29<\/strong>. Belshazzar fulfils the promise given in Dan 5:16<\/em><\/span>. The unconcern exhibited by the king at Daniel’s interpretation, especially in presence of what (as Dan 5:30<\/em><\/span> shews) could hardly have been a distant or unsuspected danger, is scarcely consistent with historical probability.<\/p>\n scarlet<\/em> ] purple<\/strong>, as Dan 5:7<\/em><\/span> ; Dan 5:16<\/em><\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n that<\/em> he should be ruler<\/em> as one of three<\/strong> in the kingdom<\/em> ] See on Dan 5:7<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n Then commanded Belshazzar – <\/B>In compliance with his promise, Dan 5:16<\/span>. Though the interpretation had been so fearful in its import, and though Daniel had been so plain and faithful with him, yet he did not hesitate to fulfill his promise. It is a remarkable instance of the result of fidelity, that a proud monarch should have received such a reproof, and such a prediction in this manner, and it is an encouragement to us to do our duty, and to state the truth plainly to wicked men. Their own consciences testify to them that it is the truth, and they will see the truth so clearly that they cannot deny it.<\/P> And they clothed Daniel with scarlet … – <\/B>All this, it would seem, was transacted in a single night, and it has been made an objection, as above remarked, to the authenticity of the book, that such events are said to have occurred in so short a space of time, and that Daniel should have been so soon clothed with the robes of office. On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I. II. In respect to the latter part of the objection, it may be here further remarked, that it was not necessary to fit him with a suit of clothes made expressly for the occasion, for the loose, flowing robes of the Orientals were as well adapted to one person as another, and in the palaces of kings such garments were always on hand. See Harmers Observations on the East, vol. ii. 392, following. Compare Rosenmuller, Morgenland, in loc<\/I>.<\/P> That he should be the third ruler … – <\/B>See the notes at Dan 5:7<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 29<\/span>. Clothed Daniel with scarlet<\/B><\/I>] argevana<\/I>, more probably with purple<\/I>. The gold chain<\/I> about the neck was an emblem of magisterial authority. It is often thus mentioned in Scripture.<\/P> <\/p>\n Though it were a sad unwelcome message to him, yet he would be as good as his word, and performed his promise; for his princes were witnesses to it, and the word of those kings was counted sacred; besides, it was a great thing that Daniel had unfolded, all were convinced of it as well as the king. <\/P> Quest.<\/B> But how comes Daniel to accept that now, which he seemed to refuse before, Dan 5:17<\/span>? <\/P> Answ.<\/B> He refused before lest he should seem to prophesy for reward, which was dishonourable; now it is as it were forced upon him, for the king commanded it, and there is as much danger and crime with some in refusing a favour as boldness in begging. <\/P> <\/p>\n 29. Belshazzar . . . clothed Danielwith scarlet<\/B>To come from the presence of a prince in a dresspresented to the wearer as a distinction is still held a great honorin the East. Daniel was thus restored to a similar rank to what hehad held under Nebuchadnezzar (Da2:48<\/span>). Godly fidelity which might be expected to bring downvengeance, as in this case, is often rewarded even in this life. Theking, having promised, was ashamed before his courtiers to break hisword. He perhaps also affected to despise the prophecy of his doom,as an idle threat. As to Daniel’s reasons for now accepting what atfirst he had declined, compare Note,<\/I> see on Da5:17<\/span>. The insignia of honor would be witnesses for God’s glory tothe world of his having by God’s aid interpreted the mysticcharacters. The cause<\/I> of his elevation too would secure thefavor of the new dynasty (Da 6:2<\/span>)for both himself and his captive countrymen. As the capture of thecity by Cyrus was not till near daylight, there was no want of time<\/I>in that eventful night for accomplishing all that is here recorded.The capture of the city so immediately after the prophecy of it(following Belshazzar’s sacrilege), marked most emphatically to thewhole world the connection between Babylon’s sin and its punishment.<\/P><\/p>\n Then commanded Belshazzar<\/strong>,…. As soon as he had heard the writing read and interpreted; instead of being full of wrath, as might have been expected, he orders the reward promised to be given, to show he had a regard to his word and honour, as a king; and to secure his credit with his nobles and people; and perhaps he might not understand, by Daniel’s interpretation, that the destruction of him and his kingdom was so near at hand as it was; or he might put this evil day far from him, and hope it might be prevented:<\/p>\n and they clothed Daniel with scarlet<\/strong>; the king’s servants by his orders: or,<\/p>\n that they should clothe Daniel with scarlet<\/strong> a; these were his orders; but whether executed is not certain; probably not, since the king was slain the same night; and so the rest of the clauses may be read,<\/p>\n and should put a chain of gold about his neck, and should make proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom<\/strong>; all which was the reward promised to him that should read and interpret the writing, Da 5:7<\/span>, but that this was done, the king’s death being so sudden, does not appear; and therefore it is needless to inquire the reasons of Daniel’s acceptance after his refusal.<\/p>\n a “ut induerent”, Gejerus.<\/p>\n Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing<\/em>.<\/p>\n Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading and interpreting the writing. is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe<\/em>, – this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. Dan 2:49<\/span>), – but: and they clothed him<\/em>. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to Dan 5:30<\/span>, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar’s successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel’s interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel’s elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by Dan 6:2<\/span> (1).<\/p>\n Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.<\/p>\n (Note: ” Non mirum, si Baltasar audiens tristia, solverit praemium quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura quae dixerat, aut dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.” – <\/em> Jerome.)<\/p>\n The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (Dan 5:17<\/span>), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.<\/p>\n This order of the king may excite surprise, since he had been so sharply reproved by the Prophet. He next seemed to have lost all spirit, for he had grown pale a hundred times, and would have devoted the holy Prophet of God to a thousand deaths! How happens it, then, that he ordered him to be adorned with royal apparel, and next to be proclaimed by his own herald the third person in the kingdom? Some think this was done because the laws of kings were sacred among the Babylonians; nay, their very words were held as binding, and whatever they proclaimed, they desired it to be esteemed firm and inviolable. They suppose King Belshazzar to have acted thus through ambition, that he might keep his promises. My opinion is, that he was at first utterly astonished, and through listening to the Prophet he became like a stock or a stone! I think he did so to consult his own ease and safety; otherwise he would have been contemptible to his nobles. To shew himself unmoved, he commands Daniel to be clothed in these robes, as if his threat had been perfectly harmless. He did not despise what the Prophet had said, but he wished to persuade his nobles and all his guests of his perfect indifference to God’s threats, as if he did not utter them for the purpose of executing them, but only of terrifying them all. Thus kings, when greatly terrified, are always exceedingly careful not to shew any sign of their timidity, since they think their authority would become materially weakened. To continue, therefore, his reverence among his subjects, he is desirous of appearing exceedingly careless and undisturbed; and I do not hesitate to pronounce this to have been the tyrant’s intention in ordering Daniel to be clad in purple and in royal magnificence. <\/p>\n 29<\/strong>. <\/strong> And they clothed <\/strong> Or, commanded to clothe. <\/em> (Compare Dan 5:17<\/span>). Professor Kautzsch reads the famous phrase, third ruler in the kingdom<\/strong>, exactly as the A.V. and adds the explanation, “Either as one of three over the whole kingdom or as third by the side of the king and the king’s mother.” (See note Dan 5:7-9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n ‘Then Belshazzar commanded and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler of the kingdom.’<\/p>\n Belshazzar was faithful to his oath. He gave Daniel all the honours that he had promised, and his status was proclaimed within the banqueting hall where were gathered the leading lords of the realm, together with the wise men called earlier. He probably did not realise quite how soon the prophecy would be fulfilled, for while Belshazzar and his lords sang on, celebrating Daniel’s appointment as men will, Cyrus’ general Ugbaru was unknown to them diverting the river Euphrates that ran through Babylon into an ancient lake, so that his soldiers could enter the city along the partly dried up river bed. The city was taken almost without a fight. The Persians were in fact probably welcomed by the priests of Marduk who were sick and tired of their god being largely ignored, and the people woke up to find them in charge of the city.<\/p>\n Dan 5:29<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>They clothed Daniel<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The clothing <\/em>of Daniel with scarlet was an honour of a different kind from that mentioned, chap. Dan 2:46<\/span>. We have no custom of this kind. Persons receive favours of various sorts from princes; but the coming out from their presence in a different dress, is not an honour in use among us, though it is still practised in the East. Some doubt, however, may be made concerning the precise intention of thus clothing him; whether it was the investing him with the dignity of the third ruler of the kingdom, by putting on him the dress belonging to that office; or whether it was a distinct honour; the modern customs of the East not determining this point, because caffetans, <\/em>or robes, <\/em>are at this day put on people with both views. Thus Norden, speaking of one of the Arab princes of Upper Egypt, says, that he had received at Girge the caffetan <\/em>of the bey, which was the only mark of respect they paid there at that time to the Turkish government, force deciding between the competitors who should have the dignity, and he that was sent to Girge being absolutely to be vested with the caffetan by the bey. But then we find too, that these caffetans are given merely as an honour, and not as an ensign of office. La Roque tells us, that he himself received it at Sidon, and three other attendants on the French consul, along with the consul himself, who, upon a particular occasion, waited on Ishmael the basha of that place. Agreeable to which, Thevenot tells us, that he saw an ambassador from the Great Mogul come out from an audience that he had of the Grand Signior with a vest of cloth of gold upon his back, a caffetan of which sort of stuff thirty of his retinue also had: and elsewhere he observes, that he saw one hundred and eight of the retinue of an Egyptian bey thus honoured along with their master, by a bashaw of that country. But if it should be indeterminate whether this scarlet vestment was merely the dress <\/em>belonging to the office with which Daniel was dignified, or a distinct honour, it is by no means uncertain whether it was put upon him or not, since these caffetans are always in readiness in the East, and are wont immediately to be put on: contrary to the sentiments of Lowth, who supposes in his commentary on the place, that though the king thought himself bound to perform the promise of the 16th verse, yet that it was likely it could not take effect <\/em>at that unseasonable time of the night, and therefore that the words might have been better translated, “Then commanded Belshazzar, that they should clothe Daniel with scarlet.” <\/em>This is certainly an unnecessary refinement. See Observation, <\/em>p. 278. <\/p>\n Dan 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and [put] a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.<\/p>\n Ver. 29. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel.<\/strong> ] No nay, but they would do it; and he at length admitted it, partly that he might not seem to slight the king’s courtesy and to be disaffected, and partly that thereby he might be the better known to the Persians for the comfort of God’s poor people. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation, &c.<\/strong> ] All this the king commanded to be done, out of an admiration of Daniel’s divine wisdom, and that he might be dicti sui dominus,<\/em> as good as his word; but not a word hear we of his repentance, such was his stupidity; nor doth Daniel exhort him to it, because he saw him to be past feeling, and knew that the decree was gone forth.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 5:29<\/p>\n 29Then Belshazzar gave orders, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a necklace of gold around his neck, and issued a proclamation concerning him that he now had authority as the third ruler in the kingdom.<\/p>\n Dan 5:29 he now had authority as the third ruler in the kingdom These three (triumvir) would be: Nabonidus (absent), Belshazzar (co-regent), and Daniel.<\/p>\n Dan 5:29<\/p>\n Dan 5:29 ThenH116 commandedH560 Belshazzar,H1113 and they clothedH3848 DanielH1841 with scarlet,H711 and put a chainH2002 ofH1768 goldH1722 aboutH5922 his neck,H6676 and made a proclamationH3745 concerningH5922 him, thatH1768 he should beH1934 the thirdH8531 rulerH7990 in the kingdom.H4437 <\/p>\n Dan 5:29<\/p>\n Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.<\/p>\n it is very interesting here that a king who had just been informed that he didn’t measure up and that his kingdom would be divided went ahead and heaped all the promised treasures and the position of authority upon Daniel anyway. He was not told he was going to die which doubtless helped to prevent a panicked reaction from Belshazzar. The key to figuring out why Belshazzar went ahead with the treasures and the promotion is found in Daniel’s words to him from verse 22, “though thou knewest all this”. Belshazzar knew all these things. He also knew that God was very powerful and completely capable of doing all the things that Daniel said would happen. This foolish king knew that the God of heaven struck Nebuchadnezzar mad for a period of time. Without a doubt he knew all the other incidents which led up to Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion as well. This man knew that God was God and chose to ignore everything he knew. Belshazzar should have seen the proverbial writing on the wall long before he saw it literally. And it is this Bible student’s belief that Belshazzar thought the heaping of treasures and accolades on Daniel would appease the wrath of God and either postpone or cancel God’s intent to divide the kingdom among the Medes and the Persians. <\/p>\n So then why did Daniel accept the treasures and the promotion from Belshazzar? First and foremost, Belshazzar was the king in Babylon. One had best be cautious about refusing the wishes of any king if they wanted to stay alive. Daniel was an aged man and had been in administrative positions before. It was not a new experience for him and he doubtless knew that as the 3rd person in power in the Babylonian empire, he would likely be in a favorable position during the coming takeover to help ease the transition for his own countrymen still in captivity there. we do not know if Daniel knew of the suddenness of the takeover or not, but we do know Daniel knew it was going to happen. <\/p>\n they clothed: Dan 5:7, Dan 5:16 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 41:40 – Thou shalt Gen 41:42 – his ring Est 6:3 – What honour Est 10:3 – next unto king Pro 1:9 – an ornament Eze 16:11 – a chain Dan 2:6 – ye shall Dan 2:48 – ruler Dan 5:17 – Let Dan 6:2 – of<\/p>\n Dan 5:29. Belshazzar fulfilled his promise in rewarding Daniel for solving the problem. See the comments at verse 17 on the matter of Daniel’s accepting these rewards. The quotation cited at verse 1 explains the meaning of third ruler.<\/p>\n Dan 5:29. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel The king was so struck with his superior wisdom, and conceived himself so bound by the promise he had made before his nobles, that he ordered the prophet to be rewarded immediately with the honours he had promised him, which he was forced to accept, and which probably prepared him for a more easy reception by the succeeding monarch. Nor let it be matter of wonder that Daniel is said to be clothed as it were immediately, for these habits were always at hand for the eastern monarchs to reward their friends or favourites with; and Mr. Harmer tells us, from Sir John Chardin, that the kings of Persia have great wardrobes, where there are always many hundreds of habits ready, designed for presents, and sorted. Obs., vol. 2. p. 87. It seems likewise that, on some occasions, the great men of the East were accustomed to carry with them, on their journeys, a variety of habits and vestments, in order to distribute them as presents to those whom they wished to honour and reward. And this will account for the changes of garments which Naaman the Syrian had with him, when he returned from the Prophet Elisha, some of which were given to his perfidious servant, 2 Kings 5. Wintle. <\/p>\n 7. Daniel’s rise and Belshazzar’s fall 5:29-31<\/span><\/p>\n Belshazzar kept his promise (Dan 5:16), though Daniel’s honors only lasted a few hours at most, typical of the honors of this world. The king’s response is surprising. We might have expected him to execute Daniel for confronting him publicly. Perhaps his response indicates that he was drunk or that he repented. If he repented, his repentance was too late to prevent judgment from falling.<\/p>\n "In its rise to power the Babylonian Empire had conquered Jerusalem, taken its inhabitants into captivity, looted its beautiful temple, and completely destroyed the city. Yet this empire was to have as its last official act the honoring of one of these captives who by divine revelation predicted not only the downfall of Babylon but the course of the times of the Gentiles until the Son of man should come from heaven. Man may have the first word, but God will have the last word." [Note: Walvoord, p. 129.] <\/span><\/p>\n Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and [put] a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 29. Belshazzar fulfils the promise given in Dan 5:16. The unconcern exhibited by the king at Daniel’s interpretation, especially in presence … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 5:29”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21914","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"