Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 5:30
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain – On the taking of Babylon, and the consequences, see the notes at Isa 13:17-22; Isa 45:1-2. The account which Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. s.) gives of the taking of Babylon. and of the death of the king – though without mentioning his name, agrees so well with the statement here, that it may be regarded as a strong confirmation of its correctness. After describing the preparation made to take the city by draining off the waters of the Euphrates, so as to leave the channel dry beneath the walls for the amy of Cyrus, and after recording the charge which Cyrus gave to his generals Gadatas and Gobryas, he adds, And indeed those who were with Gobryas said that it would not be wonderful if the gates of the palace should be found open, as the whole city that night seemed to be given up to revelry hos en komo gar dokei he polis pasa einai tede te nukti.
He then says that as they passed on, after entering the city, of those whom they encountered, part being smitten died, part fled again back, and part raised a clamor. But those who were with Gobryas also raised a clamor as if they also joined in the revelry, and going as fast as they could, they came soon to the palace of the king. But those who were with Gobryas and Gadatas being arrayed, found the gates of the palace closed, but those who were appointed to go against the guard of the palace fell upon them when drinking before a great light, and were quickly engaged with them in hostile combat. Then a cry arose, and they who were within having asked the cause of the tumult, the king commanded them to see what the affair was, and some of them rushing out opened the gates. As they who were with Gadatas saw the gates open, they rushed in, and pursuing those who attempted to return, and smiting them, they came to the king, and they found him standing with a drawn sabre – akinaken And those who were with Gadatas and Gobryas overpowered him, echeirounto – and those who were with him were slain – one opposing, and one fleeing, and one seeking his safety in the best way he could. And Cyrus sent certain of his horsemen away, and commanded that they should put to death those whom they found out of their dwellings, but that those who were in their houses, and could speak the Syriac language, should be suffered to remain, but that whosoever should be found without should be put to death.
These things they did. But Gadatas and Gobryas came up; and first they rendered thanks to the gods because they had taken vengeance on the impious king – hoti tetimoremenoi esan ton anosion basilea. Then they kissed the hands and feet of Cyrus, weeping with joy and rejoicing. When it was day, and they who had the watch over the towers learned that the city was taken, and that the king was dead – ton basilea tethnekota – they also surrendered the towers. These extracts from Xenophon abundantly confirm what is here said in Daniel respecting the death of the king, and will more than neutralize what is said by Berosus. See Intro. to the chapter, Section II.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 5:30
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
The Last Night of Babylon
I. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT HAD BEEN LONG THREATENED. Upwards of one hundred and sixty years before this, the taking of Babylon by Cyrus had been predicted. Ages before the deliverer was born, his very name is given and his work described (Isa 45:1-7). Up to the very hour the probability seemed against such an occurrence. Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speodily, sinners infer that it will never come. Come it must; the march of justice may be slow but her steps are resistless, and her movements punctual to the moment.
II. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT WAS NOT AT ALL EXPECTED. This night began with a grand festival–a royal banquet. Perhaps, amidst the riot of the talk and jestings of that season, many a contemptuous joke was passed as to the futilities of all invading projects. They were the great nation, their city the great city, their armies the great armies–none like them; yet at this very hour, Cyrus, the officer of eternal justice, was at their door. Thus it was then, as it often has been, that, at the moment men cry peace and safety, that moment destruction arrives.
III. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT ROUSED THE CONSCIENCE OF THE MONARCH TO AGONY ON ITS FIRST TOKEN. In the same hour came forth fingers of a mans hand, etc. (v. 5, 6).
IV. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT HAD TERRORS NO MORTAL COULD ALLAY.
1. He tried the wise men.
2. He tried Daniel. Daniel gave him the meaning of the writing, but the meaning could afford him no consolation.
V. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT SETTLED FOR EVER THE FATE OF ITS VICTIMS.
1. The fate of Belshazzar was settled. He was slain.
2. The fate of the nation was settled. The empire of Babylon received its death blow. The Medo-Persian dynasty rose on its ruins. (Homilist.)
On Pride
Human historians, in the narration of events, are generally disposed to rest their narratives upon second causes. The scheme of a politician, the success of a battle, or the external resources of a people, appear to them sufficient to account for all the great revolutions by which this globe has been affected. The sacred historians express themselves in a more decided manner. Scripture makes the important discovery that moral causes are the ultimate ones, into which all others may be finally resolved. It appears to be the capital design of this singular book to convince mankind that there is a certain, though frequently an invisible connection between vice and misfortune. In recording the revolutions which happen in this world, they set down God for a principal part; and represent these revolutions as the necessary effects of His government. Placed at the head of the system, they uniformly represent Him as we would suppose a moral governor to be employed, distributing rewards, and inflicting punishments, according to their deserts, on men and nations. In discoursing, therefore, upon this subject, I shall begin with observing the causes, as they are related by the historian, which led this great king to his fall; I shall then make some observations upon the justice of his fate; and, lastly, shall consider at some length the nature of the vices themselves with which he is charged. The history of the royal house of Babylon is concise and affecting. It is a memorable instance of the danger of prosperity, and the instability of human greatness. The vices of Belshazzar were the vices of his family. The empire of the Chaldeans was brilliant, but of short duration. Like the plant of a kindly sun, it rose swiftly to its height, and as suddenly decayed. Had they but known how to use their greatness, it might have been prolonged. Power is like riches, and must be maintained by the same prudent management by which it was acquired. The Chaldean sovereign, at his entrance into public life, drew the attention of all mankind. Fired with the ambition of conquest, he passed from province to province, and extended his empire and his fame with a rapidity which had not been excelled. The Assyrian empire, ancient and extensive, first yielded to his force; and the Pharaohs of Egypt, as ancient and as powerful, who had marched, through numerous nations, to seek him on the banks of his own Euphrates, were repulsed and subdued. But he was then vigilant and active, and his people were laborious. There is something in the climates of the East which relaxes the mind, or renders it extravagant. Their air and situation produce the same effects on them as the power of an active imagination is supposed to do on other people. Hence it is that moderation is unknown in every situation, that adversity dejects their minds, and prosperity raises them far above their level. In proportion to these effects, more vigilance is requisite.
