Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 5:25
And this [is] the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
25. written ] inscribed (R.V.). The word is not the one that ordinarily means to write, but one that means rather to print or stamp.
Mene (pron. mn , to rhyme with bewray), Mene, Tekel (pron. tk l, to rhyme with bewail), Upharsin] in the explanation ( Dan 5:28), we have, for upharsn, prs (to rhyme with deface), which is just the singular of parsn (or, where a vowel, as here u, precedes, pharsn), u being ‘and.’ Mn as the pass. part, of Mn, to number, might mean ‘numbered’; but if the present vocalization is correct, t l cannot mean ‘weighed,’ nor prs ‘divided.’ These two words, as they stand, must be substantives. The true explanation of the four words is probably that which was first suggested by Clermont-Ganneau [260] , and which has since been adopted by Nldeke and others. They are really the names of three weights, mn being the correct Aramaic form of the Hebrew mneh, the m’na ( ), t l being the Aramaic form of the Hebrew sheel, and prs (or more correctly pr s), properly division, being a late Jewish word for a half-m’na. Thus the four words are really a m’na, a m’na, a shekel, and half-m’nas. The puzzle consisted partly in the character or manner in which they were supposed to have been written an unfamiliar form of the Aramaic character, for instance, or, as the mediaeval Jews suggested, a vertical instead of a horizontal arrangement of the letters; partly in the difficulty of attaching any meaning to them, even when they were read: what could the names of three weights signify? [261] Here Daniel’s skill in the ‘declaring of riddles’ ( Dan 5:12) comes in. Mn itself means ‘numbered,’ as well as ‘a m’na’: it is accordingly interpreted at once as signifying that the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom are ‘numbered,’ and approaching their end. T l, ‘ shekel,’ suggests t l, ‘weighed’: ‘Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.’ Parsin, ‘half-m’nas,’ or pr s ( prs), ‘a half-shekel,’ points allusively to a double interpretation: ‘Thy kingdom is divided ( prs) [262] , and given to the Medes and Persians ’ (Aramaic pras).
[260] Journal Asiatique, Juillet-Aot, 1886, p. 36 ff. Reprinted in Recueil d’ Archol. Orientate, i. (1888), p. 136 ff.
[261] For the names of common objects interpreted significantly, see Jer 1:11-12; Jer 19:1; Jer 19:7 (Heb.), Amo 8:1.
[262] The word occurs in Heb. in this sense, e.g. Lev 11:3-5; and of dividing bread, Isa 57:7 (‘deal’), Jer 16:7 (R.V. ‘break’).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
25 28. The reading and interpretation of the writing.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And this is the writing that was written – The Babylonians, it would seem, were unacquainted with the characters that were used, and of course unable to understand the meaning. See Dan 5:8. The first thing, therefore, for Daniel to do was to read the writing, and this he was able to do without difficulty, probably, as already remarked, because it was in the ancient Hebrew character – a character quite familiar to him, though not known to the Babylonians, whom Belshazzar consulted. It is every way probable that that character would be used on an occasion like this, for
(a) it is manifest that it was intended that the true God, the God of the Hebrews, should be made known, and this was the character in which his communications had been made to men;
(b) it was clearly the design to honor his own religion, and it is morally certain that there would be something which would show the connection between this occurrence and his own agency, and nothing would do this better than to make use of such a character; and
(c) it was the Divine intention to put honor on Daniel, and this would be well done by making use of a character which he understood.
There have been, indeed, many conjectures respecting the characters which were employed on this occasion, and the reasons of the difficulty of interpreting the words used, but it is most probable that the above is the true statement, and this will relieve all the difficulties in regard to the account. Prideaux supposes that the characters employed were the ancient Phoenician characters, that were used by the Hebrews, and that are found now in the Samaritan Pentateuch; and that, as above suggested, these might be unknown to the Babylonians, though familiar to Daniel. Others have supposed that the characters were those in common use in Babylon, and that the reason why the Babylonians could not read them was, that they were smitten with a sudden blindness, like the inhabitants of Sodom, Gen 19:11. The Talmudists suppose that the words were written in a cabalistic manner, in which certain letters were used to stand for other letters, on the principle referred to by Buxtorf (Lex. Chal. Rabb. et Talm. p. 248), and known as ‘athebbash – that is, where the alphabet is reversed, and the Hebrew letter (A) is used for the Hebrew letter (T), and the Hebrew letter (B) for the Hebrew letter (S), etc., and that on account of this cabalistic transmutation the Babylonians could not read it, though Daniel might have been familiar with that mode of writing. rabbi Jochanan supposed that there was a change of the order in which the letters of the words were written; other rabbis, that there was a change merely in the order of the first and second letters; others, that the words were written backward; others that the words were written, not in the usual horizontal manner, but perpendicularly; and others, that the words were not written in full, but that only the first letters of each were written. See Bertholdt, pp. 349, 350. All these are mere conjectures, and most of them are childish and improbable suppositions. There is no real difficulty in the case if we suppose that the words were written in a character familiar to Daniel, but not familiar to the Babylonians. Or, if this is not admitted, then we may suppose that some mere marks were employed whose signification was made known to Daniel in a miraculous manner.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. And this is the writing] Had the words been written in the Chaldean character, every wise man there, every one that could read the alphabet of his own language, could have read and interpreted them. Let it be observed, –
1. That the character which we now call Hebrew is the Chaldean character.
2. That the true Hebrew character is that which we call the Samaritan.
3. Daniel could easily read this, for it was the character used by the Jews previously to the Babylonish captivity.
4. It appears that it was simply on account of the strangeness of the character that the Chaldeans could not read it.
I shall set down the words in both characters, by which the least learned reader may see that it was quite possible that one might be well known, while the other might be unintelligible.
Hebrew
Samaritan
[Samaritan]
In ancient times, no doubt, these letters differed more from each other than they appear to do now; for we know that the Samaritan on ancient coins, though radically the same, differs very much from that now used in printing.
It should be observed, that each word stands for a short sentence; mene signifies NUMERATION; tekel, WEIGHING; and peres, DIVISION. And so the Arabic translates them. [Arabic] mokeeson, measured; [Arabic] mewzonon, weighed; [Arabic] mokesoomon, divided. All the ancient Versions, except the Syriac, read the words simply Mene, Tekel, Phares, as they are explained in the following verses; without the repetition of Mene, and without the conjunction vau, and plural termination, in, in Peres.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
25. Mene, Mene, Tekel,Upharsinliterally, “numbered, weighed, and dividers.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And this is the writing that was written,…. They are such and such letters, and so to be read, as follows:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN; which are Chaldee words, and may be literally rendered, “he hath numbered, he hath numbered”; that is, God hath certainly, perfectly, and exactly numbered; “he hath weighed”, God hath weighed thee, Belshazzar; “and they divide the kingdom”; that is, the Medes and Persians, as appears from the following interpretation:
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Daniel here explains these four verses which were written upon the wall. The king could not read them, either through stupor, or because God blunted all his senses, and blinded his eyes, as was formerly said. The same thing must be said of the magi and the soothsayers, for they could have read, had they not been rendered blind. First of all, Daniel recites the four words, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsn, and then adds their interpretation. He repeats the word Mene twice. Some conjecture this to apply to the numbering of the years of the king’s life, and also to the time of his reign; but the guess seems to be without any foundation. I think the word is used twice for the sake of confirmation; as if the Prophet meant the number to be completed, since men usually allow calculations to be liable to error. To impress upon Belshazzar that his ‘life and kingdom were at stake, God affirms the number to be complete, meaning, not a moment of time can be added to the boundary already determined. So also Daniel himself interprets it: God, says he, has numbered thy kingdom; implying, God has appointed and prescribed a fixed end to thy kingdom; hence it must necessarily come to an end, since its period is fulfilled.
Although God here addresses but one king by the writing set before his eyes, we may still gather this general instruction — God has prescribed a certain time for all kingdoms. (Job 14:5.) The Scripture bears the same witness concerning the life of each of us. If God has prescribed to each of us the length of his life, surely this applies more forcibly to public empires, of so much greater importance. Hence we may know how not only kings live and die according to God’s pleasure, but even empires are changed, as we have formerly said. He fixes alike their origin and their destiny. Hence we may seek consolation, when we see tyrants rushing on so impetuously, and indulging their lust and cruelty without moderation. When, therefore, they rush on, as if they would mingle heaven and earth, let us remember this instruction, Their years are numbered! God knows how long they are to rage; He is not deceived; He knows whether it is useful to the Church and his elect, for tyrants to prevail for a time. By and bye he will surely restrain them, but since he determined the number of their days from the beginning, the time of his vengeance is not yet quite at hand, while he allows them a little longer to abuse without restraint the power and the sway which he had divinely granted them.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Mene . . .It should be remarked that the word Mene, which occurs twice in the inscription, is found only once in the interpretation, and that the Medes who are mentioned in the interpretation are not spoken of in the inscription. Hence it has been conjectured that the second Mene was originally Madai, or Media. This, though it appears plausible, has no external support. The word Mene, numbered, is repeated twice for the sake of emphasis. The days of Babylon are numbered; it is God Himself who has numbered them. Mene is used in the double sense of numbering and bringing to an end. Similarly, Tekel implies both the act of weighing and the fact of being light. The u in Upharsin is the conjunction and, while pharsin, or, rather, parsin, is the plural of peres, a noun which implies divisions and also Persians. It appears from Dan. 5:28 that the divided empire of Babylon and the Medo-Persian empire are signified.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. This was intended to be a puzzle, and it has thoroughly served its purpose. Formerly there were great discussions among exegetes as to whether the grammatical forms used (for example, Peres for Persians) could be defended; but since it has been seen that this was a Babylonian pun or play on words this criticism has been abandoned. It was supposed by the rabbis that these words must have been written in a strange language which the magicians did not understand, or in the form of an acrostic or anagram; but although the incantations and magic charms of ancient Babylon were written generally in a dead language, which needed translation even for the priests, and although the double system of Babylonian writing (phonetic and ideographic) favored philological riddles, and although there is at least one example of a Babylonian acrostic in the British Museum, yet it is now seen that the “puzzle” was not chiefly in the deciphering of the words (though this was a part of it, see Dan 5:8), but in their explanation. The first clue to this Babylonian riddle was found by Clermont Ganneau, who published in 1886 his discovery that these words Mene, Tekel, Peres were simply names of Babylonian weights ( Journal Asiatique; Hebraica, iii). This article was quickly followed by a careful philological discussion of the whole question by Noldeke ( Zeits. fur Assy., 1886), and the general conclusions of these scholars have been accepted by Sayce, Hommel, Haupt, Prince, and other Assyriologists. The puzzle, therefore, written upon the wall was this: A mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas. A mina was a well-known Assyrian weight consisting of sixty shekels, or five hundred and thirteen grains (Hilprecht). The parsu, or barsu, although inadvertently stated by Sayce to have been “part of a shekel,” was really equal to the half of a mina. Numbers had a mystic significance among the Babylonians (see Introduction to Ezekiel, VIII), and it is not impossible that the double mina (1+1) may represent Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (1) Nabonidus, and the divided mina () Belshazzar; although Paul Haupt has recently suggested that the mina, which is the largest Babylonian weight, was a cryptic representation of Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel of his little “son,” Belshazzar, while the broken minas referred to the division of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire between the Medes and Persians. (Compare Dan 2:39; Dan 8:5.) All the gods had their “numbers” in ancient Babylon, and it is not at all improbable that an unworthy son could then, as in later Talmudic times, be described as a “peras [half-mina], the son of a mina.” The doubling of the mina may be for the reason suggested above, or merely for emphasis, or, as Meinhold thinks, because a double meaning is hidden in the cryptogram; or, as Haupt has conjectured, the first “mina” may be an introductory verb meaning “reckon” or “there have been counted.” The latter supposition, however, does not approve itself to the writer. In the cuneiform inscription, therefore, the puzzle stood, mana, mana, sitkla, ( u) parsn; that is, “A mina, a mina, a shekel (and) halves,” or, transliterated into the sacred Semitic tongue often used in the incantations and other religious texts “Numbered, numbered, weighed, divided;” while by another slight change of vowels the word which had already meant “half-minas” and “divided” was seen to be the very name of the conquerors of Babylon, Paras, “the Persians!” This, then, was a typical Babylonian puzzle, so archaic in its construction that no ancient version or commentary was able to catch its root meaning. Itis an interesting fact in connection with the above that Nebuchadnezzar boasts in one inscription that he had fixed the weight of the mina in his day to conform with the heavier standard established by king Dungi about 3000 B.C. It may also seem suggestive that at the beginning of many Babylonian incantations stands this mystic word Sitkalu, sitkalu, “Shekeled, shekeled,” or “Weighed, weighed.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Dan 5:25. MENE, &c. These words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. The word Mene is doubled, to shew that the thing is certain and established by God; as Joseph told Pharaoh in a similar case.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
VI
THE RELATED PROPHETIC SECTIONS OF DANIEL
Having completed the historical sections of this book, we now consider the related prophetic sections. It is here we find the crux of the opposition of the atheistic critics. Their presupposition is: There can be no prophecy in any supernatural sense. Therefore they refuse to see any reference in the book to matters beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He to them is the culmination of the book. The unknown writer, as they claimed, lived after his times, and cast well-known history into the form of prophecy, attributing its authorship, through a license accorded to writers of novels, to a fictitious Daniel supposed to be living in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
A complete answer to both their premise and conclusion would be the proof of even one real prediction in the book, fulfilled after their own assigned date for the author. Any one who really believes the New Testament will find that proof in the words of our Lord: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (let him that readeth understand) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
But as our purpose it to expound the prophetic sections of this book, and not merely to reply to the contentions of atheists, we now take up our work. These are the prophetic sections:
1. Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream of the great and luminous image, or the five world empires (Dan 2:31-45 ).
2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream of the great tree, or what befell the great king of the first world empire (Dan 4:10-27 ).
3. The handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast, or what befell the last king of the first world empire and how the second empire comes to the front (Dan 5:25-28 ).
4. The vision of the four great beasts arising from the sea, representing in another form the four secular world empires and the enthronement of the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 7:1-28 ).
5. The vision of the ram and the he-goat, or the fortunes of the second and third world empires (Dan 8:1-27 ).
6. The seventy weeks, or the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 9:24-27 ).
7. The vision of the Son of man (Dan 10 ).
8. Revelation of the conflicts between two of the divisions of the third world empire) and the transition to the final advent of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 11-12).
On these eight prophetic sections let us give careful attention to the following observations:
OBSERVATIONS ON THE EIGHT PROPHECIES TAKEN TOGETHER
1. The most casual glance at this grouping of the several prophetic sections reveals both the unity of the book and the relation of its prophetic parts and the design of all.
2. Any man who looks carefully at this group and finds its culmination in Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of a fourth fragment of the third world empire, either is devoid of common sense and should receive the charity accorded to those unfortunates afflicted with mental aberration, or is so blinded with prejudice he cannot see. In the case of the latter alternative this much of Paul’s words apply: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded lest they should see,” or our Lord’s words, “Having eyes they see not.” An unbiased child can see that the culmination of the book as to a person is in the King of the fifth world empire, and the culmination as to a fact is in the Messiah’s final advent for resurrection and judgment.
3. Following the characteristic Bible method and plan, secular governments in this book are considered only as they relate to the supremacy of the divine government and to the kingdom of God. All the rest concerning them is left in silence.
4. The relation between the parts of the prophecy is manifest throughout: The first prophecy is the basis of all the following sections. They only elaborate some detail concerning one or the other of the five world empires set forth in the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the four-pointed image and the conquering stone. For example, the first prophecy tells in general terms of four successive world empires to be followed by a fifth and spiritual world empire. The second and third sections of prophecy elaborate some details of the first great secular monarchy, telling us what befell its first and last king and the transition to the second monarchy. The fourth prophecy presents under different imagery the same five world empires, but gives some detail of every one not stated in the general terms of the first prophecy.
The fifth prophecy confines itself to details not before given of the second and third monarchies, how sovereignty passes from one to the other, how the third is dismembered, to prepare the way for the fourth, and how both are related to the kingdom of God. The sixth prophecy speaks only of the King of the fifth monarchy in his humiliation and sacrifice, as the third had spoken of his glory and exaltation, and the seventh is the vision of the Son of man.
The eighth deals only at first with the strifes between two of the parts of the dismembered third monarchy, incidentally alluding to the coming power of the fourth monarchy, glides, by easy transition, from the first antichrist, Antiochus, to a second antichrist in the far distant future, an antichrist already foreshown in the little horn of the fourth beast, and concludes with the final advent of the king of the fifth monarchy. No other book in all literature, sacred or profane, more clearly evidences greater unity, one consistent plan, more order in treatment, or a more glorious climax.
Of very great interest to us and to all who love God and his cause is the development of the messianic thought as the hope of the world. It concerns us much to fix in our minds this development.
The first prophecy tells of the divine origin and ultimate prevalence of Messiah’s kingdom.
The sixth tells of Messiah’s first advent in his humiliation and sacrifice.
The fourth tells of his exaltation and enthronement after the humiliation.
The eighth tells of his final advent for resurrection and judgment.
And so we need to note the coming of the first antichrist. Antiochus, in the little horn of the third beast (Dan 8:9 ) and the second antichrist in the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan 7:8 ) identical with John’s antichrist, (Rev 13:1-8 ) with its papal head (Rev 13:11-18 ). And so we find reference to the third antichrist in Dan 11:34-45 who is not the same as Paul’s man of sin. (2Th 2:8 and Rev 20:11 ), but this third antichrist comes at the beginning of the millennium and wages a conflict against the Jews, at which time they will be converted and the millennium will be ushered in. Daniel does not see Paul’s man of sin.
How clearly and with what precious comfort do all these prophecies reveal the supreme government of God over nations and men, the universal sweep of his providence, both general and special!
5. Finally how well we can understand, in the light of these great prophecies, the influence of the man and his book on all subsequent ages. His apocalyptic style and symbolism reappear in Zechariah’s visions, and form the greater part of the basis of John’s New Testament apocalypse. His Son of man creates a messianic title which our Lord adopts. His unique prophecy of the exact time of Messiah’s first advent creates a preparation in the hearts of the pious to expect him just then. We could not understand old Simeon at all if Daniel hadn’t fixed the time. Other prophets had foretold his lineage, the place of his birth, his great expiation and consequent enthronement, but no other showed just when he would come. His stress on “the kingdom of God and its certain coming and prevalence” put the titles of this divine government in the mouths of John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. His sublime character as evidenced in his temperance, wisdom, incorruptible integrity, audacity of faith, indomitable courage, and inflexible devotion to God, has fired the hearts of a thousand orators and created a million heroes. His words have become the themes of a thousand pulpits. His righteous administration of public affairs has created a thousand reformers in politics and supplied the hope of all subsequent civic righteousness. “Dare to be a Daniel” has become the slogan of the ages.
His distinction between duty to the human government and duty to the divine government prepared the way for the reception of our Lord’s great dictum, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” He laid the foundation of the doctrine that the state cannot intrude into the realm of conscience, and so was the pioneer, piloting a burdened world to its present great heritage of religious liberty. This man was not a reed shaken by the wind. He was no Reuben, unstable as water. We can’t even think about him without wanting to sing:
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
is laid for your faith in his excellent word. Born in the reign of good Josiah, thy childhood remembering the finding of the lost book of Moses, thy youth passed in the great reformation and thy heart warmed in the mighty revival that followed, student of Jeremiah, prime minister of two world empires and beloved of God thou art a granite mountain, O Daniel, higher than Chimborazo, Mount Blanc or Dwa Walla Giri! Snarling little critics, like coyotes, may grabble their holes in the foot-hills that lean for support against thy solidity, but their yelping can never disturb thy calm serenity nor the dust they paw up can ever dim the eternal sunshine of the smiles of God that halo thy summit. SELECTED.
Having now considered these eight prophetic sections in group, let us give attention to their exposition in severalty.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST DREAM God’s sovereignty extends to men asleep as well as to men awake. Often his spirit has made revelation through dreams. Dreams of indigestion are chaotic, without form, plan, or coherence. But dreams sent by the Spirit awaken after-thought, appeal to the intelligence and vividly impress the dreamer. So Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God ascended and descended, or Pharaoh’s dreams interpreted by Joseph, and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. No human system of psychology has ever explained the subtle and direct impact of Spirit on spirit. It is quite possible that there may have been some connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s waking thoughts and the dream which follows. We can at least conceive of previous reflections on his part full of questionings to which this dream would be a pertinent answer.
He may well have meditated upon the worldwide empire he had established and wondered if it would last, and if not what other government would succeed, and would it last. He may have pondered the causes of stability in human government, or the elements of decay and disintegration, and have wondered if human history would always be a record of the successive rising and falling of nations, or would the time ever come when the earth would know a universal and everlasting kingdom, and if so, who would be its author and what the principles of its perpetuity. Nebuchadnezzar was a truly great man, a thinker and organizer, and he was a pious man according to the requirements of his religion. So he may have been the waking subject of thoughts and questionings to which God sends an answer in a dream by night. Anyhow, he had the dream, and this was the dream: He saw a great and terrible image, a silent and luminous colossus in human form, standing upon the level Babylonian plain. Its several parts were strangely incongruous. The head was gold, the chest and arms were silver, the lower body and thighs were brass, the legs were iron, ending in feet with ten toes whose iron was mingled with clay.
Did this image reveal the highest attainment of human government and prophecy, its inevitable deterioration from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron, from iron to crumbling clay? Or did it suggest a succession of governments, the first with the greatest unity and the greatest excellency, one head and that gold? The second dual in composition with its two arms, third commencing one, but dividing into two thighs, the fourth standing dual in it he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without human hands, falling to the plain and intelligently rolling toward the image, and rolling gathering bulk and momentum until it smites the image on its feet of mixed iron and clay, overthrows it, crushes it, pulverizes it, and rolling on in resistless power, ever growing as it rolls, until it becomes a mountain in bulk and fills the whole earth. Such the dream.
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM The dream foretells five great world empires:
The first is identified as the Babylonian.
The second is identified in the prophecy as the Medo-Persian.
The third is identified in the prophecy as the Grecian.
The fourth by a suggestion in the eighth prophecy as the Roman.
The fifth is the kingdom of God set up by the God of heaven and without hands in the days of the fourth empire.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE EMPIRES This is the characteristic of the first: Thou, O king, art king of kings unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory, and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven hath he given into thine hands and hath made thee to rule over them all, and thou art that head of gold.
The characteristic of the second one is, so far as this chapter tells us, that it is inferior to the first. This chapter, in identifying the second world monarchy, simply tells us that it succeeds the Babylonian, the first, but in the later prophetic sections when this vision is elaborated it is expressly said to be a kingdom of the Modes and of the Persians. I say that the book of Daniel identifies the second world government as the Medo-Persian Empire just as plainly and explicitly and exactly as it identifies the first with the Babylonian.
Now when we come to the third, “another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth,” is all this chapter says about this one, but when we take up the subsequent prophetic section it is explicitly said to be the Grecian Empire, the thighs indicating subsequent division of the empire. One man said to me, “If the third empire is unquestionably the Greek Empire, how can it be represented as the lower body and two thighs divided into four parts?” My answer is that this book tells us that it did divide into four parts, but deals only with the two parts which touched God’s people. This book has nothing in detail to say about the divisions of Alexander’s empire beyond the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, one of them getting Syria and the other getting Egypt.
When he comes to speak of the fourth this is what he says: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that crusheth, all these shall it break in pieces and crush. Whereas, thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron forasmuch as thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so shall the kingdom be partly strong and partly broken; and whereas, thou sawest the iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron does not mingle with clay.
This book in this chapter does not name that fourth government, but when we come to consider the visions of the four beasts which is the same as this vision in another form, but with other details, we get a still clearer idea of the characteristics of this government; and when we come to chapter 2, when we are considering the last prophetic revelation, we have a suggestion where this fourth government comes in and holds Antiochus Epiphanes at bay, that place where the representative of Rome made a little circle in the sand around Antiochus and said, “You must answer before you step outside of that circle.” We know it also to be Rome because Rome with two legs divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, Constantine establishing Eastern Rome at Byzantium on the Bosporus while the Western Empire continues at Rome. We also know it by its divisions into ten kingdoms as its imperial supremacy passed away.
Here is what he says about the last kingdom:
1. He gives its origin: “I saw a little stone cut out without hands.” Those other four stood in the form of a man because man was the author of them all. This fifth one is divine, this fifth kingdom is set up by the God of heaven, and we should never lose sight of that fact.
2. The second thought that he presents is as to the time when the God of heaven would set up this kingdom; that it would be in the days of the fourth monarchy the Roman monarchy: “In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” So when a man asks when was the kingdom of heaven set up, and that, of course, means in its visible form, as the Babylonian kingdom was visible, the Medo-Persian kingdom was visible, the Greek kingdom was visible, the Roman kingdom was visible, and as God all the time had a spiritual kingdom, but now he is to set up a visible kingdom and it is to be just as visible as any of these others then, as a Baptist, I answer: Jesus set up the kingdom in his lifetime, as the Gospels abundantly show.
3. The third thought in this description of this kingdom is its beginning, its gradual progress, its prevalence over the whole earth, Just a pebble falling, and as it falls getting bigger, rolling, and as it rolls getting bigger, smiting these other governments, becoming a mountain, becoming as big as the world. And when we get to thinking about that progress of this kingdom, we should remember what our Lord said, that in its eternal working it is like leaven which a woman puts in three measures of meal and ultimately it leavens the whole lump; and when we think about its external development, it is like a grain of mustard seed which a man planted and it grew and grew and grew until it became a tree.
Whenever we hear a pessimist preaching an idea of a kingdom like a tadpole, that commences big at first and tapers to a very fine tail, getting smaller and smaller and worse and worse, then that is not the kingdom Daniel spoke of.
His kingdom commences small and gets bigger and bigger, and mightier and mightier, and I thank God that I don’t have to preach concerning a kingdom that is continually “petering out.” I am glad that I can preach a gospel that is growing in power and extending in domain and that has the promise of God that it shall fill the whole world and be everlasting. It always did give me the creeps to hear one of those pessimists. They get their ideas from an inexcusable misinterpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures.
I heard one of them say, “Doesn’t our Lord say in answer to the direct question, ‘Are there few that will be saved?’ that ‘Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find if ?” I said, “Yes, but to whom did he say that?” To the Jews of his day, and then to prevent a misconstruction, while only a few Jews of his day would be saved, he says, “But I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and shall recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” The thought reappears in Revelation where John sees the host of the redeemed. He introduces us first to 144,000 Jews and then he shows us a line that no man can see the end of: “I saw a great multitude that no man could number out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred.” So if the kingdom which Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh set up on this earth is narrowing, that is cause for sadness, but if it is spreading out, growing bigger and bigger, and has perpetuity, that is a cause for gladness.
This visible kingdom of Jesus Christ will be perpetual. Perpetuity is its heritage.
We need not be afraid to preach its perpetuity and its visibility, with visible subjects, with visible ordinances, with a visible church charged with its administration. It will not be sponged off the board, any of it, neither the kingdom nor its gospel nor its church nor its ordinances. They will stand until the rivers shall be emptied into the sea. As Dr. Burleson used to say: “It will be standing when grass quits growing, and we should not be afraid to preach perpetuity.” Let us not be too sure that we can take a surveying chain and trace that perpetuity through human agencies and human history, but we may certainly stand on the declaration of God’s Word that this kingdom is everlasting: Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
Over and over again in this book, Daniel holds out, as he explains the thought of this first dream as a light that gets bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, that the saints shall possess the kingdoms of the world.
I expect to see (in the flesh or out of the flesh it matters not ) every mountain of this earth or mountain range and every valley between and every plain, whether rich red land like the Panhandle or dry sand like the Sahara Desert; and every zone, Arctic, Temperate, or Torrid: every iceberg shivering in the Aurora Borealis around the North Pole or South Pole, have floating over it the great white conquering banner of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We are to have every bit of it, and the time will come when no fallen angel will flap his wing and make a shadow on any part of it and when no wicked man shall crush beneath his feet any of its beautiful or sweet flowers, but when the meek shall inherit the earth, and throughout the whole earth, after its regeneration, there shall dwell eternal righteousness.
QUESTIONS
1. Give, in order, the prophetic sections of the book of Daniel.
2. Show the unity of the book from these sections.
3. Show the culmination of the book in person and fact.
4. In what respect only are secular governments considered in this book and throughout the Bible?
5. Show the relations of the prophetic sections to each other and how all the rest are developments of the first.
6. Give, in order, all the developments of the messianic thought.
7. Give the several antichrists, citing passages for each.
8. What great doctrine of special comfort do all these prophecies show?
9. Give particulars to show the influence of the man and the book on later ages.
10. Name the five world empires of Dan 2 .
11. What are the characteristics of the fifth, who its author and when set up?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Dan 5:25 And this [is] the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
Ver. 25. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. ] These words signify, He hath perfectly numbered, he hath weighed, and it falleth in pieces. They were the Samaritan characters, saith one, a therefore the Babylonians could not read them, nor could the Jews understand them, though they knew the characters, because they understood not the Chaldee tongue as Daniel did. See on Dan 5:8 .
a Weemse.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 5:25-28
25Now this is the inscription that was written out: MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN. 26This is the interpretation of the message: ‘MENE’God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. 27’TEKE’you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. 28’PERES’your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.
Dan 5:25 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN These NOUNS were apparently the names for ancient weights and measures. Daniel turns them into VERBS to interpret their meaning. The term MENE (BDB 1101) is a word which means to number. Literally, it is a particular weight called a mina, (cf. 1 Kings 10; 1 Kings 17; Ezr 2:69; Neh 7:71-72).
The second term, TEKEL (BDB 1118), is the Hebrew shaqal which means to weigh and is apparently the Aramaic form of the Hebrew weight shekel.
The word UPHARSIN (BDB 1108) means to break or divide. The U is simply the connective and. We have found from archaeological discovery that the basic root word peres means a half-weight. Therefore, these terms are of descending weights. However, Daniel interprets them as VERBS, Dan 5:26-28. This last one may be a play on the word Persian, (i.e. paras, cf. Dan 5:28).
Scholarship of the past century thought that the title Darius the Mede (cf. Dan 5:31) demanded a separate Median Empire and that the order of the four kingdoms in Daniel should be Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece (e.g. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 418-426). However, the term divided (cf. Dan 5:28) could refer to the third empire as being a combination of Medo-Persia with Persia being the dominant group (cf. Dan 8:20). This would then make Rome the fourth empire with the coming of the Messiah to set up a kingdom occurring during this period. This scenario fits history and Scripture much better.
Dan 5:28 the Medes and the Persians This shows the historicity of the book of Daniel. Once Cyrus II became the monarch of the Fertile Crescent, the order was changed to the Persians and the Medes instead of the Medes and Persians (cf. J. C. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede, p. 127). This phrase also shows that these two empires are seen as one entity in Daniel.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
MENE, MENE = NUMBERED, NUMBERED. Figure of speech Epizeuxis (App-6), for great emphasis. Chaldee. mene’, mene’ = numbered [yea] ended. See note on Jer 27:7.
TEKEL = WEIGHED. Chaldee. tekel (compare Hebrew. shekel. App-51.)
UPPHARSIN = AND DIVIDED (or BROKEN). Chaldee. upharsin (the “u” being the conjunction = and), from Chaldee. paras = to break. See note on Dan 4:27. There is a further reference, by the Figure of speech Syllepsis (or combination), App-6, to the Persians, by whom the kingdom of Babylon was broken up.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 5:25-26
Dan 5:25 And thisH1836 is the writingH3792 thatH1768 was written,H7560 MENE,H4484 MENE,H4484 TEKEL,H8625 UPHARSIN.H6537
Dan 5:26 ThisH1836 is the interpretationH6591 of the thing:H4406 MENE;H4484 GodH426 hath numberedH4483 thy kingdom,H4437 and finishedH8000 it.
Dan 5:25-26
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.
The words written on the wall were read by Daniel and their meaning interpreted. The first word MENE announced the downfall of the Babylonian empire. Belshazzar doubtless had no idea it was going to be done as swiftly as it was. The overthrow of the city was already well in progress at the time of Belshazzar’s feast.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
MENE: Had these words been written in the Chaldean character, every one who knew the alphabet of the language could at least have read them: they are pure Chaldee, and literally denote “He is numbered, he is numbered; he is weighed; they are divided.” Dan 5:25
Reciprocal: 1Sa 28:19 – and to morrow 2Ch 21:12 – a writing Isa 14:11 – pomp Isa 47:11 – thou shalt not be Jer 27:7 – until Hab 2:7 – they Luk 1:51 – he hath scattered Luk 12:20 – God
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 5:25. We should remember that the wise men not only were unable to interpret the writing, but they could not read it (verses 8, 15), so the first thing done was to pronounce the words. In this paragraph I shall copy the words and give Strongs definition from the standpoint of a lexicon. Mene. “(Chaldee), past participle of menu, numbered. Tekel. (Chaldee), to balance. Upharsin. (Chaldee), to split up.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
5:25 And this [is] the writing that was written, {n} MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
(n) This word is written twice because of the certainty of the thing, showing that God had most surely decided: it signifies also that God has appointed a term for all kingdoms, and that a miserable end will come on all that raise themselves against him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
6. Daniel’s interpretation of the writing 5:25-28
Scholars have wearied themselves trying to figure out how Daniel got his interpretation from these three apparently Aramaic words. They have been as unsuccessful as Belshazzar’s original wise men were. It seems best to me simply to take Daniel’s interpretation at face value, even though we may not be able to understand completely how he arrived at it. It has been said that Daniel could interpret these words because he recognized his Father’s handwriting. [Note: Campbell, p. 64.]
This much seems clear. The words all referred to measures of weight. [Note: Goldingay, pp. 110-11; Baldwin, pp. 123-24.] Daniel interpreted the consonants by adding vowels, which are absent in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, and made each word a passive participle. The Aramaic word mene means "mena," or with different vowels, menah, "numbered." Daniel understood this word to signify that the number of years that God had prescribed for the Neo-Babylonian Empire had expired. Its repetition probably stressed the certainty of this point. Joseph had told Pharaoh: "Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about" (Gen 41:32). Tekel (cognate with the Hebrew "shekel") when changed to tekal means "weighed." God had weighed Belshazzar and had found him deficient; he was not the ruler that he should have been because of his flagrant refusal to acknowledge the Most High God’s sovereignty (Dan 5:22). Uparsin means "and half-shekels." Peras means "broken in two" or "divided" and relates to the division of Belshazzar’s kingdom into two parts, one part for the Medes and the other for the Persians. However, paras means "Persia." Persia was the dominant kingdom in the Medo-Persian alliance. Thus prs had a triple meaning. The meaning of these words describing various weights would have been unintelligible to the Chaldean wise men. Even if they had supplied the vowels that Daniel did, and came up with the words "numbered," "weighed," and "divided"-they would have been meaningless without a context.
"The important consequence of this identification of the combined Medo-Persian Empire as the second kingdom in Daniel’s series of four (embodied in Nebuchadnezzar’s four-part dream-image in ch. 2) is that the third kingdom must be the Greek one; therefore, the fourth empire must be the Roman Empire-which, of course, did not actually take over the Near East till 63 B.C., a century after the Maccabean uprisings. Therefore, this handwriting on the wall demolishes the Maccabean date hypothesis, which insists that nothing in Daniel prophesies any event later than the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 B.C., a hundred years before Pompey annexed Palestine-Syria to the Roman Empire." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 74.]
Ironically, as Daniel interpreted God’s verdict against Babylon, the Medes and Persians were already pouring into the city.
"As God had judged Nebuchadnezzar’s pride by removing him from the throne, so He would judge Belshazzar’s pride by taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another people." [Note: Pentecost, p. 1346.]