of His presence." The combination of this angel with that in the form of a son of man appearing in the clouds (Daniel 7:13) is natural; and this combination is placed beyond a doubt by the comparison with Revelation 1:13, where John sees the glorified Christ, who is described by a name definitely referring to Daniel 7:13, as ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου.
On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated (Beitr. i. p. 165ff.; Christol. iii. 2, p. 50ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, Daniel 10:11, and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, and is identical with the angel Gabriel. But the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, חמות אישׁ, Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19, cf. with Daniel 9:23, partly on the similarity of the circumstances, Daniel 8:17-18, cf. with Daniel 10:10 and Daniel 12:5. But the address to Daniel חמות אישׁ proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in Daniel 9:23 does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is המדות, i.e., a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with Daniel 8:17-18 proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of Daniel 8:13 with Daniel 12:5, so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in Daniel 8:16 directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in Daniel 8 and also in Daniel 9 Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of Daniel 10:9, Daniel 10:21.
To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, Daniel 10:11, and him who appears, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vv. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, Daniel 12:1-13, is in the midst of the Tigris, and in Daniel 10:5 of this chapter (Daniel 12:1-13) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, v. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον, and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger (Daniel 12:7). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others.
But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, Daniel 10:10, a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, Daniel 10:11. The words of the text, "a hand touched me," leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in Daniel 10:16, Daniel 10:18, where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, אדם בּני כּדּמוּת, like the similitude of the sons of men, Daniel 10:16, and אדם כּמראה, like the appearance of a man, Daniel 10:18, do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in Daniel 12:1-13, besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in Daniel 10:5. The words, "Then I looked and saw other two, the one," etc., Daniel 12:5, much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In Daniel 10 he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this "great sight" that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him. Nothing is here, as in Daniel 8:15, said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, "and he spake to me " (Daniel 10:11), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition.
He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel (Daniel 10:11); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zac 2:13, 15; Zac 4:9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 61:1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zac 1:15 עזר denotes help which men render to God; and in 1-Chronicles 12:21. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e., under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia.
There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him who speaks as the same, then in Daniel 12:5 one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a κωφὸν πρόσωπον; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, Daniel 10 and 11, the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others (אהרים שׁנים), and the אהרים excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as אהרים with reference to the Angel of the Lord, Daniel 10:6, for the reference of the אהרים to that which follows is inconsistent with the context; see under Daniel 12:5.
Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he who speaks, Daniel 10:11, is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in Daniel 10 names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes (Daniel 12:5). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks.