Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded that the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem be brought to him; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of God’s house which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of bronze, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
In the same hour, the fingers of a man’s hand came out and wrote near the lamp stand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace. The king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s face was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his thighs were loosened, and his knees struck one against another.
The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
Then all the king’s wise men came in; but they could not read the writing, and couldn’t make known to the king the interpretation. Then king Belshazzar was greatly troubled, and his face was changed in him, and his lords were perplexed.
The queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house. The queen spoke and said, “O king, live forever; don’t let your thoughts trouble you, nor let your face be changed. There is a man in your kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. The king Nebuchadnezzar your father, yes, the king, your father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; because an excellent spirit, knowledge, understanding, interpreting of dreams, showing of dark sentences, and dissolving of doubts were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Daniel here refers to the history of what happened…
Daniel here refers to the history of what happened at the taking of Babylon; but meanwhile he leaves those judgments of God to the consideration of his readers, which the Prophets had predicted before the people had become exiles. He does not use the prophetic style, as we shall afterwards see, but is content with simple narrative; while the practice of history may be learnt from the following expressions. It is our duty now to consider how this history tends towards building us up in the faith and fear of God. First of all we notice the time at which Belshazzar celebrated this banquet. Seventy years had passed away from the time when Daniel had been led into exile with his companions. For although Nebuchadnezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, yet it is clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them; for he reigned twenty-three years. Some reckon two kings before Belshazzar; for they place Regassar after Labassardach; and these two will occupy eight years. Metasthenes has stated it so, and he has many followers. But Nebuchadnezzar the Great, who took Daniel captive, and was the son of the first king of that name, evidently reigned forty-five years. Some transfer two years to the reign of his father; at any rate, he held the regal power for forty-five years; and if the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, they will make sixty-eight years — in which Belshazzar had reigned eight years. We see, then, how seventy-two years had passed away from the period of Daniel being first led captive. Metasthenes reckons thirty years for the reign of Evil-Merodach; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than eighty years — which appears probable enough, although Metasthenes seems to be in error in supposing different kings instead of only different names. For Herodotus does not call Belshazzar, of whom we are now speaking, a king, but calls his father Labynetus, and gives him the same name. Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily embrace his computation of time, when he asserts Evil-Merodach to have reigned thirty years. For when we treat of the seventy years which Jeremiah had formerly pointed out, we ought not to begin with Daniel’s exile, no,’ yet with the destruction of the city, but with the slaughter which occurred between the first victory of king Nebuchadnezzar, and the burning and ruin of the temple and city. For when the report concerning the death of his father was first spread abroad, as we have elsewhere said, he returned to his own country, lest any disturbance should occur through his absence. Hence we shall find the seventy years during which God wished the people’s captivity to last, will require a longer period for the reign of Evil-Merodach than twenty-three years; although there is not any important difference, for soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the king, leaving the city untouched. Although the temple was then standing, yet God had inflicted the severest punishment upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least nearly equal to it. However this was, we see that Belshazzar was celebrating this banquet just as the time of the deliverance drew nigh.
Here we must consider the Providence of God, in arranging the times of events, so that the impious, when the time of their destruction is come, cast themselves headlong of their own accord. This occurred to this wicked king. Wonderful indeed was the stupidity which prepared a splendid banquet filled with delicacies, while the city was besieged. For Cyrus had begun to besiege the city for a long time with a large army. The wretched king was already half a captive; and yet, as if in spite of God, he provided a rich banquet, and invited a thousand guests. Hence we may conjecture the extent of the noise and of the expense in that banquet. For if any one wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests, it will occasion him much trouble, if he wishes to treat them splendidly. But when it was a royal entertainment, where there were a thousand nobles with the king’s wife and concubines, and so great a multitude assembled together, it became necessary to obtain from many quarters what was required for such a festival; and this may seem incredible! But Xenophon though he related many fables and preserved neither the gravity nor the fidelity of a historian, because he desired to celebrate the praises of Cyrus like a rhetorician; although he trifles in many things, yet here had no reason or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was laid up, so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of even ten or more years. And Babylon was deservedly compared to a kingdom; for its magnitude was so large as to surpass belief. It must really have been very populous, but since they drew their provisions from the whole of Asia, it is not surprising that the Babylonians had food in store, sufficient to allow them to close their gates, and to sustain them for a long period. But in this banquet it was most singular that the king, who ought to have been on guard, or at least have sent forth his guards to prevent the city from being taken, was as intent upon his delicacies as if he had been in perfect peace, and exposed to no danger from any outward enemy. He had a contest with a strong man, if any man ever was so. Cyrus was endued with singular prudence, and in swiftness of action by far excelled all others. Since, then, the king was so keenly opposed, it is surprising to find him so careless as to celebrate a banquet. Xenophon, indeed, states the day to have been a festival. The assertion of those Jews who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over the Persians, is but trifling. For Xenophon — who may be trusted whenever he does not falsify history in favor of Cyrus, because he is then a very grave historian, and entirely worthy of credit; but when he desires to praise Cyrus, he has no moderation — is here historically correct, when he says the Babylonians were holding a usual annual festival. He tells us also how Babylon was taken, viz., by Gobryas and Gadatas his generals. For Belshazzar had castrated one of these to his shame, and had slain the son of the other in the lifetime of his father. Since then the latter burnt with the desire of avenging his son’s death, and the former his own disgrace, they conspired against him. Hence Cyrus turned the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon was suddenly taken. The city we must remember was twice taken, otherwise there would not have been any confidence in prophecy; because when the Prophets threaten God’s vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies should be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring human blood; and then they narrate every kind of atrocious deed which is customary in war. (Jeremiah 50:42.) But nothing of this kind happened when Babylon was taken by Cyrus; but when the Babylonians freed themselves from the Persian sway by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city by the assistance of Zopyrus, who mutilated his person, and pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king as to induce him to betray the city. But then we collect how hardly the Babylonians were afflicted, when 3000 nobles were crucified! And what usually happens when 8000 nobles are put to death, and all suspended on a gallows — nay, even crucified? Thus it easily appears, how severely the Babylonians were punished at the time, although they were then subject to a foreign power, and treated shamefully by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. For they were forbidden the use of arms, and were taught from the first to become the slaves of Cyrus, and dare not wear a sword. We ought to touch upon these things shortly to assure us of the government of human events by the judgment of God, when he casts headlong the reprobate when their punishment is at hand. We have an illustrious example of this in King Belshazzar.
Read full note →
The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at hand — the seventy years were finished — Babylon was besieged. (Jeremiah 25:11.) The Jews might now raise up their heads and hope for the best, because the arrival of Cyrus approached, contrary to the opinion of them all; for he had suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when that was a barbarous nation. Since, therefore, the sudden coming of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might possibly give some hope to the Jews; but after a length of time, so to speak, had elapsed in the siege of the city, this might east down their spirits. While king Belshazzar was banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seems able to thrust him out in the midst of his merriment and hilarity. Meanwhile the Lord did not sit at rest in heaven; for he blinds the mind of the impious king, so that he should willingly incur punishments, yet no one drew him on, for he incurred it himself. And whence could this arise, unless God had given him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of which Jeremiah was the herald. Hence, although Daniel narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to treat of things far more important; for God who had promised his people deliverance, was now stretching forth his hand in secret, and fulfilling the predictions of his Prophets. (Jeremiah 25:26.)
It now follows — King Belshazzar was drinking wine before a thousand Some of the Rabbis say, “he strove with his thousand nobles, and contended with them all in drinking to excess;” but this seems grossly ridiculous. When he says, he drank wine before a thousand, he alludes to the custom of the nation, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited guests to their table; they usually dined alone, as the kings of Europe now do; for they think it adds to their dignity to enjoy a solitary meal. The pride of the kings of Chaldea was of this kind. When, therefore, it is said, Belshazzar drank wine before a thousand, something extraordinary is intended, since he was celebrating this annum banquet contrary to his ordinary custom, and he deigned to treat his nobles with such honor as to receive them as his guests. Some, indeed, conjecture that he drank wine ordeals, as he was accustomed to become intoxicated when there were no witnesses present; but there is no force in this comment: the word before means in the presence or society of others. Let us go on:
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 Daniel reciteth this history of king Belshazzar, Evil-merodach’s son,…
Daniel reciteth this history of king Belshazzar, Evil-merodach’s son, to show God’s judgments against the wicked for the deliverance of his Church: and how the prophecy of Jeremiah was true, that they should be delivered after seventy years.
The kings of the East parts then used to sit alone commonly, and disdained that any should sit in their company: and now to show his power, and how little he set by his enemy, which then besieged Babylon, he made a solemn banquet, and used excess in their company, which is meant here by drinking wine: thus the wicked are most dissolute and negligent, when their destruction is at hand.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–12 Dan 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast…
Dan 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
Ver. 1. Belshazzar the king.] Son to Evilmerodach, grandson to Nebuchadnezzar, whose line failed in this king, according to Jer 27:7. Of Evilmerodach, Daniel saith nothing, because nothing remarkable happen in his time but what was before related. {2Ki 25:27}
Read full note →
Made a great feast.] Of this feast, see Jer 25:26; Herodot., lib. i.; Xenoph., lib. vii. It was made, say some, upon occasion of a yearly solemnity, which continued five days together, wherein the servants bare sway in every family, having a master of misrule over them. Cyrus took this opportunity, saith Xenophon, and made himself master of the city. Nota hic Baltasaris miram vecordiam, saith one; that is, take notice of Belshazzar’s strange stupidity and security, that having such a formidable enemy before the city, he should thus revel and bezzle: but he did it perhaps to show his valour, and how little he cared for the Persians, who showed themselves soon after to be no contemptible persons. Certain it is that he minded nothing less at his feast than the deliverance of God’s poor people, which now he was in working. Now were the seventy years exactly ended; now therefore was Israel to be dismissed, and it was done. The Rabbis have a tradition, that Belshazzar, seeing the seventy years spoken of by Jeremiah expired, and the Jews, by the coming on of another monarch, not delivered, kept this feast in contempt of that prophecy and people. {a}
To a thousand of his lords.] Who, it is like, were all drunk for company; what wonder, then, that a land so sick of drink spued them all out? Lords and lowlies were grown desperate drunkards, ripe for ruin. Here were a thousand princes, but not one faithful counsellor to better advise this festival king, as he is called, wholly given over to dissolute lusts. Who can tell whether it were not now with him as afterwards with Vitellius the Emperor, when his enemy was at hand, Vitellius trepidus, dein temulentus, {b} to put away the fear of death, he made himself drunk?
{a} Lyra.
{b} Tacitus.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Belshazzar’s name is from riches and power. They were…
Belshazzar’s name is from riches and power. They were wont, when they were promoted, to take new names, which also were significant, as this is, Belshazzar; Bel hath or gives power and riches; this they attributed to the honour of their idol, which belongs only to the God of heaven. There is much contest among the learned who this Belshazzar was; let us mind the Scripture, and not trust to heathen historians. In the second verse here he is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, his father, so Dan 5:11 twice, and Dan 5:13,18,22; if he were his son, then was he called also Merodach, or Evil-merodach. Yet he might be called his son though his grandson; under these three was the captivity, Jer 27:7, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar.
Made a great feast, after the manner of the East, who showed their magnificence this way, and pleased the epicurean palates of his nobles herein, it being no small piece of policy with some princes to oblige their grandees by balls and compotations; this I believe: yet I conceive also, this feast was anniversary for the honour of their idol Bel, as Herodotus testifieth. But this is prodigious, that he should carouse when the city was besieged and ready to be taken by Darius the Mede, for, saith the text, he drank wine before the thousand. These Bacchanalian feasts have often proved fatal and tragical, Es 1.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 10 We have here Belshazzar the king very gay, but…
We have here Belshazzar the king very gay, but all of a sudden very gloomy, and in straits in the fulness of his sufficiency. See how he affronts God, and God affrights him; and wait what will be the issue of this contest; and whether he that hardened his heart against God prospered.
I. See how the king affronted God, and put contempt upon him. He made a great feast, or banquet of wine; probably it was some anniversary solemnity, in honour off his birthday or coronation-day, or in honour of some of their idols. Historians say that Cyrus, who was now with his army besieging Babylon, knew of this feast, and presuming that they then would be off their guard, somno vinoque sepulti - buried in sleep and wine, took that opportunity to attack the city, and so with the more ease made himself master of it. Belshazzar upon this occasion invited a thousand of his lords to come and drink with him. Perhaps they were such as had signalized themselves in defense of the city against the besiegers; or these were his great council of war, with whom, when they had well drunk, he would advise what was further to be done. And they were to look upon it as a great favour that he drank wine before them, for it was the pride of those eastern kings to be seldom seen. He drank wine before them, for he made this feast, as Ahasuerus did, to show the honour of his majesty. Now in this sumptuous feast, 1. He put an affront upon the providence of God and bade defiance to his judgments. His city was now besieged; a powerful enemy was at his gates; his life and kingdom lay at stake. In all this the hand of the Lord had gone out against him, and by it he called him to weeping, and mourning, and girding with sackcloth. God's voice cried in the city, as Jonah to Nineveh, Yet forty days, or fewer, and Babylon shall be destroyed. He should therefore, like the king of Nineveh, have proclaimed a fast; but, as one resolved to walk contrary to God, he proclaims a feast, and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine, as if he dared the Almighty to do his worst, Isa 22:12, Isa 22:13. To show how little fear he had of being forced to surrender, for want of provisions, he spent thus extravagantly. Note, Security and sensuality are sad presages of approaching ruin. Those that will not be warned by judgments of God may expect to be wounded by them. 2. He put an affront upon the temple of God, and bade defiance to his sanctuary, Dan 5:2. While he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the vessels of the temple, that they might drink in them. When he tasted how rich and fine the wine was, "O," said he, "it is a pity but we should have holy vessels to drink such delicious wine as this in," which was looked upon as a piece of wit, and, to carry on the humour, the vessels of the temple were immediately sent for. Nay, there seems to have been something more in it than a frolic, and that it was done in a malicious despite to the God of Israel. The heart of his people was very much upon these sacred vessels, as appears from Jer 27:16, Jer 27:18. Their principal care, at their return, was about these, Ezr 1:7. Now, we may suppose, they had an expectation of their deliverance approaching, reckoning the seventy years of their captivity near a period; and some of them might perhaps have given out some words to that purport, that shortly they should have the vessels of the sanctuary restored to them, in defiance of which Belshazzar here proclaims them to be his own, will keep them in store no longer, but will make use of them among his own plate. Note, That mirth is sinful indeed, and fills the measure of men's iniquity apace, which profanes sacred things and jests with them. This ripened Babylon for ruin - that no songs would serve them but the songs of Zion (Psa 137:3), no vessels but the vessels of the sanctuary. Let those who thus sacrilegiously alienate what is dedicated to God and his honour know that he will not be mocked. 3. He put an affront upon God himself, and bade defiance to his deity; for they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, Dan 5:4. They gave that glory to images, the work of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, which is due to the true and living God only. They praised them either with sacrifices offered to them or with songs sung in honour of them. When their heads were giddy, and their hearts merry, with wine, they were in the fittest frame to praise the gods of gold and silver, wood and stone; for one would think that men in their senses, who had the command of a clear and sober thought, could not be guilty of so gross an absurdity; they must be intoxicated ere they could be so infatuated. Drunken worshippers, who are not men, but beasts, are the most proper for the service of dunghill deities, that are not gods, but devils. They have erred through wine, Isa 27:7. They drank wine, and praised their idol-gods, as if they had been the founders of their feast and the givers of all good things to them. Or, when they were drinking wine, they praised their gods by drinking healths to them; and the king drank wine before them (Dan 5:1), that is, he began the health, first to this god, and then to the other, till they went through the bead-roll or farrago of them, those of wood and stone not excepted. Note, Immorality and impiety, vice and profaneness, strengthen the hands and advance the interests one of another. Drunken frolics were an introduction to idolatry, and then idolatrous healths were a shoeing-horn to further drunkenness.
Read full note →
II. See how God affrighted the king, and struck a terror upon him. Belshazzar and his lords are in the midst of their revels, the cups going round apace, and all upon the merry pin, drinking confusion, it may be, to Cyrus and his army, and roaring out huzzas, in confidence of the speedy raising of the siege; but the hour had come when that must be fulfilled which had been long ago said of the king of Babylon, when his city should be besieged by the Persians and Medes, Isa 21:2-4. The night of my pleasures has he turned into fear to me. The mirth of this ball at court must be spoiled, and a damp cast upon their jollity, though the king himself be master of the revels; immediately, when God speaks the word, we have him and all his guests in the utmost confusion, and the end of their mirth is heaviness. 1. There appear the fingers of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall, before the king's face (Dan 5:5), "the angel Gabriel," say the rabbin, "directing these fingers and writing by them." "That divine hand" (says a rabbi of our own, Dr. Lightfoot) "that had written the two tables for a law to his people now writes the doom of Babel and Belshazzar upon the wall." Here was nothing sent to frighten them which made a noise, or threatened their lives, no claps of thunder nor flashes of lightning, no destroying angel with his sword drawn in his hand, only a pen in the hand, writing upon the wall, over-against the candlestick, where they might all see it by the light of their own candle. Note, God's written word is sufficient to put the proudest boldest sinners into a fright, when he is pleased to give it the setting on. The king saw the part of the hand that wrote, but saw not the person whose hand it was, which made the thing more frightful. Note, What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures and the book of the scriptures (Lo, these are parts of his ways, Job 26:14), may serve to possess us with awful thoughts concerning that of God which we do not see. If this be the finger of God, what is his arm made bare? And what is he? 2. The king is immediately seized with a panic fear (Dan 5:6): His countenance was changed (his colour went and came); the joints of his loins were loosed, so that he had no strength in them, but was struck with a pain in his back, as is usual in a great fright; his knees smote one against another, so violently did he tremble like an aspen leaf. But what was the matter? Why is he in such a fright? He perceives not what is written, and how does he know but it may be some happy presage of deliverance to him and to his kingdom? But the business was his thoughts troubled him; his own guilty conscience flew in his face, and told him that he had no reason to expect any good news from Heaven, and that the hand of an angel could write nothing but terror to him. He that knew himself liable to the justice of God immediately concluded this to be an arrest in his name, a summons to appear before him. Note, God can soon awaken the most secure and make the heart of the stoutest sinner to tremble; and there needs no more to do it than to let loose his own thoughts upon him; they will soon play the tyrant, and give him trouble enough. 3. The wise men of Babylon are immediately called in, to see what they can make of this writing upon the wall, Dan 5:7. The king cried aloud, as one in haste, as one in earnest, to bring the whole college of magicians, to try if they can read this writing, and show the interpretation of it; for the king and all his lords cannot pretend to it, it is out of their sphere. The study of divine revelation (such as they had, or thought they had) and converse with the world of spirits were by the heathen confined to one profession, and no other meddled with it; but what is written to us by the finger of God is legible to all; whoever will may read the mind of God in the scriptures. To engage these wise men to exert the utmost of their skill in this matter, and provoke them to an emulation in the attempt, he promised that whoever would give him a satisfactory account of this writing should be dignified with the highest honours of the court. He knew what these pretenders to wisdom aimed at, and what would please them, and therefore promised them a scarlet robe and a gold chain, glorious things in the eyes of those that know no better. Nay, he should be primus par regni - chief minister of state, the third ruler in the kingdom, next to the king and his heir apparent. 4. The king is disappointed in his expectations from them; they can none of them read the writing, much less interpret it (Dan 5:8), which increases the king's confusion, Dan 5:9. He likes the thing yet worse and worse, and fears that mischief is towards him. His lords also, that had been partners with him in his jollity, are now sharers with him in his terrors; they also were astonished at their wits' end; and neither their numbers nor their refreshment by wine would serve to keep up their spirits. The reason why the wise men could not read the writing was not because it was written in any language or characters unknown to them, but God either cast a mist before their eyes or put such confusion upon their spirits that they could not read it, that the honour of expounding this mystical writing might be reserved for Daniel. Note, The terror of an awakened convinced conscience may justly be increased by the utter insufficiency of all creatures to give it ease or satisfaction.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–12 Belshazzar the king made a great feast,.... This king…
Belshazzar the king made a great feast,.... This king was not the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, but Evilmerodach, Jer 52:31, who, according to Ptolemy's canon, reigned two years; then followed Neriglissar, his sister's husband, by whom he was slain, and who usurped the throne, and reigned four years; he died in the beginning of his fourth year, and left a son called Laborosoarchod, who reigned but nine months, which are placed by Ptolemy to his father's reign, and therefore he himself is not mentioned in the canon; and then followed this king, who by Ptolemy is called Nabonadius; by Berosus, Nabonnedus (t) by Abydenus (u), Nabannidochus; by Herodotus (w), Labynitus; and by Josephus (x), Naboandelus, who, according to him, is the same with Belshazzar; whom some confound with the son of Neriglissar; others take him to be the same with Evilmerodach, because he here immediately follows Nebuchadnezzar, and is called his son, Dan 5:11, and others that he was a younger brother, so Jarchi and Theodoret; but the truth is, that he was the son of Evilmerodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees with the prophecy in Jer 27:7, for though Nebuchadnezzar is called his father, and he his son, Dan 5:2 this is said after the manner of the eastern nations, who used to call ancestors fathers, and their more remote posterity sons. He had his name Belshazzar from the idol Bel, and may be rendered, "Bel's treasurer": though, according to Saadiah, the word signifies "a searcher of treasures", of his ancestors, or of the house of God. Hillerus translates it, "Bel hath hidden". This king
made a great feast; or "bread" (y), which is put for all provisions; it was great, both on account of plenty of food, variety of dishes, and number of guests, and those of the highest rank and quality. On what account this feast was made is not easy to say; whether out of contempt of Cyrus and his army, by whom he was now besieged, and to show that he thought himself quite safe and secure in a city so well walled and fortified, and having in it such vast quantities of provision; or whether it was on account of a victory he had obtained that morning over the Medes and Persians, as Josephus Ben Gorion (z) relates; and therefore in the evening treated his thousand lords, who had been engaged in battle with him, and behaved well: though it seems to have been an anniversary feast; since, according to Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus knew of it before hand; either on account of the king's birthday, or in honour to his gods, particularly Shach, which was called the Sachaenan feast; See Gill on Jer 25:26, Jer 51:41 which seems most likely, since these were praised at this time, and the vessels of the temple of God at Jerusalem profaned, Dan 5:2, this feast was prophesied of by Isaiah, Isa 21:5 and by Jeremiah, Jer 51:39, it had its name from Shach, one of their deities, of which See Gill on Dan 1:4, Dan 1:7 the same with Belus or the sun. The feasts kept in honour of it were much like the Saturnalia of the Romans, or the Purim of the Jews; and were kept eleven days together, in which everyone did as he pleased, no order and decorum being observed; and, for five of those days especially, there was no difference between master and servant, yea, the latter had the government of the former; and they spent day and night in dancing and drinking, and in all excess of riot and revelling (a); and in such like manner the Babylonians were indulging themselves, when their city was taken by Cyrus, as the above writers assert (b); and from the knowledge Cyrus had of it, it appears to be a stated feast, and very probably on the above account. According to Strabo (c), there was a feast of this name among the Persians, which was celebrated in honour of the goddess Anais, Diana, or the moon; and at whose altar they placed together Amanus and Anandratus, Persian demons; and appointed a solemn convention once a year, called Saca. Some say the occasion of it was this; that Cyrus making an expedition against the Sacse, a people in Scythia, pretended a flight, and left his tents full of all provisions, and especially wine, which they finding, filled themselves with it; when he returning upon them, finding some overcome with wine and stupefied, others overwhelmed with sleep, and others dancing and behaving in a bacchanalian way, they fell into his hands, and almost all of them perished; and taking this victory to be from the gods, he consecrated that day to the god of his country, and called it Sacaea; and wherever there was a temple of this deity, there was appointed a bacchanalian feast, in which men, and women appeared night and day in a Scythian habit, drinking together, and behaving to one another in a jocose and lascivious manner; but this could not be the feast now observed at Babylon, though it is very probable it was something of the like nature, and observed in much the same manner. And was made "to a thousand of his lords"; his nobles, the peers of his realm, governors of provinces, &c.; such a number of guests Ptolemy king of Egypt feasted at one time of Pompey's army, as Pliny from Varro relates (d); but Alexander far exceeded, who at a wedding had nine (some say ten) thousand at his tables, and gave to everyone a cup of gold, to offer wine in honour of the gods (e); and Pliny reports (f) of one Pythius Bythinus, who entertained the whole army of Xerxes with a feast, even seven hundred and eighty eight thousand men.
Read full note →
And drank wine before the thousand; not that he strove with them who should drink most, or drank to everyone of them separately, and so a thousand cups, as Jacchiades suggests; but he drank in the presence of them, to show his condescension and familiarity; this being, as Aben Ezra observes, contrary to the custom of kings, especially of the eastern nations, who were seldom seen in public. This feast was kept in a large house or hall, as Josephus (g) says, afterwards called the banqueting house, Dan 5:10.
(t) Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. (u) Apud Euseb. Evangel. l. 9. c. 41. p. 457. (w) Clio, sive l. 1. c. 188. (x) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2. (y) "panem", Montanus, Piscator. All food is called bread, Jarchi in Lev. xxi. 17. (z) Hist. Hebr. l. 1. c. 5. p. 24. (a) Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 14. c. 10. ex Beroso & Ctesia. (b) Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 7. c. 23. Herodot. Clio, sive l. 1. c. 191. (c) Geograph. l. 11. p. 352, 353. (d) Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10. (e) Plutarch. in Vit. Alexand. (f) Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10.) (g) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 Belshazzar's profane feast, ver. 1-4. The hand writing on…
Belshazzar's profane feast, ver. 1-4. The hand writing on the wall, ver. 5-9. Interpreted and applied by Daniel, ver. 10-29. The accomplishment of it, ver. 30, 31.
Belshazzar - The grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Made a great feast - After the manner of the eastern kings who shewed their magnificence this way. But this is prodigious that he should carouse when the city was besieged, and ready to be taken by Darius the Mede.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 In the commencement of this chapter we are informed…
CHAPTER V
In the commencement of this chapter we are informed how
Read full note →
Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, when rioting in his
palace, and profaning the severed vessels of the temple, 1-4,
was suddenly terrified with the appearance of the fingers of a
man's hand, which wrote a few words on the wall before him,
5, 6.
The wise men and astrologers were immediately called in to show
the king the interpretation; but they could not so much as read
the writing, because (as Houbigant and others have conjectured)
though the words are in the Chaldee tongue, yet they were
written in the Samaritan or ancient Hebrew characters, with
which the wise men of Babylon were very probably unacquainted,
as the Jews were at that time a despised people, and the
knowledge of their language not a fashionable attainment, 7-9.
Daniel, who had been so highly esteemed by Nebuchadnezzar for
his superior wisdom, appears to have been altogether unknown to
Belshazzar, till the queen (the same who had been the wife of
Nebuchadnezzar according to the general opinion, or the queen
consort according to others) had informed him, 10-12.
Upon the queen's recommendation, Daniel is called in, 13-16;
who boldly tells this despotic king, that as he had not
benefited by the judgments inflicted on his grandfather, but
gave himself up to pride and profanity, and had added to his
other sins an utter contempt for the God of the Jews by
drinking wine out of the sacred vessels of Jehovah in honour of
his idols, 17-23;
the Supreme Being, the Ruler of heaven and earth, had written
his condemnation in three words, MENE, TEKEL, PERES, 24, 25;
the first of which is repeated in the copies containing the
Chaldean original; but all the ancient Versions, except the
Syriac, are without this repetition. Daniel then gives the king
and his lords the fearful import of the writing, viz., that the
period allotted for the duration of the Chaldean empire was now
completed, (see Jer 25:12-14,)
and that the kingdom was about to be transferred to the Medes
and Persians, 26-28.
However unwelcome such an interpretation must have been to
Belshazzar, yet the monarch, overwhelmed with its clearness and
certainty, commanded the prophet to be honoured, 29.
And that very night the prediction was fulfilled, for the king
was slain, 30,
and the city taken by the Medes and Persians, 31.
This great event was also predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah; and
the manner in which it was accomplished is recorded by
Herodotus and Xenophon.
NOTES ON CHAP. V.
Verse 1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast] This chapter is out of its place, and should come in after the seventh and eighth. There are difficulties in the chronology. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach his son ascended the throne of Babylon. Having reigned about two years, he was slain by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar. He reigned four years, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod, who reigned only nine months. At his death Belshazzar the son of Evil-merodach, was raised to the throne, and reigned seventeen years, and was slain, as we read here, by Cyrus, who surprised and took the city on the night of this festivity. This is the chronology on which Archbishop Usher, and other learned chronologists, agree; but the Scripture mentions only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, by name; and Jeremiah, Jer 27:7, expressly says, "All nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar,) and his son (Evil-merodach,) and his son's son (Belshazzar,) until the very time of his land come;" i.e., till the time in which the empire should be seized by Cyrus. Here there is no mention of Neriglissar nor Laborosoarchod; but as they were usurpers, they might have been purposely passed by. But there remains one difficulty still: Belshazzar is expressly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar by the queen mother, Da 5:11: "There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and in the days of THY FATHER light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him: whom the king NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians." The solution of this difficulty is, that in Scripture the name of son is indifferently given to sons and grandsons, and even to great grandsons. And perhaps the repetition in the above verse may imply this: "The king, Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king thy father." The king thy father's father, and consequently thy grandfather. If it have not some such meaning as this, it must be considered an idle repetition. As to the two other kings, Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, mentioned by Josephus and Berosus, and by whom the chronology is so much puzzled, they might have been some petty kings, or viceroys, or satraps, who affected the kingdom, and produced disturbances, one for four years, and the other for nine months; and would in consequence not be acknowledged in the Babylonish chronology, nor by the sacred writers, any more than finally unsuccessful rebels are numbered among the kings of those nations which they have disturbed. I believe the only sovereigns we can acknowledge here are the following:
1. Nabopolassar;
2. Nebuchadnezzar;
3. Evil-merodach;
4. Belshazzar; and with this last the Chaldean empire ended.
To a thousand of his lords] Perhaps this means lords or satraps, that were each over one thousand men. But we learn from antiquity that the Persian kings were very profuse in their entertainments; but it does not follow that the Chaldeans were so too. Besides, one thousand lords and their appropriate attendants would have been very inconvenient in a nocturnal assembly. The text, however, supports the common translation. Literally, "Belshazzar the king made bread for his lords a thousand; and against the thousand he drank wine." That is, say some, he was a very great drinker.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 Dan 5:1. Belshazzar — The son of Evil-merodach, and…
Dan 5:1. Belshazzar — The son of Evil-merodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar; made a great feast to a thousand of his lords — To the principal officers and great men of his court, and was himself present at it. This feast was made at a time of public rejoicing, being an annual festival, when the whole night was spent in revelling; of which season Cyrus took the advantage to make himself master of the city, as Herodotus and Xenophon relate, and as was foretold by Jer 50:24; Jer 51:39; Jer 51:57, