Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 5:31
And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.
31. And Darius the Median (or the Mede, as Dan 11:1) received the kingdom ] The idea of the writer appears to be that the Medes and Persians were acting in concert at the time of the capture of Babylon ( Dan 5:28); but that when the city was taken, ‘Darius the Mede,’ by a joint arrangement between the two peoples (or their rulers), ‘received’ the kingdom, or (Dan 9:1) ‘was made king,’ and (ch. 6) took up his residence in Babylon as his capital. Darius, though bound by the laws of the two allied peoples, the ‘Medes and Persians’ (Dan 6:8; Dan 6:12; Dan 6:15), clearly, in ch. 6, acts not as viceroy for another but as an independent king, organising his kingdom into satrapies (Dan 6:1), otherwise both acting as king and receiving the title of ‘king’ (Dan 6:3; Dan 6:7-8, &c., 25): his reign, moreover, precedes, and is distinct from, that of Cyrus (Dan 6:28: see also Dan 11:1-2, Dan 11:1, as compared with Dan 10:1; and cp. on Dan 8:3). It is true, this representation does not agree with what is known from history, for though the Medes (see on Dan 2:39) joined Cyrus in b.c. 549, and formed afterwards an important and influential element in the Persian empire [263] , there is no trace of their exercising afterwards any independent rule; in the Inscriptions, Cyrus begins his reign in Babylon immediately after the close of that of Nabu-na’id. Contemporary monuments allow no room for a king, ‘Darius the Mede,’ between the entry of Babylon by Cyrus and the reign of Cyrus himself. The figure, it seems, must be the result of some historical confusion, perhaps (see the Introd. p. liv) a combination of Gubaru, the ‘governor’ ( peh), who first entered Babylon, and took command in it, at the time of Cyrus’ conquest, with (cf. Sayce, Monuments, pp. 528 30) Darius Hystaspis, father (not son) of ’ ashwrsh = Xerxes (Dan 9:1).
[263] Under the Persian kings, Medes are repeatedly mentioned as holding high and responsible positions (Rawl. Herod. App. to Bk. i, Essay iii, 2). On the large amount contributed by Media to the Persian revenue see Rawl., Anc. Mon. 4 ii. 428.
about threescore and two years old ] We do not know upon what tradition, or chronological calculation, the age assigned to ‘Darius the Mede’ depends.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And Darius the Median took the kingdom – The city and kingdom were actually taken by Cyrus, though acting in the name and by the authority of Darius, or Cyaxares, who was his uncle. For a full explanation of the conquests of Cyrus, and of the reason why the city is said to have been taken by Darius, see the notes at Isa 41:2. In regard to the question who Darius the Median was, see the Introduction to Daniel 6, section II. The name Darius – dareyavesh, is the name under which the three Medo-Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament. There is some difference of opinion as to its meaning. Herodotus (vi. 98) says, that it is equivalent to herxies, one who restrains, but Hesychius says that it is the same as phronimos – prudent. Grotefend, who has found it in the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Darheush, or Darjeush (Heerens Ideen, i. 2, p. 350), makes it to be a compound word, the first part being an abbreviation of Dara, Lord, and the latter portion coming from kshah, king. Martin reads the name Dareiousch Vyschtasponea on the Persepolitan inscriptions; that is, Darius, son of Vishtaspo. Lassen, however, gives Darhawus Vistaspaha, the latter word being equivalent to the Gustasp of the modern Persian, and meaning one whose employment is about horses. See Anthons Class. Dict., and Kittos Cyclo., art. Darius. Compare Niehbuhr, Reisebeschr., Part II. Tab. 24, G. and B. Gesenius, Lex. This Darius is supposed to be Cyaxares II. (Introduction to Dan. 6 Section II.), the son and successor of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, who held the empire of Media between Astyages and Cyrus, 569-536 b.c.
Being – Margin, He as son of. The marginal reading is in accordance with the Chaldee – kebar. It is not unusual in the language of the Orientals to denote the age of anyone by saying that he is the son of so many years.
About – Margin, or, now. The word, both in the text and the margin, is designed to express the supposed sense of his being the son of sixty years. The language of the original would, however, be accurately expressed by saying that he was then sixty years old. Though Cyrus was the active agent in taking Babylon, yet it was done in the name and by the authority of Cyaxares or Darius; and as he was the actual sovereign, the name of his general – Cyrus – is not mentioned here, though he was in fact the most important agent in taking the city, and became ultimately much more celebrated than Darius was.
This portion of history, the closing scene in the reign of a mighty monarch, and the closing scene in the independent existence of one of the most powerful kingdoms that has ever existed on the earth, is full of instructive lessons; and in view of the chapter as thus explained, we may make the following remarks.
Remarks
(1) We have here an impressive illustration of the sin of sacrilege Dan 5:2-3. In all ages, and among all people, this has been regarded as a sin of peculiar enormity, and it is quite evident that God in this solemn scene meant to confirm the general judgment of mankind on the subject. Among all people, where any kind of religion has prevailed, there are places and objects which are regarded as set apart to sacred use, and which are not to be employed for common and profane purposes. Though in themselves – in the gold and silver, the wood and stone of which they are made – there is no essential holiness, yet they derive a sacredness from being set apart to Divine purposes, and it has always been held to be a high crime to treat them with indignity or contempt – to rob altars, or to desecrate holy places. This general impression of mankind it was clearly the design of God to confirm in the case before us, when the sacred vessels of the temple – vessels consecrated in the most solemn manner to the worship of Jehovah – were profanely employed for the purposes of carousal. God had borne it patiently when those vessels had been removed from the temple at Jerusalem, and when they had been laid up among the spoils of victory in the temples of Babylon; but when they were profaned for purposes of revelry – when they were brought forth to grace a pagan festival, and to be employed in the midst of scenes of riot and dissipation, it was time for him to interpose, and to show to these profane revellers that there is a God in heaven.
(2) We may see the peril of such festivals as that celebrated by Belshazzar and his lords, Dan 5:1 following. It is by no means probable that when the feast was contemplated and arranged, anything was designed like what occurred in the progress of the affair. It was not a matter of set purpose to introduce the females of the harem to this scene of carousal, and still less to make use of the sacred vessels dedicated to the worship of Jehovah, to grace the midnight revelry. It is not improbable that they would have been at first shocked at such an outrage on what was regarded as propriety, or what would have been deemed sacred by all people. It was only when the king had tasted the wine that these things were proposed; and none who attend on such a banquet as this, none who come together for purposes of drinking and feasting, can foretell what they may be led to do under the influence of wine and strong drink. No man is certain of not doing foolish and wicked things who gives himself up to such indulgences; no man knows what he may do that may be the cause of bitter regret and painful mortification in the recollection.
(3) God has the means of access to the consciences of men Dan 5:5. In this case it was by writing on the wall with his own fingers certain mysterious words which none could interpret, but which no one doubted were of fearful import. No one present, it would appear, had any doubt that somehow what was written was connected with some awful judgment, and the fearfulness of what they dreaded arose manifestly from the consciousness of their own guilt. It is not often that God comes forth in this way to alarm the guilty; but he has a thousand methods of doing it, and no one can be sure that in an instant he will not summon all the sins of his past life to remembrance. He could write our guilt in letters of light before us – in the chamber where we sleep; in the hall where we engage in revelry; on the face of the sky at night; or he can make it as plain to our minds as if it were thus written out. To Belshazzar, in his palace, surrounded by his lords, he showed this; to us in society or solitude he can do the same thing. No sinner can have any security that he may not in a moment be overwhelmed with the conviction of his own depravity, and with dreadful apprehension of the wrath to come.
(4) We have in this chapter Dan 5:6 a striking illustration of the effects of a sudden alarm to the guilty. The countenance of the monarch was changed; his thoughts troubled him; the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote together. Such effects are not uncommon when a sinner is made to feel that he is in the presence of God, and when his thoughts are led along to the future world. The human frame is so made that these changes occur as indicative of the troubles which the mind experiences, and the fact that it is thus agitated shows the power which God has over us. No guilty man can be secure that he will not thus be alarmed when he comes to contemplate the possibility that he may soon be called before his Maker, and the fact that he may thus be alarmed should be one of the considerations bearing on his mind to lead him to a course of virtue and religion. Such terror is proof of conscious guilt, for the innocent have nothing to dread; and if a man is sure that he is prepared to appear before God, he is not alarmed at the prospect. They who live in sin; they who indulge in revelry; they who are profane and sacrilegious; they who abuse the mercies of God, and live to deride sacred things, can never be certain that in a moment, by the revelation of their guilt to their own souls, and by a sudden message from the eternal world, they may not be overwhelmed with the deepest consternation. Their countenances may become deadly pale, their joints may be loosed, and their limbs tremble. It is only the righteous who can look calmly at the judgment.
(5) We may see from this chapter one of the effects of the terror of a guilty conscience. It is not said, indeed, that the mysterious fingers on the wall recorded the guilt of the monarch. But they recorded something; they were making some record that manifestly pertained to him. How natural was it to suppose that it was a record of his guilt! And who is there that could bear a record made in that manner of his own thoughts and purposes; of his desires and feelings; of what he is conscious is passing within the chambers of his own soul? There is no one who would not turn pale if he saw a mysterious hand writing all his thoughts and purposes – all the deeds of his past life – on the wall of his chamber at night, and bringing at once all his concealed thoughts and all his forgotten deeds before his mind. And if this is so, how will the sinner bear the disclosures that will be made at the day of judgment?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 31. Darius the Median took the kingdom] This is supposed to be the same as Cyaxares, son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus, to whom he gave the throne of Babylon, after himself had had the honour of taking the city.
Daniel speaks nothing of the war that raged between the Babylonians and the Medes; but Isaiah speaks particularly of it, Isa 13, Isa 14, Isa 45, Isa 46, Isa 47; and so does Jeremiah, Jer 50, Jer 51. I need not add, that it is largely spoken of by profane authors. The Medes and Persians were confederates in the war; the former under Darius, the latter under Cyrus. Both princes are supposed to have been present at the taking of this city. Mandane, daughter of Astyages, was mother of Cyrus, and sister to Cyaxares.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There were two of this name, one called the Mede, another Darius called Persian. This in the text was he that with Cyrus besieged and took Babylon; he gave himself the name Darius, being before called Nabonnedus. He was chief in the siege, and first in the quarrel against the Chaldees.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. Darius the Medianthat is,Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, 569-536 B.C.Though Koresh, or Cyrus, was leader of the assault, yet all was donein the name of Darius; therefore, he alone is mentioned here; but Da6:28 shows Daniel was not ignorant of Cyrus’ share in thecapture of Babylon. Isa 13:17;Isa 21:2, confirm Daniel inmaking the Medes the leading nation in destroying Babylon. Soalso Jer 51:11; Jer 51:28.HERODOTUS, on the otherhand, omits mentioning Darius, as that king, being weak and sensual,gave up all the authority to his energetic nephew, Cyrus [XENOPHON,Cyropdia, 1.5; 8.7].
threescore and two yearsoldThis agrees with XENOPHON[Cyropdia, 8.5,19], as to Cyaxares II.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Darius the Median took the kingdom,…. This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, Ezr 4:5, the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years; and not alone, but Cyrus with him, though he is only mentioned. Xenophon k says, that Cyrus, after he took Babylon, set out for Persia, and took Media on his way; and, saluting Cyaxares or Darius, said that there was a choice house and court for him in Babylon, where he might go and live as in his own:
being about threescore and two years old; and so was born in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year in which Jechoniah was carried captive, 2Ki 24:12, thus God in his counsels and providence took care that a deliverer of his people should be raised up and provided against the appointed time. Darius was older than Cyrus, as appears by several passages in Xenophon; in one place l Cyaxares or Darius says,
“since I am present, and am “elder” than Cyrus, it is fit that I should speak first;”
and in another place m, Cyrus, writing to him, says,
“I give thee counsel, though I am the younger”
and by comparing this account of the age of Darius with a passage in Cicero, which gives the age of Cyrus, we learn how much older than he Darius was; for, out of the books of Dionysius the Persian, he relates n, that Cyrus dreaming he saw the sun at his feet, which he three times endeavoured to catch and lay hold upon, but in vain, it sliding from him; this, the Magi said, portended that he should reign thirty years, and so he did; for he lived to be seventy years of age, and began to reign when he was forty; which, if reckoned from his reigning with his uncle, then he must be twenty two years younger; or if from the time of his being sole monarch, then the difference of age between them must be twenty four years; though it should be observed that those that make him to reign thirty years begin his reign from the time of his being appointed commander-in-chief of the Medes and Persians by Cyaxares o, which was twenty three years before he reigned alone, which was but seven years p; and this account makes but very little difference in their age; and indeed some q have taken them to be one and the same, their descent, age, and succession in the Babylonian empire, agreeing.
k Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 36. l lbid. l. 6. c. 2. m lbid. l. 4. c. 21. n De Divinatione, l. 1. o See the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 181. and vol. 21. p. 64, 65. p Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 45. q Nicol. Abrami Pharus Vet. Test. l. 12. c. 24. p. 338. Pererius in ib, Graeci Patres apud Theodoret. Orat. 6. in Daniel.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
With the death of Belshazzar that very night the interpretation given by Daniel began to be fulfilled, and this fulfilment afforded a certainty that the remaining parts of it would also sooner or later be accomplished. That this did not take place immediately, we have already shown in our preliminary remarks to this chapter.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and thus held in the highest honor and estimation, it is not surprising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus was content with his own power and with the praise and fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Astyages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers had informed him how an offspring should be born of her who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them undecided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he was unmarried at the capture of Babylon; for his uncle, and perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he reigned over the Chaldeans. It now follows, —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(31) Darius the Median.Note the LXX. variation: And Artaxerxes of the Medes took the kingdom, and Darius, full of days and glorious in old age. (See Excursus D.)
Tooki.e., received it from the hands of a conqueror. (Comp. Dan. 9:1, where Darius is said to have been made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.)
EXCURSUS D: DARIUS THE MEDE (Daniel 5:31).
It appears from the account given by Daniel that Darius the Mede was the sovereign appointed to rule over Babylonia after the death of Belshazzar. Cyrus, after the capture of Babylon, appointed a man named Gubaru (Gobryas) as his governor at Babylon. Can he and Darius the Mede be the same person? It is impossible to identify Darius with any personage mentioned in profane history, and hitherto no traces of any such name have been found in Babylonian inscriptions belonging to this period. Till time or circumstances shall give further information, we must maintain that a book like Daniels, which is correct on many minor points, cannot fail to be accurate upon the subject of Darius.
Difficulties were experienced at a very early time in reference to this subject. The LXX., assuming that Ahasuerus (Dan. 9:1) was Xerxes, identified him with Artaxerxes. The opinion of Josephus is that Darius (Antt. x. 11, 4) and his kinsman Cyrus destroyed the supremacy of Babylon; and at the fall of the capital, this Darius, son of Astyages, took Daniel with him to Media, and placed him in an exalted situation. St. Jerome agrees to this relationship between Cyrus and Darius. St. Ephraim is silent; but Theodoret goes further, and identifies Darius with Cyaxares, son of Astyages. In modern times the identity of Darius with Cyaxares II. has been strongly maintained, though without paying sufficient attention to the very slight evidence in favour of the existence of the latter. The identification of Darius with Astyages has an obvious refutation, for in B.C. 536 Astyages would have exceeded the age ascribed to Darius by Daniel (Dan. 5:31).
It is evident from history that Cyrus was the immediate conqueror of Babylon, and that no Median Empire came between the Babylonian and the Persian Empires. It is also clear that Daniel regards Darius as one who received the kingdom (Dan. 5:31), and who was made king (Dan. 9:1). If the word Darius means a maintainor, all that is mentioned in this chapter amounts to no more than the statement that a Median governor took the kingdom. How. ever, the use of the word (Dan. 9:1) requires the name of a person rather than an office.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 5:31. And Darius the Median took the kingdom And Darius the Mede accepted the kingdom; so the Syriac and Arabic versions. This Darius, in the ninth chapter, is said to be of the seed of the Medes, and is supposed by the most judicious chronologers to have been the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages. Cyrus made him king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mother’s side; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased.
REFLECTIONS.1st, Belshazzar, the subject of this chapter, was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 27:7 whose monarchy, according to the term fixed in the prophetic word, was now hasting to ruin. We have here,
1. An account of his impiety and profaneness. Unaffected with the danger of his situation, though a victorious army was at the gates of Babylon; on some returning solemnity in honour of his gods, or to celebrate his birth-day, he invites all the great men of his court, and chief officers of his army, to partake of a grand entertainment that he had provided, and makes one himself at the festal board, and drank wine before them. In the midst of mirth and jollity, the sacred vessels of the temple occurred to him; and in a frolic, or to express his contempt of Israel’s God, and to do honour to his own, he commands them to be brought, and all present drank out of them, and praised their idol gods, who had given them these spoils of their enemies: probably the report of the deliverance of Israel from Babylon might now be propagated, the seventy years being just at an end; some say that very night they expired; and this might be done in defiance of Israel’s God, and in ridicule of the prophetic word. Note; (1.) Drunkenness is the door to every abomination. (2.) They are hastening apace to ruin, who can make a jest of things sacred. (3.) The joyous sinner in the midst of his carousals is a most pitiable object, dancing and singing on the brink of the gulph, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
2. A sudden event terribly interrupts their impious joys. In the midst of their carousals, a hand appears over against the candlestick, and writes upon the plaister of the wall. Struck with terror at the sight, Belshazzar’s countenance changed; his pallid cheeks, his quivering lips, his trembling knees, his tottering frame, bespoke the horrors of his soul; and conscious guilt awakened dire forebodings of the dreadful doom hereby portended. In haste he calls aloud to bring the wisest of his Chaldean sages, and promises the highest rewards to the man who can read and interpret the writing, but in vain; for though the words were Chaldee, the manner or form of writing was such as entirely baffled their skill; or by a divine judgment, to make the skill of Daniel more illustrious, God confounded their understandings; and this increased the more the anxiety of the monarch, and filled his lords with consternation and astonishment. Note; (1.) God can reach the most daring sinners; one touch of his hand, yea, their own thoughts let loose upon them, are enough to make them a terror to themselves. (2.) Shall an unknown writing thus trouble the conscience of Belshazzar, and shall not all the curses so plainly written in the book of God affect the careless and impenitent?
2nd, In this state of dismay and confusion we have,
1. The advice of the queen; who had not been present at the feast; but, on hearing what had passed, had come to the banqueting house. She is supposed to be not the wife of Belshazzar, but of his father Evil-merodach, called by Herodotus Nitocris, and greatly famed for her prudence: though others think her to be Amytis, the grandmother of the king, and wife of Nebuchadnezzar. It appears that she was well acquainted with the transactions of former times, and knew the abilities of Daniel; and therefore is bold to say, though the wise men of Babylon were at a stand, that the king need not fear but an interpreter could be found. Probably Daniel’s interest had long since declined at court: so likely often, in a new reign, are the best and most faithful of the ancient counsellors to be neglected. But the high character that the queen gives of this now forgotten sage could not but excite a desire to have him called. She speaks of him as something more than human, possessed of wisdom approaching omniscience, and penetration so deep, that no secrets or difficulties whatever puzzled him; and by experience the king Nebuchadnezzar had proved him to be possessed of a spirit far excelling all the magicians and astrologers of his kingdom. In consequence of which, he had advanced him to be master of all the sages, and named him Belteshazzar, in honour of his god. The queen desires, therefore, that he may be sent for, and doubts not but he will give the king full satisfaction.
2. Daniel is instantly summoned, and appears before the king, unknown to him by person, as appears by Belshazzar’s question, Dan 5:13. But having heard such high encomiums of his wisdom, he is desirous to try whether he can read and interpret the writing, of which the magicians confess their ignorance; and promises him the same rewards as he had offered to them, if he could clearly explain the matter: even that he should be arrayed in the richest robes of honour, and promoted to the third place for dignity in his kingdom.
3. Daniel undertakes to read and interpret the writing; but prefaces his discourse with some striking remarks and admonitions.
(1.) The proffered gifts he nobly disdains, as the reward of his interpretation; he neither wanted nor sought them. At his age, advancement would be but a burden; and when the whole government was so quickly to be overturned, such honours were not worth acceptance. Yet he will freely satisfy the king, if that can be called satisfaction, which, instead of relieving his fears, must increase his distress. Note; A sense of the near approaching end of all things should make us sit loose to the trifles of this changing and perishing world.
(2.) He recounts God’s dispensations towards the king’s father, or rather his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar; it being not unusual in scripture to term a more remote ancestor father. By the providence and gift of the most high God, from whom all good things come, and to whose blessing all our prosperity ought ever to be ascribed, Nebuchadnezzar had acquired such dominion, honour, and authority, as perhaps no prince before had ever attained to; so irresistible his power, that none dared to contend with him; and, trembling at his feet, all nations bowed before him. His government despotic, his authority absolute; the liberty and property, the life or death of all his subjects hung on his breath; his will was law, his orders obeyed without remonstrance or hesitation: a dangerous power to be vested in the bosom of a fallen creature, a curse upon the land where such arbitrary monarchs rule. Abusing his authority, Nebuchadnezzar had acted with that tyranny and oppression which lawless power, directed by caprice, naturally produced; and, hardened in pride, he not only behaved unjustly to man, but insolently towards the most High, ascribing to his own prowess his successes, and affecting independence of every superior. For these things the God of heaven hurled him from his throne, and degraded him not merely to the lowest state of human meanness, but to a level with the brute creation, to be the companion of wild asses, justly depriving him of the reason that he had abused, and for his savageness and oppression sending him to dwell with the beasts that he chose to imitate; till, humbled in the dust, he was brought to acknowledge the government of the most High, and own himself the subject of his pleasure.
(3.) He arraigns Belshazzar for his crimes, aggravated by the neglect of all the warnings which God had given him in his father’s case. He knew all that had passed, yet nevertheless,
[1.] He had not humbled his heart, but continued impenitent in the same pride and rebellion against God. Note; It is an aggravation of children’s sins, if, instead of being admonished by their father’s miseries, they persist to follow their destructive ways.
[2.] He had exceeded in impiety his ungodly fire. Thou hast lifted up thyself against, or above the Lord of heaven, with more daring blasphemy, defying his power and dishonouring his name, as if he was his superior; and shew-ing the contempt in which he held him, by his horrid profanation of the vessels of the temple, while he praised his idol gods, senseless as the vessels from which he poured out the libation to them.
[3.] The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified; a charge, before which who need not tremble! Our breath is from him; it is momentarily preserved by him, our ways under his controul, every event at his disposal. To glorify him is the great end of our being, our duty, and should be our delight; but we have failed and gone astray every one in his own way, casting off his government, and negligent of his glory. The Lord humble us for this, that we may not meet Belshazzar’s doom.
4. Having thus proved his crimes, Daniel pronounces his doom, according to the tenor of the writing on the wall, the explication of which he had demanded. Then when his iniquity was at the height, at this impious feast, came this hand from God, and wrote these wordsMENE MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. The words are Chaldee, and signify, He hath numbered, he hath numbered, he hath weighed, and they divide; the several particulars of which he explains:
MENE, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; the term of the monarchy is expiring, its ruin is near, and the word is repeated to shew its certainty.
TEKEL, Thou art weighed in the balances, and found wanting; God, who weighs in the balances of exact justice the actions and characters of men, pronounces him worthless and reprobate.
PERES, the singular of Pharsin, (U being the copulative,) Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians; such is the irreversible decree of the Almighty; and Belshazzar, convinced in his conscience that Daniel had spoken the truth, though so fearful the sentence, immediately confers on him the promised reward. Withering honours! the pageantry of an hour! and all this world’s honours, viewed in their true light, are no better.
The sinner and the hypocrites doom is like Belshazzar’s. At death their days are numbered; in judgment they will be weighed in the balance of God’s holy law, and found wanting; and then be given up to the devil and his angels, to be tormented to eternity.
3rdly, The writing is scarcely sooner interpreted than verified. That very night the city was taken, and Belshazzar slain: taking advantage of this debauch of the king, as history informs us, Cyrus entered the city by the bed of the river, the waters of which he had cut off; and the guards being fast asleep, and overcome with wine, made no resistance; so that all the gates being opened, Gadatas and Gobryas, two great men, who, being ill used by Belshazzar, had revolted to Cyrus, went directly to the palace, and slew the king with all his attendants. Thus ended the Babylonish empire; and Darius the Mede, called also Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus, ascended the throne; the first king of the second monarchy. He was sixty-two years old, and consequently was born in the year that Jeconiah was carried captive: God so ordering, that at the very time his people were sent into Babylon, their deliverer should be provided. Cyrus reigned in conjunction with his uncle; though, being the younger, he is not mentioned; and after two years succeeded him in the sole government of the empire, concerning whom so many prophesies had gone before, all which, we find, he most exactly fulfilled. Thus, though God visit his people and the nations for their sins, there is still hope for returning penitents even in the darkest day of affliction.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
REFLECTIONS
MY soul! dismiss not this solemn chapter, until thou hast gathered some of the many instructions, which, under grace, it holds forth to the Church of God, and to all the members of Christ’s mystical body. It is blessed to behold, in the swift judgment of sinners, how sure the Lord’s appointments are; and how Jesus is unceasingly watching over the special and personal interests of his people. And while the hand writing on the wall, or what is the same thing, the voice within, in the sinners conscience, loosens the loins of the enemies of Christ; the Holy Ghost is witnessing to the spirits of the Lord’s people, peace with God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Oh! ye Daniels of the present hour! be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Witness for your Lord, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, Shortly the midnight hour of the ungodly will come, when all the enemies of the cross shall perish. Shortly that day will arrive, when the Lord wilt call his faithful home to glory! And oh! what a vast, what an eternal distinction will then take place, between the Daniels and the Belshazzars of every generation! Precious Jesus! in that day, be thou my hope, my joy, my confidence; that when the whole world of unbelievers are weighed in the balance and found wanting, my soul, among the redeemed of Zion, may be able to shout aloud for joy, crying out in the language of God’s own word, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to Him shall I then come, with all that believe in Him, and never be ashamed, nor confounded, world without end!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
V
THE HISTORY OF DARIUS THE MEDE
Dan 5:31
The testimony of Daniel concerning Darius the Mede is found in Dan 5:31 ; Dan 6:1-28 ; Dan 9:1 . The Jewish Bible properly places the last verse of Dan 5 at the beginning of Dan 6 . From these passages we gather the following facts:
1. Darius is here said to be the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Modes.
2. Darius, like Pharaoh and Caesar, is a title rather than a name.
3. He “received the kingdom,” i.e., from another. He “was made king,” i.e., by another.
4. He was an old man, “about three score and two.”
5. Only one year of his reign is mentioned (Dan 9:1 ).
6. As elsewhere throughout the book, the Medes and Persians are considered jointly as one government (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ).
7. The reigns of Cyrus and of Darius were contemporaneous (Dan 6:28 ).
On this testimony the following observations are submitted:
1. It is difficult from outside history, whether sacred or profane, to determine definitely the real name and place of this Darius. If we adopt the Jewish method of dividing the chapters so as to make the last verse of Dan 5 the first verse of Dan 6 then there is nothing in Daniel’s account to connect closely in time the death of Belshazzar with the accession of Darius, king of Persia, so often named in the book of Ezra. But while we may accept the chapter division, the conclusion deduced, identifying this Darius with the Darius of Ezra, is every way improbable, not to say impossible. The deduction creates far greater difficulties than it removes difficulties in this book as well as in Ezra, and even greater difficulties in Persian history. So our conclusion is that Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, in this book, is not the Darius, the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, so prominent in the book of Ezra. The testimony of Daniel, even if wholly unsupported from the outside, should be accepted as trustworthy unless better testimony should show it to be impossible. A probable explanation of this history when compared with others is all that we need to show.
The famous Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, upon which the radical critics so confidently rely, itself alone furnishes the probable explanation. That tablet shows that a certain general of Cyrus, Gobryas by name, led the night assault in which Belshazzar was slain, and was made governor of the province of Babylon by Cyrus, and then as governor appointed all the subordinate rulers in the realm, which harmonizes perfectly with Daniel’s account that (1) Darius “received the kingdom,” “was made king,” and (2) that “it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps.” Professor Sayce, though so adverse to the historicity of Daniel, thus reads a part of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus: “Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas, his governor, proclaim. Governors in Babylon he (i.e., Gobryas) appointed.” Professor Driver thus renders another part of the tablet: “Gubaru (same as Gobryas) made an assault, and slew the king’s son.” The king’s son was Belshazzar. Then the tablet goes on to show the national mourning for the king’s son.
Defenders of the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel need not commit themselves irrevocably to this identification of Daniel’s Darius with the tablet’s Gobryas. It suggests all that is necessary, a probable explanation. Mr. Pinches, who brought the Annalistic Tablet to light, and many others are quite confident of this identity. Mr. Thomson (“Pulpit Bible,” Daniel) adopts this theory in his exposition. There are several other theories concerning the identity of Daniel’s Darius most plausibly argued by learned men who fully accept the trustworthiness of the history in the book of Daniel. It is not at all necessary to recite them here.
2. It is quite in line with all the probabilities in the case that Cyrus, ruler over two united nations, Medes and Persians, should appoint a Mede as subking over the conquered province of Babylon, while he attended to the general affairs of the whole empire. The reference to both Cyrus and Darius in Dan 6:28 indicates a contemporaneous reign, Darius as subking at Babylon, Cyrus as supreme king over the whole empire.
3. Darius, being an old man when he “received the kingdom,” or “was made king,” did not probably reign long, Daniel specifying only his first year (Dan 9:1 ).
4. The contention of the radical critics that, in Daniel’s mind, the empire of the Medes precedes and is distinct from the empire of the Persians is contradicted flatly by the whole tenor of the book. While everywhere recognizing them as distinct peoples, the book throughout knows them only as a conjoined nation, one government. The laws of the one government are the laws of the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ). This unity in duality is manifested in the symbolic features: the silver beast and two arms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Dan 2:32 ); the bear with one side higher than the other (Dan 7:5 ); the ram with the two horns, one higher than the other (Dan 8:20 ). This last symbol is expressly interpreted as a unity in duality and named “Medes and Persians.”
This absurd contention of the radical critics is evidently intended to hedge against any possible prophecy in the book concerning Rome, as the fourth world empire, and so to make the prophetic forecast of history culminate in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then by arbitrarily dating the book after his reign, to deny all prophetic element in it. In no other radical criticism do they so utterly betray their atheistic presuppositions, and so clearly manifest their utter untrustworthiness as biblical expositors. The very exploit which they regard as their greatest achievement most overwhelmingly exposes their disqualifications and advertises their shame.
THE CONTENTS OF Dan 6 1. On the fall of Babylon and the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus appoints Darius the Mede, subking over the province of Babylon.
2. Darius districts the kingdom under his jurisdiction and appoints 120 satraps over the several districts. Over these satraps he appoints three presidents, Daniel, one of the three, to whom all the satraps must give account of the king’s matters in their several satrapies. This division of authority and responsibility was common then and is yet common in Oriental countries. The three presidents would constitute the king’s cabinet. From this place Farrar gets his “board of three,” but his arbitrary attempt to transfer it back to a preceding regime in order to break the force of “third ruler in the kingdom” (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ) is merely puerile and amusing. Daniel’s age, wisdom, experience, administrative capacity and character so easily make him the dominant spirit over the two other presidents and over all the satraps that Darius purposes to set over the whole realm a grand vizier.
3. And now comes a development so true to the life and character of Oriental despotism, with their large delegation of powers to subordinates, that its absence from the story would have discounted its credibility. Envy, jealousy, and disappointed greed on the part of the two other presidents and all the satraps, lead them to conspire against Daniel. It was bad enough, in their minds, to have him one of three presidents, but if he be made grand vizier, then there would be no hope of successful fraud and loot. Daniel here brings to mind that great commoner, the elder William Pitt, who, as secretary, stood alone in a corrupt age, whose spotless character and imperious will dominated an unwilling king and a venal ministry, before whom all fraud in politics and peculation in office fled affrighted. One such man in a thousand years is about all the world can produce. And when he appears he is like a solitary, huge, cloud-piercing granite mountain in an almost boundless plain.
What a tribute to Daniel’s purity of life, official integrity and sublimity of character, is their confession that nothing could be found against him except his alien religion! But just here these jackals were most sure of their lion. His record was unequivocal and univocal. Not even the mighty Nebuchadnezzar could shake him in a matter of conscience and religion, but rather bowed before him. On this point he was as God himself before the white-faced, pale-lipped, knee-shaking Belshazzar. Hence the low scheme of cunning, the short-sighted trick of engineering on the unsuspecting Darius the signing of a blasphemous law that for thirty days no man should offer prayer or petition to any god, but to the king alone. To polytheistic Orientals, or even to a Roman Caesar, who was ex officio not only pontifex maximus, but was himself divine, such temporary suspension of empty religious services except through the ruler himself, was a light matter enough. But to a pious Jew recognizing one only true God it was every way blasphemous and horrible.
In all the world history of legislative folly this statue stands unique “without a model and without a shadow.” The suspension of the law of gravitation, the suspension of either the centripetal or the centrifugal force, whose joint powers produce the circling orbits of heavenly bodies, would not introduce more confusion in the material universe than such a law, if capable of execution, would produce in the moral and spiritual realm.
NO PRAYER TO GOD FOB THIRTY DAYS
All connection between the throne of mercy and grace and helpless, hungering, thirsting, dying men, severed for thirty days! For a whole month travailing mothers may not cry to God; cradles must remain unblessed; youth helpless before temptation; widows and orphans at the mercy of oppressions and without appeal; human life unguarded in the presence of assassins; property at the mercy of the thief, the burglar and the incendiary; sinners dying unabsolved and unforgiven, an earthly embargo against angel ministrations or heavenly mercies such a law, if enforceable, would be the climax of insanity. What an ocean-sweeping dragnet to catch one fish!
How clearly the record brings out the weakness of Darius I The mind instantly calls up, in association, Herod’s vain regret for his oath when called upon to surrender John the Baptist to the murderous woman, and Pilate vainly washing his hands as he surrenders Jesus to crucifixion, as if consistency were more than righteousness.
Daniel’s attitude was calm, inflexible. Though he knew that the law was signed, and could not have been ignorant of either its malicious purpose or its result to himself, he kept right on praying to God at the three regular Temple hours of prayer, morning, noon, and evening.
He kept his window open toward Jerusalem. How well he bears in mind the words of Solomon’s great intercession at the dedication of the Temple, preserved in the sacred history of his people: If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name: then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication in the land of them that carried them captive, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, toward the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them. 1Ki 8:44-50 .
But by espionage on his private devotions in his own domicile the most accursed method of tyranny his infraction of human law is clearly established. Peter and John when charged by human authority “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” boldly replied: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard” (Act 4:19-20 ). So Daniel here.
DANIEL IN THE LION’S DEN This miraculous preservation of Daniel, though its miracle sorely grieves the radical critics, is, like the preservation of his three friends in the fiery furnace, certified in the New Testament book of Hebrews, which records among the achievements wrought by Israel’s ancient worthies: “By faith they quenched the violence of fire by faith they stopped the mouths of lions.” The fate of Daniel’s accusers when he was vindicated is fully in line with the history of Oriental nations as well as the law of Moses. The consequent proclamation of Darius is not incredible per se, because in keeping with his character, his times, and his people. It is in line with other proclamations in this book, in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
I must again call attention to this fact concerning the text: The accepted Hebrew text, Theodotion’s Greek version in the second century A.D., and the Peshito Syriac version of the same century are generally agreed. The important variant readings are in the Septuagint Greek version. That version, for example, makes only the two other presidents (not the satraps) accuse Daniel, and they alone, with their families (not the satraps) are cast in the lions’ den when Daniel is vindicated. I have not thought it necessary to give all the Septuagint variations.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the affirmations in Dan 5:31 ; Daninel 6; Dan 9:1 concerning Darius?
2. Is he the same as the Darius of the book of Ezra? What the proof?
3. State the archaeological proof that he was probably Gobryas.
4. Give the reply to the radical critic contention that, in Daniels mind the kingdom of the Medea was distinct from the Persian kingdom and preceded it. .
5. By whom and why a conspiracy against Daniel, and what their method of destroying him?
6. State the comparison of Daniel with William Pitt.
7. Show the folly of the statute Darius was induced to sign.
8. What the weakness of Darius and with whom compared?
9. From what texts and versions must we get a true text of Daniel, and which of these are in agreement and which one variant?
10. State the most important variations in the Septuagint.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Dan 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.
Ver. 31. And Darius. ] Called by Ctesias, D , which comes near to Dariaves, as the Chaldee here calleth him. He is thought to be the same with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, and uncle to Cyrus.
Being about threescore and two years old.
a Sedar Olam.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Darius the Median. Through not noting the fact that “Darius” was an appellative denoting “the Maintainer”, and used by Xerxes and others, modern critics have denied the existence of such a king. ASTYAGES was called “Darius”. CYRUS (his son) was co-regent. His general GOBRYAS took the city in the name of CYRUS. See Isa 45:1. Compare Jer 51:30, Jer 51:31. See notes there. Consult App-57.
took. Chaldee. kebal = to take from another. Compare Dan 7:18. Not the same word as in verses: Dan 5:5, Dan 5:2, Dan 5:3, which is nephak = to take out; or Dan 5:20, which is ‘adah = remove.
threescore and two. Born 488 B.C. Herodotus states that CYRUS was about forty years of age at the taking of Babylon (in 426 B. c). At that age his father ASTYAGES (“Darius the Median”) was about “threescore and two years old” (Dan 5:31). Cyrus would therefore be just forty, according to the chronology of App-60, having been born in 466 B.C.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 5:31
Dan 5:31 And DariusH1868 the MedianH4077 tookH6902 the kingdom,H4437 being about threescoreH8361 and twoH8648 yearsH8140 old.H1247
Dan 5:31
And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
According to Rex A. Turner, in his book “Daniel a Prophet of God”, the “Darius the Mede” who took the kingdom here was Gobryas, also known as Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium. Under Cyrus the Great, he entered the city of Babylon on October 12, BC 539. Darius the Mede (Gobryas) was slain in battle less than a month later and was succeeded by another man named Darius (Gubaru) also under Cyrus. Darius (Gubaru) is the man who was coerced into throwing Daniel to the lions in chapter 6.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Darius the Median
The biblical order of the monarchs of Daniel’s time, and of the period of the captivity and restoration of Judah, is as follows:
(1) Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 604-561) with whom the captivity of Judah and the “times of the Gentiles” (See Scofield “Luk 21:24”), See Scofield “Rev 16:19”, began, and who established the first of the four world monarchies.; Dan 2:37; Dan 2:38; Dan 7:4.
(2) Belshazzar (prob B.C. 556), the Bel-shar-uzzar of the inscriptions, grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and son of the victorious general Nabonidus. Belshazzar seems to have reigned as viceroy.
(3) Darius the Mede Dan 5:31; Dan 6:1-27; Dan 9:1. Concerning this Darius secular history awaits further discoveries, as formerly in the case of Belshazzar. He has been conjectured to be identical with Gobryas, a Persian general. This Darius was “the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” Dan 9:1 “Ahasuerus,” more a title than a name, the equivalent of the modern “Majesty,” is used in Scripture of at least four personages, and is Persian rather than Median. That Darius the Mede was the “son” (or grandson) of an Ahasuerus proves no more than that he was, probably, through the seed of his mother, of the seed royal not only of Media, but also of Persia. There is but one Darius in Daniel. (See Dan 9:1.)
(4) Cyrus, with whose rise to power came fully into existence the Medo-Persian, second of the world-empires Dan 2:39; Dan 7:5
In Daniel’s vision of this empire in “the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” Dan 8:1-4 the Median power of Darius is seen as the lesser of the two horns of the ram; the Persian power of Cyrus, under whom the Medo-Persian power was consolidated, as the “higher” horn which “came up last.” Under Cyrus, who was prophetically named more than a century before his birth. Isa 44:28 to Isa 45:4, the return to Palestine of the Jewish remnant began. Ezr 1:1-4. See Dan 11:2, marg. ref. (See Scofield “Dan 11:2”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Darius: This was Cyaxares, son of Astyages, king of Media, and maternal uncle to Cyrus, who allowed him the title of his conquests, as long as he lived. Dan 6:1, Dan 9:1
being: Chal, he as the son of, etc
about: or, now
Reciprocal: Jer 25:13 – hath Jer 50:24 – and thou wast Jer 51:8 – howl Jer 51:44 – the nations Jer 51:52 – the wounded Jer 51:57 – I will Dan 2:9 – the time Dan 5:28 – Thy Dan 8:3 – one Dan 11:1 – in the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 5:31. Darius the Median. As was stated at verse 28, the empire that succeeded the Babylonian was composed of the Medea and Persians, thus forming a dual monarchy. This kingdom is referred to ia various ways; sometimes by Its full title and at others as the Persian, It is occasionally mentioned by the single branch Median, which ft is in this verse. I shall copy a statement from ancient history on this subject as follows: After the death of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede is said in scripture to have taken the kingdom; for Cyrus, as long as his uncle lived, allowed him a joint title with him in the empire, although it was all gained by his own valour, and out of deference to him yielded him the first place of honor in it. But the whole power of the army, and the chief conduct of ail affairs being still in his hands, he only was looked on as the supreme governor of the empire, which he liad erected; and therefore there is no notice at all taken of Darius in the Canon of Ptolemy, but immediately after the death of Belshazzar (who Is there called Nabo nadius), Cyrus is placed as the next successor, as in truth and reality he was; the other having no more than the name and the shadow of the sovereignty, excepting only in Media, which was his own proper dominion.”-Pri deauxs Connexion, Book 1, Part 2, Year 538. Verse 30 merely states that Belshazzar was slain on the night of this feast, but nothing is said about what was going on near and inside the city. The lengthy quotation from history on that interesting subject may be found in connection witli Isa 13:7-8 in Volume 3 of this Commentary.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
5:31 And Darius {o} the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.
(o) Cyrus his son-in-law gave him this title of honour, even though Cyrus in effect had the dominion.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Belshazzar suffered execution that very night, and Darius the Mede became the ruler of Babylonia (cf. Dan 2:21). The writer introduced Darius in Dan 5:31, which is the first verse of chapter 6 in the Hebrew Bible, and he is the prominent king in chapter 6.
"The references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book." [Note: H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, p. 8.]
Critics, including Rowley, claim that history allows no room for a person by this name. However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire, as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire-or, I might add, as "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 18-19, 76.] If this was so, "Darius" could refer to another man known in history by another name or names. The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. [Note: D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 12-14.] This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king" in chapter 6. Furthermore, it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (Dan 5:1). Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent (Dan 9:1).
Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 76-77; Whitcomb, Darius the . . ., p. 35; and Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pp. 128-29. Cf. Wood, The Prophets . . ., p. 348. Young, p. 183, believed Darius was a viceroy under Cyrus.]
"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was ’king of Babylon, king of lands.’ . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king’s [i.e., Cyrus’] departure [from Babylon]." [Note: A. T. Olmstead, The History of the Persian Empire, p. 71.]
This view distinguishes Gubaru from Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium and Persian commander who led the assault against Babylon. A third view is that Ugbaru and Gubaru are different spellings of the same man’s name. [Note: William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede: An Update," Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47. See also idem, "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel’s Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105.]
"But the syllable GU is written quite differently from UG in Akkadian cuneiform." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 76.]
A fourth view equates Darius the Mede with Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, who ruled Persia from about 530 to 522 B.C. [Note: Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pp. 142-55.] Darius the Mede was definitely not the same person as Darius the Great (Darius I) who was much younger and ruled Persia later, from 521-486 B.C., nor was he Darius II who ruled even later. [Note: See the discussion of the problem in Longman and Dillard, pp. 377-81.]
"It must be emphasized that there is no established fact which contradicts a person by the name of Darius the Mede reigning over Babylon if Darius is an alternate name for a known ruler." [Note: Walvoord, p. 134.]
|
Persian Kings during the Exilic and Postexilic Periods |
|
King |
Reign |
Scripture |
|
Cyrus |
559-530 |
Ezr 1:1; Ezr 4:5; Dan 5:31 to Dan 6:28; Dan 9:1; Dan 11:1 |
|
Cambyses |
530-522 |
|
|
Smerdis |
522 |
|
|
Darius I |
521-486 |
Ezra 5-6; Haggai; Zechariah |
|
Xerxes (Ahasuerus) |
486-464 |
Ezr 4:6; Esther |
|
Artaxerxes I (Artashasta) |
464-424 |
Ezr 4:7-23; chs. 7-10; Nehemiah; Malachi |
|
Darius II |
423-404 |
Neh 12:22 |
"This chapter illustrates the involvement of king and kingdom in one destiny. Belshazzar’s blatant disrespect for the Most High God was all of a piece with the national character, indeed with our human condition, as it is depicted in Psalms 90. Though human days are numbered (Dan 5:10), few number them for themselves and ’get a heart of wisdom’ (Dan 5:12). Belshazzar in this chapter presents a vivid picture of the fool, the practising [sic] atheist, who at the end can only brazen it out with the help of alcohol which blots out the stark reality." [Note: Baldwin, p. 125.]
"The whole chapter is an instructive symbolic assessment of the perils and limits, the sources and responsibilities, of power in human affairs." [Note: Paul Lehmann, The Transfiguration of Politics, p. 311, footnote.]