Nebuchadnezzar had reached the summit of ambition, but what he gained in fame and power he seemed to lose in understanding. He forgot his first maxims of diligence and prudence, and became vain in his imagination. Such impiety and folly, though Heaven had not interposed, must have led him to destruction. The effect proceeded naturally from the cause, and has taken place without a miracle. But Heaven did interpose, in a manner so signal and terrible as might have left an impression upon remote posterity. This proud king was humbled, and reduced to moderation. He was driven raving to the forest, exposed to the rigours of Heaven, and mingled with the beasts whom he resembled. Where was now great Babylon, which he had builded, for the house of his kingdom, by the might of his power, and for the honour of his majesty? One would be ready to conclude that so signal an event must have left an impression, not on himself alone, but his successors. It did leave an impression, but not on Belshazzar. The reason frequently why one man is not warned by the misfortunes of another is that he considers these misfortunes as proceeding from natural causes, and not as the effects of the Divine displeasure. We consider not that there is a necessary connection, even in this world, between certain vices and sufferings. This connection is in harmony with God, and forms part of His government of the world. Yet did not his successor profit by the admonition. Elated with his rise into royal life, his heart was distended with the same pride, and he even exceeded his predecessor. In this chapter we have a memorable instance of his impiety and extravagance. While the enemy lay ready to break in at his gates, he was feasting his lords, and wasted that time, and detained those hands, which were precious to their country, in debauchery and disorder. As an insult to the God of Heaven, he commanded to bring the vessels of His temple, and employed them in his carousals. Infatuated man! thou seest not the dangers with which thou art this moment surrounded. Yes, Heaven itself, to convince thee, frantic king! that there is a power superior to thine, and to let thee know from what quarter thy destruction cometh, sends a dreadful forerunner. In the middle of the stately banquet, when all is mirth and song–dreadful apparition!–a hand appears, visible, writing on the wall the doom of Babylon and itsunhappy monarch. Then their joy is damped, fear chills their blood, the king loses his courage at this dreadful sight, and his knees smote one against another. O vain terror! the decree is gone forth, and past recalling. The reverses of this world teach us a fatal truth, that repentance itself may arrive too late to save us. The minister of God, whom he had not thought of till the hour of danger, whom he had probably left to languish in obscurity and penury, is now sent for. But to what purpose? Unhappy monarch! not the minister of God, nor the winged ministers from Heaven themselves, can retard thy fate one moment. The prophet can but declare the will of Heaven, and retire in mourning. Yet like a drowning man, he collects his strength, and struggles against the torrent. He orders purple to be brought, and ornaments of gold, and vainly thinks that he may appease God by heaping honours upon his servant. Ah, Belshazzar! how unhappy is the man who cannot be taught but by his own misfortunes? Thy unhappy house, which would never be admonished, must at last fall. Experience, the great teacher, proceeds to his last experiment: In that night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain. After this history of the house of Babylon, and the fate of Belshazzar, the last of that line of princes, we proceed now to mark the wise lessons which these suggest; and we will do this by making some observations upon the justice of his fate, and then considering the nature of the vices he is charged with. I know not how it happens, but we feel it to be true, that the misfortunes of the great and happy affect and interest us more than the misfortunes of those who are placed in a humble station, and even sometimes than our own. Whether it be that the fall is greater, or that we imagine their feelings to be more exquisite, or whatever may be the cause, the effect is certain. I believe we entertain a mistaken notion of the happiness of the great. A crown is subject to many cares, and requires infinite circumspection. Kings have much to lose, and much to answer for. They are subject to great reverses, and their temptations to neglect, or desert their duty, are neither few nor easily resisted. Yet the happiness of thousands depends upon their conduct; and, when they fall, they involve nations in their ruin. But the fate of Belshazzar is not to be considered merely as the consequence of his own sincerity. It must be regarded chiefly as a punishment: from Heaven. In that night, the night which he had rendered signal by his riot and impiety, was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain. With respect to the justice of his fate, I believe there is no man, if he consider the life of this unhappy king, who will not allow his punishment to be necessary. His daring impiety, his unbounded riot, were inconsistent with the serious cares of government, and marked a spirit which was past correction. Some of the vices which disgraced this monarch are hardly consistent with the humility of our situation; but the source from which they proceeded is common to us all. It was pride which overthrew him; a vice which is inspired by prosperity, and is found chiefly in weak minds, who are incapable of much reflection. From this proceeded in a train, security, debauchery, tyranny, and impiety; the most ruinous and disgraceful habits of the human mind, and the most offensive to the Supreme Being. It is no new observation that any man may bear adversity; but it is not every man, nor, indeed, many men, who can bear prosperity. It tends strongly to make men forget themselves, and become vain in their imaginations. What is history but a continued narrative of the vices of the prosperous? I would content myself here with only inferring, in general, that prosperity corrupts weak minds. Unable to reason deeply, they ascribe their success to something in themselves; and, incapable of much foresight, they apprehend no reverse, and imagine it must last for ever. They are too vain to admit advice, and, at the same time, too weak to resist temptation. It shows, therefore, the wisdom and care of Providence, in the first place, that so few are necessarily in that situation; and, secondly, that, by a necessary train of events, these few are perpetually changed, and give place to others. Last of all, the afflictions of life themselves are an instance of the same care; because, however grievous they may be, they are well calculated to abase the pride of man, and recall him to a proper sense of himself, and of his own dependence. I proceed, then to consider the vice of pride, that vice which vitiates equally sovereigns and subjects. I shall begin by describing it, and obviating some apologies which have been made for it. All vice may, in general, be defined to be the excess or abuse of some passion, or of some natural sentiment. To animate us to well doing, various premiums are held out to us. One of those is the approbation of our own minds. When we act a proper part, we are satisfied with ourselves. It is for the same reason that we are pleased with praise from others. The applause of our own minds, whether it arises immediately from our own actions, or from the praise of others, is the result of virtue, and constitutes a very pleasing part of its reward. But this sentiment, like all the other sentiments and affections of our nature, may be vitiated. The pleasure we feel from well doing incites us to do well. The pleasure we receive from praise leads us to do things worthy of praise. Perhaps we may say that, in a state like this, even a small portion of conceit is necessary to keep us in good humour with ourselves. Hence it is that every man, generally speaking, even the meanest, values himself upon something or other. It is when our self-value, or self-complacence, becomes enormous or wrong directed, when it is either utterly disproportioned to its object, or founded upon improper objects, that it is vicious. It then becomes pride, and exhibits immediately the native characters of vice–folly and malignity. The transition from the virtue to the vice, in this case, as in all others, is easy. The complacence which we feel from our actions is first converted into a conceited opinion of ourselves as we are with what we have done, we begin to think there is some remarkable merit in it. We conceive, consequently, highly of ourselves, and think there must be something extraordinary about us. From this point, the folly becomes apparent. The passion we have conceived for ourselves, like all other passions which depend on fancy, multiplies itself fast, and is fed by everything it meets with. Having departed from the original sentiment, it comes at last no longer to resemble it. We bring materials from all quarters to build our tower with. Accustomed to contemplate our own importance, we are at no loss for fancies to support it. Riches are one very common source of pride, and yet we may be vain of poverty. Titles are another, and yet we may despise titles. Praise is a third, and yet we may think ourselves above praise. We may even be vain of our humility. We may in short, be vain of anything, or of nothing. When we once take a fancy to ourselves, there is no defining it. The vice of pride is founded on weakness of intellect. It arises obviously from the want of knowing ourselves and our own state. Ignorance produces it, and want of capacity renders it incurable. A proper degree of knowledge moderates our ideas of all things, and of ourselves among the rest. If we cannot receive this knowledge, our folly is incurable. The weakest people, therefore, and the least informed, are always the most subject to this vice. A good deal also may be ascribed to education. Foolish parents make foolish children. There is something in this vice very astonishing. That a person should conceive highly of something without him is natural. But that a creature should take a fancy to itself is very extraordinary. What is without us we may be forgiven for not knowing perfectly; but one would think, if we knew anything, that we might know ourselves, at least, so far as to see that we have no great reason to be vain of ourselves. A distinction has been attempted, by way of apology for it, between pride and vanity. It alleged that vanity, as distinguished from pride, is marked by two characters. It consists in that self-importance which arises from the opinion or behaviour of others, and it is generally founded upon trifling circumstances. Pride is satisfied with itself. It is founded upon its own opinion of its own merit, and this merit arises, it is supposed, from great accomplishments. It has no relation to the opinions of others. Hence it is ready to treat them with contempt when they differ from its own, and with neglect when they agree to them. Vanity, on the other hand, is always elated with applause, and mortified when it is withheld. This distinction is merely plausible, and can give no protection to its votaries. First of all, it will not follow, though these vices were different, that they are not both vices; nor will it follow that they may not even be united in the same person. But, in the next place, it is a distinction without a difference, for there is really no difference. The sentiment itself is, in all cases, the same. It is the same opinion of our own consequence, whatever we derive it from, whether from the praises of others or from our own reflections. With respect to the one being founded upon great, and the other upon little accomplishments, that depends upon whom we make the judge. If we take his own word, every man of this character thinks his own accomplishments great, and that his pride is proper. Greatness of mind is that disposition which leads a man to great actions and sublime sentiments. Pride is that disposition which leads a man to contemplate his own actions and sentiments, whatever they are, with self-consequence. A great mind never reflects upon its own merit. A proud, or vain one, rejects upon nothing else. The former conceives noble sentiments, and expresses them in his actions, without thinking of the abilities which produced them. The latter can conceive no sentiments or actions without attending principally to this circumstance. When a greet man performs a worthy action, he does not think that he has done anything extraordinary. A proud man is wholly engrossed with this. What a difference is there between these dispositions! How mean is the one when compared with the other! A great mind is superior to a proud one, as far as a generous temper is superior to a selfish one. What a pity it is that a man should sully an action, which may in itself be laudable, with this ridiculous ingredient? What occasion is there for pride in any case? Or where is the advantage of it? May not a man act in the best manner without having his mind perpetually engrossed with his own actions? Or is acting well such a stranger to his nature that he cannot do it, in any instance, without giving himself credit for it? Must he be perpetually thinking of himself and his own consequence? I will even go farther, and venture to affirm that pride, admitting the distinction which it assumes to itself, is both more dangerous and more contemptible than vanity. Vanity can, at any time, be checked. As it is founded upon the good opinion of others, the withdrawing of this is all that is necessary to humble it. Pride is founded upn itself, and cannot be humbled but by its own destruction. It is also more contemptible. The vain man has this to say for himself, that, if he thinks wrong, he thinks but what others think. The proud man is lifted up with his own opinion. The folly of the other is pure, and admits no apology. And if pride, in its best state, be so little a sentiment, how contemptible must it be when it is founded upon little objects–such as, we may observe, the common possessions of this world may in general be said to be? This sentiment, absurd in itself, will appear to greater advantage still if we consider the effects of it. Here the vice begins to appear, and to manifest itself. We shall treat these effects under three heads; as they respect God; as they respect our fellow-creatures; and as they respect ourselves. Considered in itself, it appears rather a folly; but, observed in its operation, we immediately discern the virulence, working, as usual, with dreadful symptoms; vitiating the subject, and producing the most shocking scenes of misery among the species.
I. PRIDE IS AN ENEMY TO THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT. It affects, in the moat material manner, the most important of our connections, our connection with the Almighty. It leads us to forget, and finally to throw off our dependence upon Him. It has a manifest tendency to obstruct the intercourse, and destroy the relations, which subsist between God and created natures. It is opposite to those habits of submission and acknowledgment which result from our situation, and by which alone we can maintain an intercourse with the Great Parent of the world. Pride is the natural enemy of subordination. It destroys the habits of respect, and leads us to hate, or to avoid, the presence of superior beings. It is remarkable that this is the vice which is ascribed to the angels who kept not their first estate. If there be a God, we ought to reverence Him. This consequence follows forcibly and directly. It is a proposition which stands upon its own basis, and does not even depend upon revelation. There is an undoubted relation between God and His creation. If existence is bestowed by the one, duty becomes the other. If the one afford protection, the other is bound to gratitude. If Deity be a perfect being, He is the object of respect and homage. If men be imperfect creatures, humility is proper to them. If we live under a supreme, superintending government, we owe submission and attachment to it. These are the instincts of nature, as well as the first dictates of reason How monstrous is the mind which wants these affections? I believe it would not be difficult to show that pride is connected with atheism. The mind which is self-sufficient must be uneasy at the thought of an obligation. To what impious conclusions will not this disposition lead a man, especially if he possess high passions, or any portion of ingenuity? It led Belshazzar to acts of the most frantic impiety. I make no doubt that this insolent monarch, when he ordered the sacred vessels to be produced, and applied to common purposes, meant an insult to the Deity. I believe there are few here who are in danger of proceeding to such excess as Belshazzar. But, in general, we may affirm that, of all the vices, pride is the most inconsistent with the religious temper. If it steps short of absolute impiety, it leads at least to forgetfulness of God, and of our dependence upon Him. The mind of the vain man is, first of all, engrossed with the objects of his vanity. He has neither room, therefore, nor inclination for religious objects. The weakness of mind also, out of which this vice arises, is inimical to religion. The mind which is conceited of lithe objects can have no capacity for large ones. The sentiments, in the next place, cannot consist together. The religious temper is founded in meekness, and in humility. In general, it will be sufficient to show us that this quality must, in its own nature, be inconsistent with the religious character, to reflect that the attention of a proud, or vain man, is wholly engrossed with second causes. This is, indeed, one natural and immediate issue of the vice. Whatever success may attend him, the mans vanity continually leads him to refer it entirely to the exertions or causes immediately producing it (that is to himself), and he looks no farther. We may conclude, then, upon certain principles, that pride leads us away from God, and from the regards we owe Him. It has the effect, in the very first instance, to turn our minds from Him, and to leave Him out of our calculations. For how, indeed, in common good sense, can it be otherwise? Will a man, whose thoughts are wholly engrossed with himself, ever think of his Maker? Will a man, who is intoxicated with his own sufficiency, be sensible, as he ought to be, of the need which he has of the Divine protection? A proud man possesses not the qualities which constitute the religious character. Of all the tempers of the mind, the religious is at the greatest distance from self-sufficiency. The great duty of the present state is to improve our nature. But to this pride is inimical. A man, who supposes himself perfect enough already, will not think of improving himself.
II. The vice of pride is not only inconsistent with the religious principle. IT IS REPUGNANT TO THAT SYSTEM OF LIBERAL AND EQUAL POLICY WHICH IS THE GLORY OF OUR SPECIES, AND UNDER WHICH ALONE OUR NATURE CAN RECEIVE ITS PROPER CULTIVATION. It is calculated for a state of slaves and masters, and is subversive of the liberal connections of an equal and free society. We may regard this vice under two views, as it affects the manners and as it affects the conduct Throughout both these it preserves the same character, and exhibits the same offensive effects. It divests men equally of the manners and the qualities of their most improved state. A vain man considers himself as far exalted above others. He regards the rest of mankind as a species of inferior creatures His attentions are centred in himself, and he considers others as either below his notice or as born for his convenience. He is, therefore, obviously a selfish and a repulsive character. The natural expression of pride is insolence. A proud or vain man deserves not the regards of others. He does not interest himself in them. He has no real attachment but to himself. If a man of this description mixes with other men, he would have it regarded as a piece of prodigious goodness, and often labours to be agreeable for no other reason but that he may value himself, and hear others value him, upon his affability. What a monstrous perversion is this of the human character! It is this again which converts life into affectation, and fills the world with insincerity. But this vice appears in its full deformity when it is connected with power. This gives it the means of displaying itself; and, in this case, it usually displays itself in acts of mischief. We may observe that pride may exist in any state, but it is more usually the effect of prosperity. We may observe also, under this head, that a man of this character is incapable of gratitude. He possesses not the sentiments which are proper to his situation. He is not formed for a state where we all depend upon one another. You cannot oblige a proud man. He considers every benefit which can be conferred upon him as his due. The proud man is the natural enemy of society. Pride cannot consist with the virtues of the improved life. It breaks the natural connections of the species. In their manners, it makes men insolent, or, if not insolent, deceitful–in their conduct and deeds, oppressive. It is also opposite to the liberal policy of the species. In general, we may observe that pride is the natural quality of the barbarian, not of the cultivated citizen. Being the result of ignorance, the more enlightened the society is the less vanity will be found in it. It is the native plant of an unenlightened society, and of a violent government. The vice of pride goes to establish a system of oppression, and to place men universally in a state of hostility to one another.
III. Pride not only destroys our connections with the Supreme Being, and with one another; it not only leads us to neglect God, and abuse men; BUT IT LEADS US TO NEGLECT, VITIATE, AND FINALLY RUIN OURSELVES. First of all, this vice, like all other vices, vitiates us. We have already observed that it destroys the two great classes of our affections, the affections which we ought to have for God and for our species. So far it vitiates. But it has a more extensive effect. It acts against the whole man, and vitiates him on all sides. Pride takes many directions, but I will speak of those which are most natural to it. Boastfulness is a property of the vice. The proud are, first, boastful. They have, consequently, a continual tendency to depart from truth. They speak, as the apostle expresses it, great swelling words of vanity. The evil here operates in two directions. The same disposition which leads them to magnify themselves, leads them to diminish others. They depart from truth in both cases; till, at last, by repeated deviations, they lose the sense, and cease to perceive the value of it. Malice is a property of this vice. The proud are malicious. They view those above them with envy, and those below them with satisfaction. Their equals they are never lucky enough to meet with. What a source of malignity here opens to us! For the same reason they are pleased with the disappointments of people, and bear nothing so ill as to see a man rise and prosper in the world. This is one certain mark of folly. They are for keeping every man down that they can possibly. The proud are revengeful. Important in their own minds, if you touch their folly, or offend their consequence, they are implacable. The proud are hard-hearted. The proud are hypocrites. It is not often convenient for them to discover all the bad passions which actuate them. The proud make God and men their enemies. They act, therefore, continually in the midst of a multitude who are interested to defeat them. Such is their situation that there are always numbers of people to whom their fall would be agreeable, and who watch the opportunities of procuring it. But, in this unstable state, where every situation totters, these opportunities are frequent; and hence it happens that the proud man, when he least expects it, generally receives an impulse, from some quarter or other, which oversets him. This is the more likely to happen from another cause, that pride has the effect generally to inspire a presumptuous security and contempt of danger, which at once relax our vigilance and our exertions, and expose us to misfortunes. But, besides the external shocks to which it is liable, pride contains a source of ruin within itself. We have already observed, as one of its natural properties, that it is boastful and ostentatious. The waste and show which the proud are first led into from vanity, they soon conceive a passion for on their own account; and this becomes finally so strong that it either renders them blind to what is before them or infatuates them to that degree that they are unable to relinquish it even when they see the consequences, and when ruin stares them in the face. The same process leads them to sensuality. Indulging at first from vanity, they soon come to indulge for the sake of indulging, and acquire gross, vile habits. Arrived at this point, the motion becomes rapid; and, as it draws near the end, is accelerated. We observed that pride is naturally presuming and self-sufficient. This leads to other effects. Confidence in our own abilities, or situation, leads us naturally to security. Security, besides exposing to external shocks, gives habits of indolence; and these again have a double issue. They operate both against the virtue and the natural faculties. They act against the virtue. Idleness is the natural soil where all the rank vices gather. They act against the natural faculties. The mind becomes incapable of application from the want of applying, and it becomes weak from the want of being exercised. The vices which it collects hasten the effect. They relax the mind and body, and render both feeble. There never was a juster maxim than the maxim of Solomon, before honour is humility, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Independent of the morality of the dispositions themselves, the one has a necessary tendency to relieve our affairs, and the other to distress them. Humility renders us watchful and active; while pride relaxes our exertions, and leads us back to ruin. I shall now conclude this subject with an improvement of it; and this I shall make by collecting, and stating shortly, some of the chief conclusions which arise from it. It is remarkable that the vice of pride is represented everywhere in the Scriptures as peculiarly offensive to God. He observes the humble with complacence. He marks those who set themselves above their kind. Let me, then, first of all, warn you against this vice, from the consideration of the displeasure of God–that displeasure which brings down the lofty looks of man, and lays the pride of empires low. To conclude, seeing that the histories of Scripture were recorded for our sakes, suffer them to produce their just effect. I have selected one memorable instance from these precious monuments for your information. The more dangerous any situation is, we ought to guard ourselves the more against it. Let the history of Belshazzar teach us not to presume upon prosperity, nor to let the season of youth and of exertion pass unimproved. Which of us can read his fate, and not tremble for his own? (J. Mackenzie, D.D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 30. In that night was Belshazzar – slain.] Xenophon says, he was despatched by two lords, Gadatas and Gobrias, who went over to Cyrus, to avenge themselves of certain wrongs which Belshazzar had done them. We have already seen that Cyrus entered the city by the bed of the Euphrates, which he had emptied, by cutting a channel for the waters, and directing them into the marshy country.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which the heathen histories do also confirm. This shows the severity of Gods judgment against the highest offenders, Psa 2; Psa 90; Psa 149; Hos 10:7. It also confirms the truth of Gods threatenings, and of the hand-writing, as Daniel interpreted. Some are sad instances of Gods veracity.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. HERODOTUSand XENOPHON confirmDaniel as to the suddenness of the event. Cyrus diverted theEuphrates into a new channel and, guided by two deserters, marched bythe dry bed into the city, while the Babylonians were carousing at anannual feast to the gods. See also Isa 21:5;Isa 44:27; Jer 50:38;Jer 50:39; Jer 51:36.As to Belshazzar’s being slain, compare Isa 14:18-20;Isa 21:2-9; Jer 50:29-35;Jer 51:57.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain. Not by a servant of his own, as Jacchiades; or by an eunuch, one of his guards, as Saadiah and Joseph ben Gorion b; but by Gadales and Gobryas, who led Cyrus’s army up the river Euphrates into the city of Babylon, its course being turned; the inhabitants of which being revelling and rioting, and the gates open, these men went up to the king’s palace; the doors of which being opened by the king’s orders to know what was the matter, they rushed in, and finding him standing up with his sword drawn in his own defence, they fell upon him, and slew him, and all about him, as Xenophon c relates; and this was the same night the feast was, and the handwriting was seen, read, and interpreted. This was after a reign of seventeen years; for so Josephus says d, that Baltasar or Belshazzar, in whose reign Babylon was taken, reigned seventeen years; and so many years are assigned to him in Ptolemy’s canon; though the Jewish chronicle e allows him but three years, very wrongly, no more of his reign being mentioned in Scripture: see Da 7:1. His death, according to Bishop Usher f, Mr. Whiston g, and Mr. Bedford h, was in the year of the world 3466 A.M., and 538 B.C. Dean Prideaux i places it in 539 B.C.
b Hist. Heb. l. 1. c. 6. p. 26. c Cyropaedia, l. 7. sect. 22, 23. d Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 4. e Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 81. f Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3466. g Chronological Tables, cent. 10. h Scripture Chronology, p. 711. i Connexion, &c. par. 1. p. 120.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Daniel Deals Plainly with Belshazzar; Interpreting of the Writing on the Wall. | B. C. 538. |
30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. 31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
Here is, 1. The death of the king. Reason enough he had to tremble, for he was just falling into the hands of the king of terrors, v. 30. In that night, when his heart was merry with wine, the besiegers broke into the city, aimed at the palace; there they found the king, and gave him his death’s wound. He could not find any place so secret as to conceal him, or so strong as to protect him. Heathen writers speak of Cyrus’s taking Babylon by surprise, with the assistance of two deserters that showed him the best way into the city. And it was foretold what a consternation it would be to the court, Jer 51:11; Jer 51:39. Note, Death comes as a snare upon those whose hearts are overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. 2. The transferring of the kingdom into other hands. From the head of gold we now descend to the breast and arms of silver. Darius the Mede took the kingdom in partnership with, and by the consent of, Cyrus, who had conquered it, v. 31. They were partners in war and conquest, and so they were in dominion, ch. vi. 28. Notice is taken of his age, that he was now sixty-two years old, for which reason Cyrus, who was his nephew, gave him the precedency. Some observe that being now sixty-two years old, in the last year of the captivity, he was born in the eighth year of it, and that was the year when Jeconiah was carried captive and all the nobles, &c. See 2 Kings xxiv. 13-15. Just at that time when the most fatal stroke was given was a prince born that in process of time should avenge Jerusalem upon Babylon, and heal the wound that was now given. Thus deep are the counsels of God concerning his people, thus kind are his designs towards them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Here Daniel shortly relates how his prophecy was fulfilled that very night. As we have before explained it, a customary feast-day had occurred which the Babylonians celebrated annually, and on this occasion the city was betrayed by two satraps, whom Xenophon calls Gobryas and Gadatas. On this passage the Rabbis display both their impudence and ignorance; as, according to their usual habit, they babble with audacity about what they do not understand. They say the king was stabbed, because one of his guards heard the Prophet’s voice, and wished to execute that heavenly judgment; as if the sentence of God depended upon the will of a single heathen! We must pass by these puerile trifles and cling to the truth of history; for Belshazzar was seized in his own banqueting-room, when he was grossly intoxicated, with his nobles and concubines. Meanwhile, we must observe God’s wonderful kindness towards the Prophet. He was not in the slightest danger, as the rest were. He was clad in purple, and scarcely an hour had passed when the Medes and Persians entered the city. He could scarcely have escaped in the tumult, unless God had covered him with the shadow of his hand. We see, then, how God takes care of his own, and snatches us from the greatest dangers, as if he were bringing us from the tomb. There is no doubt that the holy Prophet was much agitated amidst the tumult, for he was not without sensibility. (278) But he ought to be thus exercised to cause him to acknowledge God as the faithful guardian of his life, and to apply himself more diligently to his worship, since he saw nothing preferable to casting all his cares upon him!
(278) The Latin is “ stipes : ” the French, “ une souche de bols;” literally, a log or block of wood. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
30, 31. For the facts connected with the capture of Babylon see Introduction, III, 4.
Took Rather, “received” (R.V.). For conjectures concerning Darius the Mede see Introduction, III, 3, (5), and for “Medes and Persians” notes Dan 2:39-42, and Dan 7:5.
This account has powerfully influenced both art and literature. While the weighing of the heart of the dead forms one of the most beautiful chapters in the Book of the Dead, and while Homer, and Vergil, and AEschylus elaborate this thought, there need be no doubt that it was from Belshazzar’s feast and not from Egypt or Greece that the Hebrew hymn came which is even yet sung on the Day of Atonement in the Jewish synagogue:
O be Thy mercy in the balance laid,
To hold thy servant’s sins more lightly weighed,
When, his confession penitently made,
He answers for his guilt before the king.
In mediaeval Christian architecture Michael is represented bearing a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty two years old.’
The king was probably slain in what fighting there was, along with many of his lords, but in general the Persians followed an enlightened principle of mercy in their dealings with captured peoples and encouraged them in the worship of their own gods, thanks to Cyrus himself, which was why in all probability they were welcomed by the priests of Marduk.
‘Darius the Mede’. There is no suggestion here that he was king of a separate Medan empire at the same time as Cyrus. It simply tells us that he was a Mede (and in Dan 9:1 even more emphatically ‘of the seed of the Medes’). The so-called ‘Medan empire’ of Daniel is an invention of scholars out to prove a theory. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it has to be reached by ignoring the clear meaning of certain other passages.
No Darius has been found in inscriptions connected with the new dawn of Babylon, but it is quite possible that he was known under another name and that Darius was a throne name. In meaning it is probably connected with the New Persian word Dara, meaning “king.” Herodotus says that it means in Greek, Erxeies, coercitor, “restrainer,” “compeller,” “commander.” We should note that the implication here is that this Darius succeeded to Belshazzar’s position as ‘melek of the Chaldeans’, and thus an under-king (compare Dan 9:1). Belshazzar was not the sharru. Nabonidus was still alive.
Various suggestions have been made. One is that it was a name taken on by Cyrus when he defeated the Medes, or by his son Cambyses, to cement his position over the Medes (but the latter was certainly not sixty two years old). Another is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), one of Cyrus’ generals, who was later appointed by Cyrus to rule Babylon. (Darius may not have ‘received the kingdom’ immediately). It has been suggested that Gubaru is possibly a translation of Darius. The same radical letters in Arabic mean “king,” “compeller,” “restrainer.” This was a different man from Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium and Persian commander who led the assault against Babylon and died shortly afterwards, but we do not know how old Gubaru was.
A connection with Cyrus could be supported by the fact that Cyrus was related to the Medes, was about sixty two years old when he conquered Babylon, and by the reading ‘in the reign of Darius, that is in the reign of Cyrus the Persian’ (Dan 6:28). This latter could, however, also support the suggestion that it was Gubaru, revealing him as under-king to Cyrus. We should note in contrast that Darius II is called ‘Darius the Persian’ (Neh 12:22) which may suggest that a ‘Darius the Mede’ was known historically to Nehemiah.
Another explanation has been that Darius is another name for Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, who according to the Greek writer Xenophon was Cyrus’ uncle and father-in-law, and whom Cyrus might have retained temporarily as a figurehead king and have appointed over Babylon to please the Medes. It was captured by a Medan general.
But there may well be here a figure we as yet no nothing about from inscriptions. Daniel only refers to his first year (Dan 9:1; Dan 11:1) and then does not refer to him again for dating. He turns instead to reference to Cyrus (Dan 10:1). This suggests that Darius may not have held the position for very long and would therefore be unlikely to be mentioned in inscriptions. His only claim to fame was his connection with Daniel.
Interestingly in the Harran stele of Nabonidus mention is made of the ‘king of the Medes’ in 546 BC, four years after Cyrus became king of the Medo-Persian empire.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 5:30. In that night was Belshazzarslain He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revels. Xenophon relates the history thus: Two deserters, Gadatas and Gobrias, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards and seize upon the palace, entered the room where the king was, whom they found in a posture of defence; but they soon dispatched him and his attendants. See Xenoph. Cyropaed. lib. 7: and Bishop Chandler’s Vindication, p. 17, 18 where the Bishop observes, that the ancient historians agree with Daniel as to the main of his history, and one or other of them confirm every part of it.
The punishment of Nebuchadnezzar, the death of Belshazzar, and the expiration of the kingdom, may serve to remind us of that fine passage of the wise son of Sirach, which I shall transcribe from the tenth chapter of the book of Ecclesiasticus. “The beginning of pride is, when one departeth from God, and his heart is turned away from his Maker. For pride is the beginning of sin, and he that hath it shall pour out abomination. The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead. The Lord hath plucked up the roots of the proud nations, and planted the lowly in their places. The Lord overthrew countries of the heathen, and hath made their memorial to cease from the earth. Pride was not made for men, nor furious anger for them that are born of a woman.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1130
BELSHAZZARS DEATH
Dan 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
KNOWN unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. We speak of things as fortuitous and contingent, because we see not the hand by which they are directed; but, in reality, there is nothing contingent, not even the falling of a sparrow: the very hairs of our head are all numbered. Sometimes it has pleased God to make known, beforehand, events, which depended entirely upon the free will of man; while at the same time they were as infallibly foreseen by him as if man had been a mere machine, without the smallest exercise of choice or inclination. Such were the events which facilitated or attended the destruction of the Babylonish empire. It was optional with Belshazzar whether he would make a feast for his lords, and drink to excess: and it was optional with Cyrus what moment he should seize for making his attack upon the city: but all was foretold by God, with a minuteness and precision which proclaim at once the omniscience of the Deity, and the dependence of all things upon his sovereign will [Note: Jer 51:11; Jer 51:39; Jer 51:57.]. The event before us had long before been proclaimed by the voice of inspiration: and it will be profitable for us to consider,
I.
The time of Belshazzars death
In the words, that night, there is an emphasis which must not be overlooked. It was the night,
1.
Of his feasting
[He had made a feast for a thousand of his lords. We mean not to condemn all feasts: for our blessed Lord himself repeatedly vouchsafed to be present at a feast. But the generality of banquetings, and revellings, and such like are among those works of the flesh, which they who do, shall not inherit the kingdom of God [Note: Gal 5:21.]. Of this kind was Belshazzars feast; at which he gave himself up to mirth, and banished all thoughts of death from his mind.
What an awful thing to be taken at such a moment! Yet how many are there, who, if not slain like him, yet are called away from the midst of the cares or pleasures of this life as unprepared as he! It was so at the time of the Deluge: it will be so at the end of the world: and it is so yet daily and hourly [Note: Mat 24:37-39.]. The foolish virgins greatly out-number those who are wise; and have their oil to seek when the Bridegrooms arrival is announced. They are saying, Peace, peace; till sudden destruction cometh upon them as a thief in the night, or as travail on a woman with child [Note: 1Th 5:2-3.]. The Lord grant it may never be so with us!]
2.
Of his impiety
[Feasting and impiety are not unfrequently associated. The generality of men seem to think that they cannot enjoy any comfort in social converse, unless they give way to excess, and banish decency and religion from their presence. Belshazzar could not be content with the pleasure which this feast afforded, but he must openly pour contempt on God, and set him at defiance. Accordingly, he ordered the sacred vessels, which his grandfather had taken from the temple at Jerusalem, to be brought forth for the use of himself and his wives and concubines; and then celebrated his gods as superior to Jehovah, over whom (as it should seem) they had triumphed. This completed the measure of his iniquities, and drew down upon him the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple [Note: Notea.] Perhaps we may think the crime and the punishment uncommon: but neither the one nor the other is at all uncommon. What are the songs that are usually sung at feasts, but songs in honour of Bacchus and Venus, the heathen patrons of riot and debauchery? What are the toasts or sentiments, in commendation of which the wine is poured out and drunk? what, but a tissue of lewdness and profaneness? And how often do they who engage in such scenes, come to an untimely end! One falls from his horse; another is overturned in a carriage; another run over by a cart; another is drowned; another is killed in an affray. We call these things accidents: but if an inspired prophet were sent to declare the truth, we should find them the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple.
And may not we look back to some day, or some night, when God might have cut us off as it were, to advantage, if not in a state of riot and intoxication, yet in some other state equally displeasing to him? O let us call to mind those seasons; and adore his name, that in that night we were not summoned, with all our iniquities upon us, to give account of ourselves at his judgment-seat!]
3.
Of his warning
[While Belshazzar was indulging in his impious revels, he saw a hand writing upon the wall of the room wherein he sat. Terrified beyond measure at so strange a sight, he called for all his magicians and astrologers to read and explain the words. None of them being able to explain the writing, Daniel was sent for: and he, by Divine inspiration, declared the sentence which God had thus visibly proclaimed. On any other occa-sion, if we may judge from the neglect into which Daniel had fallen, Belshazzar would have fiercely resented the faithfulness with which this prophet of the Lord had denounced his doom: but his terror had softened him for a moment; yet not so softened him as to produce any genuine repentance in his heart. He ordered the promised reward to be given to Daniel; but we do not find that he humbled himself before God, or uttered one prayer for mercy. Scarcely was the warning explained to him, but it was executed on him, and on all his dissolute companions. Yes; in that night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain. As his royalty did not save him, so neither did his terror obtain for him one moments respite. He heard, he trembled, he died. He had seen (as Daniel told him) the judgments that had been executed on Nebuchadnezzar, his grandfather; and yet had not profited by that warning, or humbled himself before the God of heaven: now therefore the warning and the judgment came together: nor was any further space given him for repentance.
How differently has God acted hitherto towards us! Many are the warnings which we have slighted; and yet, behold, we live! But how soon his patience may come to an end, and a termination be put to our day of grace, who can tell? ]
Such was the season when this unhappy monarch was called into the presence of his Judge. Let us next consider,
II.
The instruction to he gathered from it
Surely we may learn from this,
1.
Not to provoke the Lord to jealousy
[It matters not whether, with Belshazzar, we praise gods of wood and stone, or whether we set up idols in our hearts: in either case, God is dethroned; and other lords besides him have dominion over us. And shall we think lightly of our guilt, while in such a state as this? or shall we imagine that God regards it with indifference? No: he is a jealous God: his very name is Jealous [Note: Exo 34:14.]: and his glory will he not give, or allow to be given to another. Look then within your own bosoms, ye who are so addicted to the pursuits of this life as scarcely to have any time or inclination for reading the Scriptures and for secret prayer; ye whose feelings are quickly roused when your honour or your interest are at stake, and yet are unconcerned about the honour of God or the interests of your souls; look, I say, within, and see whether God has not reason to be jealous of you; and whether he might not justly destroy you instantly with fire, as he did Nadab and Abihu; or cause the earth to swallow you up quick, as he did to Korah and his rebellious associates? Do not imagine that you are innocent, because you do not follow the practices of Belshazzar: see whether you be not living in his spirit; and whether you are not despising God in your heart, as much as he did in his actions; and idolizing the world in your heart, as much as he did his fictitious deities in his drunken carousals? And know, that though your idolatry is less gross than his, it involves you in deeper guilt, in proportion as the meridian light of the Gospel transcends the darkness of Heathen superstition.]
2.
Not to despise the warnings you receive
[You have not a hand-writing visibly on the wall: but have you not other warnings, equally legible, on every side? How many are cut off around you, some old, some young, and some in the prime of life! How many sudden deaths take place, or, if not sudden in respect of time, yet unexpected by the persons themselves [Note: If this be preached as a New-Years Discourse, the last year may be represented as dead, or as cut off from our short span of life, which therefore is proportionably contracted.]! Are the disorders which you see or feel, no warnings? But you have a hand-writing, yea, the hand-writing of God himself; you may see it in the Scriptures of truth: there you may see written, as with a sun-beam, Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin: to you it speaks: your days are numbered, and nearly finished: you are weighed in a balance, and found wanting: and all hope of enjoying the kingdom of heaven will be quickly taken from you, if you do not turn unto God with your whole hearts. God says to you, My son, give me thine heart: any thing short of this will be to no purpose. O that you would now open unto Him that knocketh at the door of your hearts; and that the long-suffering of God might now at last lead you to repentance!]
3.
Not to delay the great work you have to do
[Whilst you are living at your ease, and putting the thoughts of death far from you, God may be saying, Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee. And O, how terrible would this be to the generality! To some indeed sudden death would be sudden glory: but to others how different! Herod made a feast; and, in compliance with his daughters request, gave her John Baptists head in a charger: yes, that night was John the Baptist slain. But how different was that night to John the Baptist and Belshazzar! The one went from a prison to a crown; the other from a palace to a lake of fire. Inquire, I pray you, how death would find you, if it should come this night: and if you are unprepared to meet it, O delay not one hour; give not sleep to your eyes, or slumber to your eye-lids, till you have obtained peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Converted you must be; or you can never enter into the kingdom of heaven. Your conscience must be sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus, or your sins will infallibly plunge you into everlasting perdition. Seize then the fleeting hour. Adore your God that you have not been taken away, as thousands of your fellow-creatures have been, with all your sins upon you: and to-day, while it is called to-day, harden not your heart; lest like them you perish in impenitence and unbelief.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Short, but awful, the account of the king’s death! In that night. A night indeed of terrors. Certainly it was a night of the most daring impiety. Probably also, a night of drunkenness. So died this wretched man. The gospel, in the same short, but expressive manner, relates the death of the voluptuous sinner. The rich man died, and was buried. And the next account of him was in hell. Luk 16:22-23 ; Rev 6:8 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
Ver. 30. In that night was Belshazzar slain.] By Gaddatha and Gobrya, two of Cyrus’s commanders, who had been wronged by Belshazzar (as Xenophon a also testifieth), and now took revenge on him, after that they had betrayed the city, and brought in Cyrus’s army. So fell that famous Babylon: fuit Ilium et inyen, gloria Teucrorum.
a Xenoph. Cyrop., lib. vii.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 5:30-31
30That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.
Dan 5:30 That same night From the histories of both Herodotus (1.190-191) and Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5) we know the date was October 12, 539 B.C.
the Chaldean king The term Chaldean is used in an ethnic sense (cf. Dan 9:1 and Herodotus) in this text, but as a class of wise men or astrologers in Dan 2:2; Dan 2:4-5; Dan 2:10 (twice); Dan 3:8; Dan 4:7; Dan 5:7; Dan 5:11. The Babylonians themselves never used the term in an ethnic sense in their own documents, but the Assyrians did.
Dan 5:31 Darius the Mede This person is unknown to extra-biblical history. There have been two predominant theories.
1. Darius means royal one (in the Avesta dar, which may be a throne name like Hadad for Syria, Pharaoh for Egypt, and Abimelech for Philistia) and is another name for Cyrus II (the Great), who was also about sixty years of age. For the first year of their reign eastern monarchs often used a throne name (i.e. Tiglath Pileser III was known as Pul and Shalmaneser V was known as Ululai, cf. Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, p. 127, footnote #5). Cyrus was half Median by race and took the title king of the Medes at his defeat of Astyages (Cyrus’ father-in-law), king of Media, in 549 B.C. (D. J. Wiseman, Darius in The New Bible Dictionary, p. 293 and Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 12ff). The Septuagint in Dan 11:1 substitutes Cyrus for Darius the Mede.
2. The Nabonidus Chronicle mentions two Medo-Persian military leaders active in the fall of the city of BabylonUgbaru and Gubaru (cf. J. C. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede, pp. 5ff). Ugbaru was a military leader of Cyrus’ forces who captured the city of Babylon (539 B.C.), but in the campaign he was wounded and died several weeks later. Another person with a similar name, Gubaru, was also a military leader. It was he, not Ugbaru, who was appointed by Cyrus as governor of the city (maybe province) of Babylon, an office he held for many years (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 17 and R. K Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 341-347).
received the kingdom It is uncertain if this means that he received (BDB 1110, Pael PERFECT) the kingdom from God or from Cyrus II (cf. Dan 9:1).
the age of sixty-two It is quite obvious that Daniel is attempting to identify Darius, both with his racial lineage and his age. We know more about Darius than we do about many other persons mentioned in the Book of Daniel. Obviously, he was an historical person.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.
1. Why is there such a historical problem with the name Belshazzar?
2. How is Belshazzar related to Nebuchadnezzar II?
3. Why did Belshazzar choose YHWH to make sport of?
4. Who is the queen mentioned in Dan 5:10?
5. Why could not the wise men of Babylon read the handwriting on the wall?
6. Explain the meaning of the words written on the wall in Dan 5:25.
7. Who is Darius the Mede?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
that night. Compare Dan 5:1.
Belshazzar. See note on Dan 5:2.
the Chaldeans. Here spoken of in the national sense, not of a special class. See note on Dan 1:4.
slain. Either by the Persians, or it may have been by assassination by one of his own followers, or accidentally in the tumult. Chaldee. ketal, used of a violent death. Compare Dan 5:19. This was on the third of the month Marchesvan. On the eleventh, Belshazzar’s wife died, perhaps from grief. See Encycl. Brit, vol. iii, p. 711, 712, 11th (Cambridge) edition. See App-57.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 5:30
Dan 5:30 In that nightH3916 was BelshazzarH1113 the kingH4430 of the ChaldeansH3779 slain.H6992
Dan 5:30
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
In 539 BC Cyrus invaded Babylonia. A battle was fought at Opis in the month of September, where the Babylonians were defeated. The Battle of Opis was a major engagement between the armies of Persia under Cyrus the Great and the Babylonian Empire under Nabonidus during the Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. At the time, Babylonia was the last major power in western Asia that was not yet under Persian control. Opis was located north of the capital city Babylon and its overthrow resulted in a decisive defeat for the Babylonians. A few days later, the city of Sippar surrendered to the Persians and Cyrus’s forces entered Babylon apparently without a fight. Cyrus was subsequently proclaimed king of Babylonia and its subject territories, thus ending the independence of Babylon and incorporating the Babylonian Empire into the greater Persian Empire.
Nabonidus fled to Babylon, where he was pursued by Gobryas (also known as Darius the Mede), and on the 16th day of Tammuz, two days after the capture of Sippara, the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting. Nabonidus was captured and history vaguely records that his life was spared. Gobryas (Darius the Mede), was made governor of the province of Babylon and Belshazzar was killed. Thus marked the end of the Babylonian Empire which then fell to the Medes and the Persians.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Dan 5:1, Dan 5:2, Isa 21:4-9, Isa 47:9, Jer 51:11, Jer 51:31, Jer 51:39, Jer 51:57
Reciprocal: 2Sa 13:28 – heart is merry 1Ki 16:9 – drinking 1Ki 20:12 – drinking 2Ki 19:35 – that night Job 14:5 – his days Job 27:20 – a tempest Job 34:20 – a moment Job 36:20 – cut Ecc 7:4 – the heart Isa 5:14 – he that rejoiceth Isa 47:8 – given Isa 47:13 – Let now Jer 25:35 – the shepherds Jer 50:24 – and thou wast Jer 50:35 – upon her princes Jer 51:52 – the wounded Dan 7:1 – Belshazzar Dan 8:4 – pushing Luk 16:25 – remember Act 24:25 – temperance
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE JUDGE AT THE DOOR
In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
Dan 5:30
Secular historians tell us of the wickedness of this king. Cowardice, too, was one of his faults, for whilst his colleague in the kingdom, who had usurped the first place, and left the second to the son and heir of Nebuchadnezzar (hence Daniel was to be third in the kingdom), went bravely to meet Cyrus, the enemy, in the open field, and for eighteen months defended the city against all his attacks, Belshazzar gave himself up to riot and revelry. His motto was business to-morrow, and in response to the warning or death to-night, an idle Why, let it come, then! He wrought his crowning act of impiety whilst the legions of Cyrus thundered at the gates (Dan 5:2); but even then the Judge was at the door.
I. In that night a magnificent patrimony was lost.How often does a foolish son squander the acquisitions of a fathers life! A vast empire was handed down by Nebuchadnezzar. Why was this, but because the lessons of that fathers life had been forgotten? Of this Daniel faithfully reminds him (Dan 5:18-24).
II. In that night judgment lurked at the door of sin.The trophies of his fathers power, the golden and silver vessels of the Temple, were brought forth, and then came the fearful handwriting on the wall (cf. 1Th 5:3-7; the antediluvians; Sodom and Gomorrah).
III. In that night conscience was roused, and Gods servant sought too late.Men too often live in sinful riot and folly, and when the Judge standeth at the door, and they see the doom written, their knees smite one against another (1Th 5:6), and they would fain in their fear hearken to the words of wisdom. Too late!
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Dan 5:30. The history above explains in what sense Belshazzar was king,
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 5:30-31. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revelling, as Herodotus, lib. 1., and Xenophon, inform us. The latter relates the story thus, Cyropd., lib. 7. That two deserters, Gadatas and Gobryas, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards, and seize upon the palace, they entered into the room where the king was, whom they found standing up in a posture of defence; but they soon despatched him, and those that were with him. It seems not improbable, likewise, that they burned the houses of the city, or at least the advanced buildings, in their progress, and forced the citizens to quit them in the greatest consternation; for they came upon them with such surprise, that, according to Herodotus, they had passed through the gates, which were left open in this riotous night, and had taken the extreme parts of the city, before those who inhabited the middle parts knew of the capture, lib. 1. p. 77. Thus the prophecy of Jeremiah was accomplished, that Babylon should be taken at the time of a public feast, while her princes and great men, &c., should be drunken, and should sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake: see notes on Jer 51:32; Jer 51:39; Jer 51:57. Respecting the method practised by Cyrus to surprise the city, by draining that part of the Euphrates which ran through it, together with many other curious particulars relating to Babylon, see notes on Isaiah 13. And Darius the Median took the kingdom This Darius is said to be one of the seed of the Medes, Dan 9:1, and is supposed, by the most judicious chronologers, to be the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages; him Cyrus made king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mothers side, and his partner in carrying on the war against the Babylonians; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased, as Xenophon relates, Cyropd., lib. 8. As Darius succeeded to the empire through Cyruss permission, or appointment, and was dependant upon him for it, Ptolemys canon supposes Cyrus to be the immediate successor of Nabonnedus, or Belshazzar, and allots nine years to his reign; whereas Xenophon reckons two of these years to Darius, and seven to Cyrus. The Chaldee phrase, rendered here took the kingdom, is translated, possessed the kingdom, Dan 7:18, and means the same with succeeding in the kingdom. Lowth.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus, the Babylonian Chronicles, and Cyrus (on the Cyrus Cylinder) all described the fall of Babylon in writings that have remained to the present day. [Note: See Goldingay, pp. 106-7; James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 305-6, 315-16; D. W. Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, pp. 81-83, 92-95; Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 1:20; and J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 31.] Isaiah and Jeremiah had predicted Babylon’s fall (Isa 13:17-22; Isa 21:1-10; Isa 47:1-5; Jer 51:33-58). The Persians diverted the water from the Euphrates River that flowed south through Babylon into an ancient lake located to the north. This allowed them to walk into the city on the riverbed and scale the undefended walls that flanked the river. [Note: For a plan of the city, see any good Bible dictionary or encyclopedia, or Kraeling, p. 322.] Herodotus pictured Babylon’s fall as follows:
"Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man’s thigh, and thus got into the town. Had the Babylonians been appraised of what Cyrus was about, or had they noticed their danger, they would never have allowed the Persians to enter the city, but would have destroyed them utterly; for they would have made fast all the street-gates which gave upon the river, and mounting upon the walls along both sides of the stream, would so have caught the enemy as it were in a trap. But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and took the city. Owing to the vast size of the place, the inhabitants of the central parts (as the residents at Babylon declare), long after the outer portions of the town were taken, knew nothing of what had chanced, but as they were engaged in a festival, continued dancing and revelling [sic] until they learnt the capture but too certainly." [Note: Herodotus, 1:191.]
"The downfall of Babylon is in type the downfall of the unbelieving world [cf. Revelation 17-18]. In many respects, modern civilization is much like ancient Babylon, resplendent with its monuments of architectural triumph, as secure as human hands and ingenuity could make it, and yet defenseless against the judgment of God at the proper hour. Contemporary civilization is similar to ancient Babylon in that it has much to foster human pride but little to provide human security. Much as Babylon fell on the sixteenth day of Tishri (Oc. 11 or 12) 539 B.C., as indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle, so the world will be overtaken by disaster when the day of the Lord comes (1Th 5:1-3 [cf. Psa 2:4-6; Rev 19:15-16]). The disaster of the world, however, does not overtake the child of God; Daniel survives the purge and emerges triumphant as one of the presidents of the new kingdom in chapter 6." [Note: Walvoord, p. 131. For the Nabonidus Chronicle reference, see John C. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede, p. 73.]
The record of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel is the story of an overbearing king who experienced temporary judgment, but the story of Belshazzar is one of a sacrilegious king who suffered permanent judgment. Xenophon also recorded Belshazzar’s death. The night of revelry that had become a night of revelation now turned into a night of retribution. [Note: Campbell, p. 65.]
"Historically, Belshazzar perhaps fell because he could not handle a political crisis; but more profoundly, as Daniel sees it, he fell because of his irresponsibility before God . . ." [Note: Godlingay, p. 116.]