Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 5:1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

1. Belshazzar ] Babyl. Bl-shar-uur, ‘Bel, protect the king!’ LXX. Theod. and Vulg. confuse this name with Belteshazzar (Dan 1:7), representing both by , ‘Baltassar.’

to a thousand of his lords ] in accordance with the magnificence of Eastern monarchs.

and drank, &c.] and before the thousand was drinking wine. By ‘before’ is no doubt meant, facing the guests, at a separate table, on a raised dais at the end of the banqueting-hall. We have little or no information respecting the custom of the king at state-banquets in Babylon: but something similar is reported, or may be inferred, of royal banquets among the Persians (Athen. iv. 26, p. 145 c, ll. 1 3; cf. Rawl. Anc. Mon. 4 iii. 215), and Parthians (Athen. iv. 38, p. 153 a b).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Belshazzar the king – See Introduction to the chapter, Section II. In the Introduction to the chapter here referred to, I have stated what seemed to be necessary in order to illustrate the history of Belshazzar, so far as that can be now known. The statements in regard to this monarch, it is well understood, are exceedingly confused, and the task of reconciling them is now hopeless. Little depends, however, in the interpretation of this book, on the attempt to reconcile them, for the narrative here given is equally credible, whichever of the accounts is taken, unless that of Berosus is followed. But it may not be improper to exhibit here the two principal accounts of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, that the discrepancy may be distinctly seen. I copy from the Pictorial Bible. The common account we shall collect from LArt de Verifier les Dates, and the other from Hales Analysis, disposing them in opposite colums for the sake of comparison:

Comparison of Historical Accounts of Nebuchadnezzar
From LArt de Verifier		From Hales’s Analysis
605	Nebuchacnezzar, who was succeeded by his son.	604	Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son.
562	Evil-Merodach, who, having provoked general indignation by his tyranny and atrocities, was, after a short reign of about two years, assassinated by his brother-in-law.	561	Evil-Merodach, or Ilverodam, who was slain in a battle against the Medes and Persians, and was succeeded by his son.
560	Nerigilassar, or Nericassolassar, who was regarded as a deliverer and succeeded by the choice of the nation. He perished in a battle by Cyrus, and was succeeded by his son.	558	Neriglissar, Niricassolassar, or Belshazzar, the common accounts of whom seem to combine what is said both of Neriglissar, and his son opposite. He was killed by conspirators on the night of the impious feast, leaving a son (a boy).
555	Laborosoarchod, notorious for his cruelty and oppression, and who was assassinated by two nobles, Gobryas and Gadatas, whose sons he had slain. The vacant throne was then ascended by.	553	Laborosoarchod, on whose death, nine months after, the dynasty became extinct, and the kingdom came peaceably to Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares who, on the will-known policy of the Medes and Persians, appointed a Babylonian nobleman, named Nabonadius, or Labynetus, to be king, or viceroy. This person revotled against Cyrus, who had succeeded to the united empire of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus could not immediately attend to him, but at last marched to Babylon, took the city, b.c. 536, as foretold by the prophets.
554	Nabonadius, the Labynetus of Herodotus, the Naboandel of Josephus, and the Belshazzar of Daniel, who was the son of Evil-Merodach, and who now succeeded to the throne of his
538	father. After a voluptuous reign, his city was taken by the Persians under Cyrus, on which occasion he lost his life.

It will be observed that the principal point of difference in these accounts is, that Hales contends that the succession of Darius the Mede to the Babylonian throne was not attended with war; that Belshazzar was not the king in whose time the city was taken by Cyrus; and, consequently, that the events which took place this night were quite distinct from and anterior to that siege and capture of the city by the Persian king which Isaiah and Jeremiah so remarkably foretold.

Made a great feast – On what occasion this feast was made is not stated, but is was not improbably an annual festival in honor of some of the Babylonian deities. This opinion seems to be countenanced by the words of the Codex Chisianus, Belshazzar the king made a great festival en hemera engkainismou ton basileion) on the day of the dedication of his kingdom; and in Dan 5:4 it is said that they praised the gods of gold, of silver, and of brass, etc.

To a thousand of his lords – The word thousand here is doubtless used as a general term to denote a very large number. It is not improbable, however, that this full number was assembled on such an occasion. Ctesias says, that the king of Persia furnished provisions daily for fifteen thousand men. Quintus Curtius says that ten thousand men were present at a festival of Alexander the Great; and Statius says of Domitian, that he ordered, on a certain occasion, his guests to sit down at a thousand tables. – Prof. Stuart, in loc.

And drank wine before the thousand – The Latin Vulgate here is, And each one drank according to his age. The Greek of Theodotion, the Arabic, and the Coptic is, and wine was before the thousand. The Chaldee, however, is, as in our version, he drank wine before the thousand. As he was the lord of the feast, and as all that occurred pertained primarily to him, the design is undoubtedly to describe his conduct, and to show the effect which the drinking of wine had on him. He drank it in the most public manner, setting an example to his lords, and evidently drinking it to great excess.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Dan 5:1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast.

Belshazzar

This feast is, like how many other events, rescued from oblivion by the interposition of a Divine hand. The presence of God in history is its salt, and keeps it from perishing. When does credible history begin, but with the exodus of Israel from Egypt? What kind of interest attaches to European history, apart from the work of God in the church? Let English history be read, minus the Reformation and Puritan element, and it would be very meagre and watery. What rescues human life from insignificance? The presence of God What gives to the work of every day a serious interest? The presence of God. Whereever we see the finger of God, we are arrested. We may see it in the page of history, in the life of a family, in the quiet prosperity of a church. This poor, luxurious, profane king, who comes up, drinks, trembles for an hour before us in the blaze of splendour, and then passes away swiftly into chaos and old night–this reveller would never have been heard of, but for the fingers of a mans hand that wrote ever against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of his palace. There is nothing interesting in this man. He does nothing, says nothing, is nothing; nothing but a dark ground on which fiery letters are written, the more luminous because the ground is black. We take a kind of interest in Nebuchadnezzar, with his proud, stormy greatness; with his gigantic plans and terrible visions. We read of his insanity with concern approaching to horror. If Belshazzar excites any feeling in our minds it is utter astonishment at his folly. Was this a time to give a great feast to the thousand of his lords? Cyrus, with his mighty army, lay outside his city–Cyrus, who had already defeated him in a pitched battle–Cyrus, the greatest soldier in the world. What had the gods of gold and silver done for Nebuchadnezzar? How had they avenged the slight put upon the golden image which he had set up? What had they done for the poor insane king? How had they helped Belshazzar lately, when Cyrus beat him and shut him up in Babylon, a prisoner in his own capital? They slighted the great and awful past, with its stern lessons; and they have always had a hard and dreadful future, who made early work of the past. If men will not take the trouble to read the warnings of yesterday, to-morrows fingers will write a word on their walls which will scare their eyeballs, and make their knees shake! Oh, take kindly to the warnings of all history, but of your own in particular, for it is as grave and important to you as over Belshazzars ought to have been to him. But when they made light of the God of Israel over their cups, they made light of those portions and parcels of the dreadful past, which they must have known and remembered. Thou, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this. They lifted up themselves against the Lord of heaven, though they had seen His marvellous works wrought before them. The fiery furnace, the four men in the fire, the dream, the madness, the recovery, the proclamation; they knew it all; they slighted it all; and at this time, too, with the foe at their gate, and such a foe! The Chaldeans are called in, as of old, and, as usual, are at fault. Then the queen mother, Nitocris, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, came into the banquet-house. Profane history speaks well of this lady. She was a wise and prudent woman, and had the chief administration of affairs Her memory was all alive. She recollected past perplexities. She remembered Daniel, and said, Let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Then Daniel was brought in before the king. Scarlet and a gold chain! and, in the meantime, the Mede and the Persian are entering by stealth, like thieves in the night, through the dried-up bed of the Euphrates! Let thy gifts be to thyself. Tekel Weighed in the balances and found wanting. A very significant word. It represents God as putting us into a just balance, and judging accordingly. This is not an unusual figure. Thou dost weigh the path of the just. By the Lord actions are weighed. All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits. We all remember how strongly the Bible speaks of a just weight. Look at this great appearance of royal government, pride, pomp, and circumstance of state–Belshazzars rule over the poor people of Babylon–how fine it all looks. But look at it; is it doing what it professes to do? Is it defending the city? Is if caring for the poor? Drunken on the night of the seige. A sham government. Light as a leaf before the whirlwind. God takes it up, weighs it, finds it worthless, and throws it to Cyrus. Then the officer of justice steps in and does his work. Pass for what you are; and be what you pass for; or Peres, the sentence will go against you. You pass for a Christian, you use the passwords of the Christian religion; men take your word, just as without suspicion we take our pounds of meat and tea, and pay for them. Is it only seemingly good weight? Tekel you will be found out. A light ruler! But stop! before we blame Belshazzar and other light kings, let us ask a question–Are you doing in the royal line what you profess to do? Are you ruling your households in the fear of God? Is there a just government there! Is there equity, love, purity, the law of truth, swaying the family? Ye the scrutiny of Heaven is there a kingdom of God there? And how is the inner kingdom ruled? You profess to have a conscience, a presiding judge–reason. Are you taking it easy, and making light of your responsibilities, of the charge which God has laid upon you, and thinking that God doth not see? Let integrity and uprightness preserve us, O God of our salvation. (B. Kent.)

Belshazzars Feast

Now let us look at the scene. What is this a picture of? Can you express the whole of that revel in one word? I think I can, and this is the word–godlessness. When, presently, the soothsayers have proved their ignorance, and the enchanters are unable to decipher the mystic writing upon the wail, and Daniel comes, what is the supreme charge that he makes against Belshazzar? He does not charge him with drunkenness, though he is drunk: he does not charge him with sacrilege, though he has sent for the golden vessels of the House of God in order that these drinking men may drink from them; he does not charge him with lasciviousness of life, although there are tokens of it on every hand in that banqueting hall. This is the charge that Daniel makes against the king. He passes from the superficial to the central, and in these words he makes his supreme charge against the king: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast then not glorified. Every power of the king was a God-given power–his breath, all his ways, his throne, his opportunity, his kingdom, his capacity for laughter and for tears–everything God-given, and yet he sat on the throne without reference to the other throne: exercised his kingship without reference to the other kingship; laughed without reference to God; entered into all the avenues of his own life and enjoyed the very blessings of Heaven, and yet without reference to God, and this not because of ignorance. And now mark in the case of this king how that supreme sin works itself out. Foolhardiness! The enemies are at the gate; Darius is on his way; the very kingdom over which the man presides in self-satisfying security is being undermined and shaken to its foundations. Foolhardiness! A feast where there ought to have been preparations for a fight Belshazzar has been living as though Nebuchadnezzar had never lived; Belshazzar has been living as though his father had never come under the immediate government of God; he has been living as though the great lessons of the past had never been uttered or taught. And you tell me he has forgotten! No, he never forgot; these men do not forget–they act as though they had forgotten, but forgotten they have not. But you say to me: How do you know he has not forgotten? Because when the wine has worked into his brain and the wit is out therefore, the underlying memory asserts itself in idiotic insult: Fetch the vessels of the House of God, and we will drink from them. That is how godlessness works out in its finality. If you let me turn aside for a moment, I can quite understand there is a young man who is living a godless life to-night, and he says: I never meant to do it. Belshazzar never meant to do it. Do not allow the sin to blind you to the facts of life that are patent on every hand. Do you suppose that any murderer who has gone to his doom ever meant to commit murder? Never. But it was the last bitter fruitage of the root of godlessness. That is how godlessness works itself out. And I look at that great banqueting hall with its thousand lords, and I look at Belshazzar, the man who knew, who had lived as though he did not know, who remembered in the midst of the revelry, and then insulted God.. Now, still watching that hall and that scene, I pray you mark the next fact: the Divine assertion in the midst of the revelry, the handwriting by which God asserted His own presence and His own Divine right amid all the revelry of foolhardy men. For let me say at once that all the mystery of the soothsayers and the enchanters was not due to the mystery of the writing, but to their attempt to explain away simple, evident truths. Mene, everyone knew that it meant remembered; Tekel, everyone know that it meant weighed; Upharsin, everyone knew that it meant divided. And whereas I do not for a single moment want to take away from the fact that there dwelt in Daniel the spirit of insight into spiritual things; in Daniel as in many another man, the spirit that sees into the heart of spiritual things is the spirit of a little child. It was the cleverness of the soothsayers that prevented their understanding the writing on the wail, and all the heated feverishness of the king to get someone to explain it was not heated feverishness to get someone to explain it, but to explain it away; and what Daniel did was to come and speak the truth and enforce it and drive it home, the truth that was patent to the king. This was God asserting Himself in the life of this man. It was an assertion of Himself that interfered with all human arrangements, that disturbed the feast. Just look at the king. His knees smote together, his countenance was changed, he sees all the horror of his own foolhardiness and all the awful fruitage of his own sin. If he can he will escape it; if he can he will undo the past and blot out his own handwriting; but he cannot, and God has come into the midst of the revelry to disturb the life of this man. Now, mark the writing for a moment. Remembered, counted, finished–there is no more. The solemnity of this whole story lies in the fact that it is not a warning uttered, but a verdict pronounced. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. In looking at the narrative as we have been doing for the last few minutes, I cannot possibly put any single word of hope into the story. It is not a story of hope; it is a story of judgment; swift, sure, irrevocable–nothing left. A man had his opportunity, had his examples, had his warnings, best of all had God–failed. Now, why take you back to the old story? Only in order that I may now for a few moments endeavour to take out of the story the principles of importance and ask you to face them. And what is the first? That the supreme sin of every life, including all others within it, is the sin of godlessness. Godlessness is the root of sin. And if it should happen that to-night in the case of some person in this house the end should come, if your years are numbered and the last hour is upon you and you have failed, what is your sin? Exactly what this mans sin was. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. You belong to God, everything you have is a Divine gift, and all these years of your life up to the present moment What is the story of your life? You are God-created; His image is on your brow; the supreme glory of the Godhead in some sense is reproduced and re-expressed in you. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways. What relation have you borne to Him? And I want to ask you now for a moment, since God created man and God preserved man, what relation have you borne in the days and years of your life to the God who created you, to the God who has preserved you? That is the supreme thing; there is no other question left; there is no other problem ought to vex the heart of man but that. Now, is it true of you that you have not glorified Him? You have thought of Him as a distant Deity; you have thought of Him, perhaps, as a supreme intelligent force behind Nature, to be spoken of reverently and nothing more; you have thought of Him as the God of judgment and the God of mercy, for you have lived in the gentle light which breaks from the cross of the Crucified. But these things are of no moment; the question is, How have you answered your knowledge and your conviction concerning God? And remember, godlessness is the life lived within the provision of God that never recognises the One who provides. I would have you very solemnly put away from your mind the false idea that godlessness is the peculiar condition of the man who dwells in the slum, that godlessness is that which expresses itself in profanity and bestiality and lasciviousness–all those things are true, but there is a godlessness which is refined, cultured, pleasant, and yet is the most arrant and hardening godlessness of the age, issuing in indifference and presently manifesting itself, it may be, in the sceptical allusion and the pitying and patronising attitude which a man takes up to those who are godly people.

Oh! the blight of it. That is the supreme sin. And out of this sin of godlessness spring all the other sins. Folly! A man has lost the balance of life who has lost his sense of and obedience to God. But what was the supreme sin of the man illustrated in the story of the prodigal? It was this, that he took his fathers substance and wasted it in riotous living. And that is the sin of humanity the whole way along. It is you sin that every gift God has bestowed upon you, you have wasted upon yourself. And there is no man more blind, no man more utterly foolish, no man proving his insanity more than the man who lives through these days so swiftly passing without reference to God and without relation to God. Godlessness issues in folly; godlessness leaves a man a prey to all the lusts to play about the life to tempt. And what is the other lesson? It is that, sooner or later, God asserts Himself in every human life. The freedom of the will is a limited freedom. God in His great universe will never allow the will of man to be so free as wreck for evermore all who come into contact with him. Liberty and licence are two things, and there must be a moment when God arrests the life and deals with the man. This man knew about Nebuchadnezzar and yet did not humble himself; he never laid the glory of his own opportunity at the footstool of the Divine sovereignty, and made wreckage of his life in consequence. God, at some point, comes into every mans life, arresting it. Ah! you will say, I have not glorified God, and the godlessness of principle hag blossomed into the fruitage of evil habit. Do not play with the habit do not try to cut off the habit; get down to the principle, and by way of the cross of Christ to-night find your way back into the Kingdom of God, yielding to Him your whole life, trusting in the Saviour who comes with matchless patience wooing you back to God, and then, when presently the story is told of your life, instead of the sentence being passed, Found wanting, it will be written, Ye are complete in Him. (G. Campbell Morgan.)

The Night Feast of Belshazzar

Belshazzar was the last of the Babylonian kings. The great feast which he made for a thousand of his lords was on the last night of his reign. He belonged to the proud and profligate race of the Chaldeans, whom the Hebrew prophets describe as given to pleasures, dwelling carelessly, and trusting in wickedness. All this can be abundantly shown from the Hebrew prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; from the Greek historians, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Diodorus and from inscriptions on monuments that remain to this day. And knowing all this concerning the young men of that great and mighty city of ancient time, we are not surprised that Babylon became a desolation. The day of doom is not far off from thy great city when its young men have become tender and delicate; nerveless and spiritless about the nobler demands of effort and duty. There is no more effectual way to destroy a great and mighty nation than to give its young men all the money they want, provide them with plays and festivities and amusements and dances and wine, and then leave them to sweat the life and manhood out of body and soul in the hot-bed of pleasure and self-indulgence. That is the way Babylon was ruined. That is the way imperial Rome became an easy prey to northern barbarians. That is the way Christian Constantinople came under the debasing and abominable sway of Mohammedans. That is the way Venice ended a thousand years of independent and glorious history with shame and servitude. Belshazzar had everything to flatter his pride and indulge his passions. He was an absolute monarch, holding the life and property of his thousand lords and his countless people entirely at his disposal. His servants were princes. His concubines were the daughters of kings. His capital was enriched with the spoils of nations–his provinces were cultivated by captive people. He was hasty and violent in temper, yet effeminate and luxurious in his habits of living. He was gracious and indulgent toward his favourites; and yet when their best efforts to please him did not happen to suit his caprice of the moment, he would be cruel as the grave. The great hall of the palace, in which he feasted his thousand lords reclining upon couches, was large enough to accommodate four times as many guests arranged as we now seat ourselves at table. It was adorned with carvings and sculptures of colossal dimensions, and the lofty walls were emblazoned with the trophies of war and the symbols of idolatrous worship. The profane orgies of royal mirth were adorned with every artistic decoration that the genius of the age could supply. I believe that the fine arts are capable of ministering to the highest and purest civilisation; but thus far they have done little to enlighten the ignorant, to lift up the degraded, or to help the world forward in the career of moral improvement. They have always flourished in the corrupt and reeking society of a dissolute and licentious age. Rome, the modern Babylon, was never more depraved and abominable than when it had Michael Angelo to build St. Peters, and Raphael to fresco the Vatican. The capital of France was never more like Rome than when the Grand Monarque, Louis the Fourteenth, dazzled the world with his splendid court, and the great masters of every land were decorating the palaces of Fontainbleau, Versailles, and the Louvre, with the loftiest achievements of art. In three hundred years the highest art has done less to refine and improve the common people in Rome and Naples than would be done by the spelling-book and New Testament in one year. Belshazzar inherited the pride, the glory, the riches, the power, the palaces, the capital, the kingdom of his great father. He inherited enough to ruin any young man who was not fortified by great strength of character and a severe mastery of his own appetites and passions. At the time immediately preceding the great feast which Belshazzar made for his thousand lords, the province of Babylon had been overrun and the capital assailed by a great army from the north. But, for some strange and inexplicable reason, the besieging force had apparently withdrawn. No effort appears to have been made to discover what had become of the enemy, or what had occasioned their disappearance. It was enough that they could no longer be seen from the towers and walls. It was taken for granted that the siege was abandoned and the war was over. The whole city was immediately given up to rejoicing and every form of riotous excess. Belshazzar set the example, and people and princes were only too ready to imitate their king. The music and the banquet and the wine; the garlands, the rose-edours, and the flowers; the sparkling eyes, the flashing ornaments, the jewelled arms, the raven hair, the braids, the bracelets, the thin robes floating like clouds; the fair forms, the delusion and the false enchantment of the dizzy scene, take away all reason and all reverence from the flushed and crowded revellers. There is now nothing too sacred for them to profane, and Belshazzar himself takes the lead in the riot and the blasphemy. Even the mighty and terrible Nebuchadnezzar, who desolated the sanctuary of Jehovah at Jerusalem, would not use his sacred trophies in the worship of his false gods. But this weak and wicked successor of the great conqueror, excited with wine and carried away with the delusion that no foe can ever capture his great city, is anxious to make some grand display of defiant and blasphemous desecration. At the very moment when their sacrilegious revelry was at its height, the bodiless hand came forth and wrote the words of doom upon the wall of the banqueting-room; the armies of Cyrus had turned the Euphrates out of its channel, and marched into the unguarded city along the bed of the stream beneath the walls; they were already in possession of the palace-gates when Belshazzar and his princes were drinking wine from the vessels of Jehovah, and praising the gods of gold and silver and stone; and that great feast of boasting and of blasphemy was the last ceremonial of the Chaldean kings. The reckless and the profane not unfrequently display the greatest gaiety and thoughtlessness when they are on the very brink of destruction. The feeling and the appearance of safety are not always to be taken for reality. Death still enters the banquet-hall anti the ball-room as well as the bed-chamber. The last opportunity for any good work is apt to look just like all that came and went before it. We seldom know that; it is the last, until it is gone never to return. Our only safe way to improve the last opportunity is to use all that come as if any one might be the last. The apparent thoughtlessness of the gay and worldly does not prove that they are at peace with themselves A smiling face and a reckless manner are sometimes put on to hide an anxious and an aching heart. To find joy in everything we do, we must do everything for God. To have the light of Heaven upon our faces in all the dark hours of trial and trouble, we must have Heavens peace in our hearts. The messages of the gospel is Gods way of peace for man. Belshazzar and his thousand lords did not profane the golden vessels of Jehovah until they had drunk wine. Indulgence in the intoxicating cup prepares the way for every excess and profanation. No man can be sure that he will be saved from any degree of shame or crime when once he has a put an enemy in his mouth to steal away his reason. The eye of the Great Judge is upon every scene of profanity and dissipation. The handwriting appeared upon the wall of the bouquet-room in Belshazzars palace in the hour of their wildest mirth, to show that God was there. And God is in every scene of wickedness and dissipation not less really than in the Holy Place of His own sanctuary. The finger of God is ever writhing the witness of His presence with us upon the living tablets of our hearts. That infinite and awful Witness is in every storehouse, workshop, and place of business, every day of the week and every hour of the day. In the deepest solitude we must all have one companion. To every act and word of our lives there must be one witness, and that witness is the holy and sin-hating God. We cannot escape our accountability to Him. Why, then, not live so that we can give Him our account with joy? Conscience is a mysterious and mighty power in us all. The great and terrible king Belshazzar was completely mastered and unmanned by its secret whisper. He was afraid, because an accusing conscience always makes darkness and mystery terrible to the guilty. It is mightiest in the mighty. Miltons Satan, Byrons Manfred, Shakespeares Macbeth and Richard the Third are truthful illustrations of the harrowing torture produced in the mightiest mind by the calm, solemn voice within, which only says, You are wrong. The Supreme Creater has put us absolutely in the power of that mysterious judge which pronounces sentence in our own bosoms upon all our conduct and motives. And we cannot conceive anything worse for a man than to die and go into the eternal world with an unappeased and accusing conscience to keep him company and to torment him for ever. Belshazzar had riches, and pleasure, and glory. He was absolute master in the greatest palace and the greatest city the world had ever seen. But what is his life worth to the world now, except to warn men not to live as he did? With all his splendour and luxury he lived a wretched man, and he died as the fool dies. He lifted himself up against God, he trusted in wickedness, and so he became but as the chaff which the wind driveth away. And the same sovereign God counts out the days of life to us all. He weighs our character, our conduct, our motives, in the balances of infinite truth. And there is no deficit so damaging as that which is charged to one who is found wanting before God. It has been said that the thought of our responsibility to God is the greatest thought ever entertained by the greatest mind. Certainly the discoveries and demonstrations of science cannot carry our minds so far over the sweep of ages and over the expanse of the universe as the bare thought that our individual being is bound inseparably and for ever to the being of the infinite and eternal God. Whatever we do, wherever we are, we can never cease to be responsible to Him. For He has appointed us to do His work. He has given us the means, the faculties, and the opportunity; and He holds us answerable for using them well. What the world wants most is men in whose minds the great thought of responsibility to God is ever present–men who are made strong by the consciousness that they are doing Gods work. (D. Marsh, D.D.)

Belshazzars Feast

The character of Belshazzar appears to have been of the most contemptible description. He was addicted to the lowest vices of self indulgence, and felt no restraint whatever in the gratification of his desires. With all this there was combined an arrogance of the haughtiest kind, which would brook no interference with his designs, and would submit to no expostulation in the interests of morality. At length, however, the cup of his iniquities became full.

1. The intemperance by which this banquet was characterised. He cared for nothing but the revelry of the hour. We know too well the concomitants of an excess like this.

2. The profanity by which this banquet was characterised. There is an old fable which tells of a man who had the choice which of three sins he would commit–drunkenness, adultery, or murder. He chose drunkenness, as being apparently the least, but when he was intoxicated he committed both the others, and thus ended by being guilty of all three. Profanity is rampant even in our midst. Who among us has not often had his ears pained and his heart sickened by the unhallowed use of the name of God by those who have no reverence for him in their hearts? O that men would remember that holy law which says that the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain!

3. This night was one of supernatural visitation. What means the sudden lull in the noisy revel? The king is pointing, with a shudder of agony, where a mysterious hand is tracing letters on the wall. No ray of hope brightens the gloom of that awful sentence.

4. A night of terrible retribution. God threatens, but He means what He says, and He will bring it to pass. God is faithful who has threatened. (W. M Taylor, D.D.)

Excessive Social Enjoyment

Social enjoyment, when guided by reason, when bounded by temperance, when springing from mutual benevolence, is not forbidden by religion, and may tend, in so far, within these limits, to promote the welfare of the world. Considering, however, the shortness of mans life, the solemnity of his condition as a lost sinner, the infinite eternity into which he must soon enter, and the tribunal of Divine holiness before which he must soon stand, it appears evident that man has not much time to spend in feasting. Considering the destitution and misery that are in the world, it is also clear that he cannot devote much of his means to this end without being guilty of inhumanity to his fellow-creatures and disobedience to that God who commands us, according to our ability, to show kindness to the poor. Much immorality, much inhumanity, much ungodliness, are manifested by all classes in the large sums which they expend, and the time, more precious than gold, which they dissipate, in feasts and entertainments. It is one of the crimes of our land, and fast becoming one of its calamities, that our ancient simplicity, and our ancient sobriety and frugality, are fast departing from among us, and that, instead of them, there is coming in a flood of epicureanism, and affectation, and frivolity. Luxury, love of false refinement, refinement of manners and not of morals, refinement in appearance apart from dignity of character, is coming in upon us more and more, in every succeeding generation. And unless there be a change in the morality of the land, effected by its religion, or some awful calamity be sent to us by a righteous Providence, this growing luxuriousness will, in a short time, be the ruin of our beloved country. It will dissolve the national character. It will be worse than hurting the trade or hurting the agriculture of the land. It will hurt the population. It will produce a degenerate race of men. Luxury, as all history shows, is one of the greatest among national evils. (William White.)

Belshazzars Feast

I. THE FEAST OF BELSHAZZAR. It was a great annual festival, commemorative of some great event. Some think it was Sacae, the Saturnalia of the Babylonians. Others say it was a feast in honour of the kings birthday, or of his coronation. Whatever feast it was, it seems to have been attended with the pomp, religious rites, and services of the empire. The Babylonians were famous above all other nations for intemperance, especially in drinking. A feast commemorative of a mans birthday or of his marriage is not necessarily sinful. A national festival is not in itself sinful; nor was it the eating and drinking in moderation, but the excess, and the spirit in which it was done, that made Belshazzars feast so impious. Their excess was a great sin, but their defiance of Jehovah and impious mockery in using the sacred vessels brought from Jerusalem was a far greater sin. The king and his lords, by using the holy vessels of the Jewish temple for their licentious and idolatrous festival, hurled defiance at the God of Abraham, and showed their contempt for the power of Him who doeth according to His will in the armies of Heaven. The king, heated with wine, commanded them to bring in the vessels of the Jerusalem temple. There was needless insult to the captive Jews, as well as impious blasphemy against their God, in this desecration of their holy vessels. Any and every perversion of holy things is a desecration of them. When the sacrament is taken without faith to discern the Lords body, or to cover some sinister design, or as a passport to some office, then the sacred vessels of the Lords house are desecrated to an unholy end. In whatever way religion is dragged from its lofty and controlling sphere, and made to gild the claims of a party or of a sect, then and there we have a repetition of Belshazzars profanation. When the Sabbath is made a day of pleasure, of visiting, feasting, and writing letters–when the house of God is used for anything but the purposes of religious worship–then we have an approach to the desecration of Belshazzars feast. But let us leave this disquisition about the desecration of holy things and observe the feast. It was one of the greatest splendour. A mysterious writing appeared upon the plastering of the palace wall. As the king and his lords could not read the inscription, it is said, why were they thus afraid? They were afraid because their own consciences condemned them. All men who live in sin dread what is future and unknown. It has been asked why the wise men of Babylon could not read the inscription. The words are mainly Chaldean. Why could not the Chaldee scholar read them then as well as now? To this we answer, all the learned men of Spain could make an egg stand on the table after Columbus had shown them how. Several reasons are assigned by commentators for the inability of the kings astrologers to read the writing. One is, that the words were written in the ancient Hebrew character, the knowledge of which was even then lost to all except the Jewish priests and scribes, and not in the modern Hebrew character, which differs little or nothing from the Chaldee. The characters, the forms of the letters in which the Old Testament is commonly written, is not the ancient Hebrew characters. It is supposed that the square form of the letters now used is not the primitive form. English letters are alike, but the Greek characters are different. So, when, for convenience sake, the printer puts the Greek word aionios in English letters, the mere Greek scholar does not know his old acquaintance, nor the mere English scholar divine whence it comes nor what it means. If the inscription on the wall at Belshazzars feast was in ancient Hebrew characters, it is not strange that his wise men were unable to read it. Others think that the words were inscribed in hieroglyphics, of which the astrologers had no key, and that we have not the original in our Bible, but translations of the forms of the letters, as well as of the sense; others think that the writing was intelligible only to such as were aided in reading it by the Spirit of God: and others think they were so intoxicated or so frightened that they could not read. I only insist, however, on the fact that the kings astrologers could not read this inscription, and that Daniel could; and you will be pleased, no doubt, to observe how the interpretation was brought out. It was obtained, as is often the case with our greatest blessings, through the agency of woman, the aged grandmother of the king, the queen dowager, as our European cousins would call her. Blank terror and alarm reign in the court. The king and his courtiers are at their wits end. No one seems to be calm and self-possessed but Nitocris, the widow of old Nebuchadnezzar. She instantly steps up and suggests that Daniel should be sent for, and gives her reasons. It often happens that a woman, whose sex is usually so easily agitated by trifles, when overtaken by some great crisis, which calls forth an the latent energies of her soul, is found to display a calmness, a magnanimity., a self-possession that puts to shame the powers of the other sex. These astrologers were not enchanters–they were not diviners–they professed no communion with evil spirits. They were men who studied the signs of the Heavenly bodies, and having no written revelations, they believed that God had written the past, the present, and also something of the future in the sky–that the stars were the letters of that revelation, and that by studying them they might interpret things to come. In allowing himself, therefore, to be placed at their head, Daniel does not violate the laws of Moses against soothsayers, witches, and the like Satan-possessed persons. These wise men of Babylon were not peeping and muttering spirit tappers, whose pretended revelations were filling the land with lunatics. They were magi, but not magicians. They were philosophers, but not sorcerers. They held communion with Gods outward world, and not with the spirits of the dead or with devils.

II. THAT ONE SIN OFTEN LEADS TO ANOTHER. Sensuality is usually connected with profaneness, and both lead to ruin.

III. LEARN THAT THERE IS GREAT GUILT AND DESERVED PUNISHMENT IN NOT TAKING WARNING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF GOD UPON OTHERS, ESPECIALLY OUR OWN COUNTRYMEN AND ANCESTORS. (W. A.. Scott, D.D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER V

In the commencement of this chapter we are informed how

Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, when rioting in his

palace, and profaning the severed vessels of the temple, 1-4,

was suddenly terrified with the appearance of the fingers of a

man’s hand, which wrote a few words on the wall before him,

5, 6.

The wise men and astrologers were immediately called in to show

the king the interpretation; but they could not so much as read

the writing, because (as Houbigant and others have conjectured)

though the words are in the Chaldee tongue, yet they were

written in the Samaritan or ancient Hebrew characters, with

which the wise men of Babylon were very probably unacquainted,

as the Jews were at that time a despised people, and the

knowledge of their language not a fashionable attainment, 7-9.

Daniel, who had been so highly esteemed by Nebuchadnezzar for

his superior wisdom, appears to have been altogether unknown to

Belshazzar, till the queen (the same who had been the wife of

Nebuchadnezzar according to the general opinion, or the queen

consort according to others) had informed him, 10-12.

Upon the queen’s recommendation, Daniel is called in, 13-16;

who boldly tells this despotic king, that as he had not

benefited by the judgments inflicted on his grandfather, but

gave himself up to pride and profanity, and had added to his

other sins an utter contempt for the God of the Jews by

drinking wine out of the sacred vessels of Jehovah in honour of

his idols, 17-23;

the Supreme Being, the Ruler of heaven and earth, had written

his condemnation in three words, MENE, TEKEL, PERES, 24, 25;

the first of which is repeated in the copies containing the

Chaldean original; but all the ancient Versions, except the

Syriac, are without this repetition. Daniel then gives the king

and his lords the fearful import of the writing, viz., that the

period allotted for the duration of the Chaldean empire was now

completed, (see Jer 25:12-14,)

and that the kingdom was about to be transferred to the Medes

and Persians, 26-28.

However unwelcome such an interpretation must have been to

Belshazzar, yet the monarch, overwhelmed with its clearness and

certainty, commanded the prophet to be honoured, 29.

And that very night the prediction was fulfilled, for the king

was slain, 30,

and the city taken by the Medes and Persians, 31.

This great event was also predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah; and

the manner in which it was accomplished is recorded by

Herodotus and Xenophon.

NOTES ON CHAP. V.

Verse 1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast] This chapter is out of its place, and should come in after the seventh and eighth. There are difficulties in the chronology. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach his son ascended the throne of Babylon. Having reigned about two years, he was slain by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar. He reigned four years, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod, who reigned only nine months. At his death Belshazzar the son of Evil-merodach, was raised to the throne, and reigned seventeen years, and was slain, as we read here, by Cyrus, who surprised and took the city on the night of this festivity. This is the chronology on which Archbishop Usher, and other learned chronologists, agree; but the Scripture mentions only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, by name; and Jeremiah, Jer 27:7, expressly says, “All nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar,) and his son (Evil-merodach,) and his son’s son (Belshazzar,) until the very time of his land come;” i.e., till the time in which the empire should be seized by Cyrus. Here there is no mention of Neriglissar nor Laborosoarchod; but as they were usurpers, they might have been purposely passed by. But there remains one difficulty still: Belshazzar is expressly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar by the queen mother, Da 5:11: “There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and in the days of THY FATHER light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him: whom the king NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians.” The solution of this difficulty is, that in Scripture the name of son is indifferently given to sons and grandsons, and even to great grandsons. And perhaps the repetition in the above verse may imply this: “The king, Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king thy father.” The king thy father’s father, and consequently thy grandfather. If it have not some such meaning as this, it must be considered an idle repetition. As to the two other kings, Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, mentioned by Josephus and Berosus, and by whom the chronology is so much puzzled, they might have been some petty kings, or viceroys, or satraps, who affected the kingdom, and produced disturbances, one for four years, and the other for nine months; and would in consequence not be acknowledged in the Babylonish chronology, nor by the sacred writers, any more than finally unsuccessful rebels are numbered among the kings of those nations which they have disturbed. I believe the only sovereigns we can acknowledge here are the following:

1. Nabopolassar;

2. Nebuchadnezzar;

3. Evil-merodach;

4. Belshazzar; and with this last the Chaldean empire ended.

To a thousand of his lords] Perhaps this means lords or satraps, that were each over one thousand men. But we learn from antiquity that the Persian kings were very profuse in their entertainments; but it does not follow that the Chaldeans were so too. Besides, one thousand lords and their appropriate attendants would have been very inconvenient in a nocturnal assembly. The text, however, supports the common translation. Literally, “Belshazzar the king made bread for his lords a thousand; and against the thousand he drank wine.” That is, say some, he was a very great drinker.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Belshazzars name is from riches and power. They were wont, when they were promoted, to take new names, which also were significant, as this is, Belshazzar; Bel hath or gives power and riches; this they attributed to the honour of their idol, which belongs only to the God of heaven. There is much contest among the learned who this Belshazzar was; let us mind the Scripture, and not trust to heathen historians. In the second verse here he is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, his father, so Dan 5:11 twice, and Dan 5:13,18,22; if he were his son, then was he called also Merodach, or Evil-merodach. Yet he might be called his son though his grandson; under these three was the captivity, Jer 27:7, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar.

Made a great feast, after the manner of the East, who showed their magnificence this way, and pleased the epicurean palates of his nobles herein, it being no small piece of policy with some princes to oblige their grandees by balls and compotations; this I believe: yet I conceive also, this feast was anniversary for the honour of their idol Bel, as Herodotus testifieth. But this is prodigious, that he should carouse when the city was besieged and ready to be taken by Darius the Mede, for, saith the text, he drank wine before the thousand. These Bacchanalian feasts have often proved fatal and tragical, Es 1.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. BelshazzarRAWLINSON,from the Assyrian inscriptions, has explained the seeming discrepancybetween Daniel and the heathen historians of Babylon, BEROSUSand ABYDENUS, who say thelast king (Nabonidus) surrendered in Borsippa, after Babylon wastaken, and had an honorable abode in Caramania assigned to him.Belshazzar was joint king with his father (called Minusin the inscriptions), but subordinate to him; hence theBabylonian account suppresses the facts which cast discrediton Babylon, namely, that Belshazzar shut himself up in that city andfell at its capture; while it records the surrender of the principalking in Borsippa (see my Introductionto Daniel). The heathen XENOPHON’Sdescription of Belshazzar accords with Daniel’s; he calls him”impious,” and illustrates his cruelty by mentioning thathe killed one of his nobles, merely because, in hunting, the noblestruck down the game before him; and unmanned a courtier, Gadates, ata banquet, because one of the king’s concubines praised him ashandsome. Daniel shows none of the sympathy for him which he had forNebuchadnezzar. XENOPHONconfirms Daniel as to Belshazzar’s end. WINERexplains the “shazzar” in the name as meaning “fire.”

made . . . feastheaven-sentinfatuation when his city was at the time being besieged by Cyrus.The fortifications and abundant provisions in the city made the kingdespise the besiegers. It was a festival day among the Babylonians[XENOPHON].

drank . . . before thethousandThe king, on this extraordinary occasion, departedfrom his usual way of feasting apart from his nobles (compare Es1:3).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Belshazzar the king made a great feast,…. This king was not the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, but Evilmerodach, Jer 52:31, who, according to Ptolemy’s canon, reigned two years; then followed Neriglissar, his sister’s husband, by whom he was slain, and who usurped the throne, and reigned four years; he died in the beginning of his fourth year, and left a son called Laborosoarchod, who reigned but nine months, which are placed by Ptolemy to his father’s reign, and therefore he himself is not mentioned in the canon; and then followed this king, who by Ptolemy is called Nabonadius; by Berosus, Nabonnedus t by Abydenus u, Nabannidochus; by Herodotus w, Labynitus; and by Josephus x, Naboandelus, who, according to him, is the same with Belshazzar; whom some confound with the son of Neriglissar; others take him to be the same with Evilmerodach, because he here immediately follows Nebuchadnezzar, and is called his son, Da 5:11, and others that he was a younger brother, so Jarchi and Theodoret; but the truth is, that he was the son of Evilmerodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees with the prophecy in Jer 27:7, for though Nebuchadnezzar is called his father, and he his son, Da 5:2 this is said after the manner of the eastern nations, who used to call ancestors fathers, and their more remote posterity sons. He had his name Belshazzar from the idol Bel, and may be rendered, “Bel’s treasurer”: though, according to Saadiah, the word signifies “a searcher of treasures”, of his ancestors, or of the house of God. Hillerus translates it, “Bel hath hidden”. This king

made a great feast; or “bread” y, which is put for all provisions; it was great, both on account of plenty of food, variety of dishes, and number of guests, and those of the highest rank and quality. On what account this feast was made is not easy to say; whether out of contempt of Cyrus and his army, by whom he was now besieged, and to show that he thought himself quite safe and secure in a city so well walled and fortified, and having in it such vast quantities of provision; or whether it was on account of a victory he had obtained that morning over the Medes and Persians, as Josephus Ben Gorion z relates; and therefore in the evening treated his thousand lords, who had been engaged in battle with him, and behaved well: though it seems to have been an anniversary feast; since, according to Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus knew of it before hand; either on account of the king’s birthday, or in honour to his gods, particularly Shach, which was called the Sachaenan feast; [See comments on Jer 25:26] [See comments on Jer 51:41] which seems most likely, since these were praised at this time, and the vessels of the temple of God at Jerusalem profaned, Da 5:2, this feast was prophesied of by Isaiah, Isa 21:5 and by Jeremiah, Jer 51:39, it had its name from Shach, one of their deities, of which [See comments on Da 1:4] [See comments on Da 1:7] the same with Belus or the sun. The feasts kept in honour of it were much like the Saturnalia of the Romans, or the Purim of the Jews; and were kept eleven days together, in which everyone did as he pleased, no order and decorum being observed; and, for five of those days especially, there was no difference between master and servant, yea, the latter had the government of the former; and they spent day and night in dancing and drinking, and in all excess of riot and revelling a; and in such like manner the Babylonians were indulging themselves, when their city was taken by Cyrus, as the above writers assert b; and from the knowledge Cyrus had of it, it appears to be a stated feast, and very probably on the above account. According to Strabo c, there was a feast of this name among the Persians, which was celebrated in honour of the goddess Anais, Diana, or the moon; and at whose altar they placed together Amanus and Anandratus, Persian demons; and appointed a solemn convention once a year, called Saca. Some say the occasion of it was this; that Cyrus making an expedition against the Sacse, a people in Scythia, pretended a flight, and left his tents full of all provisions, and especially wine, which they finding, filled themselves with it; when he returning upon them, finding some overcome with wine and stupefied, others overwhelmed with sleep, and others dancing and behaving in a bacchanalian way, they fell into his hands, and almost all of them perished; and taking this victory to be from the gods, he consecrated that day to the god of his country, and called it Sacaea; and wherever there was a temple of this deity, there was appointed a bacchanalian feast, in which men, and women appeared night and day in a Scythian habit, drinking together, and behaving to one another in a jocose and lascivious manner; but this could not be the feast now observed at Babylon, though it is very probable it was something of the like nature, and observed in much the same manner. And was made “to a thousand of his lords”; his nobles, the peers of his realm, governors of provinces, c. such a number of guests Ptolemy king of Egypt feasted at one time of Pompey’s army, as Pliny from Varro relates d; but Alexander far exceeded, who at a wedding had nine (some say ten) thousand at his tables, and gave to everyone a cup of gold, to offer wine in honour of the gods e; and Pliny reports f of one Pythius Bythinus, who entertained the whole army of Xerxes with a feast, even seven hundred and eighty eight thousand men.

And drank wine before the thousand; not that he strove with them who should drink most, or drank to everyone of them separately, and so a thousand cups, as Jacchiades suggests; but he drank in the presence of them, to show his condescension and familiarity; this being, as Aben Ezra observes, contrary to the custom of kings, especially of the eastern nations, who were seldom seen in public. This feast was kept in a large house or hall, as Josephus g says, afterwards called the banqueting house, Da 5:10.

t Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. u Apud Euseb. Evangel. l. 9. c. 41. p. 457. w Clio, sive l. 1. c. 188. x Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2. y “panem”, Montanus, Piscator. All food is called bread, Jarchi in Lev. xxi. 17. z Hist. Hebr. l. 1. c. 5. p. 24. a Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 14. c. 10. ex Beroso & Ctesia. b Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 7. c. 23. Herodot. Clio, sive l. 1. c. 191. c Geograph. l. 11. p. 352, 353. d Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10. e Plutarch. in Vit. Alexand. f Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10.) g Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The verses describe the progress of Belshazzar’s magnifying himself against the living Do, whereby the judgment threatened came upon him and his kingdom. A great feast, which the king gave to his officers of state and to his wives, furnished the occasion for this.

The name of the king, , contains in it the two component parts of the name which Daniel had received (Dan 1:7), but without the interposed E, whereby it is distinguished from it. This distinction is not to be overlooked, although the lxx have done so, and have written the two names, as if they were identical, Balta’sar. The meaning of the name is as yet unknown. , meal-time, the festival. The invitation to a thousand officers of state corresponds to the magnificence of Oriental kings. According to Ctesias ( Athen. Deipnos. iv. 146), 15, 000 men dined daily from the table of the Persian king (cf. Est 1:4). To account for this large number of guests, it is not necessary to suppose that during the siege of Babylon by Cyrus a multitude of great officers from all parts of the kingdom had fled for refuge to Babylon. The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand. The words, he drank wine before the thousand (great officers), are not, with Hvernick, to be explained of drinking first, or of preceding them in drinking, or of drinking a toast to them, but are to be understood according to the Oriental custom, by which at great festivals the king sat at a separate table on an elevated place, so that he had the guests before him or opposite to him. The drinking of wine is particularly noticed as the immediate occasion of the wickedness which followed.

Dan 5:2

, while he tasted the wine, i.e., when the wine was relished by him; thus “in the wanton madness of one excited by wine, Pro 20:1” (Hitz.). From these words it appears that Belshazzar commanded the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem to be brought, not, as Hvernick thinks, for the purpose of seeking, in his anxiety on account of the siege of the city, the favour of the God of the Jews, but to insult this God in the presence of his own gods. The supposition of anxiety on account of the siege does not at all harmonize with the celebration of so riotous a festival. Besides, the vessels are not brought for the purpose of making libations in order to propitiate the God to whom they were consecrated, but, according to the obvious statement of the text, only to drink out of them from the madness of lust. , that they may drink; before the imperf. expresses the design of the bringing of the vessels. , to drink out of, as Gen 44:5; Amo 6:6. , the wives of the king; cf. Neh 2:6 with Psa 45:10. , concubines; this word stands in the Targg. for the Hebr. . The lxx have here, and also at Dan 5:23, omitted mention of the women, according to the custom of the Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans (cf. Herod. Ch. 5:18; Corn. Nep. proem. 6); but Xenophon ( Cyr. v. 2. 28) and Curtius (v. 1. 38) expressly declare that among the Babylonians the wives also were present at festivals.

Dan 5:3

denotes the holy place of the temple, the inner apartment of the temple, as at 1Ki 6:3; Eze 41:1. for , with prosthet., cf. Winer, chald. Gr. 23, 1.

Dan 5:4

In this verse the expression they drank wine is repeated for the purpose of making manifest the connection between the drinking and the praising of the gods. The wickedness lay in this, that they drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of Israel to glorify ( , to praise by the singing of songs) their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place “Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods” (Hvernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (Dan 5:23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated (see under Dan 1:2); the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel. And it was not a spirit of hostility aroused against the Jews which gave occasion, as Kranichfeld has well remarked, to this celebration of the victory of his god; but, as the narrative informs us, it was the reckless madness of the drunken king and of his drunken guests (cf. Dan 5:2) during the festival which led them to think of the God of the Jews, whom they supposed they had subdued along with His people, although He had by repeated miracles forced the heathen world-rulers to recognise His omnipotence (cf. Dan 2:47; 3:32f., 4:14 [Dan 4:17], 31 [34], 34 [37]). In the disregard of these revelations consisted, as Daniel represents to Belshazzar (cf. Dan 5:18), the dishonour done to the Lord of heaven, although these vessels of the sanctuary might have been profaned merely by using them as common drinking vessels, or they might have been used also in religious libations as vessels consecrated to the gods, of which the text makes no mention, although the singing of songs to the praise of the gods along with the drinking makes the offering of libations very probable. The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula into two classes: gold and silver – brass, iron, wood and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the vanity of these gods.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Belshazzar’s Feast; The Hand-writing on the Wall.

B. C. 538.

      1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.   2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.   3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.   4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.   5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.   6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.   7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.   8 Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.   9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

      We have here Belshazzar the king very gay, but all of a sudden very gloomy, and in straits in the fulness of his sufficiency. See how he affronts God, and God affrights him; and wait what will be the issue of this contest; and whether he that hardened his heart against God prospered.

      I. See how the king affronted God, and put contempt upon him. He made a great feast, or banquet of wine; probably it was some anniversary solemnity, in honour off his birth-day or coronation-day, or in honour of some of their idols. Historians say that Cyrus, who was now with his army besieging Babylon, knew of this feast, and presuming that they then would be off their guard, somno vinoque sepulti–buried in sleep and wine, took that opportunity to attack the city, and so with the more ease made himself master of it. Belshazzar upon this occasion invited a thousand of his lords to come and drink with him. Perhaps they were such as had signalized themselves in defense of the city against the besiegers; or these were his great council of war, with whom, when they had well drunk, he would advise what was further to be done. And they were to look upon it as a great favour that he drank wine before them, for it was the pride of those eastern kings to be seldom seen. He drank wine before them, for he made this feast, as Ahasuerus did, to show the honour of his majesty. Now in this sumptuous feast, 1. He put an affront upon the providence of God and bade defiance to his judgments. His city was now besieged; a powerful enemy was at his gates; his life and kingdom lay at stake. In all this the hand of the Lord had gone out against him, and by it he called him to weeping, and mourning, and girding with sackcloth. God’s voice cried in the city, as Jonah to Nineveh, Yet forty days, or fewer, and Babylon shall be destroyed. He should therefore, like the king of Nineveh, have proclaimed a fast; but, as one resolved to walk contrary to God, he proclaims a feast, and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine, as if he dared the Almighty to do his worst, Isa 22:12; Isa 22:13. To show how little fear he had of being forced to surrender, for want of provisions, he spent thus extravagantly. Note, Security and sensuality are sad presages of approaching ruin. Those that will not be warned by judgments of God may expect to be wounded by them. 2. He put an affront upon the temple of God, and bade defiance to his sanctuary, v. 2. While he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the vessels of the temple, that they might drink in them. When he tasted how rich and fine the wine was, “O,” said he, “it is a pity but we should have holy vessels to drink such delicious wine as this in,” which was looked upon as a piece of wit, and, to carry on the humour, the vessels of the temple were immediately sent for. Nay, there seems to have been something more in it than a frolic, and that it was done in a malicious despite to the God of Israel. The heart of his people was very much upon these sacred vessels, as appears from Jer 27:16; Jer 27:18. Their principal care, at their return, was about these, Ezra i. 7. Now, we may suppose, they had an expectation of their deliverance approaching, reckoning the seventy years of their captivity near a period; and some of them might perhaps have given out some words to that purport, that shortly they should have the vessels of the sanctuary restored to them, in defiance of which Belshazzar here proclaims them to be his own, will keep them in store no longer, but will make use of them among his own plate. Note, That mirth is sinful indeed, and fills the measure of men’s iniquity apace, which profanes sacred things and jests with them. This ripened Babylon for ruin–that no songs would serve them but the songs of Zion (Ps. cxxxvii. 3), no vessels but the vessels of the sanctuary. Let those who thus sacrilegiously alienate what is dedicated to God and his honour know that he will not be mocked. 3. He put an affront upon God himself, and bade defiance to his deity; for they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, v. 4. They gave that glory to images, the work of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, which is due to the true and living God only. They praised them either with sacrifices offered to them or with songs sung in honour of them. When their heads were giddy, and their hearts merry, with wine, they were in the fittest frame to praise the gods of gold and silver, wood and stone; for one would think that men in their senses, who had the command of a clear and sober thought, could not be guilty of so gross an absurdity; they must be intoxicated ere they could be so infatuated. Drunken worshippers, who are not men, but beasts, are the most proper for the service of dunghill deities, that are not gods, but devils. They have erred through wine, Isa. xxvii. 7. They drank wine, and praised their idol-gods, as if they had been the founders of their feast and the givers of all good things to them. Or, when they were drinking wine, they praised their gods by drinking healths to them; and the king drank wine before them (v. 1), that is, he began the health, first to this god, and then to the other, till they went through the bead-roll or farrago of them, those of wood and stone not excepted. Note, Immorality and impiety, vice and profaneness, strengthen the hands and advance the interests one of another. Drunken frolics were an introduction to idolatry, and then idolatrous healths were a shoeing-horn to further drunkenness.

      II. See how God affrighted the king, and struck a terror upon him. Belshazzar and his lords are in the midst of their revels, the cups going round apace, and all upon the merry pin, drinking confusion, it may be, to Cyrus and his army, and roaring out huzzas, in confidence of the speedy raising of the siege; but the hour had come when that must be fulfilled which had been long ago said of the king of Babylon, when his city should be besieged by the Persians and Medes, Isa. xxi. 2-4. The night of my pleasures has he turned into fear to me. The mirth of this ball at court must be spoiled, and a damp cast upon their jollity, though the king himself be master of the revels; immediately, when God speaks the word, we have him and all his guests in the utmost confusion, and the end of their mirth is heaviness. 1. There appear the fingers of a man’s hand writing on the plaster of the wall, before the king’s face (v. 5), “the angel Gabriel,” say the rabbin, “directing these fingers and writing by them.” “That divine hand” (says a rabbi of our own, Dr. Lightfoot) “that had written the two tables for a law to his people now writes the doom of Babel and Belshazzar upon the wall.” Here was nothing sent to frighten them which made a noise, or threatened their lives, no claps of thunder nor flashes of lightning, no destroying angel with his sword drawn in his hand, only a pen in the hand, writing upon the wall, over-against the candlestick, where they might all see it by the light of their own candle. Note, God’s written word is sufficient to put the proudest boldest sinners into a fright, when he is pleased to give it the setting on. The king saw the part of the hand that wrote, but saw not the person whose hand it was, which made the thing more frightful. Note, What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures and the book of the scriptures (Lo, these are parts of his ways, Job xxvi. 14), may serve to possess us with awful thoughts concerning that of God which we do not see. If this be the finger of God, what is his arm made bare? And what is he? 2. The king is immediately seized with a panic fear (v. 6): His countenance was changed (his colour went and came); the joints of his loins were loosed, so that he had no strength in them, but was struck with a pain in his back, as is usual in a great fright; his knees smote one against another, so violently did he tremble like an aspen leaf. But what was the matter? Why is he in such a fright? He perceives not what is written, and how does he know but it may be some happy presage of deliverance to him and to his kingdom? But the business was his thoughts troubled him; his own guilty conscience flew in his face, and told him that he had no reason to expect any good news from Heaven, and that the hand of an angel could write nothing but terror to him. He that knew himself liable to the justice of God immediately concluded this to be an arrest in his name, a summons to appear before him. Note, God can soon awaken the most secure and make the heart of the stoutest sinner to tremble; and there needs no more to do it than to let loose his own thoughts upon him; they will soon play the tyrant, and give him trouble enough. 3. The wise men of Babylon are immediately called in, to see what they can make of this writing upon the wall, v. 7. The king cried aloud, as one in haste, as one in earnest, to bring the whole college of magicians, to try if they can read this writing, and show the interpretation of it; for the king and all his lords cannot pretend to it, it is out of their sphere. The study of divine revelation (such as they had, or thought they had) and converse with the world of spirits were by the heathen confined to one profession, and no other meddled with it; but what is written to us by the finger of God is legible to all; whoever will may read the mind of God in the scriptures. To engage these wise men to exert the utmost of their skill in this matter, and provoke them to an emulation in the attempt, he promised that whoever would give him a satisfactory account of this writing should be dignified with the highest honours of the court. He knew what these pretenders to wisdom aimed at, and what would please them, and therefore promised them a scarlet robe and a gold chain, glorious things in the eyes of those that know no better. Nay, he should be primus par regni–chief minister of state, the third ruler in the kingdom, next to the king and his heir apparent. 4. The king is disappointed in his expectations from them; they can none of them read the writing, much less interpret it (v. 8), which increases the king’s confusion, v. 9. He likes the thing yet worse and worse, and fears that mischief is towards him. His lords also, that had been partners with him in his jollity, are now sharers with him in his terrors; they also were astonished at their wits’ end; and neither their numbers nor their refreshment by wine would serve to keep up their spirits. The reason why the wise men could not read the writing was not because it was written in any language or characters unknown to them, but God either cast a mist before their eyes or put such confusion upon their spirits that they could not read it, that the honour of expounding this mystical writing might be reserved for Daniel. Note, The terror of an awakened convinced conscience may justly be increased by the utter insufficiency of all creatures to give it ease or satisfaction.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

DANIEL – CHAPTER 5

BELSHAZZAR’S DRUNKEN FEAST

Verses 1-7:

Verse 1 begins the history of a cruel and impious king Belshazzar whose name means “god of fire.” History recounts that he killed one of his nobles who killed some game ahead of him one day while hunting; On another occasion he cruelly unmanned or castrated one of his courtiers, because one of his concubines thought he was handsome.

One day he made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine before them, a thing that a king normally did not do. He usually ate and drank apart from them, Ezr 1:3; Pro 31:4; Ecc 10:17; Hos 4:11.

Verse 2 relates that as Belshazzar “tasted the wine,” at length, until inebriated, then he commanded his servants to bring into the festival hall the golden silver vessels which his father (or grandfather) had taken out of the temple at Jerusalem, at his first conquest of the city, Jer 27:7. This was ordered by their god; It was ordered by the insolent king, as an act of contempt toward the captive Jews and their God. It was further ordered that further wine served to the king and his princes, and his concubines should be served out 146 those vessels of gold and silver, brought from the temple in Jerusalem, Pro 20:1. In times of drunkenness men and women stoop to do things they would not do while sober, Gal 6:7-8.

Verse 3 states that the cruel and insolent king’s orders were obeyed and shortly he, his wives, his princes, and his concubines were again drinking their glut of wine, out of the sacred golden and silver vessels of the house or temple of God. Their actions were profane, as they wallowed in moral debauchery, Pro 31:4.

Verse 4 states that they drank wine, praising the gods of gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, and wood, and stone. In a drunken stupor they offered a toast, in derision, to each god, Exo 20:1-5; Isa 44:9; Psa 115:4-9; Act 17:25-30; 1Co 8:5-6.

Verse 5 states that “in the same same hour,” that or while they were drinking wine out of those sacred vessels of gold and silver, taken from the sacred temple in Jerusalem, as they were toasting their heathen gods, in bacchanalian revelry, the invisible living God appeared in that hall, Dan 4:3. He appeared in the form of the fingers of a man’s hand (three fingers), the writing fingers. There was no man’s body or hand, just the writing fingers, as they wrote on the plaster of that huge festival hall, just above the candlesticks, where it was clearly visible to king Belshazzar. The king “saw the (part) of fingers of the hand that wrote.”

God warned Belshazzar, not by a dream or vision, as he had Nebuchadnezzar, but by “writing fingers,” perhaps three fingers only, that held the pen. The writing that appeared over the candlestick or candelabra was likely also the golden one taken from the temple in Jerusalem. This episode confirms that “pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall,” as certified Pro 16:18; And in Herod’s actions and death, Act_12:-23.

Verse 6 relates that the king’s countenance was changed, his bright look suddenly turned ashen gray. His conscious thoughts troubled him, shook him up within, so- that the joints, his vertebrae or backbone of his loins loosed, he becomes so weak with fear that he could hardly stand on his feet, Job 18:11; Isa 5:27. So loose were his joints and weak were his knees that they “smote one another,” knocked together, Nah 2:10.

Verse 7 continues that when he was sufficiently composed he cried with a mighty voice to bring in the magi or wise men in haste, the astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers. Like Nebuchadnezzar in earlier life he trusted these fraudulent imposters to help him in this hour of terror, Isa 47:13. When these imposters entered that drunken festival hall King Belshazzar pointed to the writing on the plaster and vowed that any of them who would read to them the writing and give the meaning would be: 1) clothed in scarlet (or purple, a royal robe), and 2) have a chain of gold placed about his neck, and 3) be made the third ruler in the kingdom, Dan 6:2. The first place was to the king, the second to the son of the king, or his wife the queen, and the third to be given to the interpreter of this three finger writing from the invisible hand.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Daniel here refers to the history of what happened at the taking of Babylon; but meanwhile he leaves those judgments of God to the consideration of his readers, which the Prophets had predicted before the people had become exiles. He does not use the prophetic style, as we shall afterwards see, but is content with simple narrative; while the practice of history may be learnt from the following expressions. It is our duty now to consider how this history tends towards building us up in the faith and fear of God. First of all we notice the time at which Belshazzar celebrated this banquet. Seventy years had passed away from the time when Daniel had been led into exile with his companions. For although Nebuchadnezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, yet it is clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them; for he reigned twenty-three years. Some reckon two kings before Belshazzar; for they place Regassar after Labassardach; and these two will occupy eight years. Metasthenes has stated it so, and he has many followers. But Nebuchadnezzar the Great, who took Daniel captive, and was the son of the first king of that name, evidently reigned forty-five years. Some transfer two years to the reign of his father; at any rate, he held the regal power for forty-five years; and if the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, they will make sixty-eight years — in which Belshazzar had reigned eight years. We see, then, how seventy-two years had passed away from the period of Daniel being first led captive. Metasthenes reckons thirty years for the reign of Evil-Merodach; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than eighty years — which appears probable enough, although Metasthenes seems to be in error in supposing different kings instead of only different names. (240) For Herodotus does not call Belshazzar, of whom we are now speaking, a king, but calls his father Labynetus, and gives him the same name. (241) Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily embrace his computation of time, when he asserts Evil-Merodach to have reigned thirty years. For when we treat of the seventy years which Jeremiah had formerly pointed out, we ought not to begin with Daniel’s exile, no,’ yet with the destruction of the city, but with the slaughter which occurred between the first victory of king Nebuchadnezzar, and the burning and ruin of the temple and city. For when the report concerning the death of his father was first spread abroad, as we have elsewhere said, he returned to his own country, lest any disturbance should occur through his absence. Hence we shall find the seventy years during which God wished the people’s captivity to last, will require a longer period for the reign of Evil-Merodach than twenty-three years; although there is not any important difference, for soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the king, leaving the city untouched. Although the temple was then standing, yet God had inflicted the severest punishment upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least nearly equal to it. However this was, we see that Belshazzar was celebrating this banquet just as the time of the deliverance drew nigh.

Here we must consider the Providence of God, in arranging the times of events, so that the impious, when the time of their destruction is come, cast themselves headlong of their own accord. This occurred to this wicked king. Wonderful indeed was the stupidity which prepared a splendid banquet filled with delicacies, while the city was besieged. For Cyrus had begun to besiege the city for a long time with a large army. The wretched king was already half a captive; and yet, as if in spite of God, he provided a rich banquet, and invited a thousand guests. Hence we may conjecture the extent of the noise and of the expense in that banquet. For if any one wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests, it will occasion him much trouble, if he wishes to treat them splendidly. But when it was a royal entertainment, where there were a thousand nobles with the king’s wife and concubines, and so great a multitude assembled together, it became necessary to obtain from many quarters what was required for such a festival; and this may seem incredible! But Xenophon though he related many fables and preserved neither the gravity nor the fidelity of a historian, because he desired to celebrate the praises of Cyrus like a rhetorician; although he trifles in many things, yet here had no reason or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was laid up, so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of even ten or more years. And Babylon was deservedly compared to a kingdom; for its magnitude was so large as to surpass belief. It must really have been very populous, but since they drew their provisions from the whole of Asia, it is not surprising that the Babylonians had food in store, sufficient to allow them to close their gates, and to sustain them for a long period. But in this banquet it was most singular that the king, who ought to have been on guard, or at least have sent forth his guards to prevent the city from being taken, was as intent upon his delicacies as if he had been in perfect peace, and exposed to no danger from any outward enemy. He had a contest with a strong man, if any man ever was so. Cyrus was endued with singular prudence, and in swiftness of action by far excelled all others. Since, then, the king was so keenly opposed, it is surprising to find him so careless as to celebrate a banquet. Xenophon, indeed, states the day to have been a festival. The assertion of those Jews who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over the Persians, is but trifling. For Xenophon — who may be trusted whenever he does not falsify history in favor of Cyrus, because he is then a very grave historian, and entirely worthy of credit; but when he desires to praise Cyrus, he has no moderation — is here historically correct, when he says the Babylonians were holding a usual annual festival. He tells us also how Babylon was taken, viz., by Gobryas and Gadatas his generals. For Belshazzar had castrated one of these to his shame, and had slain the son of the other in the lifetime of his father. Since then the latter burnt with the desire of avenging his son’s death, and the former his own disgrace, they conspired against him. Hence Cyrus turned the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon was suddenly taken. The city we must remember was twice taken, otherwise there would not have been any confidence in prophecy; because when the Prophets threaten God’s vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies should be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring human blood; and then they narrate every kind of atrocious deed which is customary in war. (Jer 50:42.) But nothing of this kind happened when Babylon was taken by Cyrus; but when the Babylonians freed themselves from the Persian sway by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city by the assistance of Zopyrus, who mutilated his person, and pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king as to induce him to betray the city. But then we collect how hardly the Babylonians were afflicted, when 3000 nobles were crucified! And what usually happens when 8000 nobles are put to death, and all suspended on a gallows — nay, even crucified? Thus it easily appears, how severely the Babylonians were punished at the time, although they were then subject to a foreign power, and treated shamefully by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. For they were forbidden the use of arms, and were taught from the first to become the slaves of Cyrus, and dare not wear a sword. We ought to touch upon these things shortly to assure us of the government of human events by the judgment of God, when he casts headlong the reprobate when their punishment is at hand. We have an illustrious example of this in King Belshazzar.

The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at hand — the seventy years were finished — Babylon was besieged. (Jer 25:11.) The Jews might now raise up their heads and hope for the best, because the arrival of Cyrus approached, contrary to the opinion of them all; for he had suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when that was a barbarous nation. Since, therefore, the sudden coming of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might possibly give some hope to the Jews; but after a length of time, so to speak, had elapsed in the siege of the city, this might east down their spirits. While king Belshazzar was banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seems able to thrust him out in the midst of his merriment and hilarity. Meanwhile the Lord did not sit at rest in heaven; for he blinds the mind of the impious king, so that he should willingly incur punishments, yet no one drew him on, for he incurred it himself. And whence could this arise, unless God had given him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of which Jeremiah was the herald. Hence, although Daniel narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to treat of things far more important; for God who had promised his people deliverance, was now stretching forth his hand in secret, and fulfilling the predictions of his Prophets. (Jer 25:26.)

It now follows — King Belshazzar was drinking wine before a thousand Some of the Rabbis say, “he strove with his thousand nobles, and contended with them all in drinking to excess;” but this seems grossly ridiculous. When he says, he drank wine before a thousand, he alludes to the custom of the nation, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited guests to their table; they usually dined alone, as the kings of Europe now do; for they think it adds to their dignity to enjoy a solitary meal. The pride of the kings of Chaldea was of this kind. When, therefore, it is said, Belshazzar drank wine before a thousand , something extraordinary is intended, since he was celebrating this annum banquet contrary to his ordinary custom, and he deigned to treat his nobles with such honor as to receive them as his guests. Some, indeed, conjecture that he drank wine ordeals, as he was accustomed to become intoxicated when there were no witnesses present; but there is no force in this comment: the word before means in the presence or society of others. Let us go on:

(240) See the Dissertations at the end of this volume, in which these historical points are treated at length.

(241) Herod., lib. 1, sect. 188. Comp. Cyropoed., lib. 4 and 7.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

DANIELS INTERPRETATION OF BELSHAZZARS VISION

Dan 5:1 to Dan 6:28

WE invite the attention today to the 5th and 6th chapters of this prophecy.

We have considered already, Daniela Dream of a Lad; Daniel, the Interpreter of Dreams; Daniel, and the Doom of World Governments; Daniels Brethren, or the Victory of Faith; and Nebuchadnezzars Dream of the Great Tree.

This chapter introduces a new name,another king.

Evidently a considerable period of time elapsed between the close of the fourth chapter and the opening of the fifth. The old king Nebuchadnezzar was dead, and Nabonidus, his warlike son, coming to the throne, shared the same with Belshazzar, the heir apparent; and, as Vice-regent of the Empire, Belshazzar is called The King.

The opening sentences of this study provide another illustration of the sins and swift living to which the children of special privileges and power are both surely and sorely tempted.

Our first introduction to Belshazzar finds him the host of a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and the whole setting of the same is thoroughly Bacchanalian.

Three words will well-nigh compass the content of these two chapters. These are Sensualism, Supernaturalism, and Supremacy.

SENSUALISM

Sensualism was expressed by the flowing of wine!

The king * * drank wine before the thousand.

The king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank.

Wine-drinking has always been the curse of kings. Solomon could not forget his own experience, nor yet disregard his observation, and from the place of the throne he wrote,

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

And again this inspiring Sage of the ages declared,

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted (Pro 31:4-5).

If there is any one thing upon which the wise of the earth have agreed for four thousand years, it has been the deleterious effects of strong drink; and if there is any one thing to which the foolish of the earth, from the king on his throne to the most forlorn tramp begging bread at the back door, have been addicted, to the degradation of each, it is this same strong drink.

The United States is experiencing what is called by some the noble experiment of attempting to abolish, by law, strong drink. Whether this endeavor succeeds or not, her government has already enjoyed practically fourteen years of freedom from the accursed saloon traffic, a traffic that was destructive alike to the bodies and souls of men.

We discuss in America questions of employment, and are constantly debating what we shall do for the unemployed, but we know that, with very few exceptions, the statement of Mr. Lloyd George, Englands first citizen, applies to the down and outs of this land who drink, as perfectly as it did to that.

They are unemployed because unemployable. The stamina which should be theirs was lost because of drink. They are only a sort of weak vegetabletoo weak for the serious uses of the world.

It is related that at a wedding the young bride declined to pledge her husband with wine. When her father remonstrated with her, she replied by holding up a wine glass and saying, The color and sparkle mock me, for there I see a debauched brother, a broken-hearted mother and a saddened, darkened homeour home! Ten thousand times ten thousand her statement would have applied to other homes as well; and the house of the king was not exempt.

The words of Isaiah are: Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink. * * As the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust (Isa 5:22-24).

Let kings hear it! Let the self-supposed cultured of the earth give audience to it! Let the great and the rich as well as the degraded and the poor, ponder itstrong drink and sensualism are synonyms!

Sensualism is represented in the character of the women. We have no detailed description of these women beyond the statement that they were the kings wives and concubines; but one does not need much more. The wine-room witnesses to the character of its own patrons.

Some years since Chief of Police Delaney ordered a raid of the Denver resorts. In a few hours forty young women were behind prison bars. Some of them were daughters of elite homes; others of them stenographers, milliners, cashiers, waitresses, etc. It was a night of weeping! Indignant parents protested that their daughters were young women of good reputations and should not have the treatment of criminals; but the consistent chief replied, The frequenting of these wine rooms will very shortly convert your so-called respectable girl into a subject of the Market Street tenderloin. If she is decent and desires to remain so, let her desist!

The man has not yet been born who can make constant associates of lustful, wine-bibbing women, and maintain his royal standing.

Andrea Delsarto was an artist of such high ideals that he gave to the world a face of Christ, never equalled. But the woman he chose to share life with him, by the charms of her personal beauty and the criminal tendencies of her low ideals, carried him to such depths of dishonesty and deeds of degradation as to compel him to confess his craftsman hand low-pulsed.

Goethe said, Tell me with whom thou dost company, and I will tell who thou art. And Goethes women associates dragged him to moral depths more godless even than was his atheistic philosophy.

Solomon writes it down as a proverb,

The lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:

But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.

Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.

Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house:

Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel (Pro 5:3-5; Pro 5:8-9).

Again, the sacrilegious use of the sacred vessels was sensualism. Belshazzar must have known what sacredness attached to the golden and other vessels brought away from the Templethe House of Godwhich was at Jerusalem. And when he called for them, and with them served his princes, his wives, and his concubines, the spirit of sacrilege was with him, and when, while they were drinking, they praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone consciously and intentionally he offered an insult to Jehovahthe very God concerning whom Nebuchadnezzar, his grandfather, had made a decree that every people, and nation, and language should worship Him.

And yet Nebuchadnezzars sin is not an antiquity. It is the very same mistake into which Kant fell when he concluded that two things there are, which, the oftener and the more steadfastly we consider them, fill the mind with an ever new, an ever rising admiration and reverencethe Starry Heaven above and the Moral Law within.

The modern theologian is more disposed to worship the stars than he is to worship the God who made them, and to trust his own inner consciousness than the Holy Ghost who quickens and renews; and the praise goes to the creation or creature rather than to the Creator. As in the old day a king sat on the throne who knew not Joseph, nor yet regarded his God, so now Belshazzar is alike ignorant of the greatest Prophet of the realm, and the very God for whom Daniel stood.

This sensualism, this sacrilege, were alike an insult to God, and resulted in the writing on the wall.

SUPERNATURALISM

The sight of the hand was its first expression.

In the same hour came forth fingers of a mans hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the kings palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

Then the kings countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

What is the interpretation of this report? Let the Rationalist answer; and he will tell you Daniel had delirium tremens, and will cite many instances from history to prove that when men drink wine they experience visions. But the vision is wholly subjective; in other words, no hand ever appeared. Belshazzar only imagined he saw a hand.

Then perhaps this same Rationalist will tell us how it happened that Daniel interpreted this vision so correctly, that that very night his interpretation became history.

The longer one lives the more is he impressed with the fact that the most credulous company of people on earth are the critics of Sacred Scripture the opponents of the supernatural. Let me illustrate what I mean. There is an old and unscientific opinion to the effect that the vibration in every building and structure of wood or stone or other material has what is called its key note; and if a fiddler can only find that, he can play down the biggest bridge that was ever built; and they even claim that historically the first iron bridge built was at Colebrook Dale, and a fiddler did play until he struck the key note and the structure swayed so perceptibly that the workmen compelled him to stop.

Now upon that basis a recent writer, who boasts himself an exponent of modern thought, speaking of the falling of the walls of Jericho in articles published by a leading magazine, says, It is not in any sense robbing this story of its miraculous element to say that God was making use here of one of His own laws and that the shouting of the people caused vibrations serious enough to topple the walls. Some shout!

It is strange how deniers of supernaturalism swallow with ease a greater supernaturalism. Bishop Wilberforce had such teachers in mind when he spoke of those who are borne on the wings of a boundless skepticism into the bosom of an unfathomable superstition. If a man believe in God at all he must believe that the walls of Jericho could come down before His breath a thousand times more easily than they could crumble at the shout of man.

Bettex, the great German believer, says with his accustomed superficiality the man of the world treats miracles either disdainfully dismissing them as silly stuff or ascribing to God and His Son a few smaller and easier miracles, as a well-known Berlin professor does, but energetically protests against the greater and more difficult ones. Confounded he sits before Lots wife and Balaams ass, like one who has never seen an egg, and now takes one, opens it, and exclaims, What! Am I to believe that simply by virtue of a certain degree of warmth in the incubator there will come forth from this slimy white and yellow fluid a perfect animal that can walk and fly and cackle? Why, whence shall feathers, and feet and claws, and the hard bill come? I shall never believe such stuff. For in the presence of this fact, as well as of thousands of others, science as a whole is as helpless as in the presence of the miracles of the Bible. But we wise people consider the miracle quite simple and natural that is repeated daily, and deny it if it occurs only once within a hundred or a thousand years.

T. Dewitt Talmage has been too shortly forgotten by the generation he served, and the land in which he won his fame. No man of modern times thought more clearly nor spoke more forcefully; and Talmage reminded his auditors of the fact that God makes no special regulation for the graduate of Harvard or Princeton, and asserts that the scorn and criticism and anathemas of the modern man can in no wise change the fact that we have an infallible Bible, a supernatural religion, and a Divine and all sufficient Saviour!

The record says, The king saw the part of the hand and Daniel interpreted it as a supernatural revelation. Who can dispute either the historical fact or its prophetic import?

Supernaturalism was also in the content of the sentences. The Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,was Numbered, Numbered, Weighed; Divided! Our report is a somewhat free translation: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

That this was Gods word concerning the king and his kingdom, history immediately demonstrates. Your telephone rings; you take up the instrument and put the receiver to your ear; you hear a voice, but you see no face. The language is clear, the idea conveyed is perfect; will you deny that it is a message to you because you cannot see the spokesman? Will you be indifferent to its import because it comes to you over a long distance?

Some years ago there was a hard controversy raging between Mr. Robert Blatchford, the atheistic editor of the Socialistic paper in England, and Mr. G. K. Chesterton, the brilliant Daily News staff writer; and in that discussion Mr. Chesterton said some things that ought never to be forgotten by the advocates of Christianity, and among them this,

The strength of Christianity lies not in the fact that it is eloquent or successful, or well represented; it lies in the incidental fact that it is indispensable. By indispensable I mean this: It is, to all mortal appearance, impossible for men to attack Christianity without eventually ending up in positions that no sane masses of men have ever held; in positions which would horrify a decent pagan or an unbaptized savage. Schopenhauer ends by saying that life itself is a delusion. Nietzsche ends by saying that charity itself is a delusion. Mr. Blatchford ends by saying that human goodness and badness are delusions. Christianity does not answer: a few of her apologists answer, and generally badly. But she is silent, for she is old, and has seen so many paradoxes. She knows the path you are on, and has seen many on it; she knows that on it are delightful hypotheses and luxurious negations, and that that way madness lies. She knows that as soon as you want any conceivable human reality, if it be only to say Thank you for the mustard, you will be forced to return to her and her hypotheses, where she sits, guarding through the ages the secret of an eternal sanity.

Certainly; and if any man believes that he can visit the wine room and make consorts of strange women, treat sacred things with sacrilegious hands, and not see a hand writing on the wall and read in the finished sentence his own doom, the end to which he will come will compel him, as it compelled the king, to call for Gods Prophet, to hear Gods truth, and endure Gods judgment.

Supernaturalism was in every sentence of Daniels interpretation. God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

This was not history; it was only prophecy as yet. If Daniels interpretation is not supernatural, if these sentences themselves are not from God, nothing will come of it. But if God wrote the declaration, and God inspired Daniels interpretation, then history will run into the mould of this prophecy.

What does history say?

In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

And Darius the Median took the kingdom.

And that is not biblical history only; that is world history as well.

There is many a man upon whose sins sentence is already passed. His doom is a divinely determined fact, and yet he does not know it. Laughter may fill his lips, wine inflame his brain, false friends may regale him with flattery, and yet in the eternal counsels of God, judgment is already pronounced, and the Executor of the same is at hand. The fact that he does not appreciate his danger in no wise detracts from its awful reality!

Some years ago a mine near Pottsville, Pa., caved in. Three miners were entombed. The rescuing gang worked strenuously for hours until at last they reached them, and lo, the men for whose lives they had feared, sat calmly about their dinner pails, eating with relish. They knew not that anything had happened. The silent rush of sand and clay had given them no notice that they were cut off from the outside world and buried alive.

Ignorance of facts and lack of fear in no wise saves men from doomed estate. Oh men, look up from your wine! Cease from the prattle of consorts; take your eyes off your gold vessels and cups of silver; see the hand writing on the wall! Gods hand is still capable, and His fingers can frame the sentences of judgment and His power is adequate to the execution of the same.

But we pass to the sixth chapter, and to the last word:

SUPREMACY

Daniels interpretation affected his political preferment. Belshazzar commanded that Daniel be clothed with scarlet, and that a chain of gold be put about his neck; and made a decree concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. But he never lived to see it done.

Darius, the Mede, in organizing the kingdom to which he had suddenly come set over it an hundred and twenty princes * * and over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first, and this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

How like the history of Joseph, this! And yet, that is only another way of saying, How like the custom of God! The man that Joseph befriended in prison, once liberated, forgot him. God never did! God never forgets the man who is loyal to Him; and God is able, when He will, to take him from behind prison bars and put him in the place of power.

Moses may be determined upon as a victim of Egyptian wrath against the Jew, and the life of this weak, wailing infant can only be protected by the false pretenses of an affectionate mother. But God can pick him out of the cradle of rushes and pitch and put him in the palace for training and equip him to become a greater than the king. David may be looked upon by his fellows as nothing better than a ruddy, beautiful lad, and even treated by his elder brothers with contempt, and his very life may be sought by the mad Saul; but when God makes up His mind to set David on the throne, nothing can stand in the way. And when did God ever do other than He did with Daniel, viz.: exalt the loyal man, put sacred trusts into the hands of the trustworthy, and bring to the place of power the man He had perfected?

Daniels trials simply demonstrated the Divine favor. The jealousy of the princes landed him in the lions den. The method employed in doing it was a true measure of the men engaging in it. They held a secret session. It is commonly so with officials who propose to undo Gods anointed.

In my lengthy career I have scarcely known a company of men, members of a church and occupying official position, to remove a pastor from the pulpit by open session and frank and fair discussion. The report of these presidents to the king was false. It indicated that they had all assembled. But as Daniel was not present, nor even apprised of the meeting, they plainly lied.

How many men report that all of the officers are of one opinion; all of the leading people of the church think so and so; all the members of the board have come to this conclusion. A young man in a Western state was asked to resign and told that all the people in the church felt it were better to have a change. When he got up in prayer-meeting and asked his own people to tell him frankly what was wrong and why they so disliked him, that same people rose in wrath and excluded the two men who had made the secret report and demand.

It is interesting to note Daniels method of meeting this indictment. He is an old man now. His hoary head is a crown of glory! I delight to watch him go into his house and then to that window in his chamber that opened toward Jerusalem, and see him kneel upon his knees three times a day and pray. What wisdom there! How much better than assembling his friends for his defense. How much better than trying to uncover the conduct of his enemies to the eyes of the king. How much better than calling an assembly of them and charging them with falsehood and deceit, and the spirit of murder.

Gods man has all the resources he needs in every time of trial; and the man who knows how to pray is the one man destined to prevail. To him the combined forces of enemies are little more than a farce. To him hungry lions have no hint of harm.

A mans conduct is always the evidence of his creed! Campbell Morgan says two small boys on the first sharp morning of autumn, took their skates and hied themselves to a pond near by. One of them said to the other, See, it is frozen; it will hold us up. All right, replied his chum, You put on your skates and try it. No, I do not want to try it; but I am sure it will hold us up; you go. He didnt really believe or he would have gone on.

Daniel had no hesitancy at the lions den. Like his three Hebrew brethren he was saying, If it be so, my God, whom I serve, He is able to deliver me, and He will deliver me, oh king. But if not, be it known unto thee, that I will not serve any other god, nor worship any other than Jehovah.

The preservation of Daniel is a precious record. His deliverance was the Kings delight; and the decree of Darius introduces another truth to which I call your attention, namely,

Daniels testimony gave another victory to the Divine message.

Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace he multiplied unto you.

I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for He is the Living God, and stedfast for ever, and His Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall be even unto the end (Dan 6:25-26).

That is the only way the Divine message of truth will ever reach men, through your testimony and mine. You have often heard that strange, sweet story of Van Dykes in which he tells of Christ having completed His work and returned to Heaven, and as He talked with Gabriel, that arch-angel asked Him how He proposed to have His plan of salvation reach the ears of men, and Jesus answered: I have told John, and Andrew and Peter, and James and the others, and have asked them to bear witness. But suppose, said Gabriel, that they should forget; or suppose they are faithful, but, in the far-off twentieth century, men who know this truth should forget to tell the same, what then? Jesus solemnly answered, I have made no other plan.

Africa has a little light; but the greater portion of her people still sit in darkness and the only possible hope of salvation for millions and millions of the inhabitants of the black continent is with us! Are we bearing our testimony by our gifts of money, by our offers of self? China, Japan, India, the Isles, these are a part of the peoples, and nations, and languages of the earth. How are they ever to come to a knowledge of the Living God; how are they ever to know of His Kingdom, of His endless dominion, except we speak by every power at our command?

Oh, the hour will break when the money we have hoarded will burn as might coals of fire; when the gold we have refused to make speak for our Master will eat as doth the gangrene, for the hour will come when we will have to stand before Him to give an account of our stewardship!

What are we doing today to bring the knowledge of Jehovah to all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth? Daniels example was a worthy one. The God of Daniel wants us to be alike faithful. We have long known something of the legend which was employed in the immortal Polish romance Quo Vadis; of how, under the fearful persecution of Nero the Christians at Rome went through fiery trials, multitudes of them being burned at the stake, soaked in oil, securely tethered in the Roman square. The very streets themselves were lighted at night by ghastly sights of flaming men and burning women! It was reported that Peter himself, with a little band of fugitive Christians, fleeing from the persecutions, came face to face with His Master, walking toward the city, and Peter said to Him: Lord, whither goest Thou? I am going back to Rome to be crucified again because My servant Peter has turned his back to the Cross.

And Peter answered, Not so, Lord; I will go back again and gladly die for Thee. And so, as tradition tells us, with head down he let them nail him to the cross, trusting that his blood would be the seed of the Church and that his sacrifice would send the message of truth and salvation farther than would his living speech.

There is a passage in the Scriptures which speaks of our filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ. Are we doing it, or are we so far failing to get the blessed message of His salvation to all people, nations, and languages that our very failure crucifies Him afresh and puts Him to an open shame?

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

HOMILETICS

SECT. XVII.BELSHAZZARS FEAST (Chap. 5.)

This chapter deservedly a favourite with general readers [126]. The magnificence, excitement, and revelry of the royal feast; the profligate king, when heated with wine, calling for the sacred vessels of the Temple, and, with his princes, wives, and concubines, drinking out of them to the honour of heathen deities; the sudden appearance, in the midst of the carousal, of a weird hand, tracing distinct but unintelligible characters on the wall; the consternation of the whole party, and the sudden stop put to all the mirth; the terror of the conscience-stricken monarch, causing his very knees to smite against each other; the hasty summoning of the magicians and soothsayers to decipher the mysterious writing; the perplexity of the king and his party when these men declare their inability to read or understand it; the appearance of the queen-mother [127] on the scene, reminding the terror-stricken king of the aged servant of his father, or rather his grandfather [128], Nebuchadnezzar, whom his excesses had driven from his court, but who was doubtless able to interpret the handwriting; Daniels entrance at the royal summons, with his venerable mien and hoary locks, now above eighty years of age; his faithful reproof addressed to the profane and licentious king; the solemn reading and interpretation of the divine message on the wall, each word falling like a death-knell on the ear of the guilty monarch; the bestowment of the promised reward on Daniel, the golden necklace [129] put on his neck and the proclamation issued that made him third ruler in the kingdom [130]; in the midst of this the startling report that the Persians were in the city, and immediately thereafter a tumultuous noise outside, and the entrance of foreign soldiers, brandishing naked blood-stained swords, into the banquet-hall; and, finally, the promiscuous slaughter that ensues, in which the king himself is slain [131], and the great Babylonian empire comes to an end. Seldom, if ever, have so many thrilling events been brought together in so short a space. The whole scene fitted solemnly to remind us of another, of which it may be regarded as a typethat hour of doom which is to overtake a godless and guilty world, when not a mere hand on the wall, but the Son of man Himself shall appear in the clouds, striking terror into every impenitent heart. We may note

[126] Dr. A. Clarke is of opinion that this chapter is out of its proper place, and should come in after chapters 7 and 8. Chronologically this is true; but for other reasons it has been placed where it is, leaving the whole of the second part of the book prophetical. Hengstenberg observes that in this chapter the objections are less numerous and particularly feeble. An objection has been made on the ground that no king of Babylon of the name of Belshazzar is known in history; and that the name of the last king was not Belshazzar, but Nabonnedus, according to Berosus, or Labynetus, according to Herodotus, who was not slain in Babylon, but surrendered himself a prisoner to Cyrus at Borsippa, and was kindly treated by the conqueror. Strange to say, as already remarked in the Introduction, a clay cylinder, now in the British Museum, was in 1854 discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson among the ruins of Mugheir, the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, on which is an inscription stating that the building in which it was found was the work of Nabonidus; the last of the Babylonian kings, who repaired it in 555 b.c., and that Bel-shar-ezer (or Belshazzar) his eldest son, had been admitted by him to a share in the government. There were thus two kings of Babylon at the time the city was taken; the one, the father, of whom the historians speak, and who was then at a distance; the other, the son, who was in the city at the time, and who, according to both Daniel and Xenophon, was slain on the occasion. According to Josephus and Berosus, Belshazzar, called by Metasthenes and the Septuagint Baltassar, was the son of Evil-Merodach, and reigned seventeen years; the two who reigned between Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, being Neriglessar, his brother-in-law, who slew him, and reigned four years, and Laborosoarchod, his son, who reigned only nine months; whose names, as only petty kings and usurpers, would not, Dr. Cumming thinks, be acknowledged in the chronicles of Babylon or by the sacred writers. Keil, with Hoffmann, Hvernick, and others, is inclined to regard Belshazzar as the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and to identify him with Evil-Merodach, it being the rule with Eastern kings to have several names.
[127] The queen. According to Herodotus, this was Nitocris, a prudent woman; the queen, not of Belshazzar, but of his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, the former being already at the feast among his wives and concubines. According to Polyhistor, it was Amiyt, daughter of Astyages, sister of Darius the Mede, and aunt of Cyrus. Prideaux takes her for the mother of Belshazzar and widow of Nebuchadnezzar. So Keil. Dr. Rule observes: Perhaps she was the wife of Nabonadius, left in the city when her husband sallied forth to meet the enemy, but who had not returned. If so, she would well remember the events of the latter part of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. According to Josephus, she was the grandmother of Belshazzar; while Origen, Ephrem Syrus, and Theodoret, make her his mother.

[128] Thy father. It is generally admitted that (abh) frequently signifies an ancestor in general. Belshazzar was probably a son of Evil-Merodach, who only reigned two years, and so was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.

[129] A necklace. Among the Persians it is said to have been one of the highest honours to receive a neck-chain as a present from the king. An emblem, as among the ancient Egyptians and ourselves, of magisterial authority.

[130] The third ruler in the kingdom. This agrees with what has been noted as to Belshazzar having been associated with his father in the government, and thus made the second ruler; an undesigned coincidence, and a singular confirmation of the genuineness of the account. Jerome and others, however, understood the third ruler to be equivalent to the Greek , the title given to a member of a triumvirate in the government of a kingdom or empire. Dr. Rule observes that the word agrees with the term used in Eze. 23:15; Eze. 23:23, to denote Babylonian princes, (shalishim), or third men; the origin being discovered in the three charioteers or soldiers who rode in the war-chariots (1Ki. 9:22), as seen in the war scenes on the slabs of the Assyrian marbles.

[131] In that night, &c. For the account of the taking of the city, as given by Herodotus, see page 48, note (7). The night of that event is regarded by Gaussen as a prophetic type of the last solemn judgment of the Lord; a night so great and so terrible that the Holy Spirit frequently refers to it as the emblem of that night, a thousand times more terrible, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels.

I. The feast (Dan. 5:1-4). It was

(1.) Large; a thousand guests besides the kings wives and concubines [132], marking the dissipated character of Belshazzar, as the kings of Chaldea are said to have rarely invited guests to their table.

(2.) Magnificent; held in the banquet-hall of the royal palace, the guests being the highest nobility [133] in the land, the king himself reclining apart on his sumptuous couch [134].

(3.) Idolatrous; celebrated with songs of praise to their gods of gold, silver, brass, and iron, wood and stone, the feast itself being possibly in honour of the tutelary deity of the city, as the supposed author of their fancied prosperity, and the successful competitor of Jehovah, to whom Nebuchadnezzar had shown so much partiality.

(4.) profane; the king, not satisfied with praising the gods of his own country, must insult and defy the God of the Jews by sending for the golden vessels of the Temple, which, nearly seventy years before, Nebuchadnezzar had brought from Jerusalem; and then, with his riotous guests, drinking out of them to the honour of his gods, as if he would again triumph over Jehovah whom Bel had conquered, like the Philistines when they placed the ark in the temple of Dagon.

[132] His wives and his concubines. The presence of women at feasts was a custom with the Babylonians, as appears from Xenophon. The Alexandrian translator (the Septuagint), following the custom of his own time, has, strange to say, everywhere passed over the women at the feast of Belshazzar; another corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the account, as showing the writers intimate acquaintance with the manners and usages of the country.Hengstenberg.

[133] His lords, his princes, (rabhrebhanohi), the reduplication of (rabh), great; great men, magnates of the realm. An objection has been grounded on the use of this word, which is found in the Targum, but not in the older Aramaic writings; an objection, as Hengstenberg remarks, which would apply also to the pseudo-Daniel in the time of the Maccabees, and so prove too much.

[134] Before the thousand, (laqabhel), over against. So Dr. Pusey, who gives the paraphrase of Ephrem Syrus, Alone he lay over against all reclined. A Greek scholiast, quoted by Dr. Pusey, observes, It was their custom that each should have their own table. So Athenus: When the Persian king makes a drinking feast, they (the guests) do not drink the same wine as he; they sitting on the ground, he lying on a couch with golden legs.

II. The handwriting (Dan. 5:5-9). It was

(1.) Sudden; in the midst of the mirth and revelry of the feast.

(2.) Mysterious; a hand seen tracing characters high up on the wall, without any one appearing to guide it.

(3.) Real; the hand and the writing visible to every one on the wall over against the great chandelier [135]; hence no effect of excited imagination or of priestly imposture.

(4.) Alarming; all naturally seized with fear, but more especially the king, for whom it was intended, and whose eyes it now opened at once to his guilt and danger.

(5.) Perplexing; no solution of its meaning obtainable through the usual channels, in fulfilment of Isa. 47:12-13; while there is felt an inward certainty that the writing must have a meaning. The handwriting on the wall a picture of the many denunciations against impenitent sinners written by the same divine finger in the Word of God; with this difference, that while that handwriting was obscure and unintelligible till Daniel interpreted it, the denunciations in the Bible are clear as written with a sunbeam, and so plain that a child may understand them.

[135] Over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall. Keil says, The fingers wrote on the plaster of the wall over against the candlestick which stood on the table at which the king sat, and which reflected its light perceptibly on the white wall opposite, so that the fingers writing could be distinctly seen. The feast had been prolonged into the night; and the wall of the chamber was not wainscotted, but only plastered with lime, as in the chambers found in the palaces of Nimroud and Khorsabad, covered over only with mortar. Dr. Rule thinks there was no ink nor colouring, the visibility of the writing being only by the effect of light and shade on the sharp relief of the characters made on the lime or cement of the wall, such as is actually found remaining on those ruins where the walls are not lined with slabs.

III. The reproof (Dan. 5:10-24). Daniel, sent for by the king at the queens suggestion, before interpreting the writing, addresses to the king a solemn reproof. That reproof an example of uncompromising faithfulness,

(1.) Reminds him of an admonitory fact in the history of his great ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5:20-21).

(2.) Points him to his own sin in disregarding that solemn monition (Dan. 5:22).

(3.) Charges him directly with pride, impious defiance of the God of heaven, sacrilegious profanity, and honouring with his praise dumb idols, instead of the God in whose hand his breath was, and whose were all his ways (Dan. 5:24).

(4.) After thus faithfully convicting him of his misdeeds in the presence of all the wealth, rank, beauty, and power of his kingdom, he declares that the writing on the wall proclaims to him the righteous judgment of God which now overtook him, and of which it was sent as a solemn precursor, announcing at once his guilt and his impending doom.

IV. The interpretation (Dan. 5:25-28). Daniel, who had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar head of all the Magi in Babylon, and had already been distinguished as a prophet of the Most High God, now again is enabled to make good his title. Sent for in the hour of distress, after having been probably banished from the court for at least seventeen years as a drivelling fanatic, he proceeds, with the confidence and calm solemnity of an inspired man, to decipher the writing. He first reads the mystic words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN [136]. He then slowly gives the interpretation of each. MENErepeated for emphasis, and to indicate the completeness and certainty of the factnumbered, numbered; God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it,the days of thy reign, thy dynasty, and the empire of which thou hast been the guilty head, are numbered, and now come to an end. TEKEL, weighed; Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting,the cause of the approaching doom. PERESthe singular form of the verb of which UPHARSIN is the plural with the conjunction u (and) prefixeddivided; Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persiansthe very words seeming to indicate those to whom the empire was now to pass.

[136] Mene, mene, &c. According to the account, it was only by supernatural illumination that Daniel was able to read and explain the writing, and only because the king believed him to possess it that he was called in for the purpose. The characters must therefore have been quite uncommon, so as not to be deciphered without divine illumination.Hengstensberg, who also remarks that the existence of a mystic writing in Babylon is supposed in the entire narration. He supposes the magicians, (khartummin), of whom Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel the master, and who are included in the wise men of chap. Dan. 2:48, were probably men skilled in such writing, such persons being found among the Egyptians, whose religious system stands in the closest relation to the Babylonians. Dr. Cumming remarks that these persons were not magicians, but philosophers, who held converse with Gods outer world, not with evil spirits, like the sorcerers and diviners of old. He thinks that the writing was in the pure Hebrew character, which we call Samaritan, and that it was simply from the strangeness of the character that the wise men were unable to understand it. Some of the old interpreters, as Polanus, Calvin, and Willet, ascribe their inability, not so much to the strange and unknown characters, as to the fact that they were blinded and astonished by the power of God. Dr. Rule thinks that the difficulty may have arisen from the characters or the language, or from both; and that the charracters were most probably cuneiform, no other being used in that age in Assyria and Babylonia, while there were many languages or dialects. All the ancient versions except the Syriac have, instead of four words, only three, Mene, Tekel, Phares, exactly as explained in the verses which follow. The words are differently rendered, according to the supposed form of the verbs, whether as perfect, participle, or imperative. Some think the first word is doubled for emphasis; others, as Calvin, for confirmation, and to show that the numbering was now completed. Maldonatus thinks that the reduplication, according to a Hebraism, indicates he hath diligently numbered alluding to the seventy years of the Jewish captivity, or the existence of the Babylonian empire. Calvin and Polanus, after R. Saadias, favour the idea of exactness. Dr. Rule observes that (mene), whether in Chaldee or Hebrew, signifies to number, count out, allot, and is employed here in the sense it bears in Isa. 65:12. In connection with the last word, or (peres or upharsin), Dr. Rule observes that the division or distribution indicated in the first word is unfolded in the distinct announcement of the prophet that the Medes and Persians, now employing their united forces in the siege, shall have the kingdom divided between them; the Medes, according to Herodotus, being Aryans, and the Persians of Aryan descent. Darius the Mede had precedence in the attack over Cyrus the Persian because of seniority, and held the sceptre till his death, when Cyrus took it; Darius, according to one account, having called him out of Persia to assist him in the war by taking the command of the army. Willet remarks that upharsin, the plural, refers to the Medes and Persians as the instruments, while peres, the singular, points to God as the author of the division. He thinks the writing gives both the thing predicted,the division of the empire,and the parties between whom it was to be divided, the Medes and Persians, Darius having Babylon, and Cyrus Assyria. Calvin, however, properly remarks, that the city was truly taken by the valour and industry of Cyrus, but that Cyrus admitted his father-in-law to the great honour of allowing him to partake of the royal authority, and that the Medes and Persians are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was properly no division of the empire. Gaussen remarks that each of the words appears to have a double signification, one in Hebrew and another in Chaldee, so that they became equivalent to six terrible sentences.

V. The end (Dan. 5:29-31). Daniels interpretation soon tragically verified. The cup of Belshazzara iniquity now full. The hour of Babylons doom and his own had struck. The prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah were now to receive their fulfilment. The Medes and Persians already prepared by Jehovah to fulfil His purposes against Babylon (Isa. 21:2). While Daniel was speaking, the Lord was admitting Cyrus and his Persians into the city by the two-leaved gates of brass (Isa. 45:1-2), which opened on the river, and had that night been strangely left unshut [137]. One post runs to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end. I will dry up her sea. The mighty men of Babylon have forborne to fight; they have remained in their holds; their might hath failed; they became as women. In their fear I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake, saith the Lord (Jer. 51:28-39). Belshazzar falls among the slain in the same night, and Darius the Mede, otherwise called Cyaxares [138], takes by courtesy the kingdom which Cyrus his nephew had conquered.

[137] Xenophon says this was done by Gadates and Gobryas, who had gone over from the Babylonians to Cyrus. Herodotus relates that in Babylon there prevailed such recklessness that no inquiry was made as to what was doing among the enemy, and so nothing was perceived of all those operations by which Cyrus had been preparing for the conquest of the city.
[138] Darius the Mede. Some have thought that this was Darius Hystaspes. So Porphyry, Tertullian, and Cyril of Jerusalem. But, as Willet observes, Darius Hystaspes reigned third after Cyrus; and Babylon was taken twice, the first time by Darius and Cyrus, and the second by Darius Hystaspes, through means of Zopyrus. Bertholdt, Bleek, and others object against the genuineness of the book, as a historical error, that he whom Xenophon calls Cyaxares II. is here called Darius, and assert that the later author of the book only gave him the name by a confusion with Darius Hystaspes; that of Cyaxares II., Herodotus and Justin say nothing, while Herodotus, Ctesias and others, state that the Median kings close with Astyages, after whom the Persian kingdom commences with Cyrus. To this Hengstenberg replies that clear reasons can be given to show that the scanty testimonies to the existence of a Median Darius are correct. Differences of names occur also in the Hebrew writings without any one thinking of charging them with error on that account. It is also generally allowed that Darius, like many other names of kings, is not a proper name, but an appellative or surname, a mere title borne by different kings, and denoting the Tamer or Subduer. The Armenian Chronicon of Eusebius confirms the credibility of Daniel by making mention of a Darius as the last of the Median kings. Dr. Pusey says, Who Darius the Mede was is a matter not for sacred but for secular Babylonian history, whether the Cyaxares II. of Xenophon, or Astyages, or neither, but some descendant of Cyaxares. The name Daryawash (Darius) is confessedly an appellative, and so it is consistent with his being known in secular history by some other name. The coin called Daric is said to have been so named not from Darius Hystaspes, but from an olderking. The Darius who expelled Naboned from Carmania more likely to have been a contemporary of Cyrus than one fifteen years later. schylus, moreover, makes Darius Hystaspes recount his origin from Darius the Mede.

Among the thoughts suggested by the narrative are the following:

1. The short-lived nature of unhallowed pleasure. As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool (Ecc. 7:6). Belshazzar and his nobles had given themselves up to pleasure, heedless of warning and danger. Their godless revelry had reached its height when king and princes are summoned to their account.

2. The certainty of divine retribution. Belshazzars life one of licentiousness and immorality. Despising the lesson taught by the case of his grandfather, and trusting in his fortifications, lofty walls, and brazen gates, he expected to sin on with impunity. But the judgment of hardened offenders lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not (2Pe. 2:3).

3. The suddenness with which punishment often overtakes the wicked. Here it was in the midst of festivity and mirth. The sacred vessels of the Temple were still in their hands, and the God defying praises of Bel on their lips, when judgment falls upon the profane rioters. The king, his princes, and his people, thought themselves secure, and laughed at the besiegers, when destruction burst upon the doomed city. When they shall say, Peace and safety! then sudden destruction cometh upon them. Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and so that day come upon you unawares (1Th. 5:2; Luk. 21:34).

4. The terror of a guilty conscience. It was Belshazzars guilty conscience that blanched his cheeks and made his knees smite against each other as he beheld the writing on the wall. Tis conscience that makes cowards of us all. The wicked flee when no man pursueth. A heathen poet could write, A righteous man will be found fearless, though the heavens should fall and crush him [139].

[139] Whiles he tasted the wine, (bitem khamra). Keil understands the expression to mean when the wine was relished by him, as Hitzig says, In the wanton madness of one excited by wine. The Vulgate has temulentus, tipsy. Vatablus and Calvin: heated and excited by the wine. Grotius: while drinking, the wine became more and more pleasant to him. M. Henry: when he had tasted how rich and fine the wine was, he, with a profane jest, thought it a pity not to have the best vessels to drink it in. A. Clarke: he relished it, got heated by it, and when wine got fully in, wit went wholly out. Belshazzar is usually represented as addicted to the lowest vices of self-indulgence. Wintle, however, thinks that the expression in the text may simply refer to the libation to the gods made at the beginning of the feast, and quotes the words of Virgil,Primaque libato summo tenus attigit ore.

5. The aggravated guilt of unheeded warnings. Belshazzars special guilt that he lived a life of sin, with the case of Nebuchadnezzar before his eyes. Thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this. He that, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy (Pro. 29:1). Unheeded warnings and neglected calls both hasten the stroke of judgment and make it heavier when it comes.

6. The sin of not glorifying God. The sin charged upon Belshazzar, as the sum and essence of his-guilt, that the God in whose hand his breath was and whose were all his ways, he had not glorified. The sin that robs God of His right and proclaims man a rebel against his Maker. The Lord hath made all things for Himself. All creatures to glorify God according to their several natures and capacities, because He has created all things, and for His pleasure they are and were created. The universal sin. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God. The sin especially marked by God. Herod Agrippa eaten up of worms because he gave not God the glory. Yet few consider it a sin at all.

7. The stupidity of the human heart. Belshazzars riotous feast at the very time when the city and country were in imminent peril. With such an enemy as Cyrus at his gates and in possession of great part of the country, a fast would have been more becoming than a feast. Men often most heedless when in greatest danger. In that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth; and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (Isa. 22:12-13).

8. The destiny of men and nations in the hand of God. The days of Babylon and Babylons king were numbered. So the days of each State and of each individual in that State. The number of his months is with Thee. The hairs of our head are numbered, much more the days of your life. Yet man, as a free agent and a rational creature, generally responsible for the preservation of his own life and the life of others. The effect of sin to shorten the existence both of States and individuals. The bloody and deceitful man shall not live out half his days. On the other hand, prayer added fifteen years to Hezekiahs life, and repentance saved Nineveh from an impending and threatened destruction.

9. The beneficial influence of woman. A womans presence and voice powerful amid the terror and consternation of Belshazzars banquet-hall. The aged queen the only one able to give counsel to the terrified and bewildered king. Presence of mind and perception of what is needed in times of perplexity and peril often found in woman. The adaptation of woman to promote the comfort of life is a gracious provision of God; and the disposition to soothe anxiety, to alleviate suffering, to shield or aid in danger, is alike certain to operate and honourable to display.Cox.

10. The crime of wantonly profaning sacred things. This the acme of Belshazzars guilt. Men not unfrequently tempted, especially amid festivity and mirth, to commit this sin. Gods Word and ordinances sometimes profanely made to contribute to that mirth. When the facts and the expressions of the Bible, its sublime, its pure, and its holy truths, are used, as they not uufrequently are, to point a pun, add edge to a jest or keenness to a sarcasm, to excite a laugh or to provoke a sneer, you have Gods vessels desecrated to an unhallowed and profane end. Never try to construct jests from the Bible.Cumming.

11. The danger of indulging in intoxicating drink. It was while drinking wine [140], perhaps not deeply, that Belshazzar, in his impious madness, called for the sacred vessels of the Temple to drink still more. The king, wicked and profane to begin with, made more so by the excitement of strong drink. Herod the Tetrarch a similar example. Wine given by a beneficent Creator for mans refreshment and strength. But the same authority which states that wine gladdeneth mans heart, says also, Wine is a mocker, and strong drink is raging; and he that is deceived thereby is not wise (Pro. 20:1). The foulest crimes often, as at Belshazzars feast, the result of strong drink. All those sanguinary conspiracies which issued in such a frightful effusion of Protestant blood in France were concocted at Blois, Bayonne, Paris, and Orleans, amid the festivities of the table, and in the society of the Salomes and other immoral women who constantly attended Catherine de Medici, the Herodias of the French.Gaussen.

[140] Whiles he tasted the wine, (bitem khamra). Keil understands the expression to mean when the wine was relished by him, as Hitzig says, In the wanton madness of one excited by wine. The Vulgate has temulentus, tipsy. Vatablus and Calvin: heated and excited by the wine. Grotius: while drinking, the wine became more and more pleasant to him. M. Henry: when he had tasted how rich and fine the wine was, he, with a profane jest, thought it a pity not to have the best vessels to drink it in. A. Clarke: he relished it, got heated by it, and when wine got fully in, wit went wholly out. Belshazzar is usually represented as addicted to the lowest vices of self-indulgence. Wintle, however, thinks that the expression in the text may simply refer to the libation to the gods made at the beginning of the feast, and quotes the words of Virgil,Primaque libato summo tenus attigit ore.

12. The condition of unconverted men in general. That condition exhibited in the case of Belshazzar, as described in the writing on the wall,

WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES AND FOUND WANTING (Dan. 5:27)

1. Weighed in the balances. The figure taken from the practice of weighing the precious metals to test their purity. The balances those of the sanctuary, of Him who is the Judge of quick and dead [141]. Held by One who is omniscient, and whose knowledge no action, word, thought, feeling, wish, or secret motive can elude; who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins; who is impartial and no respecter of persons; and, finally, who is spotlessly just, judging of each act, word, thought, and feeling according to its real character and circumstances, and awarding accordingly. His balances just ones, such as He loves and requires of men. The weights in the balance to weigh these actions, &c., are His own law, which is just, and holy, and good, and adapted to mans moral nature; a law which he was created capable of fulfilling, and in the obedience of which he finds his happiness; a transcript of Gods own character, which is love, and therefore requiring only lovesupreme loveto our Maker, the sum and source of all excellence, and the fountain of all blessings to His creatures, with disinterested, universal, and impartial love to our neighbour; a law that is spiritual, taking cognisance of the inward thoughts, feelings, and motives, as well as outward acts and words, and requiring love as the character and mainspring of them all; a law as broad as mans moral nature and capabilities, requiring him to glorify God with his body and his spirit, whether he eat or drink or whatever he does, and to desire and seek the welfare of his neighbour as his own in respect to his whole being as an immortal creature, possessing body, soul, and spirit; a law that admits of no sin or the least disobedience, all such being rebellion against God; a law the penalty of which, for even the least transgression, is, as it ought to be, death, or the separation of the sinning and polluted soul from God, who is life and purity itself. Against such a law, written in mens consciences and revealed in Gods Word, men are weighed. The Lord weigheth the spirits. By Him actions are weighed. Job gets here his desire: Oh, that I were weighed in an even balance. Men weighed now as they are at each moment; every action, word, thought, and feeling as it passes. The great day of public weighing hereafter, when God shall judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He has appointed,shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.

[141] Weighed in the balances. The ancient Egyptians represented in a symbolical manner this weighing of individuals and their actions, as taking place after death, on one of the mummy cases in the British Museum. The soul is represented as weighed in the balances, and answered for by the embalmer of the dead. The soul was believed, by the Egyptians at least, to repose in the tomb till its gradual increase in virtue and size demanded its translation to heaven. It is seen, on the case, after being weighed, larger and larger still, and at last, when fully grown, rising up to heaven on the spread wings of the attendant scarabus, its cherubic emblem. The idea, however, of God as our observer and judge, weighing men and their actions as moral agents, was already a Biblical one. See Job. 31:6; Psa. 62:9; 1Sa. 2:3; Pro. 16:2; Isa. 26:7.

2. Found wanting. Universally true ever since man fell. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. A fact universally admitted, even by the heathen. That man is a sinner as true as that he is mortal, and the latter simply because he is the former. Man not merely a sinful creature but a fallen one. God made man upright, but he hath sought out many inventions. Mans fall from a state of innocence a universal tradition. His character, when left to himself, notoriously not love but selfishness. Mind number one mans rule of action; not Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, which is the law of God. Instead of loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, He is not in all our thoughts, and we do not desire to have Him there. The language of the natural heart, Depart from us; we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways. Dislike to a just and holy God, disregard of His will, and independence of His authority, the characteristics of fallen man in respect to his Maker. His nature corrupt, and no more the transcript of his Creator. Sin the character of his inner and outer life. His whole life oue continued shortcoming. Found wanting at every moment. The same true of every action, word, thought, and feeling, so far as they are the product of his own unrenewed nature. Even when the will may be to do what is right, the performance is wanting. Found wanting in all the relations of life, as parent and child, master and servant, ruler and ruled. A continuance in all the requirements of the law, day and night, all life through, in thought, word, and action, necessary to make him weight. Yet he continues in none, not even for an hour or a minute of his life. Hence the penalty of death incurred daily and hourly. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The wages of sinall and any sinis death.. Guilty before God, the charge against every child of man; guilty of death, his sentence.

3. Our only hope. Hope of acceptance with God from ourselves or any works of our own impossible. Every such attempt to gain acceptance only a further shortcoming. No action, word, thought, feeling, put into the scale, but is itself short weight. No more hope from our neighbour than from ourselves. Each in the same predicament. Every man must bear his own burden. Yet mans case not hopeless. Hope not found in himself but in another. That other is Jesus Christ, our hope. The hope provided by the Creator Himself. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help found. He hath laid help on one that is mighty. He who was the hope of Israel is the hope of a guilty world. The glad tidings from heavenThere is born unto you a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. This is the name by which He shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. God in our nature, the Eternal Word made flesh, He is provided as our surety and substitute, the just one taking the place of the unjust. Gods Righteous Servant, fulfilling all righteousness, that, accepting and trusting in Him, His righteousness might be reckoned to us, and we might be accepted in Him. He hath made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2Co. 5:21). To those who accept of Him, and so are in him, He is of God made righteousness as well as sanctification and redemption. Made one with Him, through acceptance of Him and trust in Him, His perfect obedience is ours, and is thrown into the scale as our own. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made righteous. Christs works, not our own, make us full weight; His, and at the same time ours by virtue of union with Him. His righteousness, not our own, the garment for the marriage feast. The sin and ruin of the Jews that they rejected this robe of righteousness. They being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3). Reader, what have you to weigh against Gods law? Christs works or your own? If the former, as evinced by a new heart and life, you are accepted; if the latter, still found wanting. Lose no time in accepting Christ as your righteousness. You may even yet have His works put into the empty scale as your own. But soon it will be too late. Accept in time, or you are undone.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER FIVE
I. DEGENERATE DESPOTS

DEMISEDan. 5:1-31

a. TERROR

TEXT: Dan. 5:1-7

1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2

Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom.

3

Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them.

4

They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone,

5

In the same hour came forth the fingers of a mans hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kings palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6

Then the kings countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

7

The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

QUERIES

a.

Who is Belshazzar and what happened between his reign and that of Nebuchadnezzar?

b.

Why insist upon drinking wine from the vessels of the temple which was in Jerusalem?

c.

Where did the fingers of a mans hand come from?

PARAPHRASE

Belshazzar the king of the district of Babylon put on a great feast for a thousand of his army officers and they all got drunk. As Belshazzar was getting drunk, he ordered his servants to bring the gold and silver vessels which his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar, had carried off from the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem. When the servants arrived with these vessels he and his army officers, his wives and his concubines in insolent defiance of the god of the Jews drank toasts to their pagan gods of metal and wood. Suddenly, in the midst of their drunken revelry, they saw the fingers of a mans hand writing on the plaster of the wall opposite the lampstand. The king himself saw the fingers as they wrote. His face grew pale with terror, and such fear gripped him his hips began to tremble violently and his knees knocked together. He began screaming that the diviners, wise-men and astrologers be brought with haste. As they began coming into the banquet hall the king shouted loudly, Whoever reads that writing on the wall, and tells me what it means, I will dress in purple robes of royal honor and put a golden chain of regal authority around his neck, and I will place him in very high authority in my kingdom.

COMMENT

Dan. 5:1 BELSHAZZAR THE KING . . . Hostile critics of the Bible have seen their beautiful theories murdered by the brutal facts of history as it is now available in the case of Belshazzar. For a hundred years these critics attempted to use the absence of historical reference to Belshazzar as a weapon to destroy the historical trustworthiness of the record of Daniel. Recently, however, archeological and historical data has been discovered which thoroughly substantiates the historicity of Daniels account concerning belshazzar.

Berosus lists the succession of kings of Babylon, beginning with Nabopolassar who came to the throne upon the overthrow of the Assyrian power, as follows:
625 B.C.Nabopolassar (died)
604 B.C.Nebuchadnezzar (died)
562 B.C.Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) (assassinated by Neriglissar)
560 B.C.Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissar) (diedthrone to infant Labashi-Marduk)
556 B.C.Labashi-Marduk (deposed by priestly partyreplaced by Nabonidus)
555 B.C.Nabunadi (Nabonidus) (exiled and pensioned by Persian conquerors)
538 B.C.Capture of Babylon by Cyrus (Belshazzar was killed)

Berosus has also been validated as a reliable historian by the archaeological data published for all the monuments and inscriptions amply confirm his sequence of the Babylonian kings, The critics, prior to the discovery of these amazing documents, argued from silence. At the same time the defenders of the Bible were forced to argue from silence. Now, however, every bit of evidence is on the side of those who accept the historical accuracy of the Bible and the critics, still arguing from silence, do so squarely in the face of empirical, scientific testimony!

We quote in full from Archaeology And Bible History, by Joseph P. Free, pages 231235, pub. Scripture Press:

EVENTS IN BABYLON, c. 562560 B.C.; ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIGHT ON JEHOIACHIN AND EVIL-MERODACH (2Ki. 25:27-30)

Nebuchadnezzar died about 562 B.C. He was succeeded by his son, Evil-merodach, who allowed Jehoiachin to come out of prison (2Ki. 25:27-30), and gave him an allowance of provisions (2Ki. 25:30). We have already noted the discovery of clay tablets at Babylon listing the payment of rations of oil, barley and other food to workmen and political prisoners. Among those listed as recipients of these provisions was Jehoiachin of Judah (See last part of Ch. 19, section on Archaeological Confirmation of Jehoiachins Exile . . .).

Archaeological evidence of Evil-merodach (Amil-Marduk in Babylonian) was found on a vase at Susa in Persia, reported by the French archaeological expedition there. This vase bore an inscription which read, Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. The people of Persia (called Elam in ancient times) had apparently carried this vase from Babylonia to Persia at the time of one of their military invasions of the Mesopotamian area.

LAST EVENTS IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE, c. 560539 B.C.; NABONIDUS AND BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5).

Evil-merodach ruled for only two or three years (c. 562560 B.C.) and was then assassinated by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (Nergalsharezer), who is identical with the Nergalshaerezer of Jer. 39:3. After a rather successful administration of four years (c. 560556 B.C.), Neriglissar died, leaving the throne to his infant son, Labashi-Marduk, who was deposed by the priestly party in nine months, and replaced by Nabonidus (Nabunaid), a Babylonian of the priestly group.

Nabonidus (556539 B.C.) tells us in his inscriptions that he had been a trusted general in the army of his predecessors. As king, Nabonidus maintained the stability of the empire, and spent much time in directing the building and strengthening of the fortifications on the Euphrates River. One of his great joys came in the rebuilding of temples which lay in ruins. His record telling of the rebuilding of the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and the finding of the foundation record of Naram-Sin has already been cited (See this book, Ch. 19, section on The Finding of the book of the Law . . .).

Whereas the secular sources indicated Nabonidus as the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Bible indicates Belshazzar as the last ruler (Daniel 5). This apparent contradiction and difficulty has been resolved by the archaeological discoveries of recent years. It will be dealt with in the following section.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFIRMATION CONCERNING NABONIDUS AND BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5)

The author of this book received the following letter from a college sudent:
I am a history major at the university. This semester I am taking a course in Ancient History.

As my religious beliefs are orthodox and some Dr.s are not, there are naturally quite a few points where we do not agree. The particular point which she and I are discussing at the present time concerns the book of Daniel. Dr.believes that Daniel errs in his book when he speaks of Belshazzar as king of the Chaldeans in Dan. 5:1. She says that Nabonidus was king of Babylon at the time of its fall and not Belshazzar. She takes the position that Belshazzar was never king, and, from the way she has spoken, I believe she even doubts his actual existence. She also has taught that Daniel errs when he says that Babylon was taken by siege. According to other accounts there was not a siege of Babylon. It was just handed over to Cyrus.

I feel as though I should have proof for my beliefs whenever it is possible to obtain it. I am writing to you to ask you if you would be willing to give me your point of view on the matter or refer me to some source which, in your opinion, states the facts correctly.
The author of this book replied to the above letter as follows:

The Biblical statements concerning Belshazzar have been used for a long time by liberals to demonstrate that the Bible is not accurate. It is quite true that up to one hundred years ago our historical sources (outside of the Bible) showed that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and was not killed when the city was taken by the Persians, but was given a pension by his conquerors. Ancient historians such as Berossus (c. 250 B.C.) and Alexander Polyhistor give us this information that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. On the other hand, the Bible indicates that Belshazzar was the last ruler of Babylon and that he was killed when the city was taken (Dan. 5:30). Modern liberal commentators, such as Hitzig, have taken the view that the name Belshazzar was a pure invention on the part of the writer of Daniel.

Archaeological discoveries, however, show that the Bible is accurate in regard to its indications concerning Belshazzar. About the middle of the nineteenth century a great number of clay tablets were excavated in the region which was ancient Babylonia, and were sent to the British Museum. During the last half of the nineteenth century many of these tablets were examined by Dr. Theophilus G. Pinches, prominent Assyriologist of London. One of these clay tablets contained the name Belshazzar, which showed that such a man actually existed. Another tablet was found to bear the names of Belshazzar and Nabonidus, showing that there was some connection between these two people, and another tablet referred to Belshazzar as the kings son. Another tablet was examined which proved to be a contract, containing an oath taken in the name of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. In ancient Babylonia oaths were taken in the name of the reigning king. This tablet, then, gave indication that Belshazzar was actually co-ruler with his father, Nabonidus.

In subsequent years, the work of Raymond P. Dougherty, late professor of Assyriology at Yale University, furnished further illumination on the situation concerning Belshazzar. Dougherty showed that during the later part of his reign Nabonidus spent a great deal of his time in Arabia, probably for the purpose of consolidating that part of his empire, although some scholars have suggested that he was doing what we would call archaeological work, and others have suggested that he stayed in Arabia because he liked the climate. In any event the clay tablets show us the reason for the raising of Belshazzar to the position of ruling monarchnamely, because of the absence of his father from Babylon. The English scholar, Sidney Smith, has published an inscription which evidently refers to Nabonidus and which says, He entrusted the kingship to him, indicating the bestowal of royal authority upon Belshazzar.[2] [3]

[2] R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929) (DNB)

[3] Ibid., p. 108.

There is no first-rate liberal today, as far as the writer knows, who urges this old objection concerning Belshazzar. An example of the way in which liberals recognize the facts in the case may be taken from the book, What Mean These Stones, by Millar Burrows, where he points out that the solution of this apparent discrepancy was apparent when evidence was found that during the last part of his reign Nabunaid (Nabonidus) lived in Arabia and left the administration of the government to his son Belshazzar.

The detailed facts are that Nabonidus, in one sense the last king of Babylon, was not killed by the invading Persians, but was given a pension by his conquerors. On the other hand, Belshazzar, elevated to the position of ruler of Babylon by his father, was killed when the city of Babylon was taken, as indicated in Dan. 5:30. The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.

For more detail on this data see Boutflower (IABD, pgs. 114141). There is no doubt now that Belshazzar was a historical personage. That Daniel calls him king in no way implies that Daniel understood him to be emperor of all the Babylonian empire. The Hebrew and Aramaic languages do not have a word for emperor who is over kings. One word, king, covers all such and similar relationships. Belshazzar was the king of the city of Babylon and its districtand perhaps a few adjoining districts.

Since the question of the relationship of Nabonidus and Belshazzar to Nebuchadnezzar comes here first it may be well to bring in the subject of the queen in Dan. 5:10. Some have supposed her to be the queen-mother of Belshazzar. Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar and came to the throne by means other than royal family succession. However, since only seven years had elapsed between Nebuchadnezzars death and the accession of Nabonidus to the throne, it could have easily been possible that a young widowed wife of Nebuchadnezzar was available for Nabonidus to marry. Such a marriage would give the usurper Nabonidus social or royal standing (Herod the Great had this in mind, no doubt, when he married the Hasmonean princess, Mariamne). Thus the queen would be the queen-mother to Belshazzar. There is also the possibility that Belshazzar, might have been a real son of Nebuchadnezzar and not Nabonidus, living at the same time Nabonidus was living. When Nabonidus married the widowed queen he may have adopted the son, Belshazzar, and thus secured an heir for himself, a scion of the illustrious family of Nebuchadnezzar.

Robert Dick Wilson in (SBD, pg. 117ff) has shown among the Arabs and the Babylonians the word son lent itself to no less than twelve separate uses, including grandson and adopted son; and the word for father has seven separate and distinct uses.

Dan. 5:2-4 BELSHAZZAR, WHILE HE TASTED THE WINE, COMMANDED TO BRING THE GOLDEN AND SILVER VESSELS . . . THEY DRANK WINE AND PRAISED THE GODS OF GOLD . . . Leupold remarks that the Oriental . . . king and his most renowned men of state sat on an elevated dias in the banquet hall. The drinking of wine followed after the meal had been eaten; it signifies the procedure that might be termed a drinking bout.

When the wine was beginning to have its inebriating effect, supplying that pseudo-boldness and courage which is characteristic of its intoxicating ingredients, this debauched monarch commanded the holy vessels of the Jewish Temple be brought that they might be used in their revelry. This was plainly an act of open defiance, calculated to insult the God whose Temple stood in Jerusalem. Using the vessels of the Jewish Temple, Belshazzar and his drunken court drank toasts to their idols. Leupold points out that this is a deed unparalleled in the records of antiquity. The heathen were noted for destroying and ransacking the temples of their victims but they always erected new temples for the deities of the conquered nations or placed their sacred things in their own pantheons. The gods of all peoples were venerated; a man respected his own gods as well as the gods of others.

As is plainly shown in Dan. 5:22 ff., Belshazzar sad ample opportunity to know better than this. His action then was plainly one of insolence brought on by drunken debauchery. His predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar, was guilty of pride. Belshazzar was guilty of insolence. There has been a marked degeneracy in the moral and rational fibre of the Babylonian leadership.

The Handwriting On the Wall

Belshazzar is the typical profligate and frivolous monarch of paganism. The presence of the kings wives and concubines was usually not tolerated at banquets. It was, however, permitted when debauchery began to run rampant. added insult to the holy God of heaven.
How many people were at this banquet? Royal feasts in antiquity were often huge. Athenaeus relates that the Persian king daily fed 15,000 men from his table. One marriage festival given by Alexander the Great was attended by 10,000 guests.
All the data we have thus far gathered on Belshazzar indicates that he occupied a position of co-regency with Nabonidus; yet while Belshazzar occupied a position, technically, subordinate to that of Nabonidus, actually, he seems to have had nearly all the prerogatives of a monarch. He was actually entrusted with the kingship over Babylon, and he managed it like a king. Now it is important to remember the book of Daniel is not an official document of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It was written for the Jews, the people of God, who had to deal with the man who ruled in Babylon. This man was Belshazzarnot Nabonidus. The man whose royal word could affect the Jews was Belshazzar. Very properly, therefore, he is called king and king of Babylon.

Dan. 5:5-7 . . . CAME FORTH THE FINGERS OF A MANS HAND, AND WROTE . . . UPON THE PLASTER . . . Just as the feast began to swing, a human hand appeared and with the fingers began to inscribe some words upon the white plaster of the kings banquet hall. The royal table sat on the dais and close to a back wall. That portion of the great hall (about 50 x 160) was lit with a great candelabrum, the light of which reflected on the plastered wall behind the royal seat. Another interesting testimony of archaeology is that the walls of the palace at Babylon were covered with white plaster. This mention of white plaster is interesting because the Aramaic word translated plaster literally means chalk.

The sight of this hand was clearly seen by the king, It had a rapid, sobering effect on the king! Seeing only a hand, the kings imagination would have free reign to think of all manner of terrible beings who might be the owner of that hand. The color drained from his face leaving it ghostly white and he began to shake violently so that his hips seemed to go clear out of their sockets and his knees knocked together so the knocking could be heard by those standing near him! The arrogant, insolent king of a few moments ago, defying the Almighty, now stands transfixed with terror!
Unable to sit down because of his shaking, hardly able to stand because of his overpowering fear, the king screams (literally, with excessive loudness), to hide his trembling voice, Summon my wise-men immediately! His thoughts troubled him . . . may indicate that his conscience began to bother him. We have commented earlier on the categories of seers in the Babylonian court.
Belshazzar hastily promises anyone of them elevation to a place of preeminence in the kingdom if one of them can decipher the writing on the wall for him. Just what the position third in the kingdom means is debated by the commentators. Young thinks it means a thirdling or triumvir, one of three. The Triumvirate would then include, in order of authority, Nabonidus, Belshazzer, and whoever deciphered the writing (as the sequence of events shows would be Daniel). Leupold maintains it reads literally talti which is not the ordinal numeral third, which would have to be telithi. It therefore probably means adjutant or officer. It no doubt involves a very high dignity, but no man is able to determine exactly what dignity.

QUIZ

1.

Prove that Belshazzar was a real, historic personage.

2.

How may Nebuchadnezzar be designated the father of Belshazzar?

3.

Who was the queen?

4.

How many people might be in attendance at this banquet?

5.

What was Belshazzars purpose in drinking wine from the temple vessels?

6.

Describe Belshazzars condition upon seeing the hand writing on the wall.

7.

Should Belshazzar have known better than to act this way with the Jews sacred vessels? Why?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

V.

(1) Belshazzar.On this king see Excursus C. As he was the son of Nabonidus, a space of about thirty years must have elapsed since the event recorded in the last chapter. The Babylonian empire survived the death of Nebuchadnezzar only twenty-five years.

A thousand.There is nothing unreasonable in the number of the guests; in fact, the LXX. have doubled the number. (See Est. 1:3-4.)

Before the thousand.The king appears to have had a special table reserved for himself apart from the guests. For this custom comp. Jer. 52:33.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

BELSHAZZAR’S VIEW OF THE DOOM WRITTEN BY JEHOVAH AGAINST HIS KINGDOM, AND ITS FULFILLMENT.

1. On Belshazzar see Introduction, III, 3, (4). It is not distinctly stated that this famous feast occurred in Babylon, though the cuneiform texts agree very well with the usual supposition. We are to think of this banquet if it indeed represents, as it may, an historic incident as occurring at a time when the army of Cyrus had already captured the entire city with the exception of the royal palace and temple citadel. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4), (5); 4.] These “thousand lords” which, of course, is but a round number, though Alexander is said to have had ten thousand nobles at his marriage feast (Curtius) were surrounded and entrapped, yet, as can be paralleled in many a history, their very danger seems to have made them more full of braggadocio. It may have been a desire to encourage certain fainting hearts, or to restrain a possible latent wish to surrender or betray this little patriotic remnant of Belshazzar’s formerly vast army, which led him to be excessively boastful, while the insult to the sacred vessels of Jehovah may have been provoked by the fact as is seen from many prophecies, for example, Isaiah 13; Isaiah 14; Isa 44:28; Isaiah 45; Jeremiah 50; Jeremiah 51 that the large Jewish population in Babylonia hailed the victories of Cyrus with unconcealed delight. Indeed it has been suspected by some scholars that the immediate edict by Cyrus for the Jews’ “return” may have been in payment for some important help rendered by them in the capture of Babylon. This hypothesis would have more weight, however, if the Jews had been the only people sent back to their own land, which was not the case. (See Introduction to Ezekiel, VII.) The Babylonians were celebrated for their feasts and drunkenness. Modern excavations have given us many details connected with these banquets. The walls of these banqueting halls were made of brick, but were covered from the floor to a considerable height with slabs of alabaster, while above these the walls were decorated with paintings on the stucco representing hunting and mythological scenes. The guests, as may be seen from the pictures, were commonly divided into groups of four who sat on raised seats facing each other, each group having a special table richly ornamented and covered with a fancy cloth. They were clothed in long robes which descended to their feet, and shod with sandals, their arms being bare and adorned with armlets and bracelets, while in the hand of each, a cup of elegant shape, the bottom often being in the form of a lion’s head, is held aloft preparatory to pledging the health of a friend or the king. These cups when emptied were refilled from a large jar standing on the floor. The wine drinking was the important part of these “feasts.” The guests are always seen in the sculptures not eating but drinking. It was a peculiarity of the Babylonians, distinguishing them from other orientals, that women were allowed at these feasts. In the British Museum may still be seen a representation of a little garden party where the Babylonian king and queen are drinking together, while above them the ghastly head of one of the king’s enemies hangs from a limb of one of the trees.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.’

The abrupt introduction of the subject is typical of the author (compare Dan 3:1; Dan 4:1). Belshazzar (mentioned as Bel – shar – usur on cuneiform tablets, where he is always called ‘son of the king’) was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and son of Nabonidus, the latter later in life going into semi-retirement in Arabia to study astrology, leaving Belshazzar to act in his place as king. A Persian document says of Nabonidus ‘he freed his hand. He entrusted the kingship to him. Then he himself undertook a distant campaign’, demonstrating that it was not the first time he had done it. Decrees were issued in their joint names, and their names were regularly associated in various ways. Thus while not strictly ‘sharru’ (overall king) Daniel is justified in calling him ‘melek’, ruler, as he also does Cyrus’ general, Darius the Mede, for he exercised kingly authority and was more than just a governor.

The ‘thousand’ is a round number meaning ‘a good number’. The word ‘a thousand’ was used among other things to depict a larger military unit, as against ‘a hundred’ or ‘a ten’. Large feasts like this were typical of oriental royal feasts. Indeed there were much larger ones. That a great feast was held on the night of the fall of Babylon is attested by both Herodotus and Xenophon. During the feast Belshazzar became inebriated. The drinking of wine was a large part of such feasts.

This gathering took place while the city of Babylon was surrounded by enemies, for the Medo-Persians had invaded Babylonia under one of Cyrus’ generals named Ugbaru, and the city was virtually under siege. But due to their strong defences they were confident of holding out.

‘Drank wine before the thousand.’ The king would be seated alone at his table on a raised platform as befitted his status.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Belshazzar’s Feast and Daniel’s Prophecy of Babylon’s Fall (539 B.C.) In Dan 5:1-31 we have the story of the great feast that Belshazzar held in his palace. Historians tell us that Belshazzar, the son of Evil-Merodach and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was the last king of Babylon. While the city of Babylon was under siege by Cyrus, the Persian king, Belshazzar gathered all of his leaders to a great feast, perhaps in order to strengthen their loyalty towards him. When a man’s hand appeared and wrote upon the wall during the midst of the feast, the queen brought in Daniel, by now an old man, to interpret the writing. Daniel then told the king that this was the night that the kingdom of Babylon would fall.

Historical Background – It is popularly believed that the fall of Babylon referred to in Dan 5:30 refers to the story of Cyrus taking Babylon by leading the Persian army under the city wall after the Euphrates River had been diverted, allowing to enter an otherwise impenetrable fortress, and being led by Gobryas and Gadatas (Herodotus, Histories 1.190-191, Xenophon Cyropaedia 7.5.1-33). [86] That very night in 539 B.C. Belshazzar was slain and Darius the Median took control as viceroy under Cyrus, king of the Media-Persian Empire. This new empire would dominate the world for around two hundred (200) years until its defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great in 331 B.C.

[86] Herodotus, The Histories of Herodotus, trans. Henry Cary (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899), 74-75; Xenophon, The Cyropaedia, or Institutions of Cyrus, and the Hellenics, or Grecian History, trans. J. S. Watson and Henry Dale (London: George Bell and Sons, 1880), 220-225.

Evil-Merodach – It is interesting to note that we have no record in the book of Daniel of Daniel ministering during the reign of Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar and father of Belshazzar. Perhaps at the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach his son retired his father’s administrative staff and appointed his own loyal officials. This is often the case during the change of leadership and it was a practice in Persia in the recent centuries. However, the queen and wife of Belshazzar remembered the man Daniel and how God worked through him to interpret such divine events and sent for him.

The Pride of Belshazzar In stark contrast to King Nebuchadnezzar’s humility and glorification of the God of Daniel as recorded in the immediately passage of Scripture, King Belshazzar bursts onto the scene in an expression of the same pride that brought his grandfather low through divine judgment. When Daniel is called in to interpret the handwriting on the wall, he will refer to the pride of Nebuchadnezzar, his divine judgment in the form of madness, and his restoration and glorification of the Most High God. Belshazzar himself will be judged that same night by God through the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and the death of the king. Thus, the story of Belshazzar’s pride and destruction is part of a continuous story within Daniel 4-6 that emphasizes God’s standard of righteousness for the Gentile nations.

Dan 5:1   Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

Dan 5:1 Comments – Goldingay says, “The last actual Chaldean king, Nabonidus, ‘entrusted the kingship’ in 539 b.c. to his son Bl-ar-uur during his ten-year absence from Babylon, returning as the threat from Cyrus grew.” [87]

[87] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on 5:1-4.

Dan 5:11  There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

Dan 5:11 Comments – Regarding the phrase “king Nebuchadnezzar thy father,” according to ancient extra-biblical historians Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus and the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar was the grandfather of Belshazzar. Archer tells us that it was common to refer to one’s more distant ancestor as father also. We find this done in may passages of Scriptures (Gen 28:13; Gen 32:9). We can read in the Black Obelisk inscription of Shalmaneser III that Jehu is referred to as the son of Omri, who was his distant ancestor. We can also find this in Egyptian writings. [88]

[88] Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, eds. Frank E. Gaebelien, J. D. Douglas, Dick Polcyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House), 1976-1992, in Zondervan Reference Software, v. 2.8 [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp., 1989-2001), “Introduction: 7 Special Problems: c. Alleged historical inaccuracies: 4) “King” Belshazzar and his relationship to Nabonidus.”

Gen 28:13, “And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;”

Gen 32:9, “And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee:”

Dan 5:22  And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

Dan 5:22 Comments – It appears that God held Belshazzar more accountable than his father Nebuchadnezzar for understanding the ways of God that has been revealed to him. His father had not known of the God of Israel until Daniel has revealed Him to the king. Now God is holding Belshazzar responsible for this revelation and insight into the righteous ways of God.

Dan 5:23  But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

Dan 5:25  And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

Dan 5:25 “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN” – Comments – The Aramaic reads ( ). F. F. Bruce tells us that these were common Aramaic words, indicating various weights.

He says the word “Mene” is used in other Semitic languages, being derived from the verb menah (Hebrew “manah”, Adkkadian “manu”). The Greeks borrowed this word and it became “mna” or “mina” in the New Testament, and is translated as “pound” in English.

He says the word “Tekel” is found as “sheqel” or “shekel” in Hebrew, which is also a measure of weight in the Old Testament. In Babylonia and Assyria sixty shekels equaled one maneh. In Palestine, fifty shekels equaled one maneh.

He says the word “Upharsin” also refers to a measure of weight. The “U” is a form of the conjunction ( ) meaning “and.” The word “pharsin” is the plural form of “peres” ( ), which means “a division.” Thus, it carries the meaning of half-minas.

However, these words carry the Aramaic meaning, “numbered, weighed, divided,” which fits the context of this passage. [89]

[89] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), 1963, 52.

Dan 5:26  This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

Dan 5:26 Word Study on “MENE” Strong says the Aramaic word “Mene” ( ) (H4484) literally means, “numbered,” and comes from the Aramaic verb ( ) (H4483), which means, “to count, to appoint,” thus, “to number, to ordain, to set.” This Aramaic word “MENE” is used only three times in the Old Testament, with all three uses being found here in Dan 5:25-26.

Comments – The word “MENE” is repeated to emphasize the fact that God’s Word is certain.

Dan 5:26 Word Study on “hath numbered” – Strong says the Aramaic word “numbered” ( ) (H4483) means, “to count, to appoint,” thus, “to number, to ordain, to set.”

Dan 5:26 “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it” – Comments – That is, God has determined the number of years that this kingdom should last. Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would exist seventy years and that He would judge the kingdom of the Chaldeans after using them to judge Judah (Jer 25:1; Jer 25:11-12; Jer 27:6-7).

Jer 25:1, “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon ;”

Jer 25:11-12, “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years . And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon , and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”

Jer 27:6-7, “And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come : and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him.”

Dan 5:27  TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

Dan 5:27 Word Study on “TEKEL” – Strong says the Aramaic word ( ) (H8625) literally means, “to balance,” and comes from the Aramaic verb ( ) (H8254), which means “to suspend, or poise”, thus, “to pay, to receive, to spend, to weigh.” From this same Hebrew verb comes the familiar word “shekel,” Aramaic ( ) (H8255), translated, “shekel” in the KJV, which is used as a common unit of measuring weight throughout the Old Testament. This Aramaic word is used only three times in the Old Testament, with all three uses being found here in Dan 5:25; Dan 5:27.

Dan 5:27 Word Study on “weighed” – Strong says the Aramaic word ( ) (H8625) literally means, “to balance.”

Dan 5:27 Word Study on “wanting”- Strong says the Aramaic word ( ) (H2627) means, “deficient, wanting,” and corresponds to the Aramaic verb ( ) (H2637), which means, “to lack.” We can see the meaning of this word in Psa 62:9.

Psa 62:9, “Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity.”

Dan 5:27 “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting” Comments – F. F. Bruce reads, “You are weighed in the balances and found to be under weight.” [90]

[90] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), 1963, 52.

Dan 5:28  PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Dan 5:28 Word Study on “PERES” – Strong says the Aramaic word ( ) (H6537) means, “to split up, to divide.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 3 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “UPHARSIN 1, PEREH1, divided 1.” Note in the Aramaic text that “PERES” ( ) is the singular of “UPHARSIN” ( ), which has the same spelling as “Persians” ( ), which word is found in this same verse. Thus, there appears to be a play on words.

Dan 5:28 Word Study on “divided” – Strong says the Aramaic word ( ) (H6537) means, “to split up, to divide,” and corresponds to the Hebrew verb ( ) (H6536), which means, “to break in pieces, to split, to distribute.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 14 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “divide 9, parteth 2, deal 1, hoofs 1, tear 1.” The word ( ) (H6537) is used only three times in the Old Testament. All three uses are found in this passage, the other two being found in Dan 5:25, “UPHARSIN” and in Dan 5:28 “PERES.”

Dan 5:29  Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

Dan 5:30  In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

Dan 5:31  And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Dan 5:31 Comments – Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the seed of the Medes, reigned briefly from 538 to 536 B.C. (Dan 9:1). (This is not a reference to Darius the Persian who was the third successor to Cyrus the Great.) Scholars say that at the death of Belshazzar (Dan 5:30), Darius “received the kingdom” of Babylon by being made king, or viceroy, over the kingdom of the Chaldeans under Cyrus the king of Persia (Dan 5:31). Thus, Dan 6:28 suggests that Darius and Cyrus ruled at the same time. This is supported by the fact that the name “Darius” never occurs in any ancient documents outside of the book of Daniel. We can conclude that Darius was probably never the king over the entire Persian Empire.

Dan 6:28, “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

Dan 9:1, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;”

When we go to extra-biblical sources, we find that the Greek historians credit the takeover to Cyrus the Persian. [91] Herodotus (484-425 B.C.), the Greek historian, tells us that Cyrus led an army of Medes and Persians to Babylon and captured the city after diverting a water channel of the Euphrates river, with the dried river allowing entrance into the city by night (see Herodotus 1.191). [92] Xenophon (430-354 B.C.), a later Greek historian, also records the fall of Babylon, but includes the story of two of Cyrus’ skilled generals Gadatas and Gobryas, who orchestrating the assault ( Cyropaedia 7.5.1-34). [93] Josephus tells us that Darius the king of Media was a relative of Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, and that together they took over the Babylonian kingdom from Belshazzar.

[91] Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, ed. Frank E. Gaebelien, J. D. Douglas, Dick Polcyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House), 1976-1992, in Zondervan Reference Software, v. 2.8 [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp., 1989-2001), “Introduction: 7 Special Problems: c. Alleged historical inaccuracies: 5) The ‘legendary’ Darius the Mede.”

[92] See Herodotus 1.191 in Herodotus I, Books I-II, trans. by A. D. Godley, in The Loeb Classical Library, eds. T. E. Page, E. Capps, and W. H. D. Rouse (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975), 238-241.

[93] See Xenophon Cyropaedia 7.5.1-34 in The Cyropaedia, or Institutions of Cyrus, and the Hellenics, or Grecian History, trans. J. S. Watson and Henry Dale (London: George Bell and Sons, 1880), 220-225.

“When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war; and when he was besieged in Babylon, there happened a wonderful and prodigious vision.” ( Antiquities 10.11.2)

“And this is the end of the posterity of king Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs us; but when Babylon was taken by Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks. Moreover, he took Daniel the prophet, and carried him with him into Media, and honored him very greatly, and kept him with him; for he was one of the three presidents whom he set over his three hundred and sixty provinces, for into so many did Darius part them.” ( Antiquities 10.11.5)

It would not have been uncommon for Cyrus the Persian to appoint a prominent Mede as viceroy over a part of his kingdom in order to reward loyalty and keep unity in the region. We know that many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals. This is very likely how Darius the Mede gained the description as taking the kingdom in Dan 5:31. Since there is record of a man named Gubaru who appears as the governor of Babylonia and of Ebir-nari (the western domains under Chaldean sovereignty) in tablets dated from the fourth to the eighth year of Cyrus (535-532 B.C.), some scholars suggest that Gubaru took the title as “ Dar eyawes ” or “Darius” during his rule as viceroy under King Cyrus. [94]

[94] Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, eds. Frank E. Gaebelien, J. D. Douglas, Dick Polcyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House), 1976-1992, in Zondervan Reference Software, v. 2.8 [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp., 1989-2001), “Introduction: 7 Special Problems: c. Alleged historical inaccuracies: 5), The ‘legendary’ Darius the Mede.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Daniel’s Ministry to Gentile Kings Daniel 1-6 contains the historical section of the book, while Daniel 7-12 is called the prophetic section. Chapters 2-6 emphasize Daniel’s ministry to the kings of Babylon and Media. In these passages he interprets two dreams and the writing on the wall for these Gentile kings. Note that the stories recorded in the first six chapters of the book of Daniel have been arranged in chronological order. In addition, chapters 3 and 6 tell of the persecutions that Daniel and his three Hebrew friends faced from the Gentiles, while chapters 2, 4 and 6 tell of Daniel’s ministry to these Gentile kings. But the underlying theme of each of these stories is the glorification of the God of Israel.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Justification: God Exalts the Righteous and Humbles the Proud Dan 4:1 to Dan 6:28 records the stories of Daniel’s prophetic interpretation and fulfillment of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which predicted his madness for a season (Dan 4:1-27). In this interpretation Daniel calls the king to repent and stand righteous before God in order to obtain His mercies (Dan 4:27). The king is struck mad in the midst of his boasting, only having his mind restored after the season predicted by Daniel’s interpretation of the dream. King Nebuchadnezzar repents when his mind is restored, gives all glory to God, declaring Him true and just, and he finds God’s mercy in that God restores to him his kingdom and his splendor (Dan 4:28-37). This story is followed by King Belshazzar’s drunken pride, when his boasting is interrupted by a divine handwriting upon the wall. Daniel interprets the dream as divine judgment upon the king, only to find its fulfillment that same night in the death of the king and the fall of Babylon (Dan 5:1-31). Darius the Mede exalts Daniel above his other governors because of his just character. Daniel’s right standing before God is tested in the lion’s den and he is proven genuine. Thus, he prospers during the reigns of Darius and Cyprus (Dan 6:1-28).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Feast and the Handwriting.

v. 1. Belshazzar, the king, the son of Nabonidus, either natural or adopted, and coregent with him, apparently the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine before the thousand, the banquet becoming a drunken orgy. He was in command of the capital at that time and excelled in most of the vices for which Oriental rulers were known.

v. 2. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, sitting before them on a platform or dais, when he had just gotten under the influence of the wine’s intoxicating power, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father, or grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the Temple which was in Jerusalem, Cf Jer 52:19; 2Ki 25:14-17, that the king and his princes, the foremost nobles of the realm, his wives and his concubines, whose presence at the royal banquets is mentioned also by secular historians, might drink therein, using them to parade their drunken mockery.

v. 3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the Temple of the house of God, out of the Sanctuary proper, which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines, drank in them. This act can in no wise be excused or condoned, not even as an act of religion, as a libation to the God of the Jews: it was a deed of reckless profanity.

v. 4. They drank wine and, in their intoxicated condition, praised the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. It was thus essentially an exaltation of their idols above Jehovah, of whom they thought that they had conquered Him in battle; but the prophet indicates the vanity of their idols by enumerating the materials of which they were made.

v. 5. In the same hour, suddenly, while they were still in the midst of their drunken revelry, came forth fingers of a man’s hand and wrote, or were writing, over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, which had no paneling or tapestry; and the king saw the part of the hand, the extremity of the moving fingers, that wrote. “Upon a spot of the wall which was particularly exposed to the light from the lamp above the king, he suddenly beheld the mysterious and terrifying phenomenon of the hand engaged in writing. ”

v. 6. Then the king’s countenance was changed, literally, “Then the king, his color was changed unto him,” and his thoughts troubled him, as his guilty conscience filled him with terror, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, they no longer possessed the strength to hold the body together firmly, and his knees smote one against another, his terror causing him to lose control of them entirely. “How changed the scene from the glee of his blasphemous revelry to this paleness of cheek, convulsion of frame, remorse of conscience, and dread foreboding of doom! Many a sinner has had a like experience, and other thousands must have it!” (Cowles. )

v. 7. The king cried aloud, his terror causing him to raise his voice with might, to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, that is, all the wisest men of the realm. And the king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon, as many as followed his summons at once, Whosoever shall read this writing and show me the interpretation thereof, explaining its meaning and applying its significance, shall be clothed with scarlet, with the costly purple garments worn by Oriental rulers, and have a chain of gold about his neck, this golden necklace serving as the mark of special favor from the king, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom, occupying the highest position in the realm, next to its emperor and coregent.

v. 8. Then came in all the king’s wise men, one after the other appearing in agreement with his summons; but they could not read the writing nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. In other words, they had to confess their complete failure.

v. 9. Then, on account of the utter inability of the wise men to give him the desired information, was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, he was filled with deepest apprehension and trepidation, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied, not only being filled with alarm, but also with confusion, which showed itself in excited movements. “None retained their places; a general uproar ensued; groups were formed; and the people talked and ran hither and thither to no purpose. ”

v. 10. Now the queen, the queen mother, or dowager, very likely the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, the sound of which, as they raised their voices in their excitement, penetrated to her apartments, came into the banquet house; and the queen spake and said, O king, live forever! the customary address in her mouth detracting in no way from the quiet dignity of her coming. Let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed, by the worry and terror inspired by the mysterious writing on the wall.

v. 11. There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, the queen-mother thus repeating the very language of Nebuchadnezzar, 4:8; 9:18; and in the days of thy father, or grandfather, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the King Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, the king, I say, thy father, the repetition serving to give her words greater emphasis, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers, 4:9,

v. 12. forasmuch as an excellent spirit, a most extraordinary talent, and knowledge and understanding, interpreting of dreams and showing of hard sentences, giving the explanation of riddles and conundrums, and dissolving of doubts, literally, “untying knots,” that is, finding the solutions of the most intricate problems, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now, let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. “As Daniel was probably, according to Oriental custom, deprived of the office to which Nebuchadnezzar had promoted him, as master of the magicians, at the king’s death, although he may still have remained in the service of the state, Belshazzar might easily have been ignorant of his services. ”

v. 13. Then was Daniel brought in before the king; summoned to appear without delay. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king, my father, or grandfather, brought out of Jewry? The question was intended merely to fix the identity of Daniel beyond the slightest doubt and as such required no answer.

v. 14. I have even heard of thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee, the king omitting the adjective “holy” which the queen-mother had used, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

v. 15. And, now, the wise men, the astrologers, the soothsayers only being mentioned as representing the entire class of wise men of the kingdom, have been brought in before me that they should read this writing and make known unto me the interpretation thereof; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing, they could not give the explanation of the words on the wall;

v. 16. and I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations and dissolve doubts, untie the hardest knots. Now, if thou canst read the writing and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about thy neck and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom, the promise made earlier in the evening in a more general way thus being applied to Daniel alone. Like Belshazzar, the unbelievers are often troubled by the terrors of an evil conscience and readily have recourse to almost any solution which offers in order to know their fate or to gain peace of mind.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Dan 5:1-31

BELSHAZZAR‘S FEAST.

In regard to this chapter the peculiar state of the Septuagint text has to be noted. At the beginning of the chapter there are three verses which seem to be either variant versions of the Septuagint text, or versions of a text which was different from that from which the Septuagint has been drawn. Throughout the chapter, further, there are traces of doublets. Most of these variations occur in the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis.

Dan 5:1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. As we have just indicated, there are two versions in the Septuagint of several verses in this chapter, and the verse before us is one of these. The first of these is “Baltasar the king made a great feast on the day of the dedication of his palace, and invited from his lords two thousand men.” The other reading, which appears to have formed the text, is, “Baltasar the king made a great feast for his companions.” The first version seems to have read the dual instead of the singulara proof of the state of the language, for the dual has practically disappeared in the Targums. The second version has evidently read instead of . Theodotion reads, “Baltasar the king made a great feast to thousands of his lords, and drank wine before the thousands.” The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic text. The numeral is thus omitted in the text of the Septuagint,inserted in the dual in the margin, and appears in Theodotion in the plural. As the shortest text is also the oldest, and omits the numeral, we feel inclined to do so also, the more so as the numeral may have resulted from (aluph) being put as the interpretation of (rabrab). The clause in the marginal version, “on the day of the dedication of his palace,” or, as it is rendered by Paulus Telleusis, “in the day of the dedication of the house of his kingdom,” is worthy of notice. From the fact that early in his reign every Ninevite king seems to have begun a palace, this statement has a great deal of verisimilitude. The clause in the Massoretic text, “and drank wine before the thousand,” is meaningless, unless as a rhetorical amplification. From the fact that only the first clause appears in the text of the Septuagint, the authenticity of the rest of the verse is rendered doubtful; the more so that (see Eastern Aramaic word) means “a feast” in Eastern Aramaic, though not in Western. It is a possible solution of the presence of the clause that , excluded from the text and its place supplied by , was placed in the margin. , however, means “before.” If there was also in the margin , “thousands,” in the emphatic state; as the translation into Hebrew of (Gen 36:17, Gen 36:15 Onkelos). If, further, , “companion,” appeared as a various reading for , that would easily be read , “wine;” the verb “to drink” would be added to complete the sense. We have thus all the elements to produce the different versions of the story of the feast. The fact that in what we regard as the marginal reading the clause appears quite differently rendered, confirms us in our suspicion that the Massoretic text presents a case of a “doublet.” The reading which begins the chapter in the LXX. may be due to regarding as the verb “to receive.” The name Belshazzar has been the occasion of much controversy. It was regarded as one of the proofs of the non-historicity of Daniel that this name occurred at all (as Bertholdt). We were told that the last King of Babylon was Nabunahid, not Belshazzar. The name, however, has turned up in the Mugheir inscription as the son of Nabunahid, and not only so, but in a connection that implies he was associated in the government. From the annals of Nabunahid we find that from his seventh to his eleventh year, if not from an earlier to a later date, Nabunahid was in retirement in Tema, and “came not to Babil,” and the king’s son was with the nobles (rabuti) snd the army. Even when the king’s mother died, the mourning was carried on by the king’s sou, Belshazzar. Dr. Hugo Winckler says Nabunahid remained intentionally far from the capital, and abode continually in Tema, a city otherwise unknown. Not once at the new year’s feast, where his personal presence was indispensable, did he come to Babylon. What occasioned it, we know not; but it appears as if he had devoted himself to some kind of solitary life, and would not disturb himself with the business of government. Not once while Cyrus was marching against Babylon did he rouse himself, but allowed things to take their course. The government appears to have been carried on by his son, Bel-shar-utzur, for while Nabunahid lived in Tema in retirement, it is mentioned that his son, with the dignitaries, managed affairs in Babylon, and commanded the army. Also in several inscriptions in the concluding prayer, he is named along with his father, while it is usually the name of the king that is there mentioned. Belshazzar is, then, no mere luxurious despot, like the Nabeandel of Josephus, no incapable youth flushed with the unexpected dignity of government in the city of Babylon, while his father was shut up in Borsippa; he is a bold capable warrior. Tyrannical and imperious he may be, yet faithful to his father, as had Nebuchadnezzar been to Nabopolassar his father. We need not even look at the identifications of Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, with Labasi-marduk, or with Nabunahid. The name Bel-shar-utzur means “Bel protects the king,” and is rendered in the Greek versions “Baltasar,” and in the Vulgate “Baltassar,” and identical with the name given to Daniel, as we have remarked elsewhere. In the Peshitta the name here is rendered “Belit-shazar,” while Daniel’s Babylonian name is “Beletshazzar.” We do not know when this feast took place. If we take the Septuagint text here as our guide, it did not take place at the capture of the city by Cyrus. If for five, six, or seven years he was practically king, Belshazzar may have built a palace, and the feast may have been held at its dedication. We knew that the Babylonians were notorious for their banquetsbanquets that not infrcquently ended in drunkenness. Although the number of the guests is doubtful from diplomatic reasons, the number itself is not excessive. We read of Alexander the Great having ten thousand guests.

Dan 5:2

Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. The Septuagint has included the last clause of the Massoretic recension of the first verse, “And he drank wine, and his heart was lifted up, and he commanded to bring the vessels of gold and of silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought from Jerusalem, and to pour out wine in them for those companions of his ( ).“ The translator seems to have regarded the first syllable of the name Belshazzar as a separate word, and has translated it according to the meaning the word has in Eastern Aramaic, “heart” (Exo 12:23, Peshitta). After this initial mistakeif mistake it wasthe remaining change was easy. The syntax here, according to the Massoretic text, is different from what we should expect. (amar), “to say,” is translated “command” in eight cases in this book, and in every other case it is followed immediately by the infinitive’ of the action commanded. Hence we are inclined, with the LXX; to omit “whiles he tasted the wine.” While the LXX. Aramaic seems to have , “in them,” it has not had “king,” “wives,” or “concubines.” As the Septuagint is the shorter, on the whole, we prefer it, though we maintain the Massoretic reading of “in them,” referring to the vessels. Theodotion and the Peshitta follow the Massoretic reading. Whether or not the libation offered to the gods was in the mind of the writer, the mere fact that the sacred vessels were used for the purposes of a common feast was desecration. The addition of the “wives” and “concubines” adds at once to the degradation in the eyes of an Eastern, and to the stately rhetorical cadence of the verse. This renders all the stronger the suspicion engendered by the omission of these features in the Septuagint. It is to be observed that the Septuagint translator must have had an Eastern Aramaic manuscript before him, or he could never have translated bal “heart.” At the same time, the presence of women at Babylonian feasts was not so uncommon as it was in the rest of the East, as we learn from the Ninevite remains. Certainly Quintus Curtius mentions this in connection with Alexander’s visit to Babylon (Dan 5:1). But was an obscure Jew likely to know this in Palestine? It is very difficult for a person writing in a different age to keep strictly to verisimilitude in these matters. Even a contemporary may make a blunder in writing, not a novel, but a biography, as Froude, in his ‘Life of Carlyle,’ declares he was “quietly married in the parish church of Temple.” To be quietly married in a parish church in any part of Scotland, in the early years of this century, would be a contradiction in terms. Yet Froude had often been in Scotland, and knew Carlyle well. Could a Jew living in Palestine have all his wits about him so as to note every varying feature which distinguished the habits of Babylon from those of the rest of the East? The question may be asked why were the vessels of the Lord in Jerusalem singled out to be desecrated by a common use? It might, of course, be that the sacred vessels of the temples of the gods of all conquered nationalities were brought in, and thus that the singling out of the Jewish sacred vessels was due, not to the preference of the Babylonian monarch, but to the Jew, who saw only those. We think this can scarcely be. It was certainly the policy of Nabunahid to draw all worship to Babylon (Annals of Nabunahid, col. 3. line 20, “The gods of Akkad, which Nabunabid had brought to Babylon, were carried back to their city”). But this would lead him to avoid anything that would savour of disrespect to these gods whom he had brought to dwell in Babylon. We do not think it would have been merely the beauty of those vessels that led to their desecration, for the temple at Jerusalem had suffered several plunderings before the capture of the city, and the period between the age of Hezekiah and Zedekiah was not one in which wealth and artistic talent were likely to increase. Some suspicion must have reached the court of Babylon that the Jews were in league with Cyrus; perhaps the contents of the second Isaiah had reached the knowledge of the Babylonian police. If so, the act of Belshazzar was an act of defiance against Jehovah of Israel.

Dan 5:3, Dan 5:4

Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. The corresponding verses in the Septuagint differ in several points from those above; the Septuagint third verse contains, condensed, the Massoretic third and fourth verses, but adds new matter in its fourth verse: “(3) And they were brought, and they drank in them, and blessed their idols made with hands; (4) and the God the eternal, who hath dominion over their spirit (‘breath,’ ), they did not bless.” In the introductory portion, which contains, as we think, marginal readings, we have the second and fourth verses brought into connection, “In that day Baltasar, being uplifted with wine, and boasting himself, praised in his drink all the gods of the nations, the molten and the carved, but to God the Highest he gave not praise.” The reading of the latter portion of this seems better than the text, as it is briefer; the description of God as he that has power “over their breath,” is a preparation for what we find in Dan 5:23, “and thy breath is in his hand.” Theodotion is, as usual, much nearer the Massoretic text, but while the Massoretic only mentions the “golden” vessels being brought, Theodotion mentions the silver also, and the verb hanpiqoo is translated singular, as if it were hanpayq, and “Nebuchadnezzar” understood. A various reading adds, “and the God of eternity, who hath power of their breath, did they not bless,” according to the Alexandrine and Vatican codices. In both these cases Jerome follows Theodotion. The Peshitta agrees only in the latter, putting the verb in the singular. Modern translators, as Luther and Ewald, the Authorized and Revised English Versions, retain the plural, but make the verb passive, as if it were written honpaqoo. Calvin alone preserves both number and voice. The French Version, which makes it impersonal, is probably as good as any. It is, however, not impossible that the true reading is huphal; that seems better than Calvin’s suggestion, that what Nebuchadnezzar had done is now transferred to all the Babylonians. The praises of the gods being sung was especially natural, if this were a dedication of a palace. In such a case the various elemental deities would be invoked to bless the residence of the king.

The fact that the vessels belonging to the temple of the God of the Jews were brought forward from the treasury of Bel would afford an occasion for praising Bel, the god who had given them the victory. While they praised these god, of the nations, they did not even mention Jehovahan addition in the text of Theodotion and the LXX; both text and margin, and therefore one that, we think, ought, in some form, to lie in the text. It is singular that in the Cyrus Cylinder, 17, the overthrow of Nabunahid is attributed to Marduk, “whom Nabunahid did not fear.” The reason of Belshazzar thus ostentatiously praising the gods might be to get over the reputation of unfaithfulness to the gods, which was weakening them, father and son, in their struggle with Cyrus. Belshazzar most likely was, at this very time, carrying on war against Cyrus. The object of this festive gathering of his nobles might be to hearten them in their struggle against the King of Persia.

Dan 5:5

In the same hour oame forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. The two versions given in the Septuagint here do not seriously differ from each other or from the Massoretic text, only that they both omit “the part of,” and represent the king as seeing the hand. Theodotion has , which maybe rendered “finger-joints;” otherwise this version is very like both the Massoretic and the LXX. The Peshitta presents no point of remark. The word translated “lamp” (nebhrashta) became in Talmudic times the equivalent of menoorah, “the golden candlestick.“ From this it has been supposed that “the candlestick” was the golden candlestick which later proved the crowining glory of Titus’s triumph, and is still to be seen carved on his arch. When the other vessels of the house of the Lord were brought to deck the table of the monarch, it would not be unnatural that the golden candlestick should also be brought. In the great hall in which a thousand guests were accommodated, more lamps than one would be required. The Septuagint (text) adds, “over against the king:” this would individualize the lamp referred to; but there does not seem to be any support for this reading, which may be due to the desire to explain the satatus emphaticus. Gesenius derives the word from , “light,” and , “flame.” As as a consonant was unused in Assyrian, this derivation is by no means impossible We know that the Ninevite monarchs surrounded the great halls of their palaces with bas-reliefs of their victories. The remains of Babylon have not given us anything like the gypsum slabs of Kouyounjik. Yet the Babylonian monarchs not unlikely followed the same praetices as those of Nineveh. The walls were built and plastered, and then the slabs were moved up to them. In the ease of Belshazzar, the palace walls might well be fresh; no gypsum slabs had yet recorded his prowess. As he looks to the white plaster, the fingers of a hand come out of the darkness, and write opposite him. “The king,” thus it is in the Massoretic text, saw the “part” of the hand that wrote. Pas is the word. Furst renders it “wrist;” Gesenius, “the extremity;” Winer, vola manus,” the hollow of the baud;” with this Buxtorf agrees. The balance of meanings seems to be in favour of “hollow of the hand,” only it is difficult to understand the position of the hand relatively to the king when he saw the hollow of the hand. The smoke from the numerous lamps would obscure the roof of the hall of the palace; however numerous the lamps, their light would be unable to pierce the darkness, so out of the darkness came the hand.

Dan 5:6

Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The Septuagint differs in a somewhat important degree from the Massoretic text, “And his countenance was changed, and fears and thoughts troubled him.” In this clause not improbably and are double renderings of . “And the king hasted and rose up, and looked at that writing, and his companions round about him ( ) boasted.” It is clear that the text from which the Septuagint had repeated the verb (bebal), which means originally “to hasten,” and had the word “king “after it, if the Septuagint Aramaic were the original, we can easily understand how the word repeated might be omitted by homoioteleuton. While could easily be read after the square character had got place, could not in the script of the Egyptian Aramaic papyri be easily read . consequently we are inclined to look on the reading of the Septuagint here as being the primitive one. The king, according to this verse, saw the handwriting, but not till he rose did he see what was written. This representation of the succession of events is natural, whereas the statements about his loins being loosed is mere amplification. The last clause storms to be a misreading of the clause which appears in the Massoretic at the end (which see). The first word seems to have been misread heberren, and thus a meaning is violently given to the other parts of the clause. The probability is in favour of the Massoretic reading here, Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The omen of a hand appearing to write on the wall of the palace was one that might easily cause the thoughts of the king to trouble him. Much more was the omen of importance when the king saw that the hand which had appeared to write had actually left certain words written. It was but natural that the brightness of the king’s countenance should depart from him when he saw the hand. thus awfully coming out of the darkness, and writing, and that his knees should smite one upon another when what was written gleamed upon him from the wall before him. He might well be sure that the message so communicated would be laden with fate. Fear is naturally the first emotion occasioned by any mysterious occurrence; and then Babylon was, in all likelihood, being pressed by the advance of Cyrus. If he had any suspicion of the treachery that had sapped the power of his father, his apprehensions would be all the greater.

Dan 5:7

The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. The Septuagint here also differs from the Massoretic text, “And the king cried out with a great cry to call in the enchanters () and sorcerers (), and Chaldeans, and soothsayers, to announce to him the interpretation of the writing, and they came in for inspection ( ), to see the writing, And they were not able to make known to the king the interpretation of the writing. Then the king made commandment, saying, Any man who shall show the interpretation of the writing, he shall put on him a purple robe, and shall put round his neck a golden chain, and authority shall be given him over a third part of the kingdom.” Theodotion is an exact rendering of the Massoretic text in the sense represented by the English versions, save that it wholly omits the conjunctions between the various classes of wise men, so that might be an adjective qualifying either or , and the article is also omitted, which is represented in the Massoretic text by the status emphaticus. The Peshitta has four classes of wise men called in; as the Septuagint has, otherwise it agrees with the Massoretic text. It is a matter of some interest to observe that the position of the Chaldeans is somewhat precarious here, as in the second chapter. They disappear wholly from the list in the next verse, which really seems to be another version of this. It is a marginal gloss that has crept into the text. If we accept the reading of the Septuagint here, so far at least as .to assume the entrance of the wise men before the king’s declaration of the reward, the succession of events becomes more natural. The king calls for the presence of these interpreters of omens, and then, when they fail to interpret the writing to him, he proclaims his offer of a reward to whoever can do so. It is to be noted that there is in the Septuagint no question of ability to read the writing, but simply to interpret it. It has been pointed out to me by a friend that if these words were written in cuneiform, the signs that would represent them might have a great variety of possible sounds, and with these differing sounds, differing meanings. Sometimes a sign was phonetic and a syllable, sometimes it was idiographic and might represent a whole word. There is this to be said for this viewthe Assyrian was the writing expected in inscriptions. Still, from the fact that the Septuagint omits the demand that the inscription should be read, we may regard the matter as doubtful. Assuming that the wise men were required to read the inscription, some of the Jewish interpreters, as Jephet-ibn-Ali, think that the letters of the word were inverted; others have it that the letters were arranged in columns. Even, however, if the words were written correctly enough as Aramaic words, it would be a difficult matter to put any meaning in them as they stood, as we shall see when we consider Daniel’s interpretation. The reward promised is of special interest. The word argvana, translated “scarlet,” appears in Assyrian as argmamm; hamneeka, the word rendered “necklace,” is of doubtful origin. We find in the Ninevite sculptures and on the cylinders from Babylon many instances of splendid robes; the rich necklace is also to be seen. The great difficulty has arisen over the rank given to Daniel, “the third ruler in the kingdom.” The difficulty is that the ordinal here is not in its usual form, although Petermann gives taltu as one of the forms of the ordinal. There is, further, the unusual position of the numeral in relation to the verb, though the abnormality is less than Professor Bevan represents it, as the Peshitta follows word for word the arrangement of the Massoretic text. The truth seems to be that the word really was toolta, as in the Syriac, and the difficulty has risen in not recognizing the transference from one dialect of Aramaic to another. It is used in the Peshitta (2Co 10:2) of the third heaven. Professor Bevan’s interpretation, that it means “every third day,’) may be dismissed as absurd. Ewald (in loc.) regards the title as one of a board of threenot an in,possible meaning, in the light of what we find in the following chapter. Yet his reasoning, that it cannot be third in rank, because the queen-mother could not be counted in, is inept now, when we learn that Belshazzar was colleague with his father, and so the third place was all he had to give. On this question Behrmann takes the view discarded as impossible by Ewald, and holds that Daniel was placed third because of the queen-mother. It is one of the commonplaces of the criticism of this book that the history ascribed to Daniel is borrowed from the history of Joseph: why was the position offered not made “second,” as was that of Joseph? We have the reason in what we know of the history of Babylon at the time. The Septuagint and Josephus were unaware of the facts, and translated as they did.

Dan 5:8

Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. As we have already said, the Septuagint here repeats the list of wise men. and omits “the Chaldeans.” If the word “Chaldean” had been in the text originally, the fact that astrologers were frequently called Chaldeans would render it unlikely that the word should be omitted. Whereas from this very ground it was a word specially apt to be added on the margin, and once on the margin it would easily drop into the text. Even in the case of the Massoretic text, there seems to be a repetition here. It is certainly more obvious in the Septuagint text. The verse according to the Septuagint is, “And there entered in the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the astrologers, and were not able to announce the interpretation of the writing.” Theodotion agrees here with the received text; the Peshitta omits “all.” The only way in which we can escape the idea of this being a repetition is by holding that the word “all” is emphatic. The omission of the word “all” from the Peshitta is against this. It is to be observed that in the Septuagint there is no reference to “reading the writing;” it is only to announce the interpretation.

Dan 5:9

Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied. This verse presents signs also of being a repetition. The last clause appears to be the original form of the mysterious clause at the end of the sixth verse according to the Septuagint; the word mishtabsheen, which occurs here, seems to have been read mishtabhareen, from (shab’har), “to be glorious,” in the ittaphel; this becomes “to boast one’s self,” as in the Targum of Pro 25:14, also the Peshitta of the same passage; also 2Co 12:1. And this is the word used by Paulus Tellensis to translate . The Septuagint has a verse here that has no equivalent in the Massoretic text, “Then the king called the queen about the sign, and showed her how great it was, and that no one had been able to declare to the king the interpretation of the writing.” This verse avoids the repetition we find in the Massoretic text, and explains the presence of the queen in a much more plausible way than the received text does. In the Massoretic text it is the noise and tumult that pierces the women’s apartments, and brings out the queen-mother; though not impossible, this is unlikely. The action of the king, as given in the Septuagint, is very probable. The wise men are baffled by this mysteriously appearing inscription. What is to be done? Belshazzar calls his mother, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, as she at least possibly was, to see if she knows anything in the past that might be a guide in such a matter. He not only shows her the sign, the inscription, but shows how great it was, by telling of the hand that had come out of the darkness, and had written it. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. While the repetition is obvious, it is also true that the failure of all the wise men in Babylon to read the writing, as the Massoretic text has it, would increase the trouble of the king, and this trouble would naturally spread to the courtiers.

Dan 5:10-12

Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet-house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever; let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: there is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the King Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. No one can fail to feel the presence of rhetoric here, especially in the last verse, which, we may remark, has no equivalent in the Septuagint. We see the rhetorical character of these verses more clearly when we consider the ineptitude of the special powers ascribed to Daniel to meet the present difficulty. Interpretation of dreams was a common attribute ascribed to wisdom in the East of old, as it is yet. But this was not a dream, and therefore the qualification was not to the purpose; still less to the purpose are the attributes that follow. Showing of hard sentences. Giving riddles that nobody could read was an evidence of wisdom all over the East (see Josephus, 8.5. 3; besides Talmudic stories of Solomon). This, however, is not a case of competition in riddles; above all, there is no opportunity of one giving riddles in return. “Dissolving of doubts” is the solving of these riddles. These qualities, which the queen-mother, according to the Massoretic text, ascribes to Daniel, might make him delightful as a boon companion, but were not at all to the purpose in the matter troubling the king. The version of the Septuagint is much briefer, and, it seems to us, much more satisfactory, “Then the queen reminded him concerning Daniel, who was of the captivity of Judaea, and said to the king, The man was understanding, wise, and excelling all the wise men of Babylon, and there is a holy spirit in him, and in the days of the king thy father, he showed difficult () interpretations to Nebuchadnezzar thy father.” This has every sign of having been translated; thus the phrase, , which we have rendered, “reminded him concerning Daniel.” This use of after is unknown in classic Greek. In Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ it is accusative of person; in Plato, ‘Laches,’ 200 D, it is dative of person; in ‘Legg.,’ 3:688, it is accusative of person. It is, however, exactly parallel with Gen 40:14, . represents in the Hebrew; in the Targum of Onkelos and in the Peshitta this is translated by ; in Paulus Tellensis it is rendered by . Moreover, according to the Massoretic text, Belshazzar asks Daniel if he is” that Daniel which art of the captivity of the children of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?” The queen-mother had said nothing, according to the verses before us as given in the Massoretic recension, of Daniel being a Jew. According to the Septuagint, the queen-mother tells him whence Daniel is. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text, save that it inserts “watchfulness” instead of “light,” and omits the repetition of “thy father.” The Peshitta is also substantially at one with our received text. One of the great difficulties which commentators have found in this part of the incident is how Belshazzar could be ignorant of Daniel. Various means have been adopted to get over the difficulty. One is that Daniel was away from Babylon up to this time (Jephet-ibn-Ali). Archdeacon Rose is certain he must have known about him. The explanation of this is as recumbent on the opponents of the authenticity of Daniel as on its defenders, for theythe latterdeclare it the work of one author, and it has had powerful effect on people: it must be artistically written if it is not a record of facts. No artist in fictitious narrative would present to his readers so obvious a difficulty. We learn now what was the probable reason of Belshazzar’s ignorance of Daniel. Nabu-nahid, a usurper, was at variance with the whole clergy, as we may call them, of Babylon, and most likely Daniel acted with the others, and possibly, as far back as the revolution in which Evil-Merodach perished, had been away from the court. It is the height of unfairness of any one to press the name here given to Nebuchadnezzar, “my father.” That title was very loosely used among the Babylonians and Assyrians. Jehu is called “the son of Omri,” although he had swept the race of Omri off the face of the earth. So Dr. hugo Winckler, in his ‘ Untersuchungen zur Attorientalischen Geschichte,’ p. 53, note, says, “This word ‘son’ after the name of a Chaldean prince, is only to be taken in the sense of belonging to the same dynasty.” Had the phrase used been that “Nebuchadnezzar slept with his fathers, and Belshazzar his son reigned in his stead,” something might have been said for the view maintained by all critics, that the author thought Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. How can the critics assert this, and yet, as does Professor Bevan, maintain this author intimate even with the minutest portions of Jeremiah, Kings, and Chronicles? If so, how is it that he did not know that both Kings and Jeremiah asserted Nebuchadnezzar to have been succeeded by Evil-Merodach? This information occupies too prominent a place in both books for him to have been ignorant of it. We can only understand his action in thus putting down Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar by assuming his acceptance of usage. The critics cannot explain it. Those who maintain the traditional view may do so by saying that Daniel, writing at the time, knowing the real state of matters, the claim of Belshazzar to be descended from Nebuchadnezzar, the fact that Evil-Merodach had been killed, simply relates facts. Had he been inventing history, and acquainted with the holy books, and all the information they conveyed to everybody, he would of necessity have spent some pains in explaining how his history came to differ so much from what one could draw from the Books of Kings and Jeremiah. The two accounts of Saul’s meeting with David are not comparable with this, as we find the reason of the contradiction in the coalescence of two different accounts.

Dan 5:13-16

Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing; and I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts; now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. There is a great deal of rhetoric in this, and the attempt to restore the stately etiquette of the Babylonian court. The king is represented as repeating very much what his mother had told him. It is to be observed that, although the queen-motheras the Massoretic text records her wordshas not spoken a word of Daniel’s origin, and implies that Belshazzar knew noticing of him, yet when he comes, Belshazzar addresses him as knowing who and whence he is. The suspicion that is engendered by the mere reading of the text as we have it is confirmed by a study of the Septuagint text, where these four verses shrink into very modest dimensions, “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? and I will clothe thee with purple, and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” The brevity of this, the utter want of rhetoric, not to speak of its dramatic verisimilitude to the speech of a man beside himself with terror, make it the more probable text. Condensation was rarely the work of a falsarius; he might omit statements that were antagonistic to some preconceived notion, or, if only a leaf or so remained of a parchment otherwise filled up, he might endeavour to utilize the space left him by putting down as much as he could of some work he valued. Then, in such a case, a copyist might really condense. But neither of these causes can explain the omission of the rhetorical passages here. We are compelled, then, to regard the text behind the Septuagint in this place as the true Daniel. Theodotion, while on the whole agreeing with the text of the Massoretes, is briefer in some respects. There is one addition, the insertion of “magicians” between “wise men and “astrologers. This shows the process of the evolution of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, though but little, if at all, later than Theodotion, is in yet closer agreement with the text of the Massoretes. Yet the Massoretic text shows certain peculiarities. The presence of , in the second personal pronoun, which was disappearing from Targumic, but is regularly found in Daniel, is to be observed. Further, there is with the suffix of the first person, which is not Targumic, but is found in the Sindschirli inscription. In the Targums it is , not , as in Gen 9:1-29 :34, Onkelos. Eastern Aramaic retained it, as may be seen in the Peshitta Version of the passage before us, and of that to which we have referred. This is another of the many slight indications which all point to the Eastern origin of the Book or’ Daniel. It may be observed that we have not here (tal’ti), but (tal’ta). This is regarded by Behrmann as status empbaticus. The king in his terror makes appeal to one who, perhaps, had been dismissed the court on suspicion of being opposed to the new dynasty. That dynasty had displaced and murdered Evil-Merodach, the son of Daniel’s old master, and one who had shown himself specially favourable to the Jews. As the text of the Septuagint gives the narrative, we have the king eager to have his terrors laid, and, to lead this opponent, whom his father, if not also Neriglissatr, had displaced, and put in opposition to his rule, to look favourably on him, he mentions the reward he offers.

Dan 5:17-23

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: and he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humblet thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. We have gathered these verses together, as they all relate to one matter and come under one condemnation. Long ago yon Lengerke, and more recently Hitzig, have shown that such an insulting speech as Daniel addressed to Belshazzar would certainly be visited with punishment. The king had no guarantee that the promised interpretation of the writing on the wall would be true, especially when the interpreter had such an animus against him. Then the fact in the twenty-ninth verse, that Daniel received the gifts he had rejected, makes his conduct here all the more extraordinary. A writer of fiction, of even moderate skill, would not make the blunder here made. It could easily be made by a falsarius interpolating a speech he thought suitable to a Jewish prophet in the presence of a heathen king, who had dishonoured the sacred vessels by drinking wine in them himself, and his wives, and his concubines. It is to be noted that the princes are omitted from the enumeration here. In proof that our contention is correct, we find the mass of this entirely omitted from the Septuagint. There are signs of confusion, and coalescence of different readings in the text of the Septuagint, yet we have no hesitation in claiming that it represents a much earlier state of the text than we find in our Hebrew Bibles, “Then Daniel stood before the writing, and read, and thus answered the king: This is the writing: It hath been numbered; it was reckoned; it has been removed.” The marginal reading which we find in the beginning of this chapter has, Mane, Phares, Thekel. The interpretation here follows a different succession, “And the hand which wrote stood”a phrase that seems to be a mistaken rendering of the latter clause of the twenty-fourth verse as we find it in the Massoretic text. It seems difficult to imagine what Aramaic word has been translated . Paulus Tel-lensis has (see Aramaic word) (, qemath), which may have been mistaken for sheliach, though it is not easy to see how. The clause is, at all events, misplaced. The following clause also is misplaced, and is a doublet of the first clause of the twenty-sixth verse. The twenty-third verse seems to be the nucleus of the speech ascribed to Daniel, “O king, thou madest a feast to thy friends, and thou drankest wine, and the vessels of the house of the living God were brought, and ye drank in them, thou and thy nobles, and praised all the idols made with the bands of men, and the living God ye did not bless, and thy breath is in his hand, and he gave thee thy kingdom, and thou didst not bless him, neither praise him.” The wives and concubines are not mentioned here. There is no word of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar. Although from the disturbed state of the text in the immediate neighbourhood one is inclined to suspect the authenticity of this twenty-third verse, given in the LXX; yet there is nothing that contradicts the position created by the two early decrees of Nebuchadnezzar, which placed Jehovah the God of the Jews on a par with the great gods of Babylon to whom, though no worship was decreed, at all events no dishonour was to be done. Belshazzar is not so much blamed for praising the gods of wood and stone as for omitting to praise Jehovah. Belshazzar had dishonoured Jehovah, and therefore this ominous message had come forth. The first clause here seems the primitive text. What was more natural than that Daniel, coming into the presence of the king, should go and stand before the mysterious writing, and then, having read it himself, turn to the king and address him? The words of the Massoretic and of the text behind the Septuagint differ very considerably, but not so much but that the former may have grown out of the latter by expansion, and the insertion of paraphrastic additions. A peculiarity to be observed in the Massoretic text (verse 17) is (lehayvyan), the third plural imperfect of , “to be.“ It is difficult to understand this form of the third person, save on the supposition that Daniel was written in a region where was the preformative. This preformative along with was used in Babylon so late as the period of the Babylonian Talmud. Theodotion and the Peshitta practically agree with the Massoretic text. Even when we omit all the insulting elements, we have Daniel’s speech to Belshazzar as we find it in the Massoretic text; no reader can fail to notice the difference of Daniel’s demeanour towards Belshazzar as narrated here, from that towards Nebuchadnezzar as narrated in the preceding chapter. When he learns the disaster that impends on the destroyer of his city and the conqueror of his nation, Daniel is astonied and silent, and bursts out from his silence, “The dream be upon thine enemies, and the interpretation thereof upon them that hate thee.” He shows no sign of sorrow when he learns the fate impending on Belshazzar. We can understand this, if we regard Daniel’s love for the splendid conqueror making him feel the blood of his murdered descendants, Evil-Merodach and Labasi-Marduk called for vengeance. So far as we can make out from external history, Belshazzar was a gallant young prince, who seemed to be able to maintain himself against Cyrus, while his father lived in retirement in Tema; but the judgment of God often falls on those who are not worse than their predecessors, only guilt has accumulated and ripened. Louis XVI. was not worse than, but really greatly superior to, his two immediate predecessors, yet on him, not on them, broke the vengeance of the French Revolution. There probably was, as said above under verse 2, a special defiance of Jehovah, which therefore merited special punishment.

Dan 5:24

Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. As we have seen, the real equivalent of this verse in the Septuagint is a clause in Dan 5:17, “And the hand which had written () stood.” If we take this to mean that the band now “ceased to write,” then the original text might be , the verb being written fleaum, in Mandaean manner. Then it would easily happen that (in the older script, see words) was resolved into (in the older script, see words). In support of this, it may be observed that while in the fifth verse the older construction of construct state and status emphalicus is used to exhibit the genitival connection, in the present case the relative is used as a sign of the genitive. Starting with this, it is easy to see how the Massoretic text arose; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to see the sense of the reading of the Septuagint, unless this fiery hand is to be imagined as tracing and retracing the characters on the wall of the palace, and that the hand only ceased when Daniel stood before the inscription to read. Thec-dotion differs very little from the Massoretic text, and the Peshitta coincides with it. The word for “writing,” (resheem), is really “engraving,” and therefore peculiarly descriptive of the Assyrian mode of impressing on clay tablets or incising in stone the thing to be preserved.

Dan 5:25-28

And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. The Septuagint has two versions of this passage, one m the text, the other in the portion at the beginning, which we think is really composed of marginal readings. In the text the Aramaic is not given at all. As we have already seen, the verse which corresponds to Dan 5:25 here is really the latter part of Dan 5:17 of the Septuagint, “This is the writing: It hath been numbered; it is reckoned; it has been carried away.” In the verses which are appended to the beginning of the chapter, we have the Aramaic words, but given in a different order, and without the repetition of the first word: “MANE, PHARES, THEKEL. MANE, It has been numbered; PHARES, It is carried away; THEKEL, It has been set up.” Here not only is the order different, but the meaning assigned to phares is singular. means in Syriac, “spread out.” It would seem that meant “stretched out” as well as “carried away.” It is still more difficult to understand how thekel can mean “set up,” unless the words, , “on the balance,” are understood. The Septuagint of the best version is briefer than the Massoretic, though less so than it is in some of the other passages, “Numbered is the time of thy kingdom; ceases thy kingdom; cut short and ended has been thy kingdom; to the Modes and the Persians has it been given.” The word interpreted is not repeated as in the Massoretic text, and is derived from , which in some of the conjugations means “destroyed,” whereas in Dan 5:17 it is rendered , “it is reckoned,” a rendering of which makes it mean “weigh.” The Septuagint rendering of the first clause is an evident attempt at explaining the numbering implied. The Massoretic reading involves a pun in both the last words; there is a play between (teqel), “to weigh,” and (qelal), “to be light,” although the introduction of rather conceals this. In the last the play is between , “to divide,” and , “a Persian.” Theodotion avoids the repetition of the first word, otherwise he is in somewhat close agreement with the Massoretic text, “MANE, God hath measured thy kingdom; THEKEL, It is set on the balance, and found wanting; PHARES, Thy kingdom is cut asunder, and given to the Medes and the Persians.” The Peshitta is in close agreement with the Massoretic text. The actual meaning of the words, taking them as they appear in the Massoretictext, as Aramaic words, is, to give English equivalents, “a pound, a pound, an ounce, and quarters;” hence the impossibility of interpreting the words. We find all these words, mena, teqel (shekel), pares, in the Ninevite inscriptions. As the words are interpreted, we cannot fail to be impressed with the peremptory style of the inscription, as Hitzig has it. Zckler refers to the sculpturesque style (lapidarstil). This brevity rendered it difficult for the soothsayers to put any meaning into the words at all. In all the versions the fact that the kingdom is to be given to the Medes and Persians is emphasized, but, moreover, the play on words in the last clause implies the Persians as the prominent assailants of the Babylonian power, but really that the two powers were united. It seems extraordinary that any one, in the face of this, should maintain that the author of Daniel separated the two powers, and thought the Median power succeeded the Babylonian, and then that the Persian succeeded the Median. We know now that Herodotus’s representation of the history of Media and Persia is utterly false and misleading.

Dan 5:29

Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. The Septuagint runs thus: “Then Baltasar the king clothed Daniel in purple, and put on him a golden necklace, and gave authority to him over a third part of his kingdom.” The only difference here is that there is no word of a proclamation. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. We have here instead of . The presence of the haphel form instead of the aphel, is to be noted. No reader whose attention is directed to it can fail to be struck with the magnanimity of Belshazzar; he had promised that whoever would interpret the inscription should be clothed in purple and gold, and be made third ruler of the kingdom. Had he been a mean man, he might have higgled about the matter; he might have declared an uncertainty as to whether Daniel did not, out of his spite against the murderers of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, invent the evil interpretation. The treatment Ahab meted out to Micaiah the son of Imlah sows the way a tyrannical monarch may a-t towards one who has uttered unpalatable prophecies against him. He might, according to the Persian story, have proclaimed Daniel exalted to all the promised honors, and then instantly had him executed. But, no; in noble simplicity he fulfils his promise to the last letter, without any apparent after-thought of vengeance. If Belshazzar is intended to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, certainly the portrait is singularly unlike anything we know of that monarch. Cruel and. treacherous, he was very unlikely to keep such a promise to one who had made such a prophecy concerning him. Even if lie could have done so, no Jew, with blood boiling from the indignities and cruelties heaped upon the Jewish race, could have pictured him doing this. Even the natural instinct that makes us think that specially terrible misfortune must be the result of specially unbroken wickedness, would certainly have led the writer of Daniel, if drawing on his imagination, to make Belshazzar meanly refuse his rewards, or, having given them, to threaten the receiver with death. It is no answer to say, with Ewald and Jephet-ibn-Ali. that the reward once promised was irrevocable, for the accuracy of the reading of the writing might have been contested, and the correctness of the interpretation denied. Further, as has been pointed out by Keil, there is no evidence that Epiphanes ever desecrated the sacred vessels at a banquet; he was regardless enough to have done so, but his financial necessities were too pressing for delaying the coining of these golden treasures. Moreover, in Antiochus such desecration would be without purpose, whereas, as we have seen, there might be a purpose in the action of Belshazzar. The idea maintained by commentators of the critical school, that there in any reference in the description given here of the feast of Belshazzar and its results to the feast which Antiochus gave to the peel,In of Antioch, as described by Polybius, 26; is mere nonsense. The ponts of contrast are vastly more prominent than the points of resemblance. Belshazzar’s feast is over in one night; Antiochus’s feast lasted several days. Belshazzar’s feast was given in his palace, to “a thousand of his lords;” Antiochus invited the whole populace of Antioch to revel in the grove of Daphne. While, as we have seen, there is blasphemy against Jehovah and defiance of him in Belshazzar’s feast, there in no kind of debauchery. In regard to the feast of Antiochus, on the other hand, while there is maddest excess of every kind, a very orgy of lust and drunkenness, there is no word, either in Polybius or in the Books of the Maccabees, of any special act of defiance to Jehovah, or blasphemy of his Name. The only point of identity is that both the banquet of Belshazzar and the orgy of Antiochus have been called “feasts.” Altogether, the idea that Belshazzar represents Antiochus Epiphanes is nearly as absurd as that Nebuchadnezzar does. Did the orthodox interpretation involve such an identification, what boundless scorn would be poured on the unfortunate maintainers of such a view?

Dan 5:30

In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain. The version of the LXX. is here very different, “And the interpretation came upon Belshazzar the king, and the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans, and given to the Medes and the Persians. There seems no possibility of connecting these two readings so that either should be shown to have come from the other. The Massoretic text, which is here supported by Theodotion and the Peshitta, is the shorter; but in this instance, as neither can have sprung from the other, Brevity has less probative force. If we look at the probability of the situation, we are compelled to accept the Septuagint reading. If the Massoretic reading had been the original, the dramatic completeness of the disaster, following with such rapidity on the back of the prophecy, would certainly have been preserved in every translation. Whereas the desire for this dramatic completeness might lead to the Massoretic verse being fabricated. Further, when we look at the events of the night, it seems impossible to place all of them in the short interval of one night. The feast had begun after sundown, for the lamps were lighted. It had already gone on some time ere Belshazzar thought of the vessels of the house of God. Then, in contempt of Jehovah, the guests sang praises to the gods of Babylon. it is after all this that the writing appears. There is next the calling of the wise men, who were in the vicinity of the palace. On their failure to explain the writing, the other wise men are summoned by proclamation; they assemble, essay the reading, and fail. The queen-mother compseither is called, or, hearing the tumult, comes in herselfand tells Belshazzar of Daniel. Daniel is summoned, and reads the writing. Even if we maintainalthough it does not seem the natural reading of the passagethat the proclamation of a reward to him who could read the writing followed immediately on the order to call in the astrologers and other wise men, still, it is difficult to imagine all the events, especially the summoning of all the wise men in Babylon by proclamation, and the finding out of Daniel and bringing him to the court, taking place in one night, and that in that very night was Belshazzar slain. On the other hand, the Septuagint makes no such demand on our belief. According to it, the prophecy was not so closely connected with its fulfilment. The feast recorded here may have taken place six, eight, or ten )ears before the actual fall of Babylon. We know that from his seventh year till some time between his eleventh and seventeenth year Nahunahid was in Tema. This feast might be the inauguration of Belshazzar’s viceroyalty; in that case it would be nearly ten years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If that is so, the supposed contradiction between this verse and Dan 8:1 vanishes. We need only look at the various theories of who Belshazzar was. Niebuhr assumes it as a second name for Evil-Merodacha view for which Keil has some sympathy. Niebuhr ingeniously combines the statement from Berosus, that his reign was . This, however, might mean a favour for the Jews, shown by the special honour given to Jehoiachina thing which would be readily regarded by the Babylonians as “lawless and outrageous.” lie maintains that the change of dynasty implied in Babylon was the assumption of the supremacy by Astyages the Mede, who, according to Niebuhr, is Darius the Mede. After one year’s personal reign, he placed Neriglissar on the throne. This view is definitely contradicted by the contract tables, which have no reference to a reign between Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar. The other theory is that he is Labasi-Marduk. This view is maintained by Delitzsch and Ebrard. All of them assume the murder of the king the very night of the feasta thing which is in the teeth of probability, and not supported by the Septuagint reading.

Dan 5:31

And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about three score and two years old. It is probable that the Massoretic division of the chapters here is to be preferred. According to it, this verse is assigned to the begining of the next chapter, but most of the more ancient versions, Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, agree with our English arrangement. The Septuagint, like the Massoretic text, assigns this verse to the sixth chapter. Its rendering manifests several striking peculiarities, “And Artaxerxes of the Medes received () the kingdom, and Darius was full of days, and reverend () in old age.” This is the product of doublets , Artaxerxes, being suggested by some scribe as in his opinion a more probable name than Darius. So the one name begins the first clause, and the other the second. The last clause is evidently due to (kebar), “about” (“as the son of”), being read (kaber), “great,” “multiplied”a meaning this word has in Syriac, but not in Chahlee (Gen 35:11). Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The uncertainty as to the name has to be noted. We shall reserve for fuller discussion the question of Darius the Mede, only we would say that the name not improbably was modified from a less-known name to one somewhat like it but well known. We know that “Go-baru,” or “Oybaru““Gobryas,” in Greekwas appointed governor by Cyrus when he conquered Babylon, and that, in the script of the Sindschirli monuments, Gobryas, see Sindschirli words. is not unlike Darius, see Sindschirli word. One point to be noted is the fact that the verb used is wrongly translated “took.” really means “received.” When this is said, we naturally expect some one, either God or man, from whom he has received this honour. If this purported to be a history of Babylonia, then it might be reasoned that the implied source from whom the kingdom was received was God; in such a case would be used of one who succeeded to the kingdom by inheritance; this cannot be the meaning here. In this passage it is merely incidentally mentioned in order to explain the events that immediately follow. The more natural interpretation is that he was put on the throne by another person, his superior. The instance quoted by Professor Bevan, in which this verb is used of the accession of Julian the Apostate, tells really against his contention. Julian expected to have to conquer the empire: but, by the death of his cousin, he received it as an inheritance. Nothing could be more unlike what occurred in Babylon, according to his theory of what the author of Daniel meant. He maintains that the author of Daniel thought Darius conquered Babylon, and so ascended the throne. The example he brings does not show that could be used in that sense.

HOMILETICS

Dan 5:5

The writing on the wall.

We have here a declaration of judgment, the circumstances, form, and effects of which are full of significance.

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DECLARATION OF JUDGMENT.

1. It was in the king‘s palace. The guards who may keep off the human intruder cannot shut out the Divine messenger. Judgment may find a man in his own home (Isa 37:38; Dan 4:29; Luk 12:16).

2. It was at a time of pleasure. The intoxication of pleasure may blind us to approaching judgment, but cannot stay it. It is foolish to rest our security on our experience of present enjoyment. The moment of greatest pleasure may bring us to the brink of the deepest ruin.

3. It was in the midst of sinful revelry. Drunkenness, profligacy, and profanity were rioting at the feast when the judgment came. So the sinner is sometimes summoned to judgment in the midst of his sins. It is a delusion to suppose that all of us will have good warning and time for repentance, before we are called to meet the Judge.

4. It was under circumstances of gross negligence. The enemy was at the gates; yet the king was revelling in effeminate orgies. Negligence as to the danger into which our sins have brought us is itself a sin, and one which wilt meet with certain, merited punishment (Jer 6:14; Mat 24:38).

II. THE FORM OF THE DECLARATION OF JUDGMENT,

1. It was public. The message was not given to the king privately. It was written up on the wall of his banquet-chamber, in the presence of his courtiers. Sin may be secret; but judgment will be public (Luk 12:3; 1Co 4:5).

2. It was silent. There was no awakening trumpet-blast, but a silent hand writing on the wall. God often speaks quietly (l Kings 19:11, 12). This method is often the more impressive to the observing; and until we are observing, no method is of much use. It is most fitting in the solemn declaration of judgment. In speaking of future punishment, it is most seemly not to indulge in noisy declamation, but to use quiet, weighty words, bordering on awestruck silence.

3. It was decisive. Written words are more decisive than spoken words. They are generally more weighed. They are more enduring. They admit of more study. Illustrate this by Pilate’s reference to the superscription on the cross (Joh 19:22). Apply it

(1) to the written Bible;

(2) to the written book of judgment;

(3) to the written names in heaven.

4. It was mysterious. The king and his courtiers and his wise men could not read the writing. All doom is mysterious till it falls. Scriptural intimations of doom are generally vague, though terrible. Note in particular

(1) sinful indulgence blunts the spiritual sense for discerning Divine truth;

(2) the language of heaven is an unknown tongue to the godless man;

(3) God’s revelations to the heathen need interpretation by his clearer revelations to his prophets and apostles.

III. THE EFFECT OF THE DECLARATION OF JUDGMENT.

1. It produced terror. The mystery and supernatural character of the event alarmed the king and his courtiers (Dan 5:6-9).

(1) Here is an instance of the common human weakness in presence of what appears to be supernaturala weakness which is as great in the proudest monarch as in the lowest slave. Before the unseen we are level in our common humanity.

(2) The terror was augmented by guilt. Sin fears to meet the spiritual world.

(3) It was deepened by the surprise of unfamiliarity with the unseen. Daniel was in frequent converse with the other world, and could meet its messages with calmness. Belshazzar was buried in sensuality, and felt the first touch of the spiritual with the shrinking of startled horror. What alarm and confusion the engrossed sensualist will experience, when after death he wakes to his first vision of the spiritual!

2. It led to the introduction of the best counsellor. Daniel had been neglected by the dissolute king in favour of more congenial companies. Now he is sent for. Trouble is good if it leads to wisdom. Though the wisdom which conies too late may only deepen the consciousness of ore’ punishment, it must be better to meet this intelligently, than with the blindness of a brute.

Dan 5:23 (last clause)

Natural religion.

I. WE HAVE NATURAL RELATIONS WITH GOD. Men often act as though we had no relations with God but those we voluntarily assume in religious worship, so that if we chose we could have nothing to do with God. This is a gross delusion. We have relations with God

(1) apart from our will; and

(2) apart from our consciousness, dependent upon our very nature and existence in the world.

1. Our life is dependent on God. In his hand our”breath is.” He is the First Causethe Origin of life (Gen 1:24-27). He is also the constant Sustainer of life, and without him we could not continue to exist for one moment, any more than we could live without the air we breathe (Job 12:10; Act 17:1-34. ’25). Therefore the existence and the continuance of our life depend on Iris will (Num 16:22). These facts are not affected by our ideas about God. If they are facts, they apply as much to the atheist as to the theist, and to the most godless as to the most devout.

2. Our destiny is shaped by God. “Whose are all our ways.” We think to carve out our own career, and no doubt it is largely dependent on our conduct; but it is subject to numberless apparent accidents, which are really governed by the providence of God (Jas 4:14, Jas 4:15).

II. OUR NATURAL RELATIONS WITH GOD MAKE IT OUR DUTY TO GLORIFY HIM. As our primary relations with God are nut dependent on our own will, so our obligations toward God cannot be regulated by our free choice. Religious obligations are not simply determined by our “profession,” nor can they be discarded by our renunciation of any connection with religious worship, Church relationship, etc. We are all subjects of God’s spiritual kingdom, whether we will or no. The man who refuses to submit to its laws is not to be regarded as an alien, but as a deserter and a rebel. Therefore, though Belshazzar had never professed obedience to God, he was not exonerated from blame when he failed to render it.

1. The universal human duty of glorifying God is determined by the fact that we are all enjoying life and its advantages simply as the fruits of the goodness of God.

2. It may be enforced by the reflection that since we are entirely in the hands of God, no attempt to rebel against him can ultimately succeed (Isa 40:15).

III. THE NEGLECT OF OUR DUTY TO GLORIFY GOD IS THE ROOT OF ALL SIN, This is the one sin to which Daniel calls attention, although Belshazzar was guilty of all kinds of wickedness. So long as we live in the effort to honour and serve God, our conscience will be kept pure; but when God is dethroned from the shrine of our hearts, all forms of evil take his place. Idolatry, the worship of false gods, is only possible when the worship of the true God is neglected. Profanity is the direct opposite of the reverence which glorifies God. Indulgence in sinful pleasures is only possible when the pure pleasures of Divine things are lost. Thus the special sins seen in Belshazzar in the incident of his feast are all connected with the neglect of the honour and service of God.

Note:

1. The very blessings which are proofs of the goodness of God are often used as temptations to allure us from our duty to glorify him.

2. Godlessness may bring present delights, but it must ensure future ruin.

Dan 5:25-28

Found wanting.

The mysterious writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace is a revelation of the judgment which must certainly follow all misuse of the talents and opportunities of life. It brings vividly before us the summons, the trial, and the sentence which awaits every one who neglects and abuses his mission in the world.

I. THE SUMMONS. “Numbered” is the first word. The days of the Babylonian supremacy are numbered, and the days of the life of King Belshazzar are numbered; their end has come, and now he and his nation are called to give account of their stewardship.

1. Every life has its limit. God gives us all sufficient time and opportunity for the work which he requires of us, and, conversely, he requires no more of us than our faculties are equal to. Therefore we have no reason to murmur at the brevity of life, and no excuse for neglecting our proper duties on account of it. But there is a limit to our opportunities. We have not the leisure of eternity before us. We cannot postpone the work of to-day till to-morrow, without interfering with the work of the morrow (Joh 9:4). The dine draws on apace when the end will come to all these opportunities of doing our work in the world. How foolish not to consider what our position will be at “the end of the days”! How vain to be satisfied with present ease, since these days of sinful idleness are few and shortening! Who of us will be able to say at the end of life, “It is finished”?

2. Abuse of opportunities will lead to the loss of them. The kingdom appears to be “numbered and finished,” swiftly, abruptly, and in judgment. Both king and people might have been spared longer, if they had lived better. Time is a talent which is justly taken from those who do not make a good use of it (Psa 37:9; Mat 25:28, Mat 25:29). This applies with special force to kingdomsthe judgment of which belongs to this world (Isa 14:22).

II. THE TRIAL. The second word, “weighed,” is explained by Daniel to mean that Belshazzar and his kingdom have been “weighed in the balances, and found wanting.”

1. There is a judgment awaiting us all. Our future will not be determined by chance, or fate, or easy indifference. It will depend on our past. This will be revealed, examined, proved, tested, weighed in every thought and word and deed, for every moment of life. None can expect to escape this trial. The greatest king is here subjected to its searching scrutiny.

2. This judgment will be effected by weighing our conduct, and testing it by a Divine standard. We shall be weighed in the balances. On Egyptian mummy-cases there may be seen representations of the soul weighed in scales with truth as a counterpoise. The truth or ideal conduct by which we shall be tested may be variously viewed as

(1) absolute right;

(2) God’s will;

(3) God’s idea of our life;

(4) duty and vocation;these being shaped and modified according to our powers, our opportunities, and our light (Rom 2:6-12).

3. The ground of condemnation will be to be “found wanting.“ As darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. We can only keep out sin by being filled with holiness (Rom 12:21). To be “wanting” in truth, or purity, or love, is the essence of sin. More particularly we shall be judged by our defection of duty, not merely by our commission of offences. Mere negative harmlessness will be of no avail if we have failed in our positive service (Mat 25:42-45).

III. THE SENTENCE. The third word, “divided,” is interpreted to mean that the Babylonian “kingdom is divided, and given to Media and Persia.”

1. After a verdict of “guilty,” there must be a sentence of punishment. Whatever be the nature of future punishment, justice, present analogies, and revelation concur in pointing to the certainty of its execution. For individuals this is mostly reserved to the future world; but for kingdoms, which remain in this world for successive generations, allowing time for moral laws to work out their ends here, it is executed on earth and is witnessed by history.

2. The most natural punishment is the loss of the honours and powers which have been abused. The kingdom is taken away. The unused talent is taken away (Mat 25:28, Mat 25:29).

3. The worst form of punishment is death. The kingdom is to be dividedto die as a kingdom. Corruption, disintegration, dissolution, spiritual death in outer darkness, are the awful mysterious doom of sin unrepented and persisted, in to the end (Jas 1:15),

HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS

Dan 5:1-4

The downward road.

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand “(Dan 5:1). The history of the fall of Babylon must form the background of any homiletical treatment of this chapter (see the histories; and the Exposition above). The clearing up of the difficulty of this portion of Scripture, of the seeming discrepancy between Daniel’s statements and the records of secular history, by the discovery of clay cylinders, simultaneously by M. Oppert and Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1854, is one of the most interesting episodes in the history of Christian apologetics; and is eminently suggestive in that line of things, showing particularly how easily Biblical mists would be cleared away if only we could have at hand all the facts. But we turn hero to the bearing of the passage on the ordinary life of man.

I. THE POSITION OF PRIVILEGE. Guilt must ever stand related to knowledge. What were the king’s opportunities of knowing the will of God? They were more than some may think, such as ought to have saved him from the degradations of that night, The parallel with our own position is clear. Though our advantages are in degree greater. For Belshazzar there was:

1. The witness of creation.

2. The open page of providence. (See verse 22.)

3. The voice of that moral nature which is common to every man.

4. The interpretation of them by the high Chaldean culture; e.g. the revelation of the glory of God in the stars of heaven was one that shone with special clearness on the Chaldean plain (see Sir G. C. Lewis’ ‘Astronomy of the Ancients,’ Dan 5:1-31.).

5. Special Divine revelations; e.g. in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (he had not been dead twenty-three years); in the deliverance of the heroic three, by the presence of the Saviour in the fire; by the insanity and recovery of the king. Nor must we forget that Belshazzar was not further away from the Divine than a modern worldling; for in his own realm lived the Church, with whom lay the oracles of God. Compare Louis XIV. and the Huguenots. And enough had been done to draw attention to these.

II. THE STARTING–POINT. The sin of the king was nothing else than that practical atheism (verses 22, 23) which so often shows itself callously indifferent to all those serious considerations which even people of ordinary prudence entertain (note: the city at the moment in a stare of siege); and which usually is associated with epicurean life.

III. THE ROAD DOWN. A distinct gradation in evil is marked in this, as in every other career. The steps may be different with different sinners; but there is a gradual descent with all, though it must be admitted that on “that night” some were taken by the king at lightning speed. The king:

1. Ignored all the circumstances of his position. This was indeed terrible. For long the Persian lines had been drawn round the city; engineers had been turning the river from its bed. At this hour things were becoming critical. Facts are stubborn things, which even a heathen might note.

2. Defied Providence.. Such extravagance at such a time. Imagine the authorities of Paris banqueting it the Isle siege. A false security the presage of ruin.

3. Sacrificed his own dignity. As kingas man. Not usual for Babylonian kings to make themselves the boon companions of their subjectseven the highest. We owe respect to men, as made in the image of Godrational, moral, immortal, etc.; but not the less to ourselves.

4. Plunged into drunkenness. The lightning leaps which immediately follow are to be distinctly assigned to the drunken condition of the king. Much may and should be here said on the intimate relation existing between moral and spiritual degradation generally and alcohol; and also on the close connection between alcohol and many forms of vice. It is the root of many vices. (The writer of these notes feels that educated men are still the children of many illusions anent this powerful chemical agent; these are well dealt with in ‘Dialogues on Drink,’ by Dr. Richardson.)

5. Jested with things sacred. Sure mark of a “fool” in the Bible sense. “Holy vessels will we have for such delicious wine,” may the king be supposed to say. (Matthew Henry is full and good on this.)

6. Violated the decencies of domestic life. The bringing the harem into the banquet-chamber was a gross offence against even the Oriental idea. (On this see Dr. Raleigh, ‘Esther,’ lect. 2.)

7. Insulted God. Drank they out of vessels sacred to him, unto other gods. So the indifference of a passive practical atheism culminates in open defiant antagonism against God.

IV. THE DREADFUL END. The loss of everythingkingdom, life, etc. Many things will need to be looked at ere the final ruin of the night comes up for consideration; but this is the place specially to observe that it was the king‘s own sin and folly of that very hour that led straight to ruin. Had the king and “the lords” been on the alert, not even the turning of the river from its bed had laid them at the mercy of the besiegers. But the revelry incapacitated them. Sin is its own avenger!R.

Dan 5:5-17

The crisis of awaking.

“Then was Daniel brought in before the king” (verse 13). In introducing the present subject the following features and incidents of the history need vivid and powerful setting: suddenness of the apparitiononly fingers writingin ancient Hebrew characters (same as those of the two Sinaitic tables)on the plain plaster over against the candlestickseen by its lightthe effect upon the king, pale, trembling, sobered (he will not die drunk)a great cry for helpwhy “third ruler”? (Belshazzar co-repent with his father Nabcnadius)inability of the magiconsternation and confusion of the assemblyDaniel still in the king’s employ, but probably in some obscure position (Dan 8:1, Dan 8:27)appearance of the queen-mother on the sceneDaniel calledthe advent of the seer, now more than eightyhad been sixty-eight years in Babylon. Picture the tremendous scene, with a background of night, through which seen obscurely the action of the besieging army.

I. To the sinner sooner or later comes A MOMENT OF AWAKING. It is somewhat hazardous to make a universal affirmative; but all we know of God and his dealings with men justifies us in asserting that, sooner or later, God effectually awakens every sinner to his own condition and the Divine claim.

1. The means.

(1) Words from God. Give breadth to the contents of this phrase, whilst insisting on the fact that God oft appeals to sinners by giving a new setting and power to Scripture words. The truth is to be impressed that he speaks variously to menby aspects of nature, providence, etc.

(2) Accompanied by some evidence of the Divine. Along with the mystic characters the king saw “the fingers,” but only the fingers.

(3) But not all that would be possible. The hand, the arm, the whole form of the agent writing might have been discovered. The effect overwhelming. But, no! This ever like God in all his dealings. No evidence of the Divine so overpowering as to shut the mind up to one irresistible conclusion. Nothing like mathematical demonstration. If so, where were the moral elements? This is nevertheless what sinners ask, and what God will not, cannot (respecting man’s moral nature) grant.

(4) Coming with impressive undemonstrativeness. No vain show, or noise, or thunder, or lightning; no flaming sword! Only writing! “A still, small voice!”

2. The immediate effect. Note:

(1) What it was. Terror.

(2) Why it was. Nothing in the writing to alarm, so long as uninterpreted. The reason lay there in the king’s own conscience. God set his own thoughts against the king.

3. The final end. Not necessarily judgment; the rather mercy. Nor do we know the warning wasted. Many who began the night in revelry may have been awed to penitence and prayer ere they slept the sleep that knows no waking.

II. At such a moment HE MAY FLY FOR SALVATION TO THE INCOMPETENT. TO look at matters in the light of modern experience, we may observe that the king fled for help to the scientists real or pretended. The following propositions may well be insisted on in our time:

1. Scientists fall into three classes. (Scientists, here, they who know.)

(1) Those acquainted with things material.

(2) Mentalthings of the . Moral, spiritualthings of the . This classification may not be philosophically perfect, but can be” understanded of the people;” and is sufficient.

2. A false science is useless. Such was much of the magian learning.

3. A true science avails only in its own sphere. A competent leader in natural philosophy or in psychology may be of no use in dealing with a conscience awakened and alarmed. Disregard of this in our modern life. Scientists of the first class (see above) dogmatizing in both metaphysics and theology (Col 2:18).

4. Man needs one who knows the moral nature, and its relation to God, and both lighted by special revelations. Such was Danielthe Christ in Daniel (Joh 1:9; 1Pe 1:11)the Christ of all the ages, and they who have his Spirit.

III. BUT ONLY TO BE DRIVEN BACK ON GOD. In this case the king was constrained to seek unto God in the presence of hit representative Daniel.R.

Dan 5:11, Dan 5:12

The representative of God.

“There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods” (Dan 5:11).

I. SOME OF HIS CHARACTERISTICS.

1. Intelligence. “Light, understanding, wisdom” (Dan 5:11).

2. Excellence of spirit. (Dan 5:12.)

3. Faculty. (Dan 5:12.)

4. Experience. Some achievement (Dan 5:12).

5. The indwelling of the Divine Spirit. (Dan 5:11.)

II. A POSSIBLE POSITION.

1. Comparative obscurity.

2. Even after years of distinguished service.

III. THE CERTAIN CALL. When God wants a man, he is sure to call (by providence, by his Spirit); and when he calls, man must answer.R.

Dan 5:16

The dissolving of doubt.

“I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts,” etc. A most important subject (not growing exegetically out of the passage, nevertheless) is suggested by the text, which is admirably treated by Horace Bushnell, in ‘Sermons on Living Subjects.’ For the sake of any who may not have access to the book, we give a brief outline, for the most part in Bushnell’s words.

I. THE PREVALENCE OF DOUBT. The prevalence of doubt is exhibited and illustrated at considerable length. “Science puts everything in question, and literature distils the questions, making an atmosphere of them.“

II. CAUSES OF DOUBT. “They never come of truth or high discovery, but always of the want of it.”

1. All the truths of religion are inherently dub/table. They are the subjects of moral evidence, not of absolute demonstration.

2. We begin life as unknowing creatures that have everything to learn.

3. Our faculty is itself disorder; e.g. a bent telescope; a filthy window.

III. THE DISSOLUTION OF DOUBT.

1. Counsel negative. Not “by inquiry, search, investigation, or any kind of speculative endeavour. Men must never go after the truth to merely find it, but to practise it and live by it.”

2. Counsel positive. Bushnell asserts and illustrates at length that man has universally the absolute idea of right and its correlative wrong; and then enforces, with power and manifoldness of illumination, this: “Say nothing of investigation till you have made sure of being grounded everlastingly, and’ with a completely whole intent, in the principle of right doing as a principle.“ (No condensation can give any idea of the grasp and fatness with which this is exhibited and applied.)

IV. THE RESULT. “A soul thus won to its integrity of thought and meaning will rapidly clear all tormenting questions and difficulties. They are not all gone, but they are going.“ “The ship is launched; he is gone to sea, and has the needle on board.“

V. SUPPLEMENTARY DIRECTION.

1. Be never afraid of doubt.

2. Be afraid of all sophistries and tricks and strifes of disingenuous argument.

3. Getting into any scornful way is fatal.

4. Never settle upon any thing as true, because it is safer to hold it than not.

5. Have it as a law never to put force on the mind or try to make it believe. It spoils the mind’s integrity.

6. Never be in a hurry to believe; never try to conquer doubts against time. “One of the greatest talents in religious discovery is the finding how to hang up questions and let them hang without being at all anxious about them What seemed perfectly insoluble will clear itself in a wondrous revelation.” And here is a thought: “It will not hurt you, nor hurt the truth, if you should have some few questions left to be carried on with you when you go hence, for in that more luminous state, most likely they will soon be cleared, only a thousand others will be springing up even there, and you will go on dissolving still your new sets of questions, and growing mightier and more deep-seeing for eternal ages.”R.

Dan 5:17-31

At the bar of God.

“The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified” (Dan 5:23). In this tremendous scene Daniel may be regarded as counsel for the crownfor the everlasting crown, for the throne of eternal righteousness, against the unhappy prisoner placed by these awful events at the bar. As such he is the representative of all earnest preachers of righteousness. He was marked by zeal for the right of the crown; fidelity to the position; sympathy for the arraigned; fearlessness; and absolute disinterestedness (verse 17, Any honours given and received might have been recognized by any new king). All these should make every one that pleads with man or against man (ultimately to win the man to the right side) for God.

I. THE INDICTMENT. In order to make forcible modern applications, it will be better to formulate the indictment in the most general way. Belshazzar’s particular sins may not be just ours; but he and we both commit sins that fall under like categories.

1. Infidelity to accorded revelations. (Verse 22.)

2. Substituting shadows for God. (Verse 23.) In the king’s ease there had been inflation of himself against God; sacrilege; indecency; drunkenness; prostration before idols, which are “nothing in the world.” The inflations, profanities, improprieties, sensualisms, and idolatries of the nineteenth century differ in form, but are quite as real as those of Belshazzar.

3. Failure in man‘s prime duty; viz. to glorify God.

(1) The duty. To honour God. We put the highest honour on him when we repeat his likeness. To glorify God is to reflect God, as the lake does the heaven above with all its light. This the final end of our creation.

(2) its ground. Our complete dependence. That dependent life should be devoted life is a truth of natural religion (see verse 23).

(3) The default is so general and notorious as to require no proof (Rom 3:23).

II. THE AGGRAVATIONS OF GUILT. The king’s guilt had been aggravated by what he had been permitted to see of the way of the Divine mercy and of the Divine judgment.

1. The vision of the Divine goodness, in his grandfather‘s prosperity. (Verses 18, 19.)

2. The vision of sin, in his grandfather‘s misuse of position. (Verse 20.)

3. The vision of judgment, in his grandfather‘s punishment. (Verse 21.)

4. The vision of mercy, in his grandfather‘s restoration. (Verse 21.) Note:

(1) For every sinner a vision of the great realities of the moral world.

(2) Coming oft in very affecting forms, as here, through the experience of the near and dear.

III. THE ABSENCE OF DEFENCE. The sinner dumb at the eternal bar. No defence possible. Judgment goes by default. There is no counsel for defence; for there is no defence. Sentence must pass. The only thing that can be done, can be done them, viz. show ground for free pardon. This the atoning Saviour undertakes. But

IV. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. Of the supreme courtthe court of heaventhe judgment of God against the sinner; in this case written with the very finger of Godthe same finger which traced ages before “the Law of the ten words.” In the “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” read these permanent truths:

1. The day of probation is limited. “Numbered!” and numbered to the end!

2. The character of the probationer is exactly estimated. “Weighed!” Yes, and found light. “God does as perfectly know a man’s true character as the goldsmith knows the weight of that which he has weighed in the nicest scales.” Note the moral import of phrases like this: “a man of weight and character; . a light and frivolous man.”

3. Deprivation of endowment is the punishment of infidelity to trust. “Divided!” Given away (see parable of the talents).

V. EXECUTION. It was:

1. Swift upon the climax of a life of sin. “In that night.”

2. Sure. By an agent long prepared (Isa 45:1-6).

3. Sudden. Utterly unexpected.

VI. A GLEAM OF HOPE. The king died sober: did he die penitent.? The way in which he received the awful words of Daniel look very like it (verse 29). A star of hope shines above the dark cloud in the horizon.R.

HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES

Dan 5:1-9

Blasted merriment.

All merriment is not forbidden. Banqueting is not in itself a sin. Jesus Christ himself honoured with his presence a marriage festival, and contributed, by miracle, the wine for the occasion. On the restoration of the prodigal son, a banquet was prepared, while music and dancing were the fitting exponents of the father’s joy. God is not a foe to rational pleasure. He gives both the capacity and the occasion for joyful hilarity. But when excess of wine inflames the carnal passions, when it degenerates into sensuality, extravagance, and profanity, it is a sin.

I. ROYAL REVELRY. We are not told what was the occasion of this banquet. Possibly it was to celebrate the anniversary of the king’s accession; or else an annual festival in honour of Chaldea’s gods. But:

1. It was an unseasonable banquet. The foe was already besieging the city. Belshazzar was presuming that Babylon could resist any siege, and that their supplies could last for an indefinite period. There is a time to be merry, but there’s also a time for fasting and penitence. The man is a fool who cannot be serious at fitting limes. Gravity is more seemly than gaiety when disaster occurs. He is a doomed man who will not listen when God speaks with voice of thunder. But he shall hear.

2. The revelry proceeded to the extreme of self-abandonment. Wisdom, dignity, good sense, decorum, reason, were all drowned in the depths of the wine-cup. The king led the way to extravagance, revelry, folly, debauchery. He who should have been a guide to virtue, and a pattern of propriety, uses his high influence to pervert and to pollute men. Belshazzar alone is mentioned as the leader of these bacchanalian orgies. All manliness and nobleness were sacrificed at that foul shrine of pleasure.

3. Excess led to wanton profanity and sacrilege. We do not attempt to measure the sin of these Oriental lords by the standard of modern refinement or modern religious belief; but judged only by the standard of public conscience prevailing in that age, they stand censured and condemned. The ancient nations, however strong their attachment to their peculiar deities, allowed other peoples to worship their chosen gods, and held it to be the grossest sin to lay violent hands on. temple furniture, Throughout the long reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the gold and silver vessels of Jehovah’s temple had been scrupulously preserved; and the captive Hebrews had always cherished the hope that these precious vessels would again adorn the temple in Jerusalem. Though Belshazzar had now reigned probably eighteen years, he, too, had not ventured to secularize these sacred things. Nor do we think he would have done so now unless he had been madly inflamed with wine. Sensuality is twin-sister to impiety.

II. AN ALARMING OMEN. It came in the form of writing. God might have chosen other signs to betoken his displeasure. An earthquake might have shaken the palace to the ground, and buried these revellers in the dust. Fire from the seven-branched candlestick might have streamed forth, and consumed both king and guests. A voice of thunder might have announced, in unmistakable tones, Jehovah’s anger. But this unveiling of his presence and his indignation implies the calm and undisturbed patience with which God proceeds. The kings of Babylon had been famous for writing grave decrees. God will show them that a mightier King than they is upon the scene, and that he too can write decrees in the sight of all. And there was an element of kindness mingled with this judgment. It did not proceed with summary and overwhelming suddenness. Though destruction was near at hand, there was yet time for repentance. But why should king and courtiers be so terrified? Why should they conclude that the portent was unfavourable? Perhaps it was an indication of approaching conquest: tidings that the siege should be raised? Why tremble? What cowardice is here? Why is conscience lashing them with thongs, and afflicting them with such strange alarms? They have just been praising their gods of silver and stone. Will not these protect them now, and recompense their homage with good things? Alas! a sense of sin has fastened itself on them. Self-accusation has sent its fangs into their inmost souls. In a moment they are like dead men. After all, justice slumbereth not. “Verily, there is a God in the earth!”

III. IMPOTENT PRIESTCRAFT. The astrologers and soothsayers are summoned to the scene. These were the royal counsellors in matters of religion, and professed to know the secrets of the gods. They had been maintained at the king’s expense, and surely should render some proper service in return. But in the hour of urgent need these false supports fail. Ah! better not to lean upon a staff than to lean upon a rotten staff! Better not to trust to a cable in a storm than to have a cable with a faulty link! Every scheme which the king can devise to stimulate these men to attempt the solution is done; but in vain. He does not upbraid them with their empty pretentiousness. He tempts them with fascinating bribes. They shall be raised to affluence and to honour if only they will relieve the king from this scare of terror. Yet the “oracles are dumb.” Stricken with feebleness and silence are all the votaries of idolatry. False religion may serve some temporary advantage as an instrument of worldly government; but when a storm of Divine anger beads upon a man, no refuge nor retreat can false faith furnish. When sharp disease invades the vital parts of the body, it is of unspeakable importance that the medicine should have genuine virtue. But no comparison can fitly set forth the moment,ms urgency of having sterling piety. To be deceived in matters of the soul is to imperil everythingis to lose body and soul everlastingly.D.

Dan 5:10-16

Good counsel in perplexity.

One had abstained from that scene of insane revelry, and she alone in the royal household was competent to take the helm amid the consternation and panic. Possibly the king had declined to invite her to the carousal; he did not, however, decline to receive her judicious coon*el. This queen (or queen-mother) was by far the worthier sovereign, and now used the regal power with regal skill.

I. TRUE WISDOM TREASURES UP THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PAST, If we condemn the spendthrift, who has never learnt the value of money, and only wastes it upon trifles, much more must we condemn the man who throws thoughtlessly away the lessons taught by history and experience. Whether we know it or not, we are responsible for the right use of the past. “A burnt child dreads the fire.” A sensible navigator will avoid the hidden reefs on which former mariners have suffered shipwreck. If our father has found a wise and worthy friend, we shall be fools if we do not trust him too.

II. TRUE WISDOM m SUPERIOR TO ALL PREJUDICE. Daniel had been elevated, for his virtues, to the chief place among the magicians; and if, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was consigned to obscurity, we can attribute it to nothing else than sheer prejudice. He was a foreignerof the number of the Jewish captivestherefore whatever his goodness or skill, he must be degraded. So prejudice robbed the king of an able and worthy statesman. But the wisdom of the queen advocated that the services of this injured man should again be sought. The occasion was precisely such a one in which his skill was priceless. No matter what his origin, or nationality, or outward condition, if he have superior wisdom or prudence, he is the man for the put, lie exigency. There is a littleness and a meanness about prejudice that genuine wisdom cannot endure.

III. TRUE WISDOM GAINS HER ENDS AT LAST. She has often to hide her head for a time, while Folly is jingling her bells and is making a blustering noise; but her occasion is sure to come. Her voice will prevail at last, and men will chide themselves bitterly that they had not followed her counsels at an earlier day. Wisdom is always patient, because she knows that, sooner or later, her presence will be sought and her guidance followed. Belshazzar had “sown the wind;” now he was “reaping the whirlwind;” and, dismayed with the menacing storm, he became a docile pupil of Wisdom. Without hesitation or delay, he sent for the counsellor whom he had long neglected, and confessed his need of the prophet’s service. Even the king is dependent on his subjects for a thousand things. Supercilious pride is the sure forerunner of disaster.D.

Dan 5:17-29

The value of a good man.

The value to a community of a wise and good man is not to be measured by rubies. The safety, welfare, and happiness of society hang upon him.

I. THE GOOD MAN‘S GENEROSITY OF MIND. Daniel does not refuse to come when sent for in haste by the king He might have taken occasion, teem the fright of the king, to remind him of past neglect. He might have accused the king of selfish inconsistency, in that he had dishonoured Daniel in the days of kingly prosperity, but was prompt to use him in the hour of dire adversity. But Daniel was too noble a man on such an occasion to think of himself. He speaks not of his good services to the king’s grandsire, nor mentions the ill requital he had received. Nor will he permit the king to imagine that he is now moved to render fresh service by any prospect of reward. This very offer of royal reward had stung the mind of the prophet with pain. Pride and mercenary selfishness were ingrained in the nature of the king, or he would not, on an occasion like this, have spoken of rewards. His vile, base nature could not appreciate the generous nature of his Jewish subject. So Daniel declined the king’s proposal with high disdain. They who are employed in the service of God are content with the rewards which their own Master gives. It would savour of treason if an ambassador from the British court should take the pay of a foreign empire.

II. THE GOOD MAN‘S RECOGNITION OF GOD. An ambassador to a foreign court will be forward to present his credentials, and will take every public opportunity of maintaining the rights of his sovereign. So, in the very preface of his address, Daniel requires recognition of the supreme authority of God. He reminds Belshazzar of the majesty and glory and dominion which Nebuchadnezzar enjoyed before hima degree of power far superior to that wielded by Belshazzarbut even Nebuchadnezzar had been compelled to admit that this extensive sovereignty was but a grant from Goda trust delegated by the Most High. Even Nebuchadnezzar was but a vassal prince, and was required to bring his tribute to the supreme Monarch of the skies. To reject the jurisdiction of God is contemptible folly and weakness.

III. THE GOOD MAN‘S FAITHFUL REPROOF FOR THE PAST. The effect of God’s judgments on Nebuchadnezzar ought to have been the exhibition of pious humility in Belshazzar. God’s chastisement of a father is intended to benefit a son, and God’s intentions cannot be frustrated with impunity. To despise the lessons of the past is wanton sin and irreparable loss. If Belshazzar’s pride had only been equal to that of his grandsire, the guilt would have been greater, because he had inherited all the warnings of the past. In proportion to men’s advantages are their responsibilities. Daniel, though a subject and a captive, does not spare his monarch’s sins. No prospect of preferment, no fear of disfavour, weakens the severity of his reproofs. He charges the monarch with his haughty pride, with his blatant atheism, his sacrilegious profanation of sacred things, his insane trust in graven images. He arraigns his monarch, as if he were a prisoner at the bar brought up to receive sentence for his crimes. He accuses him of ingratitude to the God who had daily sustained him; accuses him of a wanton misuse of power; accuses him of a flagrant abuse of the gift of life. Now the edifice of his guilt has been crowned! Now the last element of aggravation has been added! God’s sacred vessels have been desecrated for human debauchery. The die is cast; the hour has struck. “Because judgment against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil.”

IV. THE GOOD MAN‘S FORECAST OF THE DEBAUCHEE‘S FUTURE. God is not so highly exalted that he cannot see what occurs upon the earth; nor is he so indifferent to human actions that he will pass by any sin with impunity. The hand that wrote the ten commandments on stony tabletsthe hand that wrote Belshazzar’s doom upon the palace-wallrecords all our misdemeanours also. Never still is that Divine hand. The Chaldean monarch’s days were all exactly numbered; the sands had nearly run out; there was but an hour or two for repentance. The Orientals had a belief in future rewards and punishments, and were accustomed to represent the supreme Judge as weighing, in the separate scales of a balance, men’s good actions, and the bad. Here God accommodated himself to this prevalent belief, and represented himself as weighing in his balances the character of the king. Daniel plainly announced the result, “Thou art weighed, and”oh! dread conclusion”thou art found wanting.” The final stroke was near and overwhelming. The thunder-cloud was, even then, gathering under the dark covert of night, and was about to discharge its fatal contents over the doomed city. Not another sun should rise upon Belshazzar’s earthly life. His course was run; and in his ruin ten thousand others would be involved. We cannot sin alone; we entice others into the fatal way. We cannot suffer alone; we drag others into the whirlpool of destruction. “In that night was Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans, slain”D.

Dan 5:30, Dan 5:31

The Word of God verified.

It is not often that the word of Divine warning is so swiftly and so visibly accomplished as it was here. Frequently God allows time (according to human calculation) to intervene. Yet, in every case, the agency is set in motion, so soon as the propose is formed, and that agency, whether it moves slowly or swiftly, moves surely to its end. But the idea of time is human. The structure of the human mind compels us to introduce the element of duration. But God is superior to this limitation. “With him a thousand years are as one day,” and vice versa.

I. THE SWIFTNESS OF THE RETRIBUTION. Although this one act of sacrilege and self-debauchery is the only event in Belshazzar’s life which is recorded in the page of sacred history, we are warranted in the conclusion that his public life, and probably his earlier private life, were series of guilty and impious acts. No man reaches great excesses of sin at a single step. In all likelihood God bad condescended to warn and counsel Belshazzar again and yet again, and this last daring act of defiance was the climax of his degenerate course. This was Belshazzar’s reply to God’s patient expostulations, and sudden destruction was the most fitting penalty. We are surprised, not at the rapid execution of God’s warnings, but at his unparalleled forbearance.

II. THE SUDDENNESS OF THE CALAMITY. We are not informed by Daniel the minute steps of the royal overthrow; but possibly Belslhazzar had retired to rest, little supposing that retribution was at his very door. It may be that his senses had been overcome by wine and fear; that deep stupor succeeded, as the natural reaction of his sensual excess; and. that the noise of the city’s capture did not reach his ear. Very likely he heard no rumour of alarm until some bold and reckless besiegers gained the palace, and slew the king in his bed. In this case he scarcely woke to die. It is not an uncommon thing for punishment to come on the ungodly at last, suddenly, as “a thief in the night.” At the moment when Daniel declared the heavenly Monarch’s will, amendment was too late. The king was not in possession of his faculties. He had drowned them in the wine-cup; and, before the fumes of his intoxication had worn off, he was a corpse. Our sin ofttimes disables us for true repentance. “No place for it is found, though we seek it carefully, and with tears.”

III. THE COMPLETENESS OF HIS DOOM. It was not a partial disaster, such as the infliction of disease or the loss of his crown; not such a disaster as might yet be repaired by reformation or obedience. It was complete, final, irreparable. In a moment every possession he held ceased. His sovereign power, his worldly possessions, hi. health, his life, his hope,all were destroyed at a single blow. The stroke was overwhelming. Nothing was left behind but an obnoxious reputationa beacon to future voyagers. No human mind can estimate the extent of that calamity. What blacker hell can there be than for a man to awake to consciousness in the next life with a sense that he has lost all? He had a splendid opportunity, but he wasted it! He might have gained heaven, but he has irretrievably failed. Existence has become intolerable misery. Now he is compelled to hear this knell of doom, “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still.”D.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Dan 5:1. Belshazzar the king The grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the Labynetus of Herodotus, and the last monarch of the Babylonian kingdom. This last king is said by Ptolemy to have reigned 17 years, and we read of the third year of Belshazzar, Dan 8:1 but Laborosoarchod reigned only nine months. Certain it is from Jer 27:6-7 that the kingdom would be continued to the son’s son of Nebuchadnezzar, and from 2Ch 36:20 that to him and his sons the sovereignty would be continued until the kingdom of Persia; and therefore one at least of his grandsons must have reigned in Babylon after Evil-merodach, who could not be the last king, or Belshazzar. And there is very little reason to doubt, from a review of the circumstances recorded in Scripture and by the profane historians, that the Belshazzar here meant was not the short-lived tyrant above mentioned, whose cruelties are recounted by Xenophon, and who was the daughter’s son; but rather the son’s son of Nebuchadnezzar, or Nabonadius the son of Evil-merodach. And this is the opinion of Jerom from Berosus in Josephus, cont. Rev 1:20. The arguments usually adduced to settle this difficulty may be seen at large in the Univ. Hist. vol. 4: Note. p. 422, &c. as also in Dr. Prideaux, Conn. p. 1: b. 2.

Made a great feast For the principal officers of his court. This feast was made at a time of public rejoicing; being an annual festivity, when the whole night was spent in revelling. Cyrus took this advantage to make himself master of the city, as Herodotus and Xenophon relate, and Jeremiah foretold. See Jer 50:24; Jer 51:29; Jer 51:64. This chapter, according to the order of time, might be placed after the 7th and 8th. In the style of the Hebrews, the grandfather is frequently called father. See Dan 5:2; Dan 5:11; Dan 5:13.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

5. Belshazzars feast, and Daniels foreshadowing of the downfall of the Chaldan Empire, based upon the mysterious handwriting on the wall

Dan 5:1-30

1Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank 2wine1 before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tested [in the taste of] the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father2 Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that [and] the king and his princes [lords], his wives and his concubines, might drink therein. 3Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at [in] Jerusalem; and the king and his princes 4[lords], his wives and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine1 and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

5In the same hour came forth fingers of a mans hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kings palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6Then the kings countenance was changed,3 and his thoughts troubled [would trouble] him, so that [and] the joints of his loins [loin] were loosed, and his knees smote one against another [this to that].

7The king cried aloud [with might] to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldans and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon Whosoever [That any man that] shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and shall be the third ruler [rule third] in the kingdom. 8Then came in all the kings wise men: but [and] they could not read [call] the writing, nor [and] make known to the king [make the 9king know] the interpretation thereof. Then was [the] king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him,4 and his lords were astonished.

10Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet-house [house of the drinking]; and the queen spake and said, O 11king, live for ever; let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed.5 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and, in the days of thy father, light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom [and] the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made [appointed him] master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldans, and soothsayers; 12forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences [riddles], and dissolving of doubts [knots], were [was] found in the same [in him] Daniel, whom the king named [put his name] Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew [or, and shew] the interpretation.

13Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah,6 whom the king my father brought out of Jewry. [Judah]?6 14I have even heard of [upon] thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom, is [was] found in thee. 15And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read [call] this writing, and make known unto me [make me know] the interpretation thereof: but [and] they could not shew the interpretation of the thing. 16And I7 have heard of [upon] thee that thou canst make [interpret] interpretations and dissolve doubts [knots]: now, if thou canst read [call] the writing and make known to me [make me know] the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler [rule the third] in the kingdom.

17Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself [thee], and give thy rewards [largesses] to another; yet I will read [call] the writing unto the king, and make known to him [make him know] the interpretation. 18O thou king, [Thou O king] the most high God gave [to] Nebuchadnezzar thy father a [the] kingdom, and majesty [greatness], and glory, and 19honour. And, for [from] the majesty [greatness] that he gave him, all people, nations [the nations, peoples], and languages, trembled and feared [were trembling and fearing from] before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he 20put down.8 But [And] when his heart was lifted up, and his mind [spirit] hardened in pride [to act proudly], he was deposed from his kingly throne [the throne of his kingdom], and they took [caused to pass away] his glory the 21dignity] from him. And he was driven from the sons of men [mankind]; and his heart was made like [with] the beasts [living creatures], and his dwelling was with the wild-asses: they fed him with [would make him eat] grass [herbage] like oxen, and his body was [would be] wet with [from] the dew of heaven [the heavens]; till [that] he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men [mankind], and that he appointeth [will set up] over it whomsoever he 22[may] will. And thou9 his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, 23though [because] thou knewest all this; but [and] hast lifted up thyself against the Lord10 of heaven [the heavens]: and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk [are drinking] wine11 in them: and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, 24hast thou not glorified. Then was the part of the hand sent from [before] him; and this writing was written [signed].

25And this is the writing that was written [signed], MENE, MENE, TEKEL, 26UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing [or, word]: MENE 27[NUMBERE]; God12 hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL 28[Weighed]; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting, PERES [DIVIDED]; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia].

29Then commanded [said] Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet [the purple], and put a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and made a proclamation concerning [upon] him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldans slain.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS

Dan 5:1-4. The desecration of the sacred vessels of the temple at the royal feast. Belshazzar the king made a great feast. The name of the king differs in its orthography merely from the Chaldee name , which Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan 1:7 (cf. infra, Dan 5:12 of this chapter), had conferred on Daniel, as it omits the t-sound between the letters l and sh. It is therefore a softened form, having the same etymological significance in its elements, and both are equivalent to Beli princeps, = the Bel–sarussur of the Babylonian inscriptions (cf. Introd., 8, note 3). According to Hitzig (on Dan 1:7, and on this passage), Bel–tsh–zar is synonymous with the Sanscrit Pla–tshara, provider and devourer, while in Bel–shazzar the middle member of this compound, the Sanscr. and Zend copula tsha, and, has been dropped out and replaced by the Heb. relative , so that the shortened form signifies. provider, who (is) devourer. This hypothesis appears altogether too artificial, and, like the direct derivation of the word from the Aryan, is doubtful, especially as the Bel-sarussur of the inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments favors it but little. Ewalds assumption that the royal name comprehends the name the male god Bel, while that of Daniel, , includes that of the goddess Belt, is likewise without sufficient proof, and is opposed by Dan 4:5 [8], and also by the orthography with instead of .Concerning the hypothesis that Belshazzar was the same us Evil-merodach, the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, see the lntrod., 8, note 3.Made a great feast, i.e., caused it to be made. , he had prepared, as in Dan 3:1. , bread, food, comprehends the beverages (, Dan 5:10) also, as the second half of the verse shows; cf. in the Heb, Gen 26:30; 1Sa 25:36; Ecc 10:19.And drank wine before the thousand. This does not probably mean that he vied with them in drinking (Hvernick), but that he drank in their presence, while seated at a separate table,as was the custom of the Persian kings on the occasion of their great banquets, according to Athenus, Deipnos, iv. 10. On the expression, to eat and drink before others, cf. Jer 52:33; it differs materially from to eat and drink with others, Exo 18:12; Act 10:41, etc. The number of the kings guests, a thousand lords (grand-officers, mighty ones, cf. Dan 4:33 [36], which the Sept. doubles, ), is not remarkable, when it is remembered that, according to Ctesias (in Athen., l. c.). the Persian king provided daily for fifteen thousand persons at his table; that, according to Curtius, Alexander the Great invited ten thousand to a wedding feast; and that Ptolemy Dionysius (according to Pliny, H. N., XXXIII. 10) supported a thousand soldiers of the army of Pompey the Great from his kitchen. [The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand (Keil).] However, according to the genuinely Oriental custom, which is attested, e.g., by Herodotus, II. 78. in the case of the Egyptians, and by lian, V. H., xi. 1, among the Persians, the wine-drinking or carousal follows upon the feast proper. At such times, and especially at a court like the Babylonian immediately prior to the Persian period, the banqueters may have given way to all the excesses of their dissolute frivolity, in the manner described in the ensuing narrative. In relation to the drunkenness and wantonness of the Babylonians, cf. Isa 14:11; Isa 47:1; Jer 51:39; Herod., I. 193, 195; Athenus, XIV. p. 601; Curtius, V. 1 etc.

Dan 5:2. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded, etc. , while tasting, while enjoying the wine, therefore, while under its influence; cf. Pro 20:1; Act 2:13; and in regard to , cf. Job 6:6. [It does not mean merely sipping in order to determine the flavor, or as a prelude to drinking more freely, but drinking with relish, and therefore plentifully (Stuart).]To bring the golden and silver vessels, namely, out of the treasure-house of the gods, in which they had been deposited by Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan 1:2. The etymology of the name Belshazzar invented by Saadia and favored by Hitzig, by which it is derived from this very act of causing the vessels to be brought from the treasure-house (, to seek and ), is an idle vagary that never entered into the mind of the writer.That the king. and his concubines might drink therein. The in is expressive of the design; cf. Dan 1:5 b. with , to drink from a vessel, occurs also in Dan 5:3; Dan 5:23; cf. Winer, 51, 1.His wives and his concubines. designates the legal consort as contrasted with the concubine (), as in the Hebrew (Psa. 15:10; Neh 2:6). The Sept. represents only the concubines as present at the feast (both here and in Dan 5:3; Dan 5:23), being apparently governed in this by what is described in Est 1:9 et seq. (cf. Josephus, Ant., XI. 6, 1) as the court custom of the ancient Persians; but even with reference to them, Herodotus (Dan 5:18) testifies that their wives ( ) were admitted to banquets (cf. also Plutarch, Sympos. I. 1 and Macrob. Dan 7:1, who represent that at least concubines were present at the Persian feasts). It is clear that the luxurious Babylonians were even more lax in the observance of a strict etiquette, from Herod, i. 191; Xenophon, Cyrop., iv. 2, 28, and especially from Curtius, i. 1, 38. From this may appear the propriety with which Bertholdt (p. 366), on the strength of Dan 5:10 of this chapter, which he misunderstood, charges ignorance of the Babylonian custom in question on the prophet.

Dan 5:3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem. Merely the golden vessels are here mentioned, while the silver ones are omitted, on the principle a potiori fit denominatio. The temple () in this place, as in 1Ki 6:3; Eze 41:4, is the temple proper, consisting of the holy and the most holy place, and is here distinguished from the house of God, i.e., the whole of the sacred area of the temple.

Dan 5:4. They drank wine, and praised, etc. (with prosthet., Winer, Gramm., 23, note 1) resumes the of the preceding verse supplemented by , wine, in order to connect immediately with it the praising of the gods, and thus to present in a striking manner the profanity and lasciviousness of the scene.13 On the six-fold number of the materials from which the idols were constructed, gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone, compare the similar number (gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble) in 1Co 3:11; also Psa 115:5-7; Bar 6:7 et seq.; Wis 15:15.14 On the number itself, as the number of the world amenable to judgment because of its hostility to God, cf. Auberlen, Dan., p. 304 et seq.; and my Theologia naturalis, p. 816 et seq.The aggravated feature of this profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple does not consist in the placing of Jehovah and the idols of the king upon the same level (Hvernick), but in the fact, which Daniel mentions with censure in Dan 5:23, that Belshazzar proudly exalted himself above the God of Israel, and in mockery employed the vessels stolen from His sanctuary to drink wine while singing the praises of the victorious gods of Babylon. It was thus essentially an exaltation of the idols above Jehovah, who had succumbed to them in battle, and whom they had despoiled (cf. Kranichf. on this passage).

Dan 5:5-6. The finger on the wall, and the consequent terror of the king. In the same hour, therefore while the sacrilegious act was in progress; immediately and suddenly. cf. Dan 3:6.Came forth fingers of a mans hand. The Kethib (3 plur. masc.) is sufficiently explained by its position before the feminine subject , or also by the supposition that the mind of the writer reverted in an indefinite manner to the Divine powers here engaged. The feminine plural , substituted for it by the Keri, is therefore to be rejected, as an easier reading (similar to that in Dan 2:33). The participle (and writing, instead of and wrote), which follows the verb , has a realizing effect, as in Dan 2:7 a; Dan 3:9 a.Over against the candlestick on the wall of the kings palace. The wall of the banquet-hall was not panelled nor draped, but rather a simple, light-colored wall of lime or plaster ( = the of the Targums), such as the ruins of the palaces at Nineveh still exhibit in great number, according to Layard (Nin. and Babylon, p. 651). Upon a spot of this wall that was especially exposed to the light from the lamp above the king, he suddenly beheld the mysterious and terrifying phenomenon of the hand engaged in writing.And the king saw the part (the extremity) of the hand that wrote. properly designates here and in Dan 5:24 the extremity of the hand, probably including the fingers, hence what the first sentence describes by . The rendering of Gesenius and Dietrich in the Handwrterbuch, palm of the hand, palma, is hardly correct; nor is that of Hitzig, who, in connection with Saadia, takes in the wider sense of the lower arm, including the hand, and hence explains by the whole hand. The writer appears rather to have employed the words fingers and extremity of the hand interchangeably, with design,in order to excite more effectually the conception of a mysterious person in the background, by the observation that only the extremity of the organ employed in writing was visible (Kranichfeld). Whether the phenomenon of the mysterious hand is to be placed solely to the account of the fancy of the king under the influence of wine, and therefore to be reduced (with Kranichfeld) from an objective and actually transpiring miracle to a merely subjective apprehension (similar to the perception of the fourth person in the fiery furnacesee on Dan 3:24), or otherwise, depends entirely on the other question, whether the mysterious writing on the wall, which certainly was visible to others as well as to Belshazzar (cf. Dan 5:7-8; Dan 5:16; Dan 5:25), is to be regarded as having been previously carved or painted in a natural way and by human agency, or whether it is to be accepted that the inscription was made by supernatural intervention at the time of the banquet and before the eyes of the terrified king. In support of the former theory reference might perhaps be made to the distinction between an older and a later cuneiform writing among the Babylonians, the former of which differed materially from the latter, or even to the hieroglyphics which the primitive Babylonians are said to have employed (cf. Spiegel, Art. Nineve u. Assyrien, in Herzogs Real-Encykl., vol. xx. p. 234 et seq.), but with which the later ages were entirely unacquainted. It is conceivable that the king may suddenly have noticed an inscription in characters of that former time, that were traced on bricks and inserted in the wall, and that such characters were not intelligible to the ordinary magians of the time, but required the all-surpassing knowledge of Daniel to decipher. But, aside from the evident design of the narrator to report a positively miraculous incident, this theory is militated against and positively overthrown by the nature of the writing, which does not bear the character of the primitive oracles of the kind represented the Sibyllines, but is a Divine sentence of destruction upon the king and his people, that was called forth by the insolent presumption of the present ruler, and is adapted to the circumstances of his time (cf. on Dan 5:25 et seq). The theory of an actual miracle is therefore to be received, and the psychological explanation cited above, as well as every other naturalistic theory, must be rejected.15 Then the (color of the) kings countenance was changed; literally, Then the king, his color was changed to him. [ (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted (Keil).] The intransitive (to change) has the accusative suffix in , instead of the dative; cf. in the Heb. of Eze 47:7. However, the more circumstantial expression , Dan 5:9, has substantially the same signification, as is the case also with the somewhat different expressions in Dan 5:10 and Dan 7:28. On , see on Dan 4:33.And his thoughts troubled him; , the uncomfortable and terrifying thoughts concerning the meaning of the writing, which sprang from the guilty conscience of the king. cf. Dan 2:30.The joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The tremulous knocking together of the knees is a consequence of the yielding of the joints of the loins, and this again, like the change of color in the countenance, is the natural effect of terror.16 cf. with , hip, loin, the etymologically equivalent Heb. (only in the dual, ), , knee, appears not to be etymologically related to ,, but rather to signify originally combination, commissura; cf. commissura genu, Plin., H. N. XI. 103.

Dan 5:7-9. The useless consultation with the Magians. The king cried aloud; , with power, as in Dan 3:4; Dan 4:11.To bring in the astrologers (soothsayers), the Chaldans, and the soothsayers (astrologers). Several classes of wise men are here mentioned to designate the entire number, as in Dan 2:2 (cf. 27) and in Dan 4:4; and among them the Chartummin or learned class (see on Dan 2:2), whose wisdom would be especially required in the present instance, are not even mentioned by name. This is evidently an oversight on the part of the writer, which is paralleled in the somewhat more complete enumeration of the principal classes of Magians in Dan 5:11, and also in the abbreviated expression, the wise men, the soothsayers, in Dan 5:15. The indefinite in this verse, and the expression in Dan 5:8, show clearly that the author always refers to all the wise men, without excluding any of the chief classes, and especially so in this instance. But it cannot be required here, any more than in the similar case mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Daniel should have at once presented himself among all these wise men of Babylon (see on Dan 4:5). The position of the great Jewish wise man under Nebuchadnezzars reign, which was not official in the more limited sense, was probably continued to him under Belshazzar; and, moreover, the latter, who, according to Dan 5:11 et seq., knew little or nothing about Daniel, would be far more likely than was his father to ignore the prophet of Jehovah, and to seek the counsel of the heathen wise men at the outset. The words of the queen in Dan 5:11 et seq. by no means indicate that the king was wholly unacquainted with Daniel, but merely that up to that time no personal or official intercourse had taken place between them. This circumstance also finds a sufficient explanation in the greater freedom of action incident to the partly official and partly private station of Daniel, which devolved on him the obligation to attend to certain portions of the kings business indeed (see Dan 8:27), but released him from the duty of frequently presenting himself before the king. The assumption of Hengstenberg and Hvernick, that on the accession of Belshazzar Daniel was formally deprived of his office as the chief Magian, is a very doubtful supposition, and stands in direct contradiction to Dan 8:27 (cf. Dan 8:1)Whosoever shall read this writing, etc. (here and Dan 5:15), for Dan 5:8; Dan 5:16; Dan 5:25, appears to be the orthography of a later copyist, as in the case of , Dan 4:32, and of in Dan 5:12, below.Shall be clothed with purple (marg.) and have (rather with17 ) a chain of gold about his neck. here, and in the Chaldaizing Heb. of 2Ch 2:6, equivalent to the Heb. (Exo 25:26-27, and often), the red or genuine purple, , was probably more costly and brilliant than the violet or blue purple , from which it must be distinguished. It formed the distinguishing feature of clothing among the Persian kings (Pollux, vii. 13), and was by them occasionally bestowed on high officials, as a mark of especial favor and exalted dignity; e.g., on Mordecai, Est 8:15; and on the purpurati, i.e., persons who were adorned with the purple , whom Xenophon (Anab., I. 5, 8), Curtius (Dan 3:2; Dan 3:10; Dan 8:3; Dan 8:15; Dan 13:13,14), and others mention (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop., Dan 1:3; Dan 1:2; Dan 2:4; Dan 2:6; Herodotus, 3:20, etc.). Purple was probably the badge of distinguished rank at the Babylonian as well as at the Persian court, especially as Babylon, like Tyre, was celebrated among the ancients for its manufacture of purple goods. Cf. Philostratus, Ep., 27; Eze 27:24; Jos 7:21; and generally, Heeren, Ideen, etc., I. 2, 205 et seq. With respect to their etymology, both forms, and , may be most readily derived from the Sanscrit, in which both rgaman and rgavan occur as adjectives derived from rga, red, and signify red-colored; cf. Gesen., Addit. ad Thesaur., p. 111. Hitzig however refers to the Sanscr. argh = to possess value, be costly, and most of the older expositors prefer a Shemitic root, e.g.., chain, necklace (Sept. and Theodot., ; also Aquil. and Symm. on Gen 41:42), seems not to have been changed to (= Gr. ), the form which is here and in Dan 5:16; Dan 5:29 preferred by the Keri. As among the early Egyptians (Gen 41:42), so also among the later Persians the golden necklace served as the ornament of princes and as the mark of special favor from the king, cf. Herod., III. 20; Xenophon, Anab., I. 2, 27; 5, 8; 8, 29.And shall be the third ruler in the kingdom; rather, shall have power in the kingdom as a triumvir. not the same as , Dan 5:16; Dan 5:29, is generally regarded as an ordinal number, the third, formed after the Heb. analogy, and is compared with the more usual ; but it may perhaps, and with greater probability, be regarded, with Kranichfeld, as a feminine adverbial formation after the analogy of adverbs like , , etc., and be rendered accordingly, by like, or as a triumvir; while in Dan 5:16; Dan 5:29 is the corresponding masculine noun triumvir (formed from , three). There is therefore no difference in sense between the term employed in this passage and those found in the parallel verses cited above; but it is unnecessary and arbitrary to declare, with Hitzig. that the two forms are identical, and on that account to substitute in this place. The dignity of triumvir which is here promised to the fortunate interpreter of the mystery is probably not identical with the office of one of the three governors of the province of Babylon mentioned in Dan 2:49, but designates the position of one of the three chief governors over the whole kingdom. The latter office is noticed in Dan 6:3, as established by Darius the Mede; but that statement may be regarded as merely indicating the restoration of a feature in the administration of government which had already existed under the Babylonian regime. The Sept. presents the correct idea: ; but the Peshito is less correct in its rendering by the third rank in the kingdom, which results in the idea that the recipient should immediately succeed in rank the king, who was supreme, and the prime minister or grand vizier, who filled the second place in the kingdom. This thought was certainly foreign to the author, and would be expressed as indefinitely as is possible by . The evident meaning of these words is rather that the person concerned should be placed over the kingdom , or the third beside two other grand officials or (cf. Dan 6:3).

Dan 5:8. Then came in all the kings wise men. On the Keri see on Dan 4:4. The are evidently the same as those mentioned separately (although not exhaustively, and merely by way of indicating their office) in Dan 5:7. Kranichfeld is exceedingly arbitrary when he assumes a gradation between the three classes of wise men who are specially mentioned in Dan 5:7, and the summoning of all the wise men related in this passage, and consequently finds between the lines and preceding the , then, a series of incidents that are not expressly noticed (after the manner in which many expositors treat the , Luk 14:22). Instead of this compare the relation of the general expression in Dan 4:3, to the special classes of wise men which are immediately referred to (ibid. Dan 5:4), and also what has been observed above, on Dan 5:7, in relation to the careless style of the author.But they could not read the writing, etc. Kranichfeld supposes that the reason for this was, that the mysterious inscription was written in the old Phnician characters, which Daniel, being a Hebrew, would have recognized, while the Chaldan Chartummin, who were acquainted only with the character in use among the ancient Babylonians, which corresponded to the later Syriac or Palmyrene, would naturally be unable to understand them. But in this instance we are probably to conceive of cuneiform writing, or of hieroglyphic characters (see on Dan 5:7), because the brick walls of the palaces in ancient Babylon generally contained only such. Prideaux, however, preceded Kranichfeld in the opinion expressed in the Universal History, part. III. p. 755, that the writing was not composed of the square characters in use among the Chaldans, but of the ancient Arabic (?), which preceded the modern Samaritan.18

Dan 5:9. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled. and his lords were astonished. The unusual, and even unique and incomprehensible characters in which the suddenly apparent writing was composed, increased the alarm produced by the apparition, and filled the king and his guests, now thoroughly aroused from their wild debauch, with anxious dread in relation to the misfortunes predicted by the supposed oracle. If, with Hvernick, and many earlier expositors, we could believe that Belshazzars feast was held during the siege of the city by the Medo-Persians, and with a design to ridicule the danger from that source, it would be still easier to explain so general an alarm, and it would not even be necessary, in that case, to allude to the fear of the many officials that their own deposition from office might be connected with the kings impending fall; but that conclusion does not necessarily result from Dan 5:30 et seq.Hitzig remarks on the Ithpael part. and probably with justice, that it not only comprehends the idea of alarm, but also that of confusion and excited movement. None retained their places; a general uproar ensued; groups were formed; and the people talked, and ran hither and thither to no purpose.

Dan 5:10-12. The queen-mother refers Belshazzar to Daniel. Now (or then) the queen came into the banquet-house. can only be the queen-mother (, 1Ki 15:13; 2Ch 15:16; cf. Jer 13:18)not one of the kings wives; for, according to Dan 5:2; Dan 5:23 these were already in the banquet-hall among the carousers. Hence, if Belshazzar was the same person as Evil-merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, this queen-mother, who here evidently displays a dignity and authority such as belonged to the gebiroth at the Israelitish courts (cf. the passages adduced), was probably the Nitocris whom Herodotus celebrates in I. 185. Cf. the Introd., 8, note 3.19 Instead of the Kethib , the Keri, conforming to the usage of the later Chaldee, has ; cf. on Dan 4:4. , by reason (on account) of the words of the king and his lords. So the majority of moderns, correctly; for a confused, excited talking, whose sound possibly penetrated to the apartments of the queen mother, is implicitly included in . Dan 5:9 The plural , as well as the complementary genitive, is opposed to the version of the Vulg., Luther, Bertholdt, Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.: by reason of the matter, or the affair.O king, live for ever. Cf. on Dan 2:4, where also the defective has been noticed.

Dan 5:11. And in the days of thy father light ( , cf. on Dan 2:22), and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. Cf. 1Ki 3:28; Wis 8:11.King Nebuchadnezzar, the king, thy father. The subject is briefly repeated at the close of the sentence, because its first position was somewhat distant from the verb, similar to Son 5:7.

Dan 5:12. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit were found in the same Daniel. The wisdom of Daniel, which had been extolled in Dan 5:11, is again mentioned as the reason for the distinction conferred on him by Nebuchadnezzar, for the purpose of preparing Belshazzar to listen to the counsel which follows.Interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts; rather, to interpret; dreams, show riddles, and loosen knots. This triplicate circumstantial clause,the first and third of whose members are expressed in the Heb. [Chald.] by participles, and the second by the infinitive is a genitive, depending on which closes the series of objects governed by the principal verb in the manner of a parenthesis. Hitzig holds differently, taking the three terms , , and , under the precedence of the Vulgate, as three nouns of action, coordinated to the preceding ones (an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding), and consequently assuming six subjects to . But and are clearly Pael participles, and they cannot be taken as nomina actionis, even under reference to the Heb. , a covering, or to , Dan 9:27. It is exceedingly doubtful whether the figurative expression to loosen knots (cf. the Lat. nodos solvere; and also Senecas nodosa sortis verba, dip., 101) contains an illusion to the loosening of the loins, in Dan 5:6 (as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., assert), or not, in view of the merely superficial relation between and . In Daniel whom the king named Belteshazzar; (cf. Dan 5:30), an emphatic pleonasm. The giving of the name is referred to, as in Dan 4:5, as something honorable to the prophet.Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Concerning the form , see above, on Dan 5:7. [The tone in which this last clause is spoken betokens that the speaker herself is conscious of an elevated rank and a kind of authority, or, at least, a right to give advice; a tone which only such a woman as stood in the relation of a mother (not a wife) could assume in the East before a king (Stuart).]

Dan 5:13-16. Daniels appearance before the king. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. and are Hebraizing Hophal-forms, like , Dan 4:33, or like in Dan 5:20.Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, etc. [The question did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel.Keil.] This question clearly indicates that no direct intercourse had hitherto taken place between the king and Daniel (see on Dan 5:7), but also, on the other hand, that the former had some knowledge of the prophet. The use of the name Daniel instead of Belteshazzar, in the kings address, was probably dictated simply by a desire to avoid the use of a name so nearly identical in sound to his ownalthough it certainly belonged to the prophet in the official language of the Babylonian court. Hitzig therefore commits a decided error, when he assumes a historical improbability in this place, suggestive of a later Jewish authorship.Whom the king. brought from (rather hitherto, out of) Jewry? is probably to be referred to the captives, as Theodotion, the Sept., Luther, Hitzig, etc., hold, and not specially to the person of Daniel, which is the view of the Vulgate, Kranichfeld, etc. On the form for (cf. the voc. = , Rom 8:15), see Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others, on this passage.On Dan 5:14 of. Dan 5:11; on Dan 5:15 cf. Dan 5:8. [It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with , gods (Keil).]The wise men, the astrologers (soothsayers). On this combination cf. on Dan 5:7.That they should read this writing, etc. , as the accompanying imperfect indicates, is in this place the telic conjunction that, in order that. Upon this clause which indicates the design, depends that which follows, construed with c. Inf. (cf. Dan 2:16). Concerning the form see supra, on Dan 5:7.But they could not shew the interpretation of the thing (or word). cannot be rendered by matter, thing, any more than in Dan 5:10; it rather signifies, collectively, the words written on the wall (against Hitzig and others).Concerning Dan 5:16 b., see supra, on Dan 5:7.

Dan 5:17-24. Daniels censuring address to the king, as the prologue to the interpretation of the writing. Let thy gifts be to thyself. This refusal of the royal presents was designed merely to decisively reject, at the outset, and in a manner becoming the prophet of Jehovah, any influence that might be brought to bear on him. It is not, therefore, a pert expression, which the king might justly punish, nor is it inconsistent with the fact that Daniel ultimately accepted the reward offered for the interpretation, Dan 5:29, since he regarded it as a recognition of his God. The assertion of v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., that we should expect either that the enraged king would punish the prophet who bears evil tidings and couples them with threatenings and censure, or that, in Dan 5:29, Daniel would despise the royal purple and the golden necklace, all this is simply adapted to afford a conception of the manner in which a Maccaban tendency-writer would have treated this history, and of the probable issue to which he would have conducted it.

Dan 5:18. O thou king, the most high God, etc. The absolute position of the vocative at the beginning of the sentence, places the king rhetorically in a living relation with the facts reported in the following clause, with regard to his father Nebuchadnezzar.

Dan 5:19. And for the majesty (or power). all people, nations (tribes), and languages trembled and feared; properly, were trembling and fearing, were in a state of fear and trembling. The Keri has instead of , similar to (Dan 2:38; Daniel 3:31; Dan 4:32) instead of ; see on Dan 2:38. Concerning the triad, people, tribes, and tongues, see on Dan 3:4.Whom (soever) he would (cf. Winer, Gramm. 47,1, a). he kept alive. is derived by Theodotion () and the Vulgate (percutiebat; cf. Luther, er schlug) from to smite; but the parallelism requires the Aphel partic. of , to live, and must either be considered as such (namely, as a peculiar, old-Chaldaic contraction of , which is generally contracted to , e.g., Targ. Deu 32:39), or, with Saadia, Rashi, Buxt., Bertholdt, Gesenius, Frst, Hitzig, etc., the usual contracted form must be substituted for . [The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzars power in Dan 5:18-19 has undesirably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father (that monarch) in power and majesty. The last clause in Dan 5:19 reminds us of 1Sa 2:6-7 (Keil).] Dan 5:20. But when his heart was lifted up. = , is a preterite with intransitive signification, not a passive partic., as v. Lengerke suggests. Cf. Winer, 22, 4.And his mind hardened in pride. , the nearest synonym to , is also frequently used interchangeably with it in the Hebrew, e.g., Psa 51:12; Psa 51:19. , in this place, is about equivalent to the Heb. in Exo 7:13.20 He was deposed , and they took his glory from him; or, his glory was taken from him. Instead of the best MSS. have , which is possibly to be read as (Hitzig); but on the other hand the case may be analogous to , supra, Dan 5:8 and Dan 4:15.

Dan 5:21. And his heart was made like the (heart of) beasts. Read , not (Keri) or (v. Leng., Hitzig), or even (Ewald). The 3d sing. active is used, instead of the more usual 3d plural active, to express an impersonal sense. There are thus three several modes of indicating that sense employed in Dan 5:20-21 : a, the passive ( Dan 5:20, Dan 5:21); b, the 3d plural active ( Dan 5:20, Dan 5:21); c the 3d sing. active ( Dan 5:21)a rapid change, that is conditioned by the rhetorical, or if it be preferred, the poetical elevation of Daniels remarks.[And his dwelling was with the wild asses. This circumstance is added by the speaker, and not found in Dan 4:29 (32). It is added for the sake of stronger impression (Stuart).]Till he knew that God. appointeth over it (or them) whomsoever he will. Cf. Dan 4:14, at the close of which, as here, the Keri substitutes for the Kethib .

Dan 5:22. And thou. hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.21 Properly, precisely because ( ) thou knewest all this, hence, because of a defiant opposition to the well known design and will of the Highest. The words indicate the reason not for what Belshazzar should have done, but for what he did not perform (thus Kranichf. correctly, against v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc.).

Dan 5:23. And thou has praised the gods of silver, and gold, etc., cf. Dan 5:4. The descriptive addition in this case, which see not, nor hear, nor know, is based on Deu 4:28; cf. Psa 115:5 et seq.; Psa 135:15 et seq.And (rather but) the God in whose hand thy breath is. Cf. Job 12:10; Num 16:22. On the following, whose (or with whom) are all thy ways ( ways = experiences, Targ. Job 8:13), cf. Jer 10:23.Hast thou not glorified; a litotes for, hast thou dishonored, disgraced. [This is surely plain and faithful admonition; and probably the kings conscience was smitten by it.Stuart.]

Dan 5:24. then (or therefore) was. . sent from him. , properly then, namely at the time when thou didst thus exalt thyself against God. The post hoc in this instance is really a propter hoc. does not, as, e.g., in Ezr 6:12 (cf. the Heb. Dan 11:42), designate the stretching forth of the hand, as if God Himself were the writer; but rather indicates the emanation of the hand from God in a general way, and therefore, so as not to exclude the intervention of angels, but rather to presume it. Hitzig remarks correctly: The hand that writes is that of an angel who stood before God (Dan 7:10), and received the commission to write this.

Dan 5:25-28. The reading and interpretation of the writing. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin = numbered, numbered, weighed, and-dividers. The forms , and also , which in Dan 5:28 takes the place of , are unmistakably passive participles Peal, by which the surely-impending future is expressed in the manner of a Prteritum propheticum, but with greater brevity and emphasis. The forcible laconic utterance of a mysterious oracle sounds forth from these disconnected consecutive passive participles; and this tendency and signification appear also in the unusual and antique form of the participles, of which only the first, , has a somewhat regular formation (analogous to , Dan 3:26, or , for , in the later Chaldee), while the e-sound in and is decidedly abnormal, and conflicts with the ordinary usage. appears to have been selected as an equivocal mediating form between , the regular passive participle of , and (from , to be light; cf. Dan 5:27); was possibly chosen because of its assonance to , Dan 5:2; Dan 5:23; and in like manner = may contain an amphibole, by way of an allusion to the name hence a reference to the world-power which was chiefly instrumental in the division, i.e., the overthrow of the Chaldan empire. Kranichfeld rejects, but without any reason, this assumption of a designed two-fold sense of the terms, and especially of , which is adopted by Hitzig and others; although Hitzig is probably in error when he assigns to (upon the ground of Isa 63:7, and in connection with Ibn-Ezra and Rashi) the meaning of the Heb. or , to break.22 As Dan 5:28 shows, the writer represents the destruction of the Chaldan empire, which is foretold in (), precisely as a division between the allied nations of the Persians and the Medes, although he might properly have mentioned the Persians only, as effecting the destruction of the kingdom. The substitution of the plural active partic. for the abnormal passive partic. in the written oracle itself, which results in a change of construction similar to that observed in Dan 5:20-21 (cf. also Dan 2:7; Dan 3:9; Dan 6:14, and the remarks on , Dan 3:4), appears to have been made for the sake of clearness. The unusual would have accorded more exactly with the two preceding terms, but would scarcely have been intelligible; while the plur. , and dividers, or, and they divide, could not be misunderstood. (Ewalds interpretation: and in pieces and in ruins, is without any linguistic proof.) However, the expressions to number or count, and to weigh are found elsewhere also, as figures to designate a final judicial determination; cf. Psa 56:9; Psa 62:10; Job 31:4; Job 31:6. The repetition of as indicating the character of the entire sentence, is designed merely to add a solemn emphasis to the words; cf. the frequent , in the New Testament, and O.-T. passages like Gen 14:10; Deu 2:27; Deu 14:22, etc.; and, generally, Ewald, Lehrb., 313 a.

Dan 5:26. God hath numbered thy kingdom. is not thy kingdom, but thy kingship the duration of thy reign, the days of thy sovereignty.23 The verb is written with probably with design, in order to indicate the change of the vowel as compared with .And finished it. , literally, has made it complete, or has fully numbered it; i.e., has brought it to the end of the time assigned to it. Cf , Isa 38:12.

Dan 5:27. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Thou, i.e., thy moral personality, thy moral character and worth; cf. Job 31:6 : Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity.Thou art found wanting seems to refer to the threatening , for thou art vile (or too light), which the prophet Nahum (Dan 1:14) hurls at the Assyrian king; and in so far may serve to substantiate what has been observed above on the two fold sense of . , properly wanting (= ), namely in moral worth or capacity.

Dan 5:28. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. In regard to the abnormal form , which is followed by the regular fern. pass. part., , see above, on Dan 5:25. God is naturally conceived of as the divider; the related tribes of the Medes and the Persians are named as the recipients, although the latter clearly appears as the principal power. The oracle contains an etymological allusion to only, and none to , an assonance to which might have been readily found in the root , to measure (cf. , , Ezr 4:20; Ezr 6:8; Ezr 7:24). The evident design with which the Persians, as the preponderating power in the Medo-Persian kingdom (for only thus was it known to the author, as the comprehensive indicates: cf. on Dan 2:39), are thus brought into prominence, is not contradicted by Dan 6:1, where Darius the Mede is mentioned as the first foreign ruler over Babylon after the Chaldan dynasty was overthrown. The actual state of affairs compelled the author to represent that at that time Media still held the same rank as Persia, at least formally and officially, and at first even gave a dynasty and name to the whole empire; and this was done with sufficient clearness by the mention of the Medes before the Persians in this verse.24

Dan 5:29-30. The consequences. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel; rather, and caused Daniel to be clothed. The literal rendering is, Then said Belshazzar, and they clothed, etc.; a similar construction as in Dan 2:49; Dan 4:17; Dan 4:25. In the Heb. (fut. with vav convers.cf. Neh 13:9; 2Ch 24:8; Jon. 2:11), rather than would have corresponded to . The enrobing is therefore to be regarded as immediately succeeding the command, and Hvernicks opinion, that the sudden death of the king prevented the execution of his design, is evidently wide of the narrators meaning. The opinion that the prophet was invested with the royal insignia of the purple and the necklace on the same evening, involves no questionable feature, which could lead us to refer the execution of the kings command to the following day (Dereser), or even to regard the whole incident as improbable (Hitzig, etc.); but rather, the immediate bestowal of the promised marks of favor and honor harmonizes fully with the oriental despotic methods of administering government and justice, which under different circumstances observed the most rapid modes of executing punishment (see Dan 3:6; Dan 3:20 et seq.). The public announcement of the promotion which had taken place (the verb = Sanscrit krus, , signifies to proclaim publicly, as was shown on Dan 3:4), in the same night and in every street by means of heralds, is however an unjustified demand which the closing words of Dan 5:29 by no means involve. The solemnity in question may have been confined to the range of the royal palace, and even to the banquet hall (which, according to Dan 5:1, must be regarded as an extended building, and as filled with an extraordinary multitude).Concerning the probable motive (namely, because his God and Lord was thus honored) which induced Daniel, despite his former refusal, to accept the expressions of the royal favor, see on Dan 5:17. In connection with this, the assumption is still admissible, that any protest which the prophet may have offered, remained without effect, in view of the stormy haste of the king in his alarm, and was lost amid the acclamations and the noisy conversation of the excited throng. Cf. Jerome: Accepit autem (Daniel) insigne regium, torquem et purpuram, ut Darius, qui erat successurus in regnum, fieret notior et per notitiam honoratior. Nec mirum, si Baltasar, audiens tristia, solverit prmium, quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura, qu dixerat, aut dum Dei Prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.

Dan 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldans, slainevidently through a conspiracy of a number of his magnates, which may have existed previously, but which did not attempt the execution of its design, until the interpretation of the mysterious writing by Daniel gave the conspirators courage. Only this opinion seems to be justified by the language of this passage and by the context,25 to the exclusion of the more general view, by which the king was slain at the hands of the victorious Medo-Persians, who are supposed to have taken the city on that night, and by which Belshazzar is in consequence identified with Nabonidus, the last Chaldan kingall of which is based on a combination of Isaiah 16; Isa 21:5; Jer 51:39; and of Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5, 15 et seq.; Herodotus, I. 190, etc., with this narrative. The latter view has recently been defended, especially by Hengstenberg (p. 325 et seq.), Keil (Einl., p. 457), Hvernick, etc., and also by nearly all the rationalistic expositors and critics (also by Sthelin, Einl. ins A. T., p. 350 et seq.), and is certainly supported by the opening verse of chap. 6, in case it be immediately connected with the one before us, as is done by the writers named. It is however more than questionable whether this arrangement corresponds to the conception and design of the author; for (1) the words, And Darius the Median took the kingdom, together with the subjoined reference to his age, being about threescore and two years old, seems intended to introduce the narrative concerning Darius and his relations to the Babylonian dynasty, much rather than to close that relating to Belshazzar. (2) Berosus and Abydenus relate nothing of a taking of Babylon while a luxurious banquet, held by the last Chaldan king and his magnates, was in progress, as the tradition of Xenophon and Herodotus asserts (cf. Introd. 8, note 3, and especially the extracts from Kranichfeld on this question there adduced). (3) Berosus, in Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 1, does not, indeed, state that Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, became the victim of a conspiracy, but he does ascribe that fate to Evil-merodach, the immediate successor of his father Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 5:11; Dan 5:13; Dan 5:18; Dan 5:22). The conspiracy in the case of the latter was headed by Neriglissar, the brother-in-law of the king, and removed the latter under circumstances entirely similar to those under which Belshazzar is said by our passage to have been slain, by murderers whose names are not given. The identity of the latter with Evil-merodach thus becomes highly probable (cf. Introd. l. c.). (4) Finally, the prophecy of the mysterious writing in Dan 5:25, which transfers the Chaldan empire to the hands of the Medes and Persians, does not oppose, but it rather favors, the mode of division we advocate, on which an entirely new section begins with Dan 6:1. For precisely as in Dan 2:38-39, Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold, appears first as an individual, and then as identified with his dynasty and as the representative of the Babylonian world-kingdom, so Belshazzar appears first under the conception of a single personin the words, numbered, numbered, weighedbut afterward as identified with his kingdom, in the closing prediction expressed by or .26 The interval of perhaps 2224 years which thus falls between his own destruction and that of his kingdom, will, in view of the recognized perspective character of all prophecy, appear no more questionable than the still greater number of years which, according to that earlier prediction, were to elapse between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the ruin of his dynasty. Similar groupings of immediate with more distant events are frequent in the O.-T. prophecies; in particularly noteworthy and instructive instance of which fact may be found in the remarkable prophecy to the wife of Jeroboam by Ahijah of Shiloh in 1 Kings 14, that comprehends three distinct events, between which extended intervals intervene: (1) The death of the sick prince, Abijah (Dan 5:12-13); (2) the overthrow of Jeroboams dynasty, more than 28 years later (Dan 5:10; Dan 5:14; cf. 1Ki 15:29 et seq.); (3) the ruin of the kingdom of Israel, which did not transpire until two centuries afterward (Dan 5:15 et seq.; cf. 2 Kings 17). The fundamental law of all Messianic typology, by which later events are grouped organically with earlier ones, and by which one and the same guilty act conditions a succession of Divine judgments in the course of developments, underlies this collocation in the perspective vision of a single prophecy. The cause of the sad end of the kingdom of the ten tribes existed already in the beginning made and cultivated by Jeroboam, two and a half centuries before; the fate that extinguishes the house of Jeroboam is at bottom the same which destroys the kingdom of the ten tribes. Jeroboams sin destroys his dynasty and his kingdom; for this reason the destruction of both is comprehended in the same prophecy, and not merely because the destruction of the dynasty coincides with that of the kingdom (Kranichfeld; cf. also Bhr, on 1 Kings chap. 14 p. 149 of vol. 7 of the Bibelwerk). Substantially the same principles apply to the predictions of evil denounced by our prophet against Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, and against Belshazzar and his kingdom. The connection of widely separate events which they embody, is natural and organically necessary; and therefore the reference to two events of fulfilment, although separate in point of time, upon which we insist, involves no arbitrary features.The assertion of Keil (Einl. l. c.) that if the two events were not coincident, the author would have been required to state, in Dan 6:1, how the second fact in the fulfilment stands related to the first, or, in other words, when and how the transmission of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians came to pass, is entirely uncalled for, and is opposed by the analogy of Ahijahs oracle, whose final and complete realization by the overthrow of Israel, is likewise not expressly noticed; and in addition the mere mention of the taking of Babylon by Darius is a sufficient indication of the anti-typical relation of that event to Dan 5:25-28. The annexed reference to the age of Darius seems rather to indicate a reference to a period considerably later, than a design to designate the particular night in which Belshazzar was slain as falling in the sixty-second year of Darius. There was certainly no apparent motive for the author to make a chronological statement of this sort.In relation to the peculiar opinion of Ebrard (Die Offenbarung Johannis erklrt, p. 55 et seq.), that chap. Dan 5:30 together with Dan 6:1, refers to the overthrow of Laborasoarchad, the grandson and third successor of Nebuchadnezzar, by Nabonidus (= Darius the Mede), see on Dan 6:1 et seq. (cf. supra Introd. 8, notes 3 and 4).

ethicofundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions

1. The principal object in an apologetic point of view will have been realized in this section, whenever the identity of Belshazzar with Evil-merodach is established, and when, in consequence, the repeated designation of Nebuchadnezzar as his father (Dan 5:11; Dan 5:13; Dan 5:18; Dan 5:22), the correspondence of the mode of his sudden and violent death (Dan 5:30) with that attested by Berosus with regard to Evil-merodach, and the accession of Darius the Mede Co the throne of Babylon at a period considerably later, shall have been properly substantiated. After what has been observed upon this question on Dan 5:30, and also in the Introd. ( 8, note 3), it only remains to examine the question, In how far does the narrative yield to the tendency-critical attempts to represent it as a romantic fiction of the Maccaban age?According to Bleek (Einl. 266), v. Lengerke (Daniel, p. 241 et seq., p. 256) and others, the story was inspired by the plundering of the temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in the year B. C. 168, and above a year before the Maccaban revolt. The brutal manner in which the Syrian king at that time penetrated into the temple of Jehovah, and seized, with polluted hands, the golden lavers and other sacred vessels (1Ma 1:21 et seq.; 2Ma 5:15 et seq.), is said to have led the pseudo-Daniel to compose this history, and by the fate of Belshazzar to warn the Syrian monarch, that a similar Divine judgment would be visited on him, because of his sacrilege. But the narrative concerning the Seleucid and the Maccabees makes no mention of a luxurious banquet, such as a sacrificial feast, at which anything transpired that would at all compare with the profanation of the sacred vessels, as described in this chapter; and the only remaining parallel between the passages cited from 1James , 2 d Maccabees, and Dan 1:2 (cf. Dan 5:2), is surely insufficient to justify the adoption of the charge that the history was invented to further a tendency! Any other embellishment of the sacrilege that took place at that time would certainly have been more appropriate than the one here offered, which does not charge the insolent spoiler of the temple with venting his frivolous pride on the stolen relics, but reserves this for his son and successor! The tendency-narrator might well be charged with clumsiness, if he had represented his Epiphanes-Belshazzar as not merely easy to be excited and capable of contrition and repentance while influenced by terror, but also as promising and conferring the highest dignities and honors of his kingdom upon a zealous theocrat and prophet of Jehovah. The circumstance that such a theocrat is permitted to accept such honors and rewards (Dan 5:29) without further question, is likewise in strange contrast with the rigid monotheism and anti-Hellenistic fanaticism of the Judaism of Maccaban times, as whose representative the author is said to have written, and for which his work is alleged to have been designed (cf. 1Ma 1:24; Dan 11:28).In no wise superior to this theory of the date of the history, as advocated by Bleek and v. Lengerke, is the assertion of Hitzig, that although this section was not composed before the revolt of the Asmonans, it yet originated in the first year after that rising took place, immediately after and in consequence of the magnificent feasts which Antiochus Epiphanes held in B. C. 166 near Daphne, when, besides splendid games and luxurious banquets, there was a solemn procession in the presence of many ladies of the highest, as well as of lower rank, in which the images of all conceivable gods were carried, together with an incredible number of golden and silver vessels. If the report by Polybius (Dan 5:31, cp. 3, 4) respecting those festivities be carefully examined, it will reveal a most marked discrepancy between the historical original and the supposed copy, which was framed after it by the alleged pseudo-Daniel. Polybius does not mention the sacrilegiois use during those feasts of sacred vessels belonging to the temple with a single syllable. He states indeed that the expense connected with those festivities was chiefly met out of the treasures stolen from various templesbut from Egyptian temples, which the pseudo-Daniel would assuredly have placed in the category of the vain gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone (Dan 5:4; Dan 5:23), and whose desecration he would have been more ready to applaud than to censure. But beyond all this, Polybius reveals no trace of a knowledge that the wild festivities were interrupted by a terrifying incident, which compelled the proud Syrian king to recognize the judicial interference of superior Divine power; nor of any inclination on the part of that prince to honor and promote the prophet who opposed him with earnest censure, despite his boldness; nor yet of a course on the part of the heroic Jewish defender of his faith towards the heathen ruler, which, although not slavishly subservient, was yet courteous, and mindful of the obedience due from a subject to his superior. But if such a meeting between a Jewish zealot and the proud Antiochus, who was fanatically devoted to his Hellenistic faith in the gods, had transpired during a public feast in the Maccaban age, a materially different kind of incidents might have been looked for, from that described in this chapter. Both the and of the blood-thirsty tyrant, and the defiance inspired by faith, prepared for conflict, and careless of death, which was characteristic of the martyr of the theocracy who was engaged in an open revolt against the despot, would have been brought into collision in a manner entirely different from anything found in the report of Polybiuswhich contains no mention whatever of such an interruption during the feasts of Daphneand also from the description found in our alleged tendency-forgery. The latter, if it were really the work of a pseudological apocalyptist of the Maccaban times, would, without any doubt whatever, have presented to our notice persons of the stamp of Matthias (1Ma 2:2; 1Ma 2:18 et seq.), Judas and Simon Maccabus (ibid. Dan 3:1 et seq.), and Eleazar (2 Maccabees 6) as opponents of the raging heathen, instead of a man like Daniel. A narrative of the kind before us, as respects its contents and progress, would be wholly inconceivable as a product of the orthodox Palestinian Judaism of the year B. C. 166, and would rank as an unequalled historical monstrosity.

2. Accordingly, if confidence may be placed in the pre-Maccaban, and, what amounts to the same thing, in the Babylonian origin of the history during the captivity, it will be possible for that very reason to examine the miracle of the mysteriously introduced hand which traced the writing, as here recorded, without being restrained by sceptical considerations. It will not be necessary to inquire in this connection, how such a thing could take place, but merely, whether and why such an event was necessary.The necessity for a miraculous announcement to Belshazzar of the impending judgment was conditioned by the fact that his impious conduct had reached an intolerable height when he desecrated the sacred vessels of Jehovahs temple to a common use, and exposed them to the ridicule of a besotted heathen mob, and also that it threatened danger to the faith in Jehovah of the community of exiles. If such an act of presumption was permitted to pass without being Divinely censured and punished, it might certainly be expected that not only the last spark of reverence for the mighty God of the Jews would fade from the consciousness of the royal officials and the Babylonian population, but that the faithful adherence of the Jewish captives to their confession would gradually lose its firmness, and give way to a tendency to favor the idolatrous worship of the Babylonians, and to adopt their luxurious, dissipated, and immoral mode of life. Dangers such as these are described, in a realizing manner, in the second part of Isaiah (see Isa 46:6 et seq.; Isa 57:5 et seq.; Isa 65:3 et seq.; Isa 58:2 et seq.; Isa 59:3 et seq. Cf. supra, Introd. 1, note 1); and it appears from the penitential prayer of our prophet in chap. 9, that they existed for his people, and threatened the continuance of the theocracy and its Messianic faith, while in the land of exile. With regard to them it became imperatively necessary that a stern example should be made of the presumptuous king, while giving utterance to his witticisms and blasphemies, and while surrounded by the sycophants of his court and the women of his harem, that thus the name of the only true God might be brought powerfully to the recollection of all, and that an emphatic testimony, coupled with an immediate execution of the threat, might be borne against the impious conduct of the idolaters. Such a testimony, however, could only possess sufficient weight if it were demonstrated to be absolutely miraculous, admitting of no natural explanation (i.e., for the purpose of destroying its supernatural force), and transpiring under the observation of all who were present. For this reason all the various attempts to limit the incomprehensible character of the incident, that have been made by modern expositors since M. Geier, are to be rejected, without exception; e.g., the assumption of Geier, which decidedly conflicts with Dan 5:8, that the writing was visible to the king and Daniel, but to no others (similarly Calvin remarks that the Chaldans were all smitten with blindnessita execatos fuisse, ut videndo non viderint); the coarsely naturalistic attempt at explanation made by Bertholdt, that the hostile party of the kings courtiers, who were in league with the Medo-Persian besiegers of the city, produced the writing in a purely natural manner, but gave a mysterious appearance to the transaction, in order to gratify their malice and over-confidence, by announcing his last hour to the victim of their treason; and finally, the psychological visionary mode of interpretation, advocated in the last century by Lderwald, and more recently by Kranichfeldthe latter by means of an attempt to transfer the miraculous feature to the imagination of the king (cf. his observation on Dan 5:8, p. Dan 221: How and when during the hilarious banquet the writing itself was traced on the wall, was of no importance to the author, as the wonderful feature was alone significant for his purpose, that the king should observe, at the moment of the blasphemous act by which he ridiculed the God of Israel, the hand which wrote the sentence that changed the confident humor of the idolater into anxious fear). In opposition to these naturalizing interpretations, and especially to the one last mentioned, see the remarks on Dan 5:5, and compare Buddeus, Hist. eccl. V. Test., II. p. Dan 508: Verum quis non videt, hc omnia ad meras conjecturas redire, qu eadem rejiciuntur facilitate, qua afferuntur. Satius itaque fuerit, in iis acquiescere, qu Daniel ipse de hac re tradiderit, scripturam scil. ita comparatam fuisse, ut sapientes et magi, etsi earn viderent (Dan 5:8), non tamen legere, muto minus interpretari potuerint; Danielem autem eam ita et legere et interpretari potuisse, ut rex ipse statim convinceretur, lectionem istam atque interpretationem veram esse. Also cf. Pfeiffer, ubia vexataD, p. 503 ss., and Starke, Synops. on the passage.

3. In accordance with this, the homiletical treatment of the section is chiefly concerned with the miracle of the writing and its mysterious origin and contents, as the central point of the narrative, and also of its theological and ethical importance. As in the preceding chapter the object of the narrative was to show that pride goeth before destruction, so the aim here is to illustrate the judgments that are prepared for scorners (Pro 19:29), the snare into which they bring the whole city (Pro 29:8), the non-immunity from punishment of the blasphemers of the Divine Wisdom (Wis 1:6). Cf. Psa 1:1; Jer 15:17; Pro 13:1; Pro 14:6; Pro 24:9; also Sir 27:28 : Mockery and reproach are from the proud; but vengeance as a lion shall lie in wait for them; Psa 72:4 : He shall break in pieces the oppressor (or blasphemer); 1Co 5:10 : Nor revilers shall inherit the kingdom of God,and other oracles directed against the reviling and blaspheming of the Holy One, which may afford a theme for a homiletical treatment of the section as a whole. Starke is therefore correct in designating as the leading features of the narrative Belshazzars transgression and his punishment. Cf. Geiers arrangement of subjects in this chapter: (1)Regium flagitium (Dan 5:1-4); (2) subsequens portentum (Dan 5:5-6); (3) portenti interpretamentum, partim ut profanis impossibile (Dan 5:7-9), partim ut Danieli expeditum ac facile (Dan 5:10-28); (4) interpretamenti complementum (Dan 5:29-30).With reference to the relation of the fundamental idea in this narrative to that of the preceding section, cf. Melancthon: Supra proposuit regem agentem pnitentiam et propagantem veros cultus, querm Deus etiam ornavit prmiis. Nunc addit contrarium exemplum regis impii, restituentis idolatriam, non agentis pnitentiam, quem Deus punit et regno exuit Has blasphemias enim cito sequuntur pn, juxta secundum prceptum: Non habebit Deus insontem, etc. (Exo 20:7).

Upon separate points the following passages may be used, as furnishing suitable matter for homiletical discussion.

Dan 5:2-4. Luxurious banquets and carousals are dangerous precipices, even for the pious and unsuspecting (cf. Jdg 1:12); at them Satan himself is the host and master (Cramer, in Starke, under reference to 1Co 10:20), and there religion, the fear of God, brotherly love, uprightness, moralityand, in short, everything is forgotten (Starke).

Dan 5:17. Daniels disinterestedness and modesty. On these Jerome observes: mulemur Danielem, regis dignitatem et munera contemnentem, qui absque pretio proferens veritatem jam illo tempore prceptum evangelicum sequabitur: Gratis accepistis, gratis date (Mat 10:8). Alioquin et tristia nuntiantem indecens erat libenter dona accipere.

Dan 5:25-28. The oracle against Belshazzar, whose spirit is: If thou wilt neglect to number thy days, to weigh thyself in the balance of divine righteousness (Job 31:6), and to measure thyself by the rule of the Divine law, thou shalt be weighed by God in the scale of His judgment, andbe found wanting. Cf. the figure of farming grain, Amo 9:9; Isa 30:24; Jer 15:7; Mat 3:12; Luk 22:31, etc.; and also Joachim Lange: Outside of Christ we are always wanting in the scales of God, and are lighter than nothing, Psa 62:10, and Starke: The duration of every kingdom is pre-determined by God; without the permission of God, no monarch is able to extend or limit it, etc.

Footnotes:

[1][ The emphatic state in , like the art. in Heb. and Gr., is equivalent to the pers. pron. his wine.

[2] frequently used, in all the Shemitic tongues, of a forefather, whether immediate or remote.

[3]Literally, the kinghis bright looks changed for him

[4]Literally, his bright looks were changing upon him.

[5]Literally, and let not thy bright looks be changed.

[6]The form , apocopated for brevitys sake from , is exclusively applied in Biblical Chaldee to Juda.

[7]The pronoun is emphatic, being expressed.

[8]The participial form of these verbs (whom he was willing he was killing, and whom he was willing he was making live, and whom he was willing he was raising, and whom he was willing he was depressing) indicates the continued as well as absolute power of the autocrat.

[9]The pronoun here is resumptive of that which stands absolutely in Dan 5:18.

[10] is the Chaldee equivalent of .

[11][ The emphatic state in , like the art. in Heb. and Gr., is equivalent to the pers. pron. his wine.

[12] is significant of the true God, like ].

[13][As the city was already besieged, and the real king Nabonned had gone into the field against the armies of the Medes and Persians under Cyrus, the sense of security which this feast implied must be accounted for by their confidence in the assumed strength of the city. Plainly it was supposed to be absolutely impregnable.It may be added that God had given up the king and the princes to a blind infatuation, of such sort as usually precedes destruction.Cowles.]

[14][The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula into two classes: gold and silverbrass, iron, wood, and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the variety of these gods.Keil.]

[15][The appearance of the fingers immediately awakened the thought that the writing was by a supernatural being, and alarmed the king out of his intoxication.Keil.]

[16][It is an appalling scene when a sinning mortal knows that the great God has come to meet him in the very midst of his sins!How changed the scene from the glee of his blasphemous revelry to this paleness of cheek, convulsion of frame, remorse of conscience, and dread foreboding of doom! Many a sinner has had a like experience, and other thousands must have it!Cowles.]

[17][The phrase does not depend on , but forms a clause by itself; and a chain of gold shall be about his neck.Keil.]

[18][But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldan wise men should not have known these old Shemitic characters, even although at that time they had ceased to be in current use among the Babylonians in their common writing. Then, from the circumstance that Daniel could at once read the writing, it does not follow that it was the well-known Old-Hebrew writing of his fatherland. The characters employed in the writing, as Hengstenberg has rightly observed (Beitr., I. p. 122), must have been altogether unusual, so as not to be deciphered but by Divine illumination. Yet we must not, with M. Geier and others, assume that the writing was visible only to the king and Daniel. This contradicts the text, according to which the Chaldan wise men, and, without doubt, all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.Keil.]

[19][The queen in this passage is the queen-mother, as may be inferred from the fact that the kings (Belshazzars); wives and concubines are with him in his carousals, while this woman was not: and also from her intimate acquaintance with Daniel and the incidents of Nebuchadnezzars life. She was probably the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and the mother of Belshazzar.Cowles. If Rawlinsons conjecture (Herodotus i. 421) be correct, that the real king Nabonadus bad lift his son Belshazzar temporarily in charge of Babylon, this woman may have really been the consort of the actual king.]

[20][The perpetual incense of flattery, coupled with the daily experience of being dependent on no one, and of having every one dependent upon himself, tempts an absolute monarch to feel himself almost a god.It is fully time for the Almighty to hurl such a hardened sinner down.Cowles.]

[21][Keil argues that these words place it beyond a doubt that Belshazzar knew these incidents in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and thus that he was his son, since his grandson (daughters son) could scarcely have been so old that the forgetfulness of the Divine judgment could have been charged against him as a sin. Most readers, however, will regard this as a strained argument, for surely Belshazzar had ample means of knowing what his grandfather had set forth by a royal proclamation, and these events are here not merely alluded to as aggravating his sin, but rather by way of contrast, and possibly for an incitement to similar repentance.]

[22][Keil regards as a noun-form, and plur. of =Hebr. (cf. , Zec 11:16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments. He adds that is twice given perhaps only for the sake of the parallelism, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two word.]

[23][The author is led to this forced interpretation by his attempt to identify Belshazzar with Evil-merodach, and consequently to defer the capture of Babylon beyond the night under consideration.]

[24][In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative; for the hegemony of the Medes was of a very short duration, and after its overthrow by the Persians the form of expression used is always Persians and Medes, as is found in the book of Esther.Keil]

[25][The requirements of the language are obviously met quite as well by the presumption that the king fell that same night together with his empire, and so the author candidly admits a little further on, although himself driven to another view by his preconceived theory of the identity of Belshazzar with Evil-merodach.]

[26][The weakness of these arguments is obvious, and indeed seems to have been apparent to the writer himself. The collateral considerations which he adduces below are too vague to support a theory so plainly at variance with the tenor of the text and its connections.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

Having done with Nebuchadnezzar, we here enter upon the history of his descendant Belshazzar; and a short history it is. We have here, his impious feast; his prophanation of the vessels of the sanctuary: his awful alarm and death.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Prophet simply gives the relation of the history, but doth not enlarge upon it. Indeed it needs no comment. Drunkenness leads to impiety and prophaneness: and every evil follows. Was it not enough to deny God, but he must insult him also? Would nothing do for an unholy feast, and strumpets; but the holy vessels of the temple? Lord! to what a state of ruin is our whole nature reduced by the fall!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Daniel 5 : i

Pomp, in our apprehension, was an idea of two categories; the pompous might be spurious, but it might also be genuine. It is well to love the simple we love it; nor is there any opposition at all between that and the very glory of pomp. But, as we once put the case to Lamb, if, as a musician, as the leader of a mighty orchestra, you had this theme offered to you ‘Belshazzar the king gave a great feast to a thousand of his lords’ … surely no man would deny that, in such a case, simplicity, though in a passive sense not lawfully absent, must stand aside as totally insufficient for the positive part. Simplicity might guide, even here, but could not furnish the power; a rudder it might be, but not an oar or a sail.

De Quincey on Charles Lamb.

See Byron’s Hebrew Melodies, ‘The Vision of Belshazzar’.

Dan 5:1-17

From the words of Daniel it appears that Belshazzar had made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. The golden and silver vessels are gorgeously enumerated, with the princes, the king’s concubines, and his wives. Then follows ‘In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosened, and his knees smote one against another.’ This is the plain text. By no hint can it be otherwise inferred, but that the appearance was solely confined to the fancy of Belshazzar, that his single brain was troubled. Not a word is spoken of its being seen by any one else there present, not even by the queen herself, who merely undertakes for the interpretation of the phenomena as related to her, doubtless by her husband. The lords are simply said to be astonished, i.e. at the trouble and change of countenance in their sovereign. Even the Prophet does not appear to have seen the scroll which the king saw. He recalls it only. He speaks of the phantom as past.

From Charles Lamb’s essay on The Barrenness of the Imaginative Faculty in the Productions of Modern Art.

Dan 5:2

If men love the pleasure of eating, if they allow themselves to love this pleasure, if they find it good, there is no limit to the augmentation of the pleasure, no limit beyond which it may not grow. The satisfaction of a need has limits, but pleasure has none…. And, strange to say, men who daily overeat themselves at such dinners in comparison with which the feast of Belshazzar, that evoked the prophetic warning, was as nothing are navely persuaded that they may yet be leading a moral life.

Tolstoy.

Belshazzar’s Feast

Dan 5:5-6

I. The Awakening of a Guilty Conscience.

a. When least expected.

b. When least desired.

II. The Manner of its Awakening. By the finger of God.

c. Without commotion.

d. Without warning.

III. The Effect of the Awakening. Physical and mental distress.

IV. The Doom which it Foreshadowed.

In that night was Belshazzar slain.

F. J. Austin, Seeds and Saplings, p. 36.

References. V. 6. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Lessons for Daily Life, p. 270. V. 16. H. Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subjects, p. 166. V. 17. Reuen Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, 1891. V. 17-31. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Daniel, p. 62.

Dan 5:22

The late Mr. F. W. H. Myers, speaking of his early passion for the classics, confesses that they ‘were but intensifications of my own being. They drew from me and fostered evil as well as good; they might aid imaginative impulse and detachment from sordid interests, but they had no check for pride.’

The Glory of God

Dan 5:23

I. Man exists for the glory of God. This is a theological assertion which no professing Christian would challenge, though few have an adequate apprehension of its truth. In what sense, then, is the glory of God the end and object of man’s existence? Whatever else man can do or cannot do, it is altogether beyond his power to diminish or add to the eternal glory of the Deity. The character of God is and must be beyond our reach. And yet nothing is more plain in God’s Word than that, in some way or another, we are sent into the world that we may glorify Him. How can we do this, if He is so far beyond our reach? We cannot increase God’s absolute glory; but it is possible for us to pass that glory on into regions where it has not yet been realized. Thus it is the duty and blessed privilege of man to glorify God

1. By witnessing to the power of His grace to sustain, defend, and exalt the soul that by faith commits itself to Him, Who is thus seen perfecting His strength in human weakness.

2. By the voluntary acceptance of the Divine Will as the law of human conduct. Revelation has made known to us that the authority of God has been challenged by the fallen intelligences of evil To such a challenge the child of God responds by accepting the Will of God as the law of his life, and is himself a standing testimony to the perfection of that Will.

3. By so submitting himself here to the Divine Will that he may hereafter triumphantly bear witness, for all eternity, to the perfection of that Divine Will.

4. By the voluntary acceptance of the Divine Will; thus bearing an indirect but eloquent testimony to the perfections of the Divine character, and giving a triumphant answer to Satan the slanderer of God to man.

II. We shall, perhaps, best understand the full force of the accusation against Belshazzar, and against many now, by considering, How it is possible for us to dishonour God, or to rob God of His glory.

1. We cannot dishonour God more than by ignoring Him altogether. The worst form of insult is, to cut a man dead, as you pass him. How many there are who are dishonouring God by ignoring Him! Ask yourselves how far would your life have been different if you had been brought up to believe that there was no God? Would you have been a very different person from what you are? You have lived many years in the world: how many of those years have you consciously spent for God’s glory? how many days? how many hours in a single day? Have you ever definitely regarded God’s glory as the thing for which you live? How far have your work and conduct been influenced by the fear and love of God and the desire to advance His glory?

2. We dishonour God when we repudiate the means of salvation which He, at an infinite cost, has provided for us. We are then acting as though we could dispense with His assistance It is quite possible for us to dishonour God, and to decline to glorify Him, even when we are recognizing Him. We may admit the truth and beauty of those words which describe the object and scope of our Saviour’s mission: ‘The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost’. But, before we can understand that infinite Love, we must apprehend that sin has placed us in that position described by the terrible word ‘lost’. And here our respectability cries out and protests: ‘My life has been a moral and religious one, and I really do not require this provision of Divine Love’; ‘My life, though not perfect, has been such a good sort of life that God cannot have much against me; and I am content to take my chance’. Thus you are practically calling the Cross of Calvary a superfluous display of Divine love, and despising the mercy of God by turning your back on His ‘unspeakable gift’.

3. We dishonour God when we appropriate to some other use that which He has designed for Himself.

III. Remember God will not be baffled. He holds your breath; all your ways belong to Him; your ‘times are in His hand’; you are surrounded by God’s claim, and you cannot get away from it. The everlasting God will have His meed of glory out of every man. He desires it in the voluntary offering of the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, to Him; to have it in the joyful, holy dedication of our whole nature to Him, to Whom it belongs. But, if He may not have it so, He will have it otherwise.

Dan 5:25

In describing the squalor of Vauxhall Walk, Lambeth, Wilkie Collins observes that ‘in this district, as in other districts remote from the wealthy quarters of the metropolis, the hideous London vagabond with the filth of the street outmatched in his talk, with the mud of the street out-dirtied in his clothes lounges, lowering and brutal, at the street corner and the gin-shop door; the public disgrace of his country, the unheeded warning of social troubles that are yet to come. Here the loud assertion of modern progress which has reformed so much in manners, and altered so little in man meets the flat contradiction that scatters its pretensions to the winds. Here, while the national prosperity feasts, like another Belshazzar, on the spectacle of its own magnificence, is the writing on the wall, which warns the monarch, Money, that his glory is weighed in the balance, and his power found wanting.’

From No Name, scene iii. i.

Describing the later days of Raleigh’s career at Court, Kingsley sums up the tale of his fopperies with the words: ‘But enough of these toys, while God’s handwriting is on the wall above all heads. Raleigh knows the handwriting is there…. Tragic enough are the after-scenes of Raleigh’s life; but most tragic of all are these scenes of vainglory, in which he sees the better part, and yet chooses the worse, and pours out his self-discontent in song which proves the fountain of delicacy and beauty which lies pure and bright beneath the gaudy, artificial crust What might not this man have been! And he knows that too…. Anything to forget the handwriting on the wall, which will not be forgotten.’

Dan 5:27

In the Spectator (No. 493) Addison describes a dream of a pair of golden scales which showed the exact value of everything that is in esteem among men. Among the experiments which he made with this balance was the following: ‘Having an opportunity of this nature in my Hands, I could not forbear throwing into one scale the principles of a Tory, and into the other those of a Whig; but as I have all along declared this to be a Neutral paper, I shall likewise desire to be silent under this Head, also, though upon examining one of the weights, I saw the word Tekel engraved on it in Capital Letters.’

In his Bible in Spain Borrow describes his feelings when he boldly opened a shop in Madrid for the sale of Testaments. ‘”How strangely times alter,” said I, the second day subsequent to the opening of my establishment, as I stood on the opposite side of the street, surveying my shop, on the windows of which were painted in large yellow characters, Despacho de la Sociedad Biblica y Estrangera ; “how strangely times alter…. Pope of Rome! Pope of Rome! look to thyself. That shop may be closed; but oh! what a sign of the times, that it has been permitted to exist for one day. It appears to me, my Father, that the days of your sway are numbered in Spain; that you will not be permitted much longer to plunder her, to scoff at her, and to scourge her with scorpions, as in bygone periods. See I not the hand on the wall? See I not in yonder letters a Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin ? Look to thyself Batushca.”‘

References. V. 27. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Bible Object Lessons, p. 20. H. S. Lunn, Christian World Pulpit, 3 Sept 1890. J. M. Neale, Sermons on the Prophets, vol. ii. p. 63. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. v. No. 257.

Dan 5:30-31

Kings and Emperors have long ago arranged for themselves a system like that of a magazine-rifle: as soon as one bullet has been discharged, another takes its place. Le roi est mort, vive le roi! So what is the use of killing them?

Tolstoy.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

The Hand At the Feast

Dan 5

This reads like a torrent king, and feast, and great feast, and lords a thousand strong, and wine-drinking worthy of the occasion. That is the beginning. If it were a piece of music the last note would be as the first; whether it be another note, we must wait a while to know: it will be a grand note, whether harmonious and sympathetic with the beginning we shall see. There was no harm in making a great feast to a thousand lords. Many persons are content to stop at that point; if there is no harm in an exercise they take it for granted that they may indulge it without limit or licence. That is a point the devil often begins at. It is something to have reached the conclusion that there is no harm in this or that reply to local suggestion or personal temptation. He is a subtle beast, more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God hath made, for he saith to the Son of God, Thou art hungry; if thou hast power, why not turn these stones into bread? The suggestion was harmless: it was beneficent; when was he ever less a devil? when was he ever more the tempter and the destroyer, the seducer and the assassin of mankind? Study your point; ascertain distinctly where you are; write down in the record every day, write in your clearest hand, so that there can be no mistake in deciphering the line, Nothing good ever came from a bad source. That will keep you right when you cannot summon to immediate service your metaphysical piety. Always have a good moral injunction well at hand; from that you may pass into the metaphysics of religion, the profoundest depths of theology. It is said that it is not an arithmetical exaggeration to suppose that Belshazzar had a thousand lords; it is not a rhetorical number; it might be a piece of dry statistics. Look at the picture: who can blight it? who would disturb it? The king, the lords, the wine, the revel: who would interpose or send into a scene so gay with all colours a spectre or ghost? It is the ghost we cannot keep out. We bar out the burglar, but the ghost comes in without noise or invitation, and tarries as long as he will. The life that ignores ghostly presences is a fool’s life.

Belshazzar tasted the wine, and the wine burned in his blood, and he “commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem,” not necessarily his father according to the flesh, but his predecessor, the larger sense in which the word “father” is often used. A bright idea has struck him in wine. In vino veritas (In wine is truth); in such wine is the devil. Having good wine, he would have good vessels; the goblet should be worthy of the liquor. Perhaps it was an aesthetic mood; rather let us incline to the comment which assigns to this action the attribute and the wickedness of defiance. There was no aestheticism in it; it was the vulgarity of the man awakened by wine, that never fails when taken in due quantities to wake up every devil that is in a man. Belshazzar would outdo his fathers; what is wickedness if it cannot also be modern, new, inventive, and put into remote and fading perspective the audacity of earlier trespassers? All the people should drink out of these cups, vessels, goblets; the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines, drank in them, and laughed over them, and left the slime of their throats on the gold and silver of the sanctuary. It was a night of triumph; the air was full of defiance; there was a noise in the banqueting hall that the queen-mother overheard. We do not all go to these violent extremities, but the act is not to be judged by its violence, but by its essence, its nature, its purpose, its spirit. We say violent delights have violent ends, but there is no need to pause in self-complacency and to return a verdict in favour of ourselves to the effect that such violence as this has never marked our lives. We may tell lies in whispers; we may break all the commandments in silence; we may not have the frankness of a bold chivalry; we may be doing the deed without acquiring fame for its accomplishment. Search your hearts; hold God’s own candle over the secret lie. We need not judge ourselves by the accidents of this Oriental occasion; the accidents, we know, have all died away, and they may or may not have been literally true, but the inner reality abides evermore that men have moments of intellectual and spiritual dropsy, moral inflation, times when self-control is lost, when reverence is soured into profanity, and when man imagines that he has now but to put out his hand to a given tree, and snatch from its branches all he can hold of Deity.

What became of it all?

“They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone” [and the gods did not hear a word of their doxology] ( Dan 5:4 ).

This is, on the part of the banqueters, a curious logic “They drank wine, and praised the gods.” There is a point at which wine-drinking has in it an element of religion; there are tears of quite a pietetic kind at the beginning of a wine feast; men feel mellow towards one another, kind, forgiving, hopeful; they forget wives and children, or remember them only in some sentimental way that has in it no virtue, or touch or colour of sacrifice; they talk in vague philanthropic generalities, and the next draught turns them swiftly from piety to profanity and blasphemy. The action was that of a contrast. The vessels might have been held aloft as the vessels belonging to the service of Jehovah, and whilst the vessels were held aloft and then brought to the fiery lips of the drinkers, those who imbibed the liquid damnation began to praise the gods of heathendom and to ask loudly, or with subdued breath, or with significant whispering, or with sneering that had no words, Where is the God of Jerusalem? His vessels are here; his sacramental cups are here: where is he himself? And merrily the feast went on, and the wine disappeared like rivers in forests, and the night was redolent with all the odours of unholiness.

Thus the four verses contain quite a little story by themselves. Say what we may about chapter and verse, as a mechanical device often misleading the reader, yet in this instance there seems to be something useful in the typographical distribution of the matter. Dan 5:5 opens with a new paragraph boldly indicated. It is in very deed a new paragraph, God’s own paragraph. If it were written here only it might be called part of a romance, assigned to a very hoary antiquity, and quoted when we were in a mood to recall our mythological romances, but it is written every day: it is written in our diaries; it is written in our family Bibles; it is written on the face of our pulpits; it is graven upon our family altars.

“In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace” ( Dan 5:5 ).

That “hand” is the terror of men, or it is the surest proof of their defence, security, and progress. That hand presents two distinct aspects; we could not do without it: the bad man needs it to frighten him into prayer; the good man needs it often to save him from despair. Where is the hand of the Lord? It is everywhere not everywhere visible, but sight is not the limit of existence; vision does not determine our possession. What can we see? We do not see anything that is worth seeing; at best we see but image, type, symbol, hint, indication: all the things that are to be seen are patent only to the vision of the soul: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” see him everywhere, see him at all times, see him at midnight as certainly as at midday; the darkness and the light are both alike to him, and he makes them both alike to us, if so be our hearts are alive with the sensitiveness of love and expectation. “In the same hour” could the fools not have had an hour to themselves? Does God divide the hour of revel? Does he write across the face of the bad man’s programme? Does God interfere with the soliloquy of the rich atheist, saying to him, “Thou fool!”? Thus God will not let us quite alone. He can make us sober: one look, and the marrow chills; one touch, and the brain recovers itself from the sleep or the madness of wine, and awakes to ask eternal questions.

Did this occur long ago, in some old forgotten Babylon? This is occurring today, in our cities, within the range of our vision. Whilst we are discussing the supernatural, the supernatural is asserting itself; whilst we write volumes that amount to nothing more than notes of interrogation, the supernatural is operating, arranging, adjusting, tearing down, putting up, colouring, and disposing, according to a will immeasurable, incomprehensible, but always, though not on the face of it in all instances, beneficent. This hand came out beside the candlestick. God loves light. God lighted the candle; why should he not use it? Never suppose you can light anything; it is only God that lends you a spark. He went to the candlestick, and there he wrote. The night does not exclude him; he did not wait for the sun to rise; his judgment took effect at the time and on the spot. What is the matter with Belshazzar? How white he is! What a new expression in his erewhile dreamy eyes eyes that were just yielding to the felonious slumber of intoxication! The joints of his loins are loosed, and his knees smite against one another; the man who a few minutes ago was iron is now straw. Did this happen long ago in some banquet-hall deserted? It happened last night; it will happen to-night; it will occur in vivid and monitional repetition until the end of time. Drunken men see strange sights. We try to persuade them that it is a species of nightmare. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; cursed are the wicked in heart, for they too shall see God: God is love; Our God is a consuming fire. See him we must; the aspect of his revelation may largely depend upon ourselves. Marvellous is this action of the ghostly element or ministry upon the human mind! Men who could fight a whole army have their hair blanched in one night by the touch of a spectral finger; soldiers that never feared the face of man fear the face of un-namable and invisible guests who are unbidden to the wedding feast or funeral morsel, and there sit down and do what they like with the inventions of men. You have to meet the ghost somewhere; there is a time coming when you only can answer the question, meet the emergency, and satisfy the demand: there is no discharge in that war. Infidel, Agnostic, unbeliever, irreverent sneerer, what canst thou do for those whom thou dost mock and seduce? God has so arranged the economy of his providence that he must have a few moments with us quite alone. Sweetest mother cannot speak for us then; tenderest friend cannot come between us and God at that moment: there must be a secret interview with the supernatural. We have not lived like beasts; why should we die like them? Men put away these thoughts from themselves, and attempt to fill up the vacancy with frivolity; it ends in mockery, disappointment, and piercing pain, Do not suppose you can exclude God by noise, by wine-drinking, by high feasting, and by committing yourselves to revels that warm the blood and goad the passions, “Thou God seest me.” Sometimes we see part of his hand, and we see what it is doing; at others we see all his hand, and can recognise what it is doing, and when we have looked upon the action for a little while we say, “Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.” The hand of the Lord is in heaven, on earth, and it grips the bridle that holds the devil back. “The Lord reigneth”; in that doctrine let us find assurance, consolation, stimulus, invincible defence. Poor Belshazzar! He was weak as other men. Where now the repartee that set the Babylonian table in a roar? Quite chapfallen, quite gone. Is the candle used then blown out?

“The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers” [and the king offered them scarlet and a gold chain, and a place in the triumvirate: He shall be the triumvir if he will tell me the upshot of this unexpected business. They all came; they could not read the writing; some read it horizontally, others read it vertically; some, perhaps, tried to read it diagonally; but they had never seen that alphabet before]. “Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied” [and the queen-mother came in and said, There is a man that can tell thee all about it]. “Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee…. And I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself) and give thy rewards to another” (Dan 5:9 , Dan 5:13-14 , Dan 5:16-17 ).

How the prophet always clears a space for himself; how on great occasions men distribute themselves into proper classes. When the occasion is little, one man is as good as another; there is a general hum of conversation, and it is difficult to tell the great man form the small, the obscure man from the famous: but when the crisis comes, by some law hardly to be expressed in words, men fall into their right relations, and there stands up the man who has the keys of the kingdom of God. Preachers of the word, you will be wanted some day by Belshazzar; you were not at the beginning of the feast, but you will be there before the banqueting hall is closed; the king will not ask you to drink wine, but he will ask you to tell the secret of his pain and heal the malady of his heart. Abide your time. You are nobody now. Who cares for preachers, teachers, seers, and men of insight, while the wine goes round, and the feast is unfolding its tempting luxuries? Midway down the programme to mention pulpit, or preacher, or Bible, would be to violate the harmony of the occasion. But the preacher, as we have often had occasion to say, will have his opportunity. They will send for him when all other friends have failed; may he then come fearlessly, independently, asking only to be made a medium through which divine communications can be addressed to the listening trouble of the world. Daniel will take the scarlet and the chain by-and-by, but not as a bribe; he will take the poor baubles of this dying Babylon and will use them to the advantage of the world through actions that shall become historical, but he will not first fill his hands with bribes, and then read the king’s riddles. The prophet is self-sustained by being divinely inspired. He needs no promise to enable him to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Indeed, he has nothing to say of himself. Every man, in proportion as he is a Daniel, has nothing to invent, nothing to conceive in his own intellect; he has no warrant or credential from the empty court of his own genius; he bears letters from heaven; he expresses the claims of God. O Daniel, preacher, speaker, teacher, thunder out God’s word, if it be a case of judgment and doom; or whisper it, or rain in gracious tears, if it be a message of sympathy and love and welcome.

Then Daniel began to talk as only Daniel could talk; then he looked the king into another man; then he read the writing to him: “Numbered,” “wanting,” “divided.” There is some incoherence that is better than the finest rhetorical continuity; a hiatus may be more significant than an elaborate detail. Let the king hear the principal words, and he will understand; he will not come up again to ask petty questions. There is an interpreter within the man; the moment he hears the right word from without, the interpreter within will say, That is the word of the Lord “numbered,” “wanting,” “divided.” “That night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain.” He began riotously, and thus he ended. The first note of this tragic anthem was one of revel; the last was a groan of helplessness, defeat He died drunk.

Prayer

Almighty God, the days are short; the light of the sun is too scant for us; but thou canst make another light, brighter than the noonday, and fill our whole life with a tender glory that shall not dazzle, but reveal thyself and make us glad. Thou canst give summer comfort in the deep winter-time; thou canst give us flowers from the snow: behold, the winter is not all ice; thou hast a place in it for thy benediction and tenderness, for the warmth and cordiality of thy love: and behold, when we feel this, then we know that judgment itself is mercy, and that sternness is an element of compassion, and that winter is needful to help forward the work of summer. The seasons are one; we must not separate them, and talk about them as separate jewels; they are all one: the year is one; life is one; every morning is New Year’s Day; every night is the closing day of life. Help us to read the parable wisely, with true discernment of deepest and broadest meanings; then time shall be a revelation, and the days and the hours shall become chapters in the large Bible of providence and visible movement. Thou hast made the year as it hath pleased thee: thou hast dug many a grave; thou hast emptied many an armchair; thou hast driven the pastor from his study and the preacher from his pulpit; and thou hast also called away from nearly every pew in every church some member, that thou mightest assert thy right and show that all souls are thine. We fall into thy hands in one way or the other willingly, lovingly, consentingly, with our whole heart and soul, with burning love that yearns to be absorbed in God; or we fall by providence, by effluxion of time subtle time, fatal time, that makes the strongest man bow down as if carrying an invisible burden. It makes the hair white, and wrinkles the cheek, and clouds up the brow. Behold, this is thy minister now an angel, now a hornet, always doing thy work and preparing the way for thy kingdom; and if now and again, by specialty of circumstance, we are touched by the solemnity of peculiar occasions, we thank thee for the sobriety, the gravity, the solemnity of mind and heart, concurrent therewith. May we so use every opportunity as to enlarge the next, and so multiply our facilities for getting good, for doing good, and for the better fulfilling our calling and election in time. We have met frequently with the open book and the open altar, and have spoken bold and cheering words in thy name, and heard thy word read in our midst now a thunder; now a psalm; now a great tempest of judgment; now a still small voice, or gentle stream, or hint of the Almightiness which is praised. The Lord be praised for all the Sabbaths golden days, jewels of the memory, points of time to be looked back upon in old age, or from higher kingdoms; and now that the space is dwindling, and the years are lessening, and the pulses are enfeebling, may we rise to the grandeur of the occasion and make, through the blood of the everlasting covenant and the mighty inspiration of the Holy Ghost, our last days our longest, brightest, best. Saviour Christ, hear us! Priest of the universe, plead for us! Thou atoning Sacrifice, let us see in the Cross a way of access even to the throne of light. Thus shall we have no fear; going up by Calvary, we shall come upon Righteousness itself, and have no speech with the law that would otherwise destroy us. Let thy benediction make summer in winter, and let some touch of thine hand give us to feel that though the days are short and the nights are long, our Father is close at hand. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

IV

DANIEL AND BELSHAZZAR

Dan 5:1-30

The title of this chapter is “Daniel and Belshazzar.” The scripture is Dan 5 . It will be recalled that in the chapter on the historical introduction to this book certain matters relating to introduction were reserved for the exposition. Dan 5 is a case in point. We are here introduced to two names which have occasioned much controversy, Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. Moreover, there are variant readings in the texts and versions. Usually the accepted Hebrew text, the Greek version of Theodotion and the old Peshito Syriac version agree on the text. The chief variations are found in the Septuagint version. It is a safe rule to follow the three against the one when we come to a variant reading. The Septuagint Daniel is by far the most untrustworthy of the Old Testament books in that version.

Of this much we may be assured that neither in the accepted Hebrew text, nor in the Theodotion, nor in the Peshito Syriac, nor in the Septuagint do we find any support for the contentions of the radical critics concerning Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. No text or version supports any one of their main contentions: (1) That the book of Daniel was written by an unknown Jew after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) that there was no king Belshazzar; (3) no king Darius the Mede; (4) that Daniel 5-6 cannot be reconciled with the discoveries of the latest archeological research on the history of Cyrus.

Much has been made in this controversy of what is called the “Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus,” brought to light by modern research. This now famous tablet is very brief and is so much broken that it must be reconstructed; even when reconstructed there are gaps which cannot be supplied; and it is very difficult to decipher what is inscribed, so difficult that the experts themselves cannot agree on the rendering. But the most of them, including Driver himself, support a rendering in substantial accord with the book of Daniel.

The historians of the period such as Xenophon, Herodotus, Rawlinston ( Ancient Monarchies ) furnish corroboration of the statements in the book of Daniel, whatever may be the merits of their testimony. But what is much more important, the Daniel account of the fall of Babylon before the Medes and Persians is in line with the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning that event, and the several accounts by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel are all endorsed in the book of Revelation, giving an account of the fall of the mystical Babylon based on the Old Testament analogue of the historical Babylon.

The reader will find Driver’s rendering of the Cyrus tablet in his book on Daniel in the “Cambridge Bible Series.” Professor Sayce’s rendering may be found in Appendix II of Daniel in the Critics’ Den and also the better rendering of Theo. G. Pinches, by whom the tablet was brought to light, and the rendering of St. Chad Boscawen. So that these men Pinches, Boscawen, and Driver with others, agree in deciphering the inscription: (1) In harmony with the book of Daniel; (2) against the Sayce rendering.

If, then, we rightly regard this matter as a Judicial inquiry, all its evidence to be compared, cross-examined and weighed by judicial minds according to the laws of evidence; and if we accept for our guidance the six fundamental rules of law touching evidence laid down by Mr. Greenleaf in his Testimony of the Evangelists , there will be no trouble in accepting the book of Daniel as credible history. Mr. Greenleaf’s rules are as follows:

1. “Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be other-wise.” Now under that law we have our document of the book of Daniel, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custodian and no evident marks of forgery on it, and that document before any law court would be pronounced genuine.

2. “In matters of public and general interest all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.” Now apply that to Daniel living in Babylon at that time, an observer of the transactions which he relates.

3. “In trials of fact by oral testimony the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.” Now apply that law to every statement made in the book of Daniel.

4. “A proposition of fact is proved when its proof is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.”

5. “In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is presumed to be credible until the contrary is shown. The burden of impeaching his credibility lies on the objector.”

6. “The credulity due to the testimony of a witness depends upon: (1) their honesty; (2) their ability; (3) their number and the consistency of their testimony; (4) the conformity of their testimony with experience; and (5) the conformity of their testimony with collateral circumstances.” We can then understand why such great authorities on evidence as Mr. Greenleaf, and Lord Chancellors Hatherley, Cairns, and Selborne are never disturbed by the arrogant claims of the radical critics. They never forget that “no kind of evidence more demands the test of cross-examination than that of experts, whose proper place is the witness chair and not the judgment seat” (Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, quoted by Sir Robert Anderson). They never confound an expert’s real evidence with his logic or the conclusions of his mind. On this very point Sir Robert Anderson most pertinently quotes Lord Hatherley, in his Continuity of Scripture speaking of “the supposed evidence, on which are based some very confident assertions of a self-styled higher criticism! Assuming the learning to be profound and accurate which has collected the material for much critical performance, the logic by which conclusions are deduced from those materials is frequently grievously at fault, and open to the judgment of all who may have been accustomed to sift and weigh evidence.” The book of Daniel, then, as a “document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

Its place in the canon of Hebrew inspired books was never questioned in the ancient synagogue. Our Lord and his apostles found it there and treated it as inspired history and prophecy. Only one man, and he a heathen, ever assailed its genuineness or authenticity for more than two thousand years. The chief presupposition of modern assault upon it is purely atheistical; namely, there can be no real miracle or prophecy and therefore the book must be accounted for naturally (not supernaturally) and must be dated and estimated accordingly, which begs the whole question.

On the premises thus briefly set forth this author accepts Dan 8:9 , a competent witness of the matters relative to Belshazzar and Darius coming under his own observation, and our attention will now be given to that evidence. All its references to Belshazzar apart from Dan 5 are these: “In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed” (Dan 7:1 ). “In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first” (Dan 8:1 ). Dan 5:1 commences: “Belshazzar the king made a great feast . . ” and closes thus: “In the night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about three score and two years old.”

While the book of Daniel does not say anything about Belshazzar’s father, history shows that his father was still living and that Belshazzar is called the king’s son. These three verses then suggest that he was co-regent with his father, his father being the first ruler, he the second ruler, and his proposition to make whosoever would interpret that handwriting the third ruler. The critics say it should be “the ruler of the third part,” and the Septuagint version seems to support them, but the Hebrew text and the Theodotion version and our common English version and our Revised Version and the English Version of the Jewish text, all testify that the rendering should be, “the third ruler in the kingdom.” I have before me the Jewish Bible, that is, the English translation of the Jewish Bible, and on Dan 5 in each instance it renders those three verses that I have just quoted exactly as I quoted them. It reads as follows: “Whatsoever man will read this writing and tell me its meaning shall be clothed with purple and shall have a chain of gold about his neck and shall rule as third in the kingdom.” Dan 5:16 puts it this way, “and shall rule as the third in the kingdom.” The next verse he interprets “that he should rule as the third in the kingdom.” So that while the radical critic says that the rendering, “the third ruler in the kingdom,” is untenable, he puts himself against the very highest scholarship in Germany and England, against the two English versions, against the Jewish version, against the Theodotion Greek version, and our common Hebrew text. We understand then that Belshazzar was king, his father associating him with himself in the kingdom. We learn from history that Nabonidus, his father, was a man who preferred privacy and seclusion. He had very little to do with public affairs. He was not even in Babylon when it was invaded by the Medes and Persians. He was not present when they took Babylon. He commanded no armies. His son Belshazzar is represented as a warlike man, a general, and whatever war there was conducted by Belshazzar. We look then at the next affirmation.

Dan 5 says thus: Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar while he tasted the wine commanded to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which is in Jerusalem, that the king and his lords and his wives and his concubines might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem, and the king and his lords and his wives and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

That is Daniel’s account of what was done on the night of the awful catastrophe of the fall of Babylon. I want to compare that with the prophecy of Isaiah and of Jeremiah concerning the destruction of Babylon. In Isa 21:4-5 ; Isa 21:9 we have this account: “My heart fluttereth, horror hath frighted me; the twilight that I desired hath been turned into trembling unto me. They prepare the table, they set the watch, they eat, they drink: rise up,-ye princes, anoint the shield.” Then he goes on to give an account of the fall: “Fallen, fallen, is Babylon, and all the graven images of her gods are broken unto the ground.” So that Isaiah in his time, prophesying of the fall of Babylon, makes the occasion of the fall the time when they are at the table when they are eating and drinking.

I take passages from Jer 51 : “The mighty men of Babylon have forborne to fight, they remain in their strongholds; they are become as women; they have burned her dwelling places; her bars are broken. One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken on every quarter and the passages are seized, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted” (Jer 51:30-32 ). “In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep perpetual sleep, and not wake saith the Lord. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he-goats” (Jer 51:39 ). “And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a sleep perpetual, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is Jehovah of hosts” (Jer 51:57 ).

We find then that both Isaiah and Jeremiah represent the downfall of Babylon as coming when they are at a feast, eating, drinking, and drunken, and that feast ends with their sudden destruction, so that Daniel’s account in that affirmation is certainly sustained by the older prophets.

We now come to the next affirmation (Dan 5:3-4 ; Dan 5:18-24 ), representing that this is a conflict with Jehovah himself. They commence by insulting Jehovah, by using the sacred Temple vessels for drinking their wine on such an occasion. They not only drink their wine out of the sacred vessels, but they praise the idols, and so when Daniel comes in he makes that point against them when he comes to interpret the vision. Let us see what he says on that point. Dan 5:18 : “Oh thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty: and because of the greatness that he gave him, all of -the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: and he was driven from the sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; until he knew that the most high God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and that he setteth up over it whosoever he will. And thou his son. O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which set not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose had thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. Then was the part of the hand, sent from before him and this writing was written.”

It is evident from Dan 5 that the issues were between Jehovah and Babylon as a nation in the person of its king, Belshazzar. Let us compare that statement in Dan 5 with the parallel passages in Isaiah. Several chapters of Isaiah, commencing with Isa 45 , are devoted to that very point, Isaiah foreshowing the destruction of Babylon and its reason, and making it just as plain as Daniel makes it, that the issue is that Babylon was set up by divine providence, that its kings were the servants of God to do his will, that commencing with Nebuchadnezzar and going through their history they had failed to recognize the divine government of nations, in consequence of which Isaiah is now prophesying the downfall of this kingdom of Babylon. So that Dan 5 stands in harmony with the older prophet upon that point. There are two or three chapters of Isaiah on this point too long for me to give here.

We now come to the next affirmation in this chapter, and this relates to the miracle. It affirms that during that great gathering, the thousand lords, the wives and concubines of the king, the mad reveling, the impious resistance to Jehovah, that just at that juncture part of a hand that was visible came out and wrote on the wall these words: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Now, of course, if a man takes the position that there can be no miracle or anything supernatural, he will not believe anything of this kind, but we are not of that class. Everything that was written, as I will show you, when we come to interpret it, is in full accord with everything else that is written in the Bible. We want to know the effect upon Belshazzar. The testimony is very striking on that. Let us see what was the effect on Belshazzar when he saw that hand come out there and write those words: “And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his loins were loosed and his knees smote one against another.” What a vivid description of fear! Now when we turn to Isa 13:7-8 , we find there described the condition in Babylon on the night of its fall: “The hands shall become weak and the mortal heart shall melt: and they shall be affrighted ; pangs and pains shall seize on them; they shall have throes) as a woman that travaileth: one at another shall they look amazed; red like flames shall their faces glow.”

The next affirmation that I wish to consider is that Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Now, says the higher critic, “this is not true.” The Hebrew has no word for grandson or grandfather, and it is one of the most common things in the usage of the Hebrew to represent one as a father who is not immediately the father of the one spoken of. I could spend a half hour citing instances; so that criticism is puerile. What it means is that Belshazzar is a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and we can very easily account for this usage of the term, “father.”

We come now to the next affirmation, that is, as the agency employed for the destruction of Babylon. Dan 5 , when it comes to the interpretation, says that the agency employed is that of the Medes and Persians. Not the Medes alone nor the Persians alone, but they are spoken of conjointly and they are so spoken of all through the book of Daniel, and we will need that later on when we come to another criticism, that the Medes and Persians all through this book are one government, two governments in one. Isaiah and Jeremiah, (and I here cite, Isa 13:17 ; Isa 21:2 ; Jer 51:28 ) inform us that the agency by which Babylon shall be destroyed is both the Medes and Persians. So what Daniel says here is in full accord with the testimony of the older prophets as to the means by which Babylonia was to be overthrown.

And Just here I want to make this statement to which there is no reference in Daniel. Xenophon says that when the city was besieged, to account for the suddenness of the capture, that the Babylonians, having twenty years of provisions in it and resting behind their high impregnable walls, did not concern themselves at all about the besieging army on the outside, and that Cyrus, finding it impossible to storm those walls, diverted the waters of the Euphrates by canals going around on each side throwing the water into the canals and leaving bare the bottom of the river, and that his soldiers entered through the bed of the river and came up into the city at night and were in the city before anybody knew anything about it. What Xenophon says is confirmed by the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the waters of Babylon would be dried up in order to its taking, and that very thought is repeated in Rev 16 , where it speaks of the fall of the mystical Babylon: “I will dry up the Euphrates.”

Then we can easily understand another thing said by Jeremiah in telling how the city would fall, that the reeds were set on fire the reeds that grew along the banks of the river where the bed of the river was dry. They entered that bed of the river and came up on the inside of the walls, setting fire to those reeds that were along both banks of the river on the inside of the city. All of that is thrillingly set forth in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Daniel, however, does not refer to that. All he refers to is the suddenness the utter unexpectedness with which death and ruin came upon this assembly, but this does make Daniel’s account in harmony with Xenophon, Jeremiah, and Revelation, and when Jeremiah says that the Babylonians did not fight, that also accords with a part of that celebrated Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus which says that the city was entered without fighting. Isaiah also confirms the suddenness of the capture.

We take up the next affirmation. Daniel says that when that handwriting was seen on the wall the enchanters and diviners and soothsayers were called in and their interpretation sought. Just in point Isaiah’s testimony (Isa 47:12 ) announces the presence of these enchanters and soothsayers and their powerlessness to help.

Let us now look at the interpretation. Daniel interprets it this way, that the first word written and repeated, Mene, Mene , means “numbered, numbered,” and he explains it to mean this, “Your days are numbered, the days of your kingdom are numbered; this the last day.” Tekel that means a weight, or weighed. He interprets that to mean, “Thou are weighed in the balances and art found wanting.” “This is your last day. This day has been long deferred. God has labored with this kingdom, with its king not wishing to forsake Babylon to ruin,” as Isaiah sets forth very pathetically, “but thy constant ignoring of the government of God, thy filling up of the measure of iniquity has brought you to sorrow.” “Numbered, numbered! weighed in the balances and found wanting!” The last word) Upharsin , means divisions. He interprets that to mean, “Your kingdom is divided unto the Medes and unto the Persians.” What a suggestion there! Divided unto the Medes and Persians! When we commence the next chapter we find that Darius the Mede received that kingdom and was made king. Cyrus was the true leader and the true king, but it was divided. The Medes constituted a large portion of this army and his government, and Cyrus appoints this Mede now to take the city of Babylon. He would remain as chief ruler over all Persia and Media and Babylonia, but how striking the significance of dividing! What a great text! Many times great expounders of God’s Word have preached on that subject. One man, a controversialist, has written a book called Tekel, in which he says of his adversaries, “Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.” Some of the most thrilling revival sermons ever preached have been preached upon the interpretation of those words, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

QUESTIONS

1. Apart from Dan 5 , what are the references in this book to Belshazzar?

2. What verses in this chapter imply that Belshazzar was not the chief ruler in the kingdom of Babylon, but held only second place, or was co-regent?

3. What historical and archaeologic evidence confirms this implication?

4. What can you say of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, and according to the best reading of its inscription, how does it confirm Daniel’s account of the death of Belshazzar?

5. In their prophecies of the fall of Babylon show in what particulars Isaiah and Jeremiah confirm Dan 5 .

6. How was Belshazzar a son of Nebuchadnezzar? Give other instances of scripture,

7. Does Dan 5 say anything of the siege of Babylon? If so, what?

8. How in his feast does Belshazzar make an issue against Jehovah, and how does Jehovah respond?

9. What means were employed, according to Xenophon, to obtain an entrance into Babylon, and bow does Jeremiah and the book of Revelation confirm it?

10. Give Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Dan 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

Ver. 1. Belshazzar the king. ] Son to Evilmerodach, grandson to Nebuchadnezzar, whose line failed in this king, according to Jer 27:7 . Of Evilmerodach, Daniel saith nothing, because nothing remarkable happen in his time but what was before related. 2Ki 25:27

Made a great feast. ] Of this feast, see Jer 25:26 ; Herodot., lib. i.; Xenoph., lib. vii. It was made, say some, upon occasion of a yearly solemnity, which continued five days together, wherein the servants bare sway in every family, having a master of misrule over them. Cyrus took this opportunity, saith Xenophon, and made himself master of the city. Nota hic Baltasaris miram vecordiam, saith one; that is, take notice of Belshazzar’s strange stupidity and security, that having such a formidable enemy before the city, he should thus revel and bezzle: but he did it perhaps to show his valour, and how little he cared for the Persians, who showed themselves soon after to be no contemptible persons. Certain it is that he minded nothing less at his feast than the deliverance of God’s poor people, which now he was in working. Now were the seventy years exactly ended; now therefore was Israel to be dismissed, and it was done. The Rabbis have a tradition, that Belshazzar, seeing the seventy years spoken of by Jeremiah expired, and the Jews, by the coming on of another monarch, not delivered, kept this feast in contempt of that prophecy and people. a

To a thousand of his lords. ] Who, it is like, were all drunk for company; what wonder, then, that a land so sick of drink spued them all out? Lords and lowlies were grown desperate drunkards, ripe for ruin. Here were a thousand princes, but not one faithful counsellor to better advise this festival king, as he is called, wholly given over to dissolute lusts. Who can tell whether it were not now with him as afterwards with Vitellius the Emperor, when his enemy was at hand, Vitellius trepidus, dein temulentus, b to put away the fear of death, he made himself drunk?

a Lyra.

b Tacitus.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Daniel Chapter 5

Dan 5 and 6 form a part of the series of, what we may call, moral chapters. They are historical, but withal stamped with the character of a foreshadowing of the future, receiving light from and casting light upon the prophecies which precede and follow them. Of these practical illustrations of the Gentile powers we have had already two following the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. We are now to enter upon the first of two more, before we examine the more precise communications made to the prophet himself in Dan 7 . Dan 5 and 6 have this peculiarity, that they bring out, not so much the general characteristics of the Gentiles, as certain particulars to be found in them at the close, the forerunners of speedy destruction. In short, they typify special acts or outbreaks of evil, rather than what pervaded their whole standing and history. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference between each of these chapters, and we must now proceed to look briefly at the first of them.

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.” It was a scene of gorgeous, and perhaps unwonted, revelry. The sacrilegious king, “whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels. . . . They drank wine. and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass; of iron, of wood, and of stone.” History may tell us that it was an annual festival, when a loose rein was given to licentiousness; and that thus was furnished a favourable opportunity for the besieger to seize an unguarded moment, and turn his vast preparations to account. Scripture shows us that the king, wrapped in that false security which precedes destruction, used the occasion for insulting the God of Israel. Rash, blinded man! It was the eve of his ruined dynasty, and of his death.

For Belshazzar, the past was a profitless blank. for him it was a lesson, unheard and unlearnt, that God had in His providence made his forefather to be the instrument of just but terrible judgments. The city, the holy city of God, was taken, the temple burnt, the vessels of the sanctuary, with people, priests, king, carried into the enemy’s land. It was an astonishment to men everywhere when Israel thus fell. The importance of the fact was entirely out of proportion to the number of the nation or the extent of their territory. For poor as they might be individually, the halo encircled them of a God who had brought them of yore out of Egypt, through the Red Sea – who had fed them with angels’ food for many a long year in the dreary desert – and who had shielded them for centuries, spite of sad ingratitude, and a thousand perils in the land of Canaan. Was it not a strange sight for the world, when God gave up His own elect and favoured people to be swept out of their land by a Chaldean king, the chief of the idolatry of that day? For Babylon was ever famous for the multitude of her idols.

Nebuchadnezzar, in all the pride of successful ambition, had not been so insensate He had bowed to the wonderful truth, that the God of heaven, who had abandoned Israel for their sins, had raised himself in His sovereignty to be the golden head of Gentile empire. He had owned the God of Daniel to be a God of gods and a Lord of kings; he had confessed the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego to be the Most High God – a deliverer and a revealer of secrets beyond all others. Nebuchadnezzar had been guilty of much sin – had been proud and self-complacent, spite of warning, and had been abased as no king nor man ever was because of it; but he had acknowledged throughout his wide realm his own sin and the mighty wonders of the King of heaven – all whose works are truth, and His ways judgment. But before this bright end, even in his most reckless days, (when all trembled before him, and “whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down,”) never had he proceeded to such an act of contemptuous profanity as that now perpetrated by his grandson.

But the sentence of instant, inevitable judgment at once made itself heard. For the cup of iniquity was full; and long had the mouth of the Lord proclaimed the punishment of Babylon’s king. (Isa 13 ; Jer 25 , etc.) Yet, even the stroke does not fall without a solemn sign from God. “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.”

It was no dream of the night now; but a silent monitor of awful omen in the midst of their wild revelry and impious defiance of the living God. The hour of the execution of wrath was now come. Bel must bow down, Nebo stoop before an indignant but most patient God. The king needed no intimation from another. His conscience, corroded with depravity, trembled before the hand which traced his doom, though he knew not a word that was written. Instinctively he felt that He whose hands none can stay, was dealing with him. “Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” Forgetful of his dignity in his fright, “the king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers.” But all was vain. The highest rewards are offered; but the spirit of deep sleep closed all eyes. “They could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.”

In the midst of the still-increasing alarm of the king and astonishment of his lords, the queen (doubtless the queen-mother, if we compare verses 2 and 10,) comes into the banqueting-house. Her sympathies were not in the feast, and she reminds the king of one who was yet more outside and above it all – a total stranger in person to the impious king. “There is a man,” etc. (Verses 11-14)

This fact of Daniel’s strangership to Belshazzar is one that speaks volumes. Whatever the pride and audacity of the great Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel sat in the gate of the king – ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men. His degraded and degenerate descendant knew Daniel not.

This reminds me, by the way, of a well known incident in the history of king Saul, the moral force of which is not always seen. When troubled by an evil spirit, a young son of Jesse was sought out, whose music God was pleased to use as a means of quieting the king’s mind. “And it came to pass when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” (1Sa 16:23 ) Not long after, Saul and all Israel were in sore dismay when the giant of Gath challenged them in the valley of Elah. God’s providence brought there, in the humble path of unwarlike duty, a youth who heard the vainglorious words of the Philistine with different ears. Instead of terror, his feeling was rather amazement that the uncircumcised should dare to defy the armies of the living God. The victory was no sooner won than the king turns to the captain of the host with this question, “Whose son is this youth?” And Abner confesses his ignorance. Here was a strange case: the very youth who had ministered to him in his malady unknown to king Saul! The interval was certainly not long; but Saul knew not David. This has perplexed the critics immensely; and one of the most distinguished of Hebraists has tried to make out that the chapters must have been shuffled somehow, and that the close of 1Sa 16 should follow the end of 1Sa 17 ; so as to remove the difficulty of Saul’s ignorance of David after he had stood in his presence won his love, and become his armour-bearer. But I am convinced that all this arises from not apprehending the very lesson that God teaches in the scene. The truth is, that Saul might have loved David for his services: but there never was a particle of sympathy; and where this is the case we readily forget. Strangership of heart soon ends in actual distance, when the service of the Lord comes in. It is the very spirit of the world towards the children of God. As John says, “Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.” They may be acquainted with many things about Christians, but they never know themselves. And when the Christian passes away from the scene, there may be a passing reminiscence, but he is an unknown man. Saul had been under the greatest obligations to David. But although David had been the channel of comfort to him, yet all knowledge of David completely passed away with the service that he had rendered. So of Daniel the queen could say, “In the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.” Yet there was no thought about him now. He was comparatively unknown by those at the feast. The only one who thought about him was the queen, and she was only there because of their trouble.

Accordingly Daniel is brought before the king, and the king asks him, “Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?” Then he tells him his difficulty, and speaks of the rewards he is prepared to give to any who should tell the interpretation of the writing. Daniel answers as became the occasion. “Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known unto him the interpretation.” But first he administers a most painful word of admonition. He brings before him in a few words the history of Nebuchadnezzar, and God’s dealings with him. He reminds him withal of his own entire indifference; nay, of his reckless insults against God. “And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven . . . and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.” He brings before him what that scene was in the eye of God. For this is what sin, what Satan, seeks ever to hide. Before the Babylonish court, it was a magnificent feast, enhanced by the memorials of the success of their arms, and the supremacy of their gods. But what was their gorgeous revelry in the eye of God? What was it to Him that the vessels of His service were brought up so proudly to vaunt the triumph of Babylon and her idols? To one who knew Him it must have been a most painful moment, however sure and speedy the issue. Yet there are scenes that take place in the world now that give forebodings of a character at least as grave. The question is, Are we in the secret of God so to read His judgment on all these things for ourselves? We may readily and without cost pronounce, in a measure, on the presumption of Nebuchadnezzar and on the open impiety of Belshazzar; but the great moral criterion for us is this: Are we discerning aright the face of the sky and of the earth in this our day? Are the lowering aspects of this time lost upon us? Are we identified simply and solely with the Lord’s interests at the present time? Do we understand what is going on in the world now Do we believe what is coming upon it? Clearly the king and his court were but the instruments of Satan; and the contempt they showed for the God of heaven was not the mere working of their own minds, but Satan was their master. And it is a true saying that wherever you get the will of man, you invariably find the service of Satan. Alas! man knows not that the enjoyment of a liberty without God is and must be to do the devil’s work. King Belshazzar and his lords might think that it was but celebrating their victories over a nation still prostrate and captive in Babylon; but it was a direct, personal insult offered to the true God, and He answers to the challenge. It was no longer a controversy between Daniel and the astrologers, but between Belshazzar himself and God. The command to bring the vessels of the house of the Lord, might seem but a wicked drunken freak of the king’s; but the crisis was come, and God must strike a decisive blow. Depend upon it, these tendencies of our day, although not met at once by God, are not forgotten; there is a treasuring up of wrath against the day of wrath. The present is not a time when God lets His judgments fall. Rather is it a day when man is building up his sins to heaven, only so much the more terribly to fall when the hand of God is stretched out against him.

But there is even then a warning, solemn, immediate, and before all. And observe, as to this writing seen upon the wall, what was the great difficulty of it? The language was Chaldean, and those who saw the hand and the characters were Chaldeans. We might have judged then, that the mere letters must be more familiar to the Chaldeans than to Daniel. It is not the way of God, when He communicates anything, to put it in an obscure form. It would be a monstrous theory, that God, in giving a revelation, makes it impossible to be understood by those for whom it is intended. What is it that renders all Scripture so difficult? It is not its language. A striking proof of it is found in this: – if any one were to ask, what part of the New Testament I conceive to be the most profound of all, I should refer to the Epistles of John; and yet if there be any part, more than others, couched in language of the greatest simplicity, it is these very Epistles. The words are not those of the scribes of this world. Neither are the thoughts enigmatical or full of foreign, recondite allusions. The difficulty of Scripture lies herein, that it is the revelation of Christ, for the souls that have their hearts opened by grace to receive and to value Him. Now John was one who was admitted to this pre-eminently. Of all the disciples he was the most favoured in intimacy of communion with Christ. So it was, certainly, when Christ was upon earth; and he is used of the Holy Ghost to give us the deepest thoughts of Christ’s love and personal glory. The real difficulty of Scripture, then, consists in its thoughts being so infinitely above our natural mind. We must give up self in order to understand the Bible. We must have a heart and an eye for Christ, or Scripture becomes an unintelligible thing for our souls; whereas, when the eye is single, the whole body is full of light. Hence you may find a learned man completely at fault, though he may be a Christian – stopping short at the Epistles of John and the Revelation as being too deep for him to enter into; while, on the other hand, you may find a simple man who, if he cannot altogether understand these Scriptures or explain every portion of them correctly, at any rate he can enjoy them; they convey intelligible thoughts to his soul, and comfort, and guidance, and profit too. Even if it be about coming events, or Babylon and the beast, he finds there great principles of God that, even though they may be found in what is reputed the obscurest of all the books of Scripture, yet have a practical bearing to his soul. The reason is, Christ is before him, and Christ is the wisdom of God in every sense. It is not, of course, because he is ignorant that he can understand it, but in spite of his ignorance. Nor is it because a man is learned, that he is capable of entering into the thoughts of God. Whether ignorant or learned, there is but one way – the eye to see what concerns Christ. And where that is firmly fixed before the soul, I believe that Christ becomes the light of spiritual intelligence as He is the light of salvation. It is the Spirit of God that is the power of apprehending it; but He never gives that light except through Christ. Otherwise man has an object before him, that is not Christ, and therefore cannot understand Scripture which reveals Christ. He is endeavouring to force the Scriptures to bear upon his own objects, whatever they may be, and thus Scripture is perverted. That is the real key to all mistakes about Scripture. Man takes his own thoughts to the word of God, and builds up a system which has no divine foundation.

To return, then, to the inscription upon the wall, the words were plain enough. All ought to have been intelligible, and would have been, had the souls of the Chaldeans been in communion with the Lord. I do not mean that there was not the power of the Spirit of God needed to enable Daniel to understand it; but it is an immense thing for the understanding of the word, that we have communion with the God that is making known His mind to us. “Therefore,” said Paul to the elders, “I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace.”

Daniel was entirely outside the revellings and such like. He was a stranger to those that were at home there. He was called in from the light of the presence of God to see this scene of impiety and darkness; and coming, therefore, fresh from the light of God, he reads this writing upon the wall, and all was bright as the day. And nothing more solemn. “This is the interpretation of the thing.” (Verse 25-28) He at once sees God in the matter. The king had insulted God in what was connected with His worship. “TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” It was not that anything appeared then; nothing was seen at the time that made it even probable. And I call attention to this, because it is another proof, how utterly false is the maxim, that we must wait till prophecy is fulfilled before we can understand it. If a man is an unbeliever, to see the fulfilment of prophecy in the past, is a powerful argument that nothing can surmount. But is that what God wrote prophecy for? Was it to convince infidels? No doubt God may use it for such. But was that what God intended the writing upon the wall for on that night? Clearly not. It was His last solemn warning before the blow fell, and the interpretation was given before the Persians broke into the city – when there was not a sign of ruin, but all was gaiety and mirth. “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” In short, Babylon was judged.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 5:1-4

1Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. 2When Belshazzar tasted the wine, he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. 3Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. 4They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Dan 5:1 Belshazzar In Babylonian Bel-shar-usur means Bel, protect the king (BDB 1084). Bel means lord and is another name for Marduk.

the king Although his name was not found initially on any of the cuneiform lists of Babylonian kings, further archaeological studies have found him on cuneiform lists which call him the son of the king (i.e. Nabonidus’ cylinder, see J. B. Pritchard, ANET, pp. 315-316)). Because he is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in vv. 2,11,18,22, there has been much discussion about his true ancestry. Some possible theories are: (1) he was the adopted son of Nabonidus; (2) family terms have a wide latitude of meanings, as is common in Semitic languages; (3) Nabonidus may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II (Nitocris) in order to legitimatize his reign because he may not have been of the royal line (cf. R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 63-80); or (4) some even assert that he married Nebuchadnezzar’s queen.

held a feast Possibly it was a state or religious holiday. In the face of the approaching Medo-Persian army it may have been a way of taking their minds off of the impending battle.

a thousand of his nobles History gives many examples of large festivals given by eastern monarchs (cf. Daniel 3 [neo-Babylonian]; Esther 1 [Persian]).

Dan 5:2 When Belshazzar tasted the wine This either refers to (1) his beginning the traditional drinking period after the dinner or (2) the fact that he was already intoxicated (see Special Topic: Biblical Attitudes Toward Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse ).

he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels Nebuchadnezzar II carried off the vessels from the house of YHWH in Jerusalem (cf. 2Ki 24:13; 2Ki 25:15), as he did from all national temples. Why Belshazzar would choose to specifically desecrate YHWH’s sacred temple vessels is uncertain. Possibly, since there were hundreds of guests present plus his wives and concubines (cf. Dan 5:3), all of the vessels from all of the conquered peoples’ temples were procured for the drinking, but more probably because Jerusalem is mentioned specifically in Dan 5:2-3. Belshazzar knew how YHWH had humbled Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 4), and he was simply acting out of spite (cf. Dan 5:22).

his father This could be literal (cf. Gen 31:42), but probably it is used in the sense of ancestor, descendant (cf. Ezr 5:12), or previous royal leader (BDB 1078, also the black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III calls Jehu son of Omri). Some examples show the term being used as grandfather (cf. Gen 28:13; Gen 32:9) and great grandfather (cf. 1Ki 15:11).

the temple The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon and is described in 1 Kings 6-8. It reflects the ancient portable tabernacle described in Exodus 25-27; Exodus 35-38.

his wives, and his concubines might drink from them The Medes and the Persians did not allow women at state banquets (cf. Esther 1), but apparently the Babylonians did, at least on this occasion (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 5.2.28). To the Jewish mind of later scholars the presence of wives, and particularly concubines, would have been an additional offense to YHWH. Most always men and women were segregated in the Ancient Near East. This was a wild and extravagant party (cf. James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, p. 203).

In the Hebrew Bible the distinction between wives and concubines has to do with the inheritance rights of the children. Both are legally married to the king and live in the harem. The children of wives have full inheritance rights, while the children of concubines have only limited inheritance rights.

This is the Aramaic section of Daniel and the term concubines (BDB 1099) is from an Arabic root for time, note, or song, therefore, the NJB translates it as and the women who sang for him.

Dan 5:4 praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone These are the same metals involved in the statue of Daniel 2. From v. 23 we realize that these were idols (cf. Exo 20:23; Deu 4:28; Deu 28:36; Deu 28:64; Deu 29:17; Psa 115:4-8; Psa 135:15-18; Isa 40:18-20; Isa 44:9-20; Isa 46:1-7). This phrase may imply that this banquet had religious or ritual connotations.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Belshazzar. He was the son of Nabonidus. The inscriptions show that he was made co-regent while he (Nabonidus) went to meet Cyrus. See note on verses: Dan 5:2, Dan 5:7, Dan 5:1.

a great feast. The hall in which it was held has lately been excavated. It is 60 feet wide and 172 feet long, the walls being beautifully decorated with painted stucco designs. See Records of the Past, vol. i, part v, p. 160.

lords = great ones, or nobles. Chaldee. rabreban, same as “princes” in verses: Dan 5:2, Dan 5:3.

wine. Chaldee. chamra’. Same as Hebrew. chemer. App-27.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Shall we turn now in our Bible to Daniel, chapter 5.

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousands ( Dan 5:1 ).

There are men who call themselves Bible scholars and they belong to a school known as “higher criticism.” And for years these men declared that the book of Daniel was not valid. And one of their reasons for this declaration was that in secular history they had not discovered the name Belshazzar. But one of ancient historians, Neobonis, I think it was who, Neobonodis, who gave a genealogy of Nebuchadnezzar, and there was no mention of any Belshazzar in the genealogy that he gave. And naturally the historian could not be wrong; it’s got to be the Bible. And so they put out their disclaimers on the book of Daniel and discredit the book, and they gave a later author and just were willing to use any little excuse to disbelieve the book of Daniel. However, Sir Rawlinson, one of the great archeologists was doing a lot of excavating in the area of Babylon, the Palace of Shushan when they discovered it. And he found some very interesting, many interesting tablets and all in which the name Belshazzar and all existed. And there were, of course, many confirmations of this particular account that we have in Daniel. And so the critics, you’d think they’d give up. No, they just went to something else. But nonetheless, once more the archeologist’s spade has proved the truth of God’s Word, it’s authenticity, it’s reliability, and it’s a rather tragic thing that man keeps pounding away hoping that one day he’ll discover a true flaw. You would think that after this length of time, surely as brilliant and all as these men are, they would have found one that they could have hung their hats on. Or you’d think that they’d be wise enough to quit trying, you know, at this length.

The account of Belshazzar is an interesting account. Belshazzar was not really the son of Nebuchadnezzar. In the language, there was really no real words for grandson. So, “the son of” means that he came from that lineage or from the line. He was actually the grandson of Belshazzar. And he was co-regent with his father. Now being a co-regent with his father, it would seem that his father was, according to other historians, his father was leading the Babylonian troops in their battles, whereas Belshazzar remained at the palace and in Babylon, ruling there in Babylon. His father, a king, also co-reigning with his son, Belshazzar, was out in the field with the troops in their conquering and plundering. And that is, of course, the reason why when this experience came where there was the handwriting on the wall and Daniel was brought in to interpret it, he offered Daniel the third part of the kingdom because there were already two parts; one for his father, one to him, and so Daniel would receive the third part of the kingdom.

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords. He drank wine before the thousands.” So here’s a tremendous party. It lasted for quite a period of time. Josephus records it. Gives us some interesting details about it, as does Herodotus the other ancient historian. And Xenophon also makes reference to this banquet. There are stories of ostriches pulling around trays of fruits and nuts and delicacies, and quite a party. In fact, they say that the incense was so thick within the chambers that when a person would just walk in they’d become intoxicated with the thickness of the incense.

Belshazzar, while he was tasted the wine [or actually, while he was under the influence of the wine], commanded to bring the gold and the silver vessels which his father [which would have been grandfather] Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink from them. And then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem and the king and his princes, his wives, his concubines began to drink from them. And they drank wine, and they praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, iron, wood, and of stone. And in the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. And the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another ( Dan 5:2-6 ).

Quite a graphic description of the whole affair, to say the least. As his thoughts began to trouble him and, of course, well might his thoughts trouble him. As he had taken these vessels that have been sanctified for use in the temple unto the Lord only. And he had profaned, not only profaned them by drinking his wine out of them, but he began to praise the gods of gold and silver.

Now there is an interesting prophecy in Isaiah, chapter 21, in which in verse Dan 5:2 , the prophet declares, “Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media, or the Medes. All the sign thereof have I made deceased. Therefore are my loins filled with pain. Pangs have taken hold upon me as the pangs of a woman that travails. I was bowed down at the hearing of it. I was dismayed at the seeing of it. My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me. The night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me.” And he speaks then, of course, of the, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen; all the graven images of her gods are broken to the ground,” in verse Dan 5:9 . So it’s a prophecy against Babylon speaking of the fall of Babylon and surely seems to describe a couple of hundred years before the event this very thing of which Daniel now describes took place there as “the heart was panting, fearfulness affrighted of me, the night of my pleasure he hath turned into fear unto me.” And, of course, this is the night that Babylon fell. Cyrus the Persian king, Medo-Persian king came in to conquer and that, of course, brings up another interesting prophecy in Isaiah, as he was prophesying the destruction of Babylon in which he names Cyrus, in chapter 44 of Isaiah, verse Dan 5:28 . “Then saith He of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd. He shall perform all My pleasure.’ Even saying to Jerusalem, ‘Thou shalt be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Thy foundation shall be laid.’ Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held to subdue nations before him and I will loose the loins of kings.”

So you read here that his loins were loosed and the joints of his knees began to smite one against another. And here is the prediction two hundred years in advance. “I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two levied gates and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee and make the crooked places straight,” and so forth. And he said, “That you may know that I am the Lord which called thee by thy name. I am the God of Israel, for Jacob my servant’s sake, Mine elect. I then call thee by thy name and surnamed thee.” Now Isaiah wrote this about the year 712 B.C. We are writing of things that took place in the year of about 538 B.C. So a hundred and fifty years before the event, God speaks about it and He talks about loosing the loins of the kings and opening up the levied gates.

The city of Babylon was thought to be totally impregnable. It had a wall some three hundred feet high, eighty feet thick, with these massive towers upon it. And then it had also a secondary wall, not quite as large, the river Euphrates flowed through the middle of the city of Babylon. The wall was fifteen miles around the city and the city was lined off with blocks going east and west, or streets, wide streets going east and west and north and south. Now where these streets intersected the Euphrates River, they had bridges and they also had gates that they could shut so that the Euphrates River could be sealed off and the city actually would be divided in two by the sealing off of the Euphrates River.

According to the historians, the night that Babylon fell, this particular night that we’re reading about in chapter 5, for some reason, and they say it was because the soldiers were too drunk to know what they were doing, they did not lock those gates to the levy or that came in from the river Euphrates. Now Cyrus, the king of the Medo-Persian army had diverted or had built diversion channels for the river Euphrates. And he diverted the flow of the river Euphrates and his soldiers came under the wall in the riverbed, having diverted the flow of the river, and then they came up into the city and found these gates unlocked and were able to come in and take the city. Of course the soldiers were really too drunk to defend it. And so prophesied by Daniel in great detail, even naming the king that God would use to destroy the city of Babylon. And now the fulfillment of it and God mentioning even such things as the loins being loosed in prophecy, the joints of the loins being loosed. The fear that came upon Belshazzar when he saw the hand of God.

You know, there are people whose activities are those of open blasphemy against God. There are people who seem to be so forward in their mockery, ridicule, and blaspheming of God. It seems that there is no fear of God within their hearts at all. And they are just brazen. Imagine this man calling for the gold and silver vessels that have been sanctified for use in the temple of God. And now drinking his wine out of these vessels as he praises gods of gold and silver. But suddenly, he saw the hand of God and this king who seemed to be so brazen and so blasphemous is suddenly shaking like a leaf. And there are people today who seem to be so brazen and blasphemous in their activities, but once they see the hand of God beginning to come in judgment. I’ve seen God break people just down to a withering leaf kind of a thing. People talk so tough. People who seem to be so blasphemous against God. But when God begins to work, I’ll tell you, there’s no man that can stand against it. This fellow began to shake. His thoughts troubled him and well might they trouble him.

And the king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, the soothsayers. And the king spoke, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom ( Dan 5:7 ).

His father was first; he was second. He is offering now the position of third ruler.

Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. And then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance changed in him, and his lords were astonished. Now the queen [that is, the queen mother], by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: There is a man in the kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made the master of the magicians, and the astrologers, and the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers; Whereasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, the interpreting of dreams, and the showing of hard sentences, and the dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show you the interpretation. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto to Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing: And I have heard of thee, that you can make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if you can read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation, you will be clothed with scarlet, you’ll have a chain of gold about your neck, you’ll be the third ruler in the kingdom ( Dan 5:8-16 ).

Interesting reputation that Daniel possesses. In him dwells the spirit of the holy gods. Man of excellent wisdom, understanding.

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Keep your gifts, give your rewards to someone else; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known unto him the interpretation ( Dan 5:17 ).

The gifts of God are not really to be bought. It is really wrong for a man to receive hire, or to be hired to do the work of God in that sense. Jesus spoke about the hirelings. And for a man to sell these God-given capacities would be a wrong thing. It would be the prostituting of the gifts and the works of God. That is why Daniel said, “Keep your gifts, give them to someone else. I don’t need them. I’ll tell you what it says. I’ll interpret it for you.” And but before he interprets it, he’s going to give the king a little message.

Now, at this point, Daniel must be close to ninety years old. Because the seventy years of the captivity are almost over. He was probably a teenager, maybe late teens when he was taken captive. So the seventy plus the late teens puts him up close to the ninety mark. Probably eighty-five to ninety years old, somewhere in there. And he takes now this opportunity to preach a stern message to this young king.

O thou king, the most high God gave to Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honor: And for the majesty that he gave him, all of the people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: and whom he would he slew ( Dan 5:18-19 );

The absolute authority that Nebuchadnezzar possessed.

whom he would he kept alive; whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind was hardened by pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him ( Dan 5:19-20 ):

They took it, these watchers from heaven.

And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and he was dwelling with the wild asses: and they fed him with grass like the oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, you have not humbled your heart, though you knew all of this ( Dan 5:21-22 );

Now Belshazzar was well aware of the things that happened to his grandfather. The madness that he experienced until the seven seasons had passed over him and his restoration and the proclamation that his grandfather made upon restoration that there is no god in all the earth like the God of Daniel who is able to set up those whom He would and bring down those whom He would. And sets in authority those whom He will. Belshazzar knew all of this. And Daniel is reminding him that you are sinning against the knowledge that you have. You know better.

But you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and you, and your lords, your wives, your concubines, have drunk the wine in them; and you have praised the gods of silver, gold, brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and in whose all of thy ways, hast thou not glorified ( Dan 5:23 ):

Now here was the man’s sin. He was praising these gods of wood, stone, gold, brass, silver. The gods that they had made with their own hands. Gods that could not see, gods that could not hear. Insensate little idols. Gods that knew nothing. He was praising them. Yet blaspheming the God in whose hand his very breath was.

That, of course, is an interesting statement. The God in whose hand thy very breath is. The lungs are an involuntary muscle. That is, they’re not attached to the skeleton and you do not have to think to breathe. It something this is done automatically. Now there are some people, a very, very few, that are afflicted with an extremely rare disease and that is they have to think to breathe. And it’s a very tragic thing because they sleep very fitfully. Actually, they’ve monitored them during their sleep and they sleep for about thirty seconds and then they wake up and take a breath and then sleep for another thirty seconds, and it’s a very frightening kind of a thing because they do not breathe except by the control of the mind. They have to think to breathe. But you don’t. You can be thankful for that. God controls the breath. It’s interesting, God controls the heart, the heartbeat. God controls… those things that are vital to your life, God controls. He let’s you control other things, other muscles of your body. But those that involve life, God put on this what we call the involuntary system. That is, they don’t take the mind to control them. You don’t have to think to make your heart beat. It’s something that is done automatically, for your lungs to work, for your kidneys to function, things of this nature, those things upon which your life depends God doesn’t leave with something as feeble as your mind to control.

“The God in whose hand your very breath is.” Your stinking breath. Wine. Have you ever smelled a wino’s breath? Sour. Yet the God in whose hand your very breath is.

Paul the apostle, in talking about God to the philosophers on Mars Hill, said “I want to declare to you, I want to talk to you about the unknown the God. For in Him we live and we move and we have our being.” God is much closer to people than they realize. But we need to become more conscious of the all-prevailing and pervading presence of God. As David said, “Where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend in to heaven Thou art there. If I descend in hell Thou art there. If I take the wings and I flee to the uttermost parts of the earth, even there You surround me.” He was conscious of the presence of God wherever he might be.

One of the fallacies of the people have always been that of localizing God. And so they had gods of the cities, and they thought that this god dwelt in this city, another god dwells in the next city. Or god is being put in an idol and the worshipping of an idol. It’s the localizing of God. He’s there, let’s go, let’s go and visit our god. It’s always wrong to localize God. God cannot be localized. He isn’t confined to one area. Now we, even in church, many times fall into this same kind of a fallacy of localizing God in church. And so often we’ll hear prayers being offered, “Oh Lord, we’re so thankful to have this opportunity to come into Your presence this morning and sit here before You,” as though we weren’t in the presence of God when we woke up. We weren’t in the presence of God as we were driving here, but at last we’ve arrived and we’ve come into the presence. “Oh let’s be quiet now. Let’s, you know, let’s look sober now or let’s not joke now,” or you know. And we have that tendency of localizing God. So that we’re not aware and conscious of the fact that God is with us wherever we are, in whatever circumstances we are. He hears us, He sees us when we think that we are hiding. We so often are with those blasphemers of Psa 71:1-24 who says, “Doth God know? Hath God seen?” And we think that we can hide ourselves from God because God is localized. And so if I do my evil down the street, God won’t know it. I just don’t do my evil when I get in church. But not so. God is not localized.

“The very God in whose hand thy breath is.” Now gods who have no breath, gods who could not see, the little insensate god, they were glorifying and praising them. But the God who controlled their breath, they did not glorify. And for this reason,

That part of the hand was sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. And this is the interpretation: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it [you’ve had it]. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and you’ve come up short. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and will be given to the Medes and the Persians ( Dan 5:24-28 ).

What an awesome declaration from God: “Your kingdom is numbered; it’s finished. You’ve been weighed in the balances; you’ve come up short. Your kingdom is going to be taken from you and divided, Medes and the Persians.”

Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, they put a chain of gold about his neck, they made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom [for the next few hours]. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old ( Dan 5:29-31 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Dan 5:1

Dan 5:1 BelshazzarH1113 the kingH4430 madeH5648 a greatH7229 feastH3900 to a thousandH506 of his lords,H7261 and drankH8355 wineH2562 beforeH6903 the thousand.H506

Belshazzar Saw the Writing on the Wall (Daniel Chapter 5)

One thing that is obvious is that the fifth chapter of Daniel does not belong chronologically after chapter four. If one were going to follow the life and events of Daniel in the order that he lived it, one would now need to proceed to chapter seven. The chronological order of the chapters 5 through 8 are 7, 8, 5 and then chapter 6. Chapter seven is dated by Daniel in the introduction as being “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (Dan 7:1). Chapter 8 is dated by Daniel as being “In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (Dan 8:1). King Belshazzar dies at the end of chapter 5 so it is obvious the books are mixed up chronologically. It appears that the book of Daniel has been arranged by placing the historical books first with the Apocalyptic writings following at the end. It is up to the student to figure out the order.

In Daniel chapter five we are introduced to King Belshazzar at the eve of his overthrow and death and then his replacement by Darius the Mede. Darius was the king who was coerced into throwing Daniel into the lion’s den by his jealous enemies. Every child growing up anywhere near a church knows the legendary story of Daniel and the lion’s den. It was and still is one of this servants favorite Bible stories.

Who was this Belshazzar? When examining the ancient records and works of the scholars it becomes evident rather quickly that there is some disagreement as to the exact details surrounding this king. Rather than go into an exhaustive and lengthy comparison to the historical documents, we are going to stick closely with the Biblical record as to who this man was and when he reigned. It is quite obvious that this man reigned right before Darius the Mede, having been slain in the overthrow of Babylon. Daniel provides a vital piece of evidence in the text that helps us to identify this man who is quite vague in the historical record. In Dan 5:7; Dan 5:16; Dan 5:29, Belshazzar declared that the person who could read and interpret the writing on the wall would be made the third ruler in the kingdom. That was the highest position Belshazzar was authorized to grant, being himself only the second ruler in the kingdom. Belshazzar was a co-regent king of Babylon during the reign of Nabonidus who was the first ruler of Babylon. Co-regents were rulers who administrated the kingdoms in the absence of the king. A modern day equivalent would be the president and the vice president. Belshazzar was the modern day vice president of the ancient Babylonian Empire.

After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, 562 BC, Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk), his son reigned about two years (562 to 560 BC), and was then betrayed and slain by his sister’s husband, Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). He reigned four years (560-556 BC), and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod (Labashi-Marduk) who reigned for less than a year (556 BC). Laborosoarchod was only a child when he replaced his father on the throne. After a reign of only nine months Laborosoarchod was beaten to death as a result of a conspiracy and Nabonidus, son of Evil-Merodach, was crowned king of Babylon (556 BC). Neriglissar was a usurper of the throne. Upon the death of his young son (Laborosoarchod), Nebuchadnezzar’s royal bloodline returned to the throne of the Babylonian Empire. In the book of Daniel, the usurper and his son who were not of the lineage of Nebuchadnezzar were not even mentioned.

Nabonidus was recorded in history as a royal anomaly. He is supposed to have worshiped the moongod Sn beyond all the other gods, and to have paid special devotion to Sn’s temple in Harran, where his mother was a priestess, and to have neglected the Babylonian main god, Marduk. Supposedly, because of the tensions that these religious reforms generated, he left the capital for the rich desert oasis of Tayma in Arabia early in his reign. In the meantime, his son Belshazzar ruled from Babylon.

While the reports of the historians are very much conflicting and confusing, there is one thing which is certain:

Dan 5:1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

Nabonidus had returned to Babylon by this time, probably due to the growing power of Cyrus. History records great tensions between him and his co-regent son, Belshazzar. Some historical documents record that Belshazzar had been relieved of his command, however inspiration labels him as a king on the eve of his death and the overthrow of the Babylonian empire. While Nabonidus was trying to hold off Cyrus from without, Belshazzar was throwing a drunken party inside the city of Babylon. Belshazzar was not a well-loved king. History records that Babylon fell abruptly with little resistance. In fact, Cyrus was welcomed as a liberator by the people when he walked uncontested into Babylon. Obviously, Belshazzar was more concerned with personal gluttony and revelry than he was with the security and welfare of the people in the empire. The picture we have of him is that of a poor leader who was generally unloved by the populace. By today’s standards and phraseology we would conclude that he had a low approval rating. The proper term for him would be a “despot”.

Notice that he made a great feast to his lords. If history is accurate in recording that his father had returned to relieve him of his command, then it is quite possible that this feast he was throwing to his lords was for the purpose of gaining their alliance and strengthening his hold on the throne. One thing is for certain, it was an ill conceived, ill timed and ill executed endeavor and was the last official event of his life. And he spent it drinking wine before them all so it is without question that he was intoxicated to some degree and probably quite drunk by the end of the evening.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The next scene is cast in the reign of Belshazzar. He had succeeded to the throne of his father, and was a man of profligate habits. No details are given of his reign, but a graphic picture is set before us of the carousal which revealed the man, and was the occasion of the final manifestation of his sin, and of the consequent judgment of God.

Having gathered together a thousand of his lords, his wives, and his concubines, he was guilty of the unutterable folly of using in drunken revelry the sacred vessels from the Temple of God. Thereupon appeared a mystic hand, writing on the wall the doom of himself and his kingdom.

As in the reign of his father, the wise men were unable to interpret the meaning of the writing; and Daniel, evidently not now near to the king, who seemed not to know him, was sent for.

Daniel was full of dignity and heroic loyalty to God. With clear, incisive words, he first declined all the king’s gifts, and then charged him with his guilt. Continuing, he proclaimed God as seated high over the thrones of earth, and interpreted the writing as indicating God’s knowledge of the kingdom, and His determination to end it and divide it among the Medes and Persians.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Handwriting on the Wall

Dan 5:1-16

The name of Belshazzar has been deciphered in inscriptions found at Babylon, from which it is inferred that he was associated with his father in the kingdom, and was left to defend Babylon. He was therefore a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the word father, Dan 5:11, being used in the sense of ancestor. The great walls of the banqueting hall covered with sculptures and sumptuous decorations; the tablets covered by cuneiform descriptions of the triumphs of former kings; what a feast this was with the thousand lords; the most beautiful women of the land; the concourse of magnates of religion and the state! The wine flowed in rivers, and laughter rang through the vaulted hall. Upon the table stood the vessels of the Temple, and notably the seven-branched candlestick, which cast its radiance on the wall, clearly illumining the fingers of the hand that wrote. The words, though Chaldee, may have been written in Hebrew characters. Conscience anticipated Daniel, and filled the kings heart with foreboding. The queen may have been the great Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar, the ancestor of the present king. God has His own way of bringing His people to the front when He needs them.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter Five The Overthrow Of Babylon

Daniel 5 presents to us the final stages of the Babylonian empire-the last solemn scenes in connection with the downfall of the golden head of the image described in Daniel 2. We will find in this chapter, as in the previous two chapters, a typical picture of the overthrow of Gentile power. In this instance the illustration deals with the religious character of the Gentile nations as Babylon the great, in the time of the end. The account given of the fall of mystical Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is evidently based on and intimately connected with what we have here.

The account given by Daniel of the destruction of the proud capital on the Euphrates agrees in large measure with what has been left on record by Herodotus, the so-called Father of History, and by other ancient writers. Yet the scripture record is nevertheless challenged by a certain class of modern critics as unreliable. They allege there are discrepancies between the Biblical account and the inscriptions on some of the lately-deciphered monuments. The chief points in question are the title given to Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, and the identity of Darius the Median.

Belshazzar was reigning jointly with his father at this time and certainly was king of Babylon, or king of the Chaldeans, in the sense of being prince-regent, with his seat in the imperial city. The title king was not applied solely to the supreme monarch in that age. It will be noticed that in chapter 2, when Daniel was honored by Nebuchadnezzar, the great king made him second ruler in the kingdom. But in this chapter Belshazzar appoints him to the position of third ruler, as he himself was clearly the second. So there is no discrepancy here, but rather that exactness which is ever found in Holy Scripture.

As to Darius the Median, his name certainly does not appear in the monuments, and Herodotus recorded that Cyrus was in command of the armies that conquered Babylon. But the name Darius presents no real difficulty, as ancient kings are often known by a number of different names. In fact, no two lists of the later Median kings as given by the old historians agree with each other, and the monuments seem to differ from them all. The last king of the Medians was Cyaxares II, who formed an alliance with Cyrus his nephew and led a part of the armies of the confederate kingdoms to battle. His age, as recorded by Herodotus, agrees with that of Darius, as given in Dan 5:31. The two may therefore be identical. On the other hand, some suppose Darius to be the same as Gobryas; according to ancient records, he conducted the siege of Babylon as representative of the allied kings.

The discrepancy in names is no greater than that in the case of Cambyses and Atrodates, both names being applied to the same monarch-one by Xenophon and the other by Nicolas of Damascus. It is a well-known fact that the lists of Median kings given by Ctesias and Herodotus differ in every instance, and the chronologies are hopelessly confusing and contradictory. Yet the rationalist eagerly seizes on any apparent discrepancy between the records left by untrustworthy and often dishonest chroniclers and the account given in the Word of God. The Christian need not fear that history will ever disprove what we have recorded in our Bibles. In this case, Daniel was an eyewitness. He wrote the facts as he saw and knew them. His testimony, apart from the question of divine inspiration, is surely more reliable than that of fawning courtiers or hearsay historians, whose professed facts are often untrustworthy, highly colored, and opposed to each other.

What especially comes before us in this chapter is the impiety of Gentile power as represented in this rule of Belshazzar. This lack of reverence rose to its full height in the desecration of the vessels that had been carried away from the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem. God had committed government to the nations, giving the supreme dominion to Nebuchadnezzar; but we find that from the beginning they failed to render to Him the honor and allegiance that were His due. Though Nebuchadnezzar himself was humbled later, his successors, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, and his impious son, failed utterly to profit by the lesson their illustrious ancestor had learned at so great a cost to himself. (Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, who each reigned for a brief season after the death of Evil-Merodach, were not of the royal blood line.)

In all this it is easy to see pictured the whole course of government as entrusted to man. Proud, haughty rulers delight to exploit the fact that the powers that be are ordained of God, generally with no thought of seeking His glory or of acting as His representatives on the earth. Rather they use it to establish and augment their own power by claiming the doctrine of the divine right of kings.

A little before our chapter opens, Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, had entered into an alliance with his aged uncle Cyaxares II, and the combined kingdoms had subdued various nations to the north and south. They now determined to annex the fast-decaying Babylonian empire to their dominions. Cyrus was evidently the leading spirit in this, though while Cyaxares lived he was given precedence. Cyrus, unknowingly, was the scourge of the Lord, as Nebuchadnezzar had been before him. When Israel offended, God used the Chaldeans as His rod of chastening on them. Now God would use the Medo-Persians for the punishment of the Chaldeans, who had shown themselves insensible to all His mercies to them.

At this time Babylon was the most magnificent and luxurious city in the world-devoted to every vice and the center of idolatry. From the days of Nimrod and the tower of Babel until it was blotted out from under heaven, Babylon was the headquarters for the heathen mysteries. Its walls, supposedly impregnable, were so broad that several chariots could drive abreast on them. The Euphrates ran right through the city, passing under the walls. Of course, the people depended on that river for their support, yet it was destined to become their enemy.

After an unsuccessful siege of many months, the Medo-Persian armies concluded that the only way to force an entrance would be through the riverbed. Accordingly a new channel was dug around the city without the Babylonians being aware of it. This channel connected with a nearby lake. On that very night, when the work of turning the waters of the river out of their course would be finished and the final assault be made, Belshazzar was utterly unconscious of the danger in which the city stood. He was celebrating an impious feast with a thousand of his lords, in honor of the heathen deities. It was not merely a feast that demonstrated the pride of his heart; it bore a far worse character than this. In insult to Jehovah, Belshazzar ordered the golden vessels of the temple in Jerusalem, which had been carried down to Babylon, to be brought for use in their heathen feast. Thus they drank and praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass and of stone, and forgot altogether or blasphemed utterly the God of Heaven. On this crowning act of irreverance, their cup of iniquity being full, Gods sudden and sore judgment fell. God never strikes, when He is dealing with nations in judgment, until that moment when the iniquity has reached its full measure. He could not allow the people of Israel to take possession of the land of Canaan before the days of Moses because the iniquity of the Amorites [was] not yet full (Gen 15:16). And so in Babylons case, He lingered long. He permitted His people to be slaves to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson, as foretold by Jeremiah, until the wickedness of the Chaldeans had reached its height.

At last the fateful moment had struck. Belshazzar stood before his lords with one of the cups from Jerusalems destroyed temple in his hand, praising his own vile demon gods. At that moment there came forth, in the full sight of all that multitude, the fingers of a mans hand writing in letters of fire on the plaster the words of doom, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN (5:25). Doubtless every noble present could decipher the strange words, but none could give their meaning or connection. When it says they could not read the words, it means they could not read them understandingly. God had written them in their own language, but who could make sense of four apparently unrelated terms: NUMBERED, NUMBERED, WEIGHED, DIVIDING? All instinctively recognized them as a message from the other world, but who could interpret the decree?

I can see Belshazzar as he stands there with the wine cup in his hand. I can imagine the awful look of terror that comes over his countenance-the deadly pallor that spreads over his face. I see the cup fall from his nerveless hand as he clings to the pillar to support his trembling limbs. The Word of God says his knees smote one against another (6). He called in vain, with hollow voice, for the astrologers, the soothsayers, and those learned in Chaldean lore to explain this dreadful portent; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof (8). While they were in fearful consternation, the queen mother came in. She seems to have occupied a place apart from all the wickedness and revelry of that great company. Almost like the representative of another world, she appeared to inform the king of one who can read the writing and give the interpretation of it. She says:

There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation (5:11-12).

Belshazzar had been utterly indifferent to the man whom God had used in the days of his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar; but Daniel had gone on in a quiet, humble way, seeking the approbation of the One who is higher than the highest. He was sent for in haste, and as he came in, his very presence was a rebuke to that godless multitude. Belshazzar addressed him in flattering terms and promised him great honors if he would read the writing and show its interpretation. He would be clothed in scarlet, have a chain of gold around his neck, and be the third ruler in the kingdom.

Poor, misguided monarch! How little all his promises would mean when the sun rose the next day! Belshazzar little knew that while these momentous events were taking place in the palace, the waters of the river had been turned aside into the new channel. The armies of the allied kings were coming in underneath the walls in the dry riverbed, undetected because the watchmen of the city, Herodotus wrote, were all drunk. In the streets, as in the palace, myriads of revelers were spending the night in godless amusement, and unclean orgies were being perpetrated in honor of the pagan gods. The Persian army was upon them before they were aware of their danger.

I suppose Daniel knew nothing of this either, but it makes his words to Belshazzar all the more solemn and serious.

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and for the majesty that He gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will (17-21).

And now note the fearful indictment of the wretched monarch before whom he stood.

And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand they breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified: Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written (22-24, italics added).

Daniel did not speak to Belshazzar as he had spoken to Nebuchadnezzar. He could not have the same respect for him that he entertained for his grandfather. When Nebuchadnezzar told his dream of the great tree, Daniel grieved to think of the suffering that he had to pass through; he said, The dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies (4:19). Tenderly and affectionately he besought him to repent of his evil ways. But he did not talk like that to Belshazzar. He knew the kings doom was sealed, and his day of mercy had gone by. Daniel saw in him only a wretched, impious degenerate, who had sinned against light and knowledge and deserved neither sympathy nor compassion. He realized that Belshazzar had gone steadily on in defiance of the God of Heaven until the hour of his judgment had struck. Nothing now could avert the richly-deserved wrath of the holy One. Faithfully the prophet proceeded to press home on the guilty king his sinfulness and irreverance; then he solemnly went on to read and interpret the message sent from Heaven. Even while he was speaking, the invading hosts were drawing nearer and nearer to the palace gates. But the king and his lords surrounding him were altogether unaware of what had taken place down by the river.

The meaning of the words is thus explained: MENE, numbered-God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it (5:26). Belshazzars days of probation were passed and gone. The day of his sentence had come.

TEKEL, weighed-Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting (27). He who had exalted himself in his pride and folly was found to be altogether lighter than vanity (Psa 62:9).

And then note, Daniel said, PERES, divided, a form of the same word UPHARSIN which he read from the wall, but implying that the division had already taken place. For instead of saying, God is dividing thy kingdom, he declared, Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians (28). The blow had already fallen; it was not that God was about to do this, but it had already been accomplished. While Daniel was interpreting, the kingdom had passed to other hands.

But despite all this the foolish and unrepentant king seems to imagine he is still secure. He offered Daniel the worthless honors he had promised, attempting to carry out the pledges made to him as though still in the zenith of his glory. But the awful chronicle of the Holy Spirit is: In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old (30-31). Thus the history of the head of gold had come to a close, and the silver breast and arms had come on the scene.

Gods Word had been fulfilled, and that night Babylon fell, never to rise again. In that destruction, as already intimated, we may see prefigured the overthrow of all Gentile power and dominion in the time of the end. It particularly pictures the end of that evil system designated in the book of the Revelation as Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (17:5). This is the world-religious system that will be destroyed just prior to the return of the Lord from Heaven.

There are those who teach that some time in the future literal Babylon is going to be restored, to be destroyed again; but a careful reading of Jeremiah 50-51 will make it clear that her destruction is to be perpetual. The city is never to be revived for the Most High has visited His judgment on it. But mystical Babylon will reach its climax after the church has been caught away to be with the Lord; the papacy and all her daughters will form one great apostate organization-the refuge of all the various portions of Bible-rejecting Christendom. The Babylon of history was a picture of this mystical Babylon.

Ancient Babylon, as we have seen, was the city of idolatry and the expression of the pride of mans heart, combining religion with self-seeking. Idolatry, properly speaking, began there. That was the place where the great tower was made, where men said, Let us make us a name (Gen 11:4). They were not building a tower to escape another possible flood. They wished to create a center around which to rally, that they might make a great name for themselves on the earth. God had told them to scatter abroad, but they were determined not to obey Him. Willfully, they turned from Him to the worship of demons. That was the beginning of heathenism; there they commenced to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. Every idolatrous system in the world is simply an offshoot of that first parent stem.

And so we find in the mystic Babylon of the last days, the union of all human churches, only to be superseded by the worship of the antichrist. After the body of Christ has been caught away to Heaven the professing world church will enjoy glory for a brief season during which the ten-kingdomed empire will be formed. Then the kings and nations of the earth will sicken of the contemptible sham and become utterly atheist. They will burn the harlots flesh with fire, destroying forever the great world-church who says in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow (Rev 18:7).

Some may be asking, Do you not think that Babylon the great is already in existence? Yes: Babylons description in Revelation 17 coincides too exactly with historys record of the papal church to warrant any denial of her identity. What other church has sat upon the seven hills of that great city which ruleth over the kings of the earth? What other church has been for long centuries drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus? What other church possessed the power and wealth ascribed to her? And where else will we find a religious organization so delighting in names of blasphemy as she?

But the Roman communion does not alone constitute great Babylon. The harlot has daughters who, like herself, profess to be pledged to the heavenly Bridegroom while committing fornication with the world that rejected Him. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? (Jam 4:4) Spiritual fornication is, at large, the union of the church and the state. In a more personal sense spiritual fornication is the union of the individual Christian with the world. It is an unholy alliance, opposed to the whole teaching of the New Testament. So if Rome be emphatically the great harlot, the state churches are her offspring; and As is the mother, so is her daughter (Eze 16:44).

Soon the daughters will be wending their way homeward, back to the arms of their evil mother. We hear much in our times of the reunion of Christendom and we need not think of it as the dream of impractical religious enthusiasts. Christendom undoubtedly will be reunited. Everything points to such an issue, and no serious student of the prophetic scriptures can question it for a moment. But when the union comes to pass, it will be a Christless reunion for it will not take place until the body of Christ has been translated. All who are left will have thrown off allegiance to the Word and Spirit of God and to the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostasy must take place first. Then the man of sin will be revealed.

Christendoms sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. With that necessarily comes the rejection of the Scriptures given by the Spirits moving on the hearts and minds of holy men of God. Coupled with the denial of the truth of Gods Word, the world church will desire recognition as a power in the world, lording its authority over mens consciences. So when the true church is caught away, all the professing systems will doubtless come together in one and proudly exclaim, Is not this great Babylon that we have built? Its members will rejoice in a united Christendom-united in rejecting Christ, despising the Holy Spirit, and dishonoring the Word of God! The system will be established on a carnal and Satanic basis. It will last only for a brief season before being overthrown with indignation by the nations; they will resent any religious obligations when the Spirit of life has departed.

This is where we see everything drifting. Babylons pride will become so insufferable that men will say, We do not want any church at all; we will destroy the whole thing and get along without it. This is the openly-advocated doctrine of many socialists, and is clearly what that vaunted system of economics is leading up to, although many so-called Christian socialists may not realize it.

God will put in their hearts to fulfil his will (Rev 17:17). He can use one evil power to destroy another, as He has often done in the past. He used Persia to destroy Babylon, and yet the Persians were a sinful nation too, overthrown by another power in due time. And so, in the time of the end, a godless government will be used to destroy a Christless church, for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her (18:8). Her doom will be as sudden and as overwhelming as was that which fell on the Babylon of Belshazzar.

Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsmen, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth (Rev 18:21-24).

Before that hour of the vengeance of God has been reached, the message goes forth, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Rev 18:4). He who would be faithful to the Lord is called on to walk apart from all that resembles Babylon: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them (Eph 5:11). In the first chapter of Genesis we read of God creating a division, dividing the light from the darkness. He desires this division to be maintained always. The devil has been busy ever since creation seeking to mix up the light and the darkness. The man of God is called to walk apart from the darkness as a child of light and of the day (Eph 5:7-8). May it be so with us for His names sake!

And now, before closing this solemn subject, I would address a word of warning to the unsaved. Belshazzars great offense was this: Though he knew of Gods dealings with Nebuchadnezzar, he continued in sin, going against light and knowledge. None are so guilty as those who so act. To these the Word comes with awful force, He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy (Pro 29:1). If you have been familiar with Gods warnings for years, do not dare any longer to defy God to His face by casting His Word behind your back.

You do not know how near you may be to the end of Gods patience with you. He lingers in grace, but He may soon strike in judgment. Your MENE may very soon be written on the wall- your days numbered-your life finished! TEKEL may even now be true for you-you are weighed and found wanting!

Weighed in the balance, and wanting,-

Weighed, but no Saviour is there,-

Weighed, but thy soul has been trifling,-

Weighed, and found lighter than air.

And then PERES will seal your doom; your opportunities of mercy will be forever gone, your body a corpse, and your soul in Hell! Divided-separated from all that is good, from all that is holy- to be lost forever, shut up to a Christless eternity.

O heed now the word of warning and flee for your life to the city of refuge, which is Christ Jesus Himself who says, Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (Joh 6:37).

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Dan 5:1, Dan 5:6, Dan 5:25, Dan 5:28-30

The case of Belshazzar may be fairly assumed as a case of clear and powerful conviction of sin which did not result in the soul’s salvation. There is a class of men who suffer for years under hopeless and fruitless convictions of sin. There are certain truths which one who is living in the state of mind here described needs especially to consider:

I. One is, that the suffering which accompanies hopeless conviction of sin is no more than a sinner deserves.

II. One who suffers under unavailing convictions of sin should see that it is no proper effect of religion to produce such convictions. The legitimate tendency of piety in the soul is all benignant.

III. A third truth which should command the faith of one who endures ineffectual convictions of sin is, that God is a sinner’s Friend.

IV. One who labours under fruitless convictions needs to see that the chief obstacle to his salvation is not the want of a more perfect understanding of the theory of conversion.

V. The chief obstacle to the termination of fruitless convictions in peace with God is to be found in some plain, practical affair of character and real life.

A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 244.

Dan 5:1-31

I. Belshazzar’s feast was characterised by great intemperance.

II. It was characterised by great profanity.

III. This night was one of supernatural visitation.

IV. This was a night of terrible retribution.

W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 98.

References: Dan 5:1-31.-W. M. Taylor, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 240. Dan 5:5.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 158. Dan 5:10-23.-Ibid. p. 220.

Dan 5:16

Note:-

I. The three principal sources and causes whence our doubts arise, and from which they get force to make their assault. They never come of truth or high discovery, but always of the want of it. (1) All the truths of religion are inherently dubitable. They are only what are called probable, never necessary truths, like the truths of geometry or of numbers. (2) We begin life as unknowing creatures that have everything to learn. We grope, and groping is doubt; we handle, we question, we guess, we experiment, beginning in darkness on towards intelligence. (3) It is a fact, disguise it as we can, or deny it as we may, that our faculty is itself in disorder. A broken or bent telescope will not see anything rightly. So a mind wrenched from its true lines of action or straight perception, discoloured and smirched by evil, will not see truly, but will put a blurred, misshapen look on everything.

II. Consider how doubts may be dissolved or cleared away. (1) The doubters never can dissolve or extirpate their doubts by inquiry, search, investigation, or any kind of speculative endeavour. They must never go after the truth to merely find it, but to practise it, and live by it. There is no fit search after truth which does not first of all begin to live the truth it knows. (2) The true way of dissolving doubts is to begin at the beginning and do the first thing first. Say nothing of investigation till you have made sure of being grounded everlastingly and with a completely whole intent, in the principle of right-doing as a principle. A soul once won to integrity of thought and meaning will rapidly clear all tormenting questions and difficulties. He will be in the Gospel as an honest man, and will have it as a world of wonderfully grand, perpetually fresh discovery.

III. Note a few points of advice. (1) Be never afraid of doubt. (2) Be afraid of all sophistries and tricks and strifes of disingenuous argument. (3) Have it as a fixed principle also, that getting into any scornful way is fatal. (4) Never settle upon anything as true because it is safer to hold it than not. (5) Have it as a law never to put force on the mind, or try to make it believe; because it spoils the mind’s integrity. (6) Never be in a hurry to believe, never try to conquer doubts against time.

H. Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subjects, p. 166.

References: Dan 5:17.-J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 403. Dan 5:22, Dan 5:23.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 149. Dan 5:23.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 161. Dan 5:24-31.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Quarterly vol. xii., p. 33. Dan 5:25.-F. W. Farrar, In the Days of Thy Youth, p. 325. Dan 5:27.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 164; Ibid., Sermons, vol. v., No. 257. Dan 5:30.-R. D. Bickersteth. Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 65; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 56, and vol. vi., p. 244. Dan 5:31.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 233. 5-J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 113. Dan 6:1.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 233. Dan 6:1-3.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 220. Dan 6:1-10.-W. M. Taylor, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 299.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 5 Belshazzars Feast

1. Belshazzars licentious feast (Dan 5:1-4)

2. The writing on the wall (Dan 5:5-9)

3. Forgotten Daniel (Dan 5:10-16)

4. The message of Daniel (Dan 5:17-31)

Dan 5:1-4. This feast of wickedness and blasphemy needs no further annotations. But it shows the great decline morally in the great Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar, no doubt, had handled the golden vessels of the house of the Lord most carefully. He had stored them away, fearing to misuse them. The grandson sent for these vessels to drink out of them wine with his harlots and to praise his idols.

Dan 5:5-9. A mysterious finger then wrote over against the candlestick on the wall. The king saw plainly the part of the hand that wrote. The feast of licentiousness became suddenly a feast of gloom and consternation. Nor could the astrologers and wise men read the writing which had appeared on the wall.

Dan 5:10-16. At this point the queen, the aged widow of Nebuchadnezzar, appeared on the scene and called attention to an old man, who played such an important part during the reign of her husband. Daniel is sent for.

Dan 5:17-31. Daniel refused the honors of the king. He knew that ere long the blaspheming king would be no more. And Daniel was more than an interpreter of the handwriting on the wall. He is Gods prophet and messenger, as a reading of this portion of the chapter shows.

This chapter reveals the blasphemous character of the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Blasphemy, rejection of Gods truth are about us on all sides. There is a Mene, Mene, Tekel for apostate Christendom and for that final phase of Babylon as revealed in Rev 17:1-18; Rev 18:1-24.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

made: Gen 40:20, Est 1:3, Isa 21:4, Isa 21:5, Isa 22:12, Isa 22:14, Jer 51:39, Jer 51:57, Nah 1:10, Mar 6:21, Mar 6:22

Reciprocal: Jdg 9:27 – the house 1Sa 25:36 – merry 1Sa 30:16 – eating 1Ki 3:15 – a feast 1Ki 16:9 – drinking Ecc 7:4 – the heart Ecc 10:19 – feast Isa 5:12 – the harp Isa 14:11 – pomp Isa 44:11 – let them all Isa 47:8 – given Jer 25:12 – that I Jer 25:26 – drink Jer 27:22 – carried Jer 50:35 – upon her princes Jer 51:41 – Sheshach Dan 5:30 – General Dan 7:1 – Belshazzar Hos 7:5 – the day Hab 2:5 – he transgresseth Mat 14:6 – birthday Luk 12:20 – God Act 24:25 – temperance

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

BELSHAZZARS FEAST

A great feast.

Dan 5:1

I. The seat of the scorner.We see in this narrative that Belshazzar had, in the pursuit of a sinful course, reached this seat. He was a man of an entirely different character from the Nebuchadnezzar of the previous lesson, who was not his literal father, but his predecessor on the Babylonian throne. You can discern a marked difference in the bearing of Daniel to him and in his bearing towards this predecessor. He spoke to Nebuchadnezzar with the utmost respect and reverence, but there is curtness and a tinge of contempt in his words to his successor. Let thy gifts be to thyself, and thy rewards to another (Dan 5:17). He had not the same attachment to the one that he had felt towards the other. Belshazzar lacked any force or strength of character, and appears to have been a man given up to sensual pleasures. This is shown in his arranging a carousal in his capital when an enemy not to be despised was approaching its gates. This reveals a character which such a man as Daniel would regard with contempt. When, during the carousal, his nature was inflamed with his indulgence, he got the idea into his head of using the sacred vessels that had been brought from the Temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem. He at once gave orders that they should be brought and take the place of the others that until now had been employed at the banquet. He evidently imagined that he would in this way show the superiority of the Babylonian gods over the God of the Jews who had been conquered. It was a piece of foolish bravado, behind which there was the spirit of the scorner. He scorned the religion of Jehovah, after His supremacy had been impressively revealed in the tragic experience of Nebuchadnezzar. He had scorned not in ignorance, but in the face of the light that had in this remarkable manner come to him.

II. A dark shadow.A dark shadow was cast upon the feast just when the revelry had reached its height, and the sacred vessels filled with wine were being circulated among the guests. It was brought by a mysterious hand that appeared and wrote some words on the wall of the banqueting chamber which were not understood. It would appear from the narrative that the prince alone noticed that mysterious hand at this work. Along with the sacred vessels, the golden lamp-stand that had lighted the holy place of the Temple at Jerusalem had been brought, and had been placed, with its lamps burning, against the wall opposite to where the prince sat. It was on the wall behind it that the mysterious words were written with the strange hand. His guilty conscience was stirred, and made him tremble all over. He felt that some announcement of an ominous kind was being made to him by that God in Whose service the lamp-stand had been used. His bravado left him, and terror took hold of him. He could no longer enjoy his carousal. Conscience in the wicked has but to be awakened, as it was now in him, to spoil all their pleasure and to fill them with fear. It brings a dark shadow over them.

III. The message interpreted.The hand, after doing its work, disappeared, but the writing remained. Belshazzar at once summoned all the magi at his court, and pointing them to the words, asked them to give the interpretation of them. He promised a rich reward to the one who would succeed. But they were all baffled. The words were in a vocabulary with which they were entirely unacquainted. This failure, surrounding the words with all the greater mystery, increased the trouble and fear of the prince. When Daniel, at the suggestion of the queen-mother, was summoned, he at once told him what the meaning of the message was. It was an intimation that the power which he had received from God and had abused was to be taken from him, and that he himself was to be punished. He had lifted himself against God, Who had warned him in the experience of Nebuchadnezzar, in Whose hand his life was, and Whose were all his ways, and so the time of his reign was at an end, and his power would pass into other hands.

IV. The message fulfilled.That very night the city of Babylon was taken by Darius and the Median army, and this scornful prince was slain (Dan 5:30-31). While he had been pursuing his sinful course, the instrument of his punishment, found in this Median army, was being prepared. When the culminating point was reached, the instrument was ready and at hand to do its dreadful work. It is ever the same with sinning individuals or sinning communities that slight the Divine warnings and resist the light that is given to them.

Illustrations

(1) Revelry, always out of place, is especially ill-timed when, as here, there is an enemy at the gates. One who was in Paris during the siege of 18701 tells us that in a shop a few yards off from a bursting shell he saw a child that had been sent out to buy a pack of cards. To revelry was here added very daring profanity. To drink wine openly out of the Temple vessels that represented so much of the mutual love of God and His people, vessels that were wont to be handled and guarded so tenderly, was to defy to His very face that great God of Israel Whose fame had come to all peoples.

(2) In a thousand ways we are all numbered and weighed every day. People, as we say, take our measure; they figure us up; they reckon us of more or less account, as men that come up to expectation and rise to our opportunities, or as bad ha-pennies, disappointing, not to be trusted, found wanting. Every one of us is written all over; there is something in our faces, our eyes, our mouths, our voices, our hands, our writing, our walk, our desks, our houses, that brands us of whose fold we be. Thus the Clerk in Tennysons Sea Dreams pursued his master down the street, and far away

Among the honest shoulders of the crowd,

Read rascal in the motions of his back,

And scoundrel in the supple-sliding knee.

But it is, after all, a small thing to be judged of a mans judgment. What does God say and write about us?that is the question. And it is a fearful thing to be tried by Him and found wanting, to be stripped by Him of our bishopric, and to see our work and our talents and our opportunities given to others. Let no man take thy crown.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

THE PERIOD OF Babylonian supremacy was comparatively brief, and the ‘head of gold’ had to give place to the ‘breast and arms of silver.’ As we begin to read chapter 5, we find ourselves transported to the last hours of that period. The great city was still marked by scenes of wealth and much voluptuous splendour.

Years ago, learned critics claimed that the Book of Daniel was largely legendary and written several centuries after the events it related. Belshazzar, they regarded as an imaginary figure, since they found no reference to him in extant records. Later, however, his name did appear on a clay tablet that was unearthed, so this assertion, like a great many more of their unbelieving assertions, was shattered as the archaeologists dug in these ancient ruins. It appears that in accordance with an ancient custom he was associated with his father in the kingship, and that his father being elsewhere at that time, he was virtually king in Babylon just as it fell before the rising power of Medo-Persia.

Whatever may have been the permanent effect upon Nebuchadnezzar of God’s dealings with him, his successors displayed all the arrogant splendour of his earlier years. Belshazzar’s name began with the name of Babylon’s god; the gorgeous feast with a thousand of his lords, together with wives and concubines was typically heathenish. Inflamed by wine, he had the golden vessels, that had years before been taken from the temple in Jerusalem, brought before them. so that gloating over them, they might publicly dishonour Jehovah, and praise their many false gods of metals, of wood and of stone. He deliberately flung down the gauntlet before God, who at once accepted the challenge.

This, we believe, is always God’s way. He does not act in judgment until the evil is fully manifested. It was so with the Amorite nations, as shown in Gen 15:16. It was so with the kings and people in Jerusalem, as testified in 2Ch 36:-11 – It will be so again in the sad history of Christendom, as predicted in Rev 17:1-18; Rev 18:1-24.

Thus it was in that great festive hall in Babylon, and in result we have one of the most dramatic scenes on record. No legion of angels appeared, no visible display of Divine power: just the fingers as of a man’s hand were visible, writing four words on the ‘plaister of the wall,’ just, ‘over against the candlestick,’ where they were most visible. The proud king was reduced to a shivering mortal, and his lords astonished.

As we ponder this scene our thoughts turn in two directions. They travel back to Exodus, where we read of the law being given, written with ‘the finger of God’ upon tables of stone. It was fitting material for stone cannot be twisted or bent, though it can be broken. Here the finger of God is connected with demand upon guilty men. Then our thoughts travel on to Joh 8:1-59, where the guilty woman was brought by conceited Scribes and Pharisees to the Lord Jesus for condemnation. He did not condemn her: and why? Well, He gave an indication of the reason by stooping to write on the ground, and this He did twice, as if for emphasis. He stooped to write in the dust of the temple, for He had stooped from the heights of His glory, ‘into the dust of death’ (Psa 22:15), so that the righteousness of God might be maintained and His love fully expressed. Here then we have not the finger of demand, but rather, as we may say, the finger of dust.

But now in Daniel we again have ‘the finger of God,’ and we find it to be the finger of doom, written on plaster, that easily crumbles. God manifested His presence by showing the tip of His fingers, and it scared the life out of Belshazzar. When the final hour of judgment arrives and ‘the dead, small and great, stand before God’ (Rev 20:12), what will be their feelings? We are reminded of that word, ‘It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God’ (Heb 10:31).

Once more the wise men of Babylon were called in, but only to display again incompetence and ignorance. We are told that there was nothing unusual about the four words. They were not words taken from some unknown, barbaric tongue, but, being on that occasion God’s words, they were quite outside the understanding of these servants of the world and its false gods. The fact, stated by the Apostle Paul in 1Co 2:14, is strikingly illustrated. As ‘natural’ men they had no power of understanding the things God had written.

The whole scene was now transformed. Belshazzar had moved from profanity to prostration, and the whole company had descended from gaiety to gloom. Into this chaotic scene came ‘the queen,’ as stated in verse Dan 5:10, and in the next verse she refers to Nebuchadnezzar as ‘father’ of Belshazzar. Not infrequently ‘father’ is used in Scripture for ‘forefather,’ and thus clearly it was here. She was evidently the queen-mother, and most likely a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and consequently possessing a much clearer remembrance of God’s dealings with her father, as well as of Daniel and his God-given understanding.

What is quite evident is that, years having passed, Daniel had dropped completely out of public notice. In court circles his name was so unknown that the queen had to give a full account of him and of his powers, though she still treated them as being ‘the wisdom of the gods.’ Daniel is lifted from his obscurity, brought before the king and promised great honours if he could interpret the words. The reason why he was promised the third place in the kingdom was evidently because Belshazzar himself was only the second. The first being his father, who was at that moment elsewhere.

Daniel’s answer, recorded in verse Dan 5:17, is very striking. Previously, as recorded at the end of Dan 2:1-49, Daniel had accepted the honours placed upon him, now he treated them with disdain. The meaning of the four fateful words had evidently already penetrated to his heart, and he knew that Belshazzar was rejected of God, and his kingdom about to crash in ruin, so his proffered honours were worthless.

Before the interpretation of the words, God gave through Daniel the clearest indictment of the Babylonian empire, as summed up in Belshazzar. the existing head of it. The king was reminded of God’s dealing with Nebuchadnezzar, which humbled him. Belshazzar had knowledge of this but had ignored it, and had exalted himself even more blatantly against ‘the Lord of Heaven,’ by bringing the golden vessels that had been in the temple, where once His presence had been manifested, and glorying over Him, in praising the demon powers that were represented by his idols. This brought things to a climax, and the first of the ‘overturnings,’ predicted in Eze 21:27, was at hand.

By the writing on the wall a warning was given, though only a few hours were to elapse before the blow fell. The word, ‘numbered’ was twice written, as if it was a point to be emphasized. The God, who can number the stars, as well as the hairs on a human head, had observed and numbered the proud sins of the Babylonian empire. The word, ‘weighed’ showed that Belshazzar himself had been tested and condemned. By ‘divided’, the immediate overthrow of the empire was announced.

The warning produced no change in Belshazzar, for he invested Daniel with honours, as though his kingdom was to continue, and that in spite of Daniel having renounced them. He wore those honours for just a few brief hours, for that night the predicted judgment fell. Darius the Median took the city and the kingdom, and Belshazzar was slain.

Thus came to its end the first of the great empires that are to fill up the times of the Gentiles. It gives us, we judge, a sample of the way in which God has caused the others to be overthrown; though the fourth, the Roman, is to be revived, and its component parts brought together again. that it may decisively and finally be destroyed by the personal appearing of the Lord Jesus, since it was under the Roman that He was mocked and crucified. Then it is that man’s great empires will all of them together, be blown into nothingness, ‘like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors.’ When the writer was young it looked as if there was to be a stable British ’empire,’ for about a century ago the late Queen Victoria, of happy memory, had been proclaimed ‘Empress of India.’ A short century has proved that the term, ’empire,’ was a misnomer, and the word has been dropped.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Dan 5:1. Between the close of the preceding chapter and the beginning of this is an interval of 25 years. We are down at the last year of the Babylonian Empire and Belshazzar is on the throne in the capital city. The Biblical account overlooks a few comparatively unimportant rulers between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. This man is called the king in this verse, but that title must be understood as meaning he was only “acting king,” because his father Nabonadius was the actual king, but had left his son on the throne in Babylon while he was conducting a war in another part of the country. This fact accounts for other statements occurring in the record, and it is of such great importance that I sit all quote a paragraph from ancient history, But out of ail this confusion and uncertainty a very small and simple discovery made a few years since has educed order and harmony in a very remarkable way. It is found that Nabonadius. the last king of the Canon [royal blood line], associated with him on the throne during the later years of his reign his son, Bilsharuzar [Belshazzar], and allowed him the royal title. There can be little doubt that it was this prince who conducted the defense of Babylon, and was slain in the massacre which followed the capture; while his father, who was at the time in Borsippa, surrendered, and experienced the clemency which was generally shown to fallen kings by the Persians. . . . My attention has been further drawn to a very remarkable illustration which the discovery of Belshazzars position as joint ruier with his father furnishes to an expression twice repeated in Daniel, fifth chapter. The promise made and performed to Daniel is, that he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Formerly it was impossible to explain this, or to understand why he was not the second ruler, as he seems to have been under Nebuchadnezzar, and as Joseph in Egypt, and Mordecai in Persia. It now appears that, as there were two kings at the same time, Belshazzar, a subject, could only make him the third personage in the Empire.”- Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, pages 139, 412. This information will be referred to again and I urge the reader to make eareful note of its location. The simple word /east means a good meal of food for the fleshly body, but the context shows this was a banquet for they drank wine in connection with it. Moreover, it was a royal or state affair for it was attended by a thousand of his lords, which is defined “a magnate” in Strongs lexicon. These men were princes or outstanding persons In the Babylonian Empire and hence were special guests at this great feast. The king participated in the drinking and did so in a cooperative attitude, for it says he drank wine before the thousand, That was unusual for the rule was that kings indulged themselves with wine and royal gratifications in their own private apartments.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Dan 5:1. Belshazzar The son of Evil-merodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar; made a great feast to a thousand of his lords To the principal officers and great men of his court, and was himself present at it. This feast was made at a time of public rejoicing, being an annual festival, when the whole night was spent in revelling; of which season Cyrus took the advantage to make himself master of the city, as Herodotus and Xenophon relate, and as was foretold by Jer 50:24; Jer 51:39; Jer 51:57, where see the notes.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Dan 5:2. Belshazzarhis father Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was the son of Evilmerodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. The empire therefore falling at this time, fulfilled the prophecy, that all nations should serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his sons son. Jer 27:7. Having spoken of the fall of Babylon on Isa 13:14. and elsewhere, I shall subjoin some reflections from one of my sermons.

Dan 5:4. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold. Here the king first sanctioned all the sacrilege committed by his grandfather, together with the profanation and desecration of the Lords temple. Next, he and his court were guilty of gross intemperance, and in the time of a siege, while the enemy was at his gates. Lastly, he showed the highest contempt of God, and drew all the court into his sin. Had they been quiet in their own houses, the Persians would have spared their lives.

Dan 5:7. Bring in the astrologers, the stargazers who affected to read the fate of men and of nations in the position of the planets. See on Dan 2:2.

Dan 5:8. They could not read the writing, because it was in the old Hebrew characters, or the Samaritan text. This was the special interposition of heaven to preserve religion, which was almost lost in the earth.

Dan 5:17. Let thy gifts be to thyself. Let those who buy preferment in the church weigh these words, and study the character of Daniel.

Dan 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar slain. The particulars appear in Ezra 1. and Isaiah 29, 45. Isaiah had foretold the fall of Babylon one hundred and forty years before it happened.

Dan 5:31. Darius the Median took the kingdom. He was the uncle of Cyrus. Herodotus, in Erato or sixth book, gives us the etymon of the names of three of the Persian kings. Darius, exterminator; Xerxes, warrior; Artaxerxes, great warrior. The Medes were descendants of Medai. Gen 10:4.

REFLECTIONS.

In the first place observe, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, seated on his lofty throne, requires the homage and obedience of all his creatures. He holds in his hand the balances of equity and truth. He is blind with respect to parties, all his creatures having originated from the same dust. Belshazzar, once the sovereign of the eastern world, and the meanest slave, are judged at the same tribunal. In the one end of the scale are placed the longsuffering of God, limited in point of time, and his mercy, restricted in point of measure. In the other the sinner is placed, and weighed according to his situation and endowments. See here in Gods balances, that parsimonious parent who has devoted the whole of life to the acquisition of riches; who, by the prevalence of a sordid passion, has neglected a thousand duties he owed to God, to man, and to his own soul; who completes his career by bequeathing the earnings of fifty years to a son, like Belshazzar, acquainted with no use of riches but dissipation. See this prodigal succeed his sire in the scale of justice, who, like this king, has squandered away the wealth and fortune of his father. He who gathered, and he who scattered, are alike weighed and found wanting; their hearts, though in different ways, having equally departed from the Lord. In this manner shall the sovereign and the subject, the master and the servant, the christian and the heathen, be weighed by the great arbiter of heaven and earth.

And ah, reader, guilt is very heavy; and virtue, which should be weighty as the purest gold, is often found superficial and defective. The scale dreadfully turns against the wicked. His sins are numerous, and his tears few. His pride is high as heaven, and he is a stranger to humility. Providence has loaded him with favours, and he is unacquainted with gratitude. His heart, proud and deceitful, revolts against the equity of God, and has recourse to false balances. He appeals to custom, he alleges the laws and usages of nations, he justifies himself by example. Ah sinner, when heaven exalts the scale of equity, thou and thy balances will go down to the pit together. Thou art bold when defending vice at the bar of sinful men, but before the righteous God thou wilt tremble, and be confounded like Belshazzar.

The wicked often riot to the latest hour of danger and destruction. Accustomed to crimes, and familiar with vice, conscience has ceased to alarm; and punishment so long denounced, and longer still delayed, excites no apprehension. The sinner is become learned and skilful in the mystery of iniquity. On his early relapses into vice he is ashamed of his conduct, seeks to conceal his errors, acknowledges his faults when discovered, endeavours to repair them, and promises reformation. But temptations return, and he is hurried on in the high road to dissipation. Finding in himself a power occasionally to conquer vice, he presumes on a power to conquer it on all occasions; and thinking that the mercy of God, like the compassion of a weak and ever-indulgent parent, will accommodate itself to all his corruptions, he sins in the full delirium of enjoying vice, and of avoiding punishment. After a time, vice forms the habit; accustomed to reign, it refuses all controul. He now discovers his weakness, despair follows, and misery is the consequence. He then obliquely or openly accuses his Maker for giving him passions, and imposing restraint, ignorant that the lawful and limited indulgence of those passions were designed to augment his happiness.

In this state the heart is already far advanced towards infidelity. The man has sinned long and on a large scale, and no particular judgment has been inflicted; hence he presumes on impunity. If insults to heaven could have provoked the Ruler of the universe to strike with thunderbolts of vengeance, he has already insulted God with every crime. Hence he denies a particular providence, and in fact, the being of a God, except one who does not condescend to notice the minuti of human conduct. So circumstanced, books and company which ridicule religion, blaspheme the scriptures, and deny future punishments, are embraced with the utmost avidity. The poisonous sentiments find in his heart a fertile soil. For in fact, he has no consolation but when immersed in pleasure, or surrounded with the fatal shield of presumptive infidelity.

We learn also from Belshazzars fall, that profaneness and atrocious impiety are sad signs that danger is at the door. Sinners, unwilling to know their real character, may sometimes get a side view of their crimes, and discover their turpitude in the portrait of another. See this monarch on the orient couch of pleasure, promised eternal life by the acclamations of a splendid court. Belshazzar, intoxicated with wine, and deified with flattery. Belshazzar, unedified and unawed by the vengeance of heaven on his royal grandsire, ventures on crimes which that monarch had never dared to commit. He offers immediate insult to the Most High, by profaning his hallowed vessels. Sinners, accustomed to scoff at religion, your habitual sneers have a peculiar effect in hardening the heart, and in ripening the soul for damnation. By scoffing at piety, you offer an insult to the holiness of God, a perfection which angels peculiarly adore. You, like this monarch, have seen visitations of providence on your ancestors, and on your acquaintance; and yet you have rejected instruction, and despised reform. If mercy and justice are totally unproductive of effect, the day of vengeance cannot be far distant.

The wicked have their highest enjoyments and frantic pleasures often interrupted by the handwriting of heaven. Whatever be their illusive promises of undisturbed felicity, whatever variety of exquisite pleasures be prepared, however far removed every object which might excite alarm, they are not sure but thoughts of an awful nature may obtrude. And is that pleasure which is so nearly connected with pain? Can that be called life which is already encircled with the arms of death? And did we never hear of death, or the strokes of approaching death, obtruding into our theatres, and into the brilliant circles of society? Is that security, is that repose, is that happiness, when the gay and dissipated man may never revisit his splendid mansion, may never see the morning light, may never have time to sober after nocturnal intoxication?

On this occasion, I would raise my voice with more than human pathos. Let me forget my natural weakness and infirmities, and cry aloud to the crowd in the broad way which leadeth to destruction. Let the voice of truth be heard amidst the scenes of riot and dissipation. Let it be like the handwriting of God to interrupt the career of pleasure, and strike terror and alarm among those to whom vice has so fatally proclaimed repose. Start, sinner, from thy couch of ease, and attend me to that precipice; leave thy harlot, thy concubine, for she is no longer thine; recede from that concert of vocal wanton music, and thou shalt hear a concert of another kind. And may the breath of the eternal God clear for a moment the thick volume of smoke ascending through the wide crater of hell, and show thee all the lake below. See there, full half the human race, more crowded than frogs which throng the pool. See there, a vast group of eastern kings, surrounded on the one hand by flattering courtiers, and on the other by crowds whom they have oppressed and murdered. See next a vast range of meagre and aged men, who in the course of a long life, by penuriousness and extortion acquired immense fortunes, now stripped of all, except the recollection of their frauds. See their profligate sons, who squandered away the long accumulations by intemperance and vice; see exactly placed before them, the women they seduced, betrayed, and ruined. See next the amazing crowd of swearers, drunkards, and impious men, whose cases though all important, are yet too common to merit description. See encircled above this awful throng the original angels, for whom this abyss was first prepared. See them armed with weapons of torment, as sheriffs and executioners attendant on the court. Never surely did beasts of prey exult with greater pride, and more ferocious joy over the vanquished foe. See, and hear too, more than it is either lawful or possible for the tongue of mortals to disclose.

But oh, is this a vision, a chimera, a mere dream? Is the preacher beside himself? Has he lost his reason? Is he uttering discourse revolting to the polished ear? No: his arguments are founded on facts, the result of calm investigation and sober experience. He only infers the future from the present. He invites you to visit the houses of the gay and fashionable circles of society, after nocturnal indulgences. Conscience reproaching them for the loss of money, of health, the loss of virtue, the parties alternately reproach each other. Here the vision is realized, the hell is already begun. It is the handwriting of God which has changed the face of pleasure to scenes of anguish and remorse, boding with eternal woes. Let us farther observe, that the court sent for Daniel too late, when wisdom could not avert the impending calamity. Had they followed the early example of temperance and piety, which the prophet had set before the country, they had remained, and the conquered nations had accounted it their glory to be associated in the great empire. But now neither counsel, nor prayers, nor arms, could deliver a nation doomed to destruction. Daniel had scarcely sentenced the guilty court, before heaven inflicted the blow.

Just so the sinner proceeds in a course of impiety and vice, till there is no more remedy. He neglects his salvation, and despises instruction, till the scale awfully turns against him. Deplorable, oh deplorable situation. See this man stretched on his couch, and struck with the terrors of the Lord. His friends, like the courtiers of Belshazzar, assuage his conscience, and promise him long life. His physician administers opiates; the priests, embarrassed perhaps like the learned men of Babylon, being unable to read the handwriting, take the easiest road by promising him pardon and eternal life. Terrible infatuation: deceived by his friends, and deceived by himself. Are there no Daniels yet alive? Is there no friend near his bed, who will call in a minister, sufficiently skilful to read his conscience, and bold enough to tell him all the truth. Who will, if the salvation of the dying man so require, recite the pride and humiliation of his father, his relatives, or his companions. Who will, even in presence of his associates in vice, recite his impiety and his sins. So circumstanced, can milder means save the sick, or probe an alarmed and wounded conscience. Do not cases so desperate require a desperate remedy. Can no more sacraments, fallacious promises, and the requiems of unfaithful priests, save a soul which has wallowed to the latest period of life in folly and vice? Or have those ministers, who make themselves the choicest instruments of the devil, a commission to invent a new gospel for the dying prodigal, a gospel totally unknown either in the old or new testament? But I close the awful scene, praying that the fall of Babylon may instruct our country; and that the death of this prince may reform the impious and forgetful prodigals.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Daniel 5. Belshazzar, who is represented as king of Babylon, makes a great feast, using the vessels which his father had brought to Babylon from the Temple at Jerusalem. During the feast the fingers of a mans hand are seen, writing on the wall. Daniel explains the handwriting and tells the king that his days are numbered and that his kingdom is to be given to the Medes and Persians. That night the king is murdered and Darius the Mede assumes the throne. The motive of the chapter is again quite plain. Nebuchadnezzars act of sacrilege has its parallel in the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; and the fate of Belshazzar is depicted as an encouragement to the persecuted Jews of the Maccabean age. The chapter raises some very serious historical difficulties (see notes on Dan 5:1 and Dan 5:31).

Dan 5:1. Belshazzar the King.In the Book of Daniel Belshazzar is represented as king of Babylon just before its conquest by the Persians in 538 B.C. Nothing is said as to the length of his reign, though the third year is mentioned in Dan 8:1. Belshazzar is also described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But these statements appear to be erroneous. The statements of historians and the evidence of the Inscriptions make it abundantly clear that the name of the king at the time of the conquest was Nabonidus or Nabunaid, and that Belshazzar was his son. Some scholars have supposed that Belshazzar was associated with his father in the rule of Babylon, but we have no evidence to prove this theory, and the Inscriptions, by always describing him as the kings son, seem to make it impossible. Moreover Nabunaid was entirely unconnected with the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, so that unless we resort to the purely imaginative hypothesis that he married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, it is quite impossible for the statement that Belshazzar was the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar to be true.made a great feast: this agrees with the statements of Herodotus and Xenophon that a great feast was being held on the night in which Babylon was destroyed.

Dan 5:2. gold and silver vessels: see Dan 1:2.his father: Dan 5:1*.

Dan 5:4. The LXX adds, But the eternal God they praised not who hath power over their spirit.

Dan 5:5. the part of the hand: the palm or hollow of the hand.

Dan 5:6. The brightness of his face grew pale from fear.

Dan 5:7. third ruler: the term is not found elsewhere. Driver translates, shall rule as one of three.

Dan 5:10. the queen: probably the queen-mother, i.e. the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. For the influence exerted by the wife of a former king, see 1Ki 15:13, 2Ki 10:13; 2Ki 24:12, Jer 13:18; Jer 29:2.

Dan 5:12. shewing of dark sentences: declaring of riddles.dissolving of doubts: loosing of knots, probably contains a reference to magic spells, releasing from spells (cf. Dan 5:16).

Dan 5:18-24. A description of the glory of Nebuchadnezzars rule (cf. Dan 2:37 f., Dan 4:10-12), his overweening pride, and the punishment which God inflicted on him (see Daniel 4).

Dan 5:21. his heart was made: an allusion to the madness which befell Nebuchadnezzar (see introduction to Daniel 4).

Dan 5:25. Mene: there is a good deal of difficulty with regard to (a) the original form of the inscription, (b) the interpretation of the words. In reference to (a) it will be observed that the Upharsin of the inscription becomes Peres in the interpretation. (b) The words are generally explained as meaning Counted, counted, weighed and pieces. The objection to this is that tekel and peres are substantives and not verbs. Another suggestion, which is widely accepted, regards the terms as names of three weights, a mina, a mina, a shekel and a half mina (a mina contained 50 or 60 shekels). It is supposed that the mina means Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel Belshazzar, the half-mina or Peres, the Persians. The interpretation suggested by Daniel is connected with the derivation of the words mene, numbered; tekel, weighed; Peres, divided; the form of the word naturally suggested Persians.Upharsin: the connexion with Peres may be thus explained: U is the connecting particle and, and pharsin is the plural form of Peres.

Dan 5:30. the Chaldean king: the king of Babylon.

Dan 5:31. Darius the Mede: the introduction of Darius is one of the most serious historical inaccuracies in the Book. Darius is described as king of Babylon after the Persian conquest. In Dan 5:6 he is depicted as an absolute sovereign dividing the kingdom into satrapies and appointing governors. In Dan 9:1 he is called the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, preceding Cyrus in this position (Dan 6:28). There is no historical warrant for these statements. We know that Cyrus became king immediately after the fall of Babylon. There is absolutely no room for Darius between the expulsion of Nabunaid and the accession of Cyrus. Some authorities have identified Darius with Gobryas (of which the name may be a corruption), who is said to have commanded the attacking army at the siege of Babylon, and as viceroy of Cyrus to have taken over the government of the city, appointing governors, etc. Gobryas never, however, held the position assigned to Darius in our Book.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

IMPIETY

Daniel 5

We have seen that idolatry is an outstanding mark of the great world empires, to whom government has been committed during the times of the Gentiles. Further, we have seen that this idolatry sets aside the rights of God, and tramples underfoot the consciences of men (chapter 3).

A second characteristic is self-exaltation. or the pride by which these world-wide empires use power for their own glory, rather than the glory of God (Dan. 4).

From Daniel 5 we learn that a third characteristic is impiety, which not only infringes on the rights of God but publicly defies God.

(Vv. 1-4). The occasion that brings forward this solemn feature of the times of the Gentiles is a great feast given by Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, to his lords. This feast was marked by an outburst of impiety, apparently let loose by the effect of drink upon the king. It was “while he tasted the wine” that he commanded the golden vessels of the temple of God to be brought into the feast. To a certain extent man can control the evil passions of his heart; but, when through some evil influence he loses control of himself, then all the wickedness of his heart is displayed. God had allowed His people to be taken captive, His temple to be destroyed, and the holy vessels brought to Babylon and placed in the house of the Chaldean idol (Dan 1:2). The Babylonian kings, not seeing the chastening hand of God upon His people, looked upon this victory over Israel as the triumph of their gods over the God of Israel (Hab 1:11-17). Accordingly, Belshazzar seizes the opportunity of this great feast to give public expression to what he imagined was the triumph of his false gods. The king and his lords not only profane the holy vessels set apart for Jehovah by using them in their drunken feast, but they praise their heathen gods of every degree. This was bold and open defiance of God.

(Vv. 5, 6). Such impiety must call down the judgment of God. At once God takes up the challenge. Quietly, without voice or vision, God makes His presence unmistakably felt. The fingers of a man’s hand silently write the sentence of judgment on the wall of the king’s palace. In spite of the king’s drunken condition, he is at once smitten in conscience. His countenance betrays his terror; his thoughts trouble him, and he trembles from head to foot.

(Vv. 7, 8). In his terror he turns to the wise men of Babylon. He offers great rewards for the interpretation of the words, but all in vain.

(Vv. 9-12). His wise men failing him, the wretched king is plunged into deeper terror. The Queen, hearing of the king’s terror, comes into the feast. Apparently, she had no part in this impious scene. It is suggested that she was not the wife of the king, as his wives were present at the feast (2, 3). Probably she was the Queen dowager. Evidently she was well acquainted with Daniel and the great events that had taken place in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. She is able to inform the king of the presence of Daniel in the kingdom.

(Vv. 13-16). Thereupon Daniel is brought into the presence of the king. The king had heard of the wisdom of Daniel in interpreting dreams in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, but apparently he did not care to have any personal acquaintance with this captive Jew. However, in the ways of God, He humbles the wise men of his world and exalts the despised captive. Wisdom is found with God’s people, even though in captivity.

(V. 17). With calm dignity Daniel tells the king to give his gifts and rewards to another. Apart from any rewards he will read the writing.

(Vv. 18-22). Before doing so, he rebukes the king by reminding him of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar. The Most High God had given to Nebuchadnezzar a universal kingdom with absolute power. But the king had used it for his own glory and God had humbled him for his pride. All this Belshazzar well knew, and yet, in spite of this warning, he had not humbled his heart.

(Vv. 23, 24). Then Daniel charges home the guilt of the king. Nebuchadnezzar had persecuted God’s people, but Belshazzar had “lifted up” himself “against the Lord of heaven.” This impiety overwhelmed him in ruin and brought the first world empire to its close. In connection with this act of impiety the writing had been written. Thus Daniel charges home the guilt of the king before he reads the writing that pronounces his doom.

(V. 25). There was no difficulty as to the meaning of the words. Literally translated they mean, “numbered,” “weighed,” “divided.” The difficulty was that, as mere isolated words, they conveyed no meaning without a divinely-given interpretation. What, then, was the message from God that they were intended to convey?

(V. 26). Daniel, the prophet of God, gives the significance of the words. “This,” says he, “is the interpretation of the thing.” The king is then told that “Mene,” or “numbered” signifies that God has numbered his kingdom and finished it. Many years before, Daniel had told Nebuchadnezzar that God had given him “a kingdom, power, strength, and glory.” But he also warned him that after his kingdom another would arise. For sixty-eight years the kings of Babylon had exercised sovereign power over the whole habitable world. Now the termination of the Babylonish Empire had come. Its days were numbered and its universal rule was finished.

(V. 27). The next word “Tekel,” meaning “weighed,” tells this impious king why his empire had reached its end. The ruler of the empire is weighed in the balances and found wanting. Nebuchadnezzar and his successors had entirely failed in their responsibility to govern the world in the fear of God. Under the chastening hand of God, Nebuchadnezzar had indeed repented. Belshazzar, the last ruler, though fully aware of all God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar, had sinned more grievously than his predecessors. Openly and impiously he had defied God. His actions had been weighed in the unerring balances of God and found wanting.

(V. 28). The third word, “Peres,” (another form of the word Upharsin – both words being merely different parts of the same verb) means “divided.” The result of the king’s impiety was to bring immediate judgment upon the king. Daniel plainly tells the king, “Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

(Vv. 29, 31). The king makes much of the messenger, but apparently pays little heed to the message. Nevertheless, on that night the judgment fell. Belshazzar is slain, and Darius the Mede takes the kingdom. Thus the Babylonish Empire comes to its end, and the second great world power – the Medo-Persian – commences to run its course.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

5:1 {a} Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine {b} before the thousand.

(a) Daniel recites this history of King Belshazzar, Evilmerodach’s son, to show God’s judgments against the wicked for the deliverance of his Church, and how the prophecy of Jeremiah was true, that they would be delivered after seventy years.

(b) The kings of the east part then used to commonly sit alone, and disdained that any should sit in their company: and now to show his power, and how little he thought of his enemy, which then besieged Babylon, made a solemn banquet, and used excess in their company, which is meant here by drinking wine: thus the wicked are very lax in morals and negligent, when their destruction is at hand.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Belshazzar’s dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Some older critical scholars claimed that Belshazzar was never a king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. [Note: E.g., H. H. Rowley, "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel," Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12.] However, modern discoveries have shown that Belshazzar acted as king during his father’s frequent and prolonged absences from Babylon.

"The last actual Chaldean king, Nabonidus, ’entrusted the kingship’ in 539 B.C. to his son Bel-sar-usur during his ten-year absence from Babylon, returning as the threat from Cyrus grew." [Note: Goldingay, p. 106. See also N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 76; Young, pp. 115-19; Keil, pp. 162-79; Leupold, pp. 208-13; and Whitcomb, pp. 70-72.]

Banquets the size described in this verse also drew the attack of critics. Yet the ancient historian Ktesias wrote that Persian kings frequently dined daily with 15,000 people (cf. Esther 1). [Note: See Leupold, pp. 214.]

Later we shall read that Belshazzar hosted this banquet on the night the city of Babylon fell (Dan 5:30-31). The invading Medes and Persians, led by Ugbaru, commander of the Persian army, would have already taken the surrounding countryside, and everyone in the city would have known of their intentions. However, Babylon the city had not fallen to an invading army for 1,000 years because of its strong fortifications. According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, Babylon occupied about 14 square miles with a double wall system enclosing a moat between the two walls. The outer wall was 87 feet thick, wide enough for four chariots to drive on side-by-side. It was 350 feet high with 100 gates, plus hundreds more towers that reached another 100 feet above the walls. [Note: Herodotus, 1:178-83.]

Belshazzar’s confidence in the security of his capital is evident in his banqueting and getting drunk while his enemy was at his door. His name, which means "Bel [also known as Marduk] has protected the king," [Note: Pentecost, p. 1344.] may have increased his sense of invulnerability. Herodotus also mentioned that a festival was underway in Babylon when the city fell. [Note: Herodotus, 1:191.]

"With the armies of a conqueror pressing at the capital this deputy ruler took refuge in an orgy of wine." [Note: Baldwin, p. 119.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE FIERY INSCRIPTION

IN this chapter again we have another magnificent fresco-picture, intended, as was the last-but under circumstances of aggravated guilt and more terrible menace-to teach the lesson that “verily there is a God that judgeth the earth.”

The truest way to enjoy the chapter, and to grasp the lessons which it is meant to inculcate in their proper force and vividness, is to consider it wholly apart from the difficulties as to its literal truth. To read it aright, and duly estimate its grandeur, we must relegate to the conclusion of the story all worrying questions, impossible of final solution, as to whom the writer intended by Belshazzar, or whom by Darius the Mede. All such discussions are extraneous to edification, and in no way affect either the consummate skill of the picture or the eternal truths of which it is the symbolic expression. To those who, with the present writer, are convinced, by evidence from every quarter-from philology, history, the testimony of the inscriptions, and the manifold results obtained by the Higher Criticism that the Book of Daniel is the work of some holy and highly gifted “Chasid” in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, it becomes clear that the story of Belshazzar, whatever dim fragments of Babylonian tradition it may enshrine, is really suggested by the profanity of Antiochus Epiphanes in carrying off, and doubtless subjecting to profane usage, many of the sacred vessels of the Temple of Jerusalem. The retribution which awaited the wayward Seleucid tyrant is prophetically intimated by the menace of doom which received such immediate fulfilment in the case of the Babylonian King. The humiliation of the guilty conqueror, “Nebuchadrezzar the Wicked,” who founded the Empire of Babylon, is followed by the overthrow of his dynasty in the person of his “son,” and the capture of his vast capital.

“It is natural,” says Ewald, “that thus the picture drawn in this narrative should become, under the hands of our author, a true night-piece, with all the colours of the dissolute, extravagant riot, of luxurious passion and growing madness, of ruinous bewilderment, and of the mysterious horror and terror of such a night of revelry and death.”

The description of the scene begins with one of those crashing overtures of which the writer duly estimated the effect upon the imagination.

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.”: The banquet may have been intended as some propitiatory feast in honour of Bel-merodach.. It was celebrated in that palace which was a wonder of the world, with its winged statues and splendid spacious halls. The walls were rich with images of the Chaldeans, painted in vermilion and exceeding in dyed attire-those images of goodly youths riding on goodly horses, as in the Panathenaic procession on the frieze of the Acropolis-the frescoed pictures, on which, in the prophets vision, Aholah and Aholibah, gloated in the chambers of secret imagery. Belshazzars princes were there, and his wives, and his concubines, whose presence the Babylonian custom admitted, though the Persian regarded it as unseemly. The Babylonian banquets, like those of the Greeks, usually ended by a “Komos” or revelry, in which intoxication was regarded as no disgrace. Wine flowed freely. Doubtless, as in the grandiose picture of Martin, there were brasiers of precious metal, which breathed forth the fumes of incense; and doubtless, too, there were women and boys and girls with flutes and cymbals, to which the dancers danced in all the orgiastic abandonment of Eastern passion. All this was regarded as an element in the religious solemnity; and while the revellers drank their wine, hymns were being chanted, in which they praised “the gods of gold and silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.” That the king drank wine before the thousand is the more remarkable because usually the kings of the East banquet in solitary state in their own apartments.

Then the wild king, with just such a burst of folly and irreverence as characterised the banquets of Antiochus Epiphanes, bethought him of yet another element of splendour with which he might make his banquet memorable, and prove the superiority of his own victorious gods over those of other nations. The Temple of Jerusalem was famous over all the world, and there were few monarchs who had not heard of the marvels and the majesty of the God of Israel. Belshazzar, as the “son” of Nebuchadrezzar, must-if there was any historic reality in the events narrated in the previous chapter-have heard of the “signs and wonders” displayed by the King of heaven, whose unparalleled awfulness his father had publicly attested in edicts addressed to all the world. He must have known of the Rabmag Daniel, whose wisdom, even as a boy, had been found to be superior to that of all the “Chartummim” and “Ashshaphim”; and how his three companions had been elevated to supreme satrapies; and how they had been delivered unsinged from the seven-times-heated furnace, whose flames had frilled his fathers executioners. Under no conceivable circumstances could such marvels have been forgotten; under no circumstances could they have possibly failed to create an intense and profound impression. And Belshazzar could hardly fail to have heard of the dreams of the golden image and of the shattered cedar, and of Nebuchadrezzars unspeakably degrading lycanthropy. His “father” had publicly acknowledged-in a decree published “to all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth”-that humiliation had come upon him as a punishment for his overweening pride. In that same decree the mighty Nebuchadrezzar-only a year or two before, if Belshazzar succeeded him-had proclaimed his allegiance to the King of heaven; and in all previous decrees he had threatened “all people, nations, and languages” that. if they spake anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they should be cut in pieces, and their houses made a dunghill. {Dan 3:29} Yet now Belshazzar, in the flush of pride and drunkenness, gives his order to insult this God with deadly impiety by publicly defiling the vessels of His awful Temple, {Dan 1:2 Comp #/RAPC 1Ma 1:21 ff.} at a feast in honour of his own idol deities!

Similarly Antiochus Epiphanes, if he had not been half mad, might have taken warning, before he insulted the Temple and the sacred vessels of Jerusalem, from the fact that his father, Antiochus the Great, had met his death in attempting to plunder the Temple at Elymais (B.C. 187). He might also have recalled the celebrated discomfiture-however caused-of Heliodorus in the Temple of Jerusalem. {#/RAPC 2Ma 3:1-40}

Such insulting and reckless blasphemy could not go unpunished. It is fitting that the Divine retribution should overtake the king on the same night, and that the same lips which thus profaned with this wine the holiest things should sip the wine of the Divine poison-cup, whose fierce heat must in the same night prove fatal to himself. But even such sinners, drinking as it were over the pit of hell, “according to a metaphor used elsewhere. Psa 55:15 must still at the last moment be warned by a suitable Divine sign, that it may be known whether they will honour the truth.” Nebuchadrezzar had received his warning, and in the end it had not been wholly in vain. Even for Belshazzar it might perhaps not prove to be too late.

For at this very moment, {Comp. Dan 3:7} when the revelry was at its zenith, when the whirl of excited self-exaltation was most intense, when Judahs gold was “treading heavy on the lips”-the profane lips-of satraps and concubines, there appeared a portent, which seems at first to have been visible to the king alone.

Seated on his lofty and jewelled throne, which

“Outshone the wealth of Ormuz or of Ind, Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand Showers on its kings barbaric pearl and gold,”

his eye caught something visible on the white stucco of the wall above the line of frescoes. He saw it over the lights which crowned the huge golden “Nebrashta,” or chandelier. The fingers of a mans hand were writing letters on the wall, and the king saw the hollow of that gigantic supernatural palm.

The portent astounded and horrified him. The flush of youth and of wine faded from his cheek; -“his brightnesses were changed”; his thoughts troubled him; the bands of his loins were loosed, his knees smote one against another in his trembling attitude, as he stood arrested by the awful sight.

With a terrible cry he ordered that the whole familiar tribe of astrologers and soothsayers should be summoned. For though the hand had vanished, its trace was left on the wall of the banqueting-chamber in letters of fire. And the stricken king, anxious to know above all things the purport of that strange writing, proclaims that he who could interpret it should be clothed in scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and should be one of the triumvirs of the kingdom.

It was the usual resource; and it failed as it had done in every previous instance. The Babylonian magi in the Book of Daniel prove themselves to be more futile even than Pharaohs magicians with their enchantments.

The dream-interpreters in all their divisions entered the banquet-hall. The king was perturbed, the omen urgent, the reward magnificent. But it was all in vain. As usual they failed, as in very instance in which they are introduced in the Old Testament. And their failure added to the visible confusion of the king, whose livid countenance retained its pallor. The banquet, in all its royal magnificence, seemed likely to end in tumult and confusion; for the princes, and satraps, and wives, and concubines all shared in the agitation and bewilderment of their sovereign.

Meanwhile the tidings of the startling prodigy had reached the ears of the Gebirah-the queen-mother-who, as always in the East, held a higher rank than even the reigning sultana. She had not been present at-perhaps had not approved of-the luxurious revel, held when the Persians were at the very gates. But now in her young sons extremity, she comes forward to help and advise him. Entering the hall with her attendant maidens, she bids the king to be no longer troubled, for there is a man of the highest rank-invariably, as would appear, overlooked and forgotten till the critical moment, in spite of his long series of triumphs and achievements-who was quite able to read the fearful augury, as he had often done before, when all others had been foiled by Him who “frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad.” {Isa 44:25} Strange that he should not have been thought of, though “the king thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the whole college of magis and astrologers. Let Belshazzar send for Belteshazzar, and he would untie the knot and read the awful enigma.”

Then Daniel was summoned; and since the king “has heard of him, that the spirit of the gods is in him, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in him,” and that he is one who can interpret dreams, and unriddle hard sentences and untie knots, he shall have the scarlet robe, and the golden chain, and the seat among the triumvirs, if he will read and interpret the writing.

“Let thy gifts be thine, and thy rewards to another,” {so Elisha, 2Ki 5:16} answered the seer, with fearless forthrightness: “yet, O king, I will read and interpret the writing.” Then, after reminding him of the consummate power and majesty of his father Nebuchadrezzar; and how his mind had become indurated with pride; and how he had been stricken with lycanthropy, “till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men”; and that, in spite of all this, he, Belshazzar, in his infatuation, had insulted the Most High God by profaning the holy vessels of His Temple in a licentious revelry in honour of idols of gold, silver, brass, iron, and stone, which neither see, nor know, nor heal-for this reason (said the seer) had the hollow hand been sent and the writing stamped upon the wall.

And now what was the writing? Daniel at the first glance had read that fiery quadrilateral of letters, looking like the twelve gems of the high priests ephod with the mystic light gleaming upon them.

M. N. A. M. N. A. T. O. L. P. R. S. Four names of weight.

A Mina. A Mina. A Shekel. A Half-mina.

What possible meaning could there be in that? Did it need an archangels colossal hand, flashing forth upon a palace-wall to write the menace of doom, to have inscribed no more than the names of four coins or weights? No wonder that the Chaldeans could not interpret such writing!

It may be asked why they could not even read it, since the words are evidently Aramaic, and Aramaic was the common language of trade. The Rabbis say that the words, instead of being written from right to left, “pillar-wise,” as the Greeks called it, from above downwards: thus-

p t m m r q n n s l a a

Read from left to right, they would look like gibberish; read from above downwards, they became clear as far as the reading was concerned, though their interpretation might still be surpassingly enigmatic.

But words may stand for all sorts of mysterious meanings; and in the view of analogists-as those are called who not only believe in the mysterious force and fascination of words, but even in the physiological quality of sounds-they may hide awful indications under harmless vocables. Herein lay the secret.

A mina! a mina! Yes; but the names of the weights recall the word mnah, “hath numbered”: and “God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it.”

A shekel! Yes; tqilta: “Thou hast been weighed in a balance and found wanting.”

Peres- a half-mina! Yes; but prisath: “Thy kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”

At this point the story is very swiftly brought to a conclusion, for its essence has been already given. Daniel is clothed in scarlet, and ornamented with the chain of gold, and proclaimed triumvir.

But the kings doom is sealed! “That night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain.” His name meant, “Bel preserve thou the king!” But Bel bowed down, and Nebo stooped, and gave no help to their votary.

“Evil things in robes of sorrow Assailed the monarchs high estate; Ah, woe is me! for never morrow Shall dawn upon him desolate! And all about his throne the glory That blushed and bloomed Is but an ill-remembered story Of the old time entombed,”

“And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.”

As there is no such person known as “Darius the Mede,” the age assigned to him must be due either to some tradition about some other Darius, or to chronological calculations to which we no longer possess the key.

He is called the son of Achashverosh, Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1), or Xerxes. The apologists have argued that-

1. Darius was Cyaxares II, father of Cyrus, on the authority of Xenaphons romance, and Josephuss echo of it. But the “Cyropaedia” is no authority, being, as Cicero said, a non-historic fiction written to describe an ideal kingdom. History knows nothing of a Cyaxares II.

2. Darius was Astyages. Not to mention other impossibilities which attach to this view, Astyages would have been far older than sixty-two at the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Cyrus had suppressed the Median dynasty altogether some years before he took Babylon.

3. Darius was the satrap Gobryas, who, so far as we know, only acted as governor for a few months. But he is represented on the contrary as an extremely absolute king, setting one hundred and twenty princes “over the whole kingdom,” and issuing mandates to “all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth.” Even if such an identification were admissible, it would not in the least save the historic accuracy of the writer. This “Darius the Mede” is ignored by history, and Cyrus is represented by the ancient records as having been the sole and undisputed king of Babylon from the time of his conquest. “Darius the Mede” probably owes his existence to a literal understanding of the prophecies of Isaiah {Isa 13:17} and Jeremiah. {Jer 51:11; Jer 51:28}

We can now proceed to the examination of the next chapter unimpeded by impossible and halfhearted hypotheses. We understand it, and it was meant to be understood, as a moral and spiritual parable, in which unverified historic names and traditions are utilised for the purpose of inculcating lessons of courage and faithfulness. The picture, however, falls far below those of the other chapters in power, finish, and even an approach to natural verisimiltude.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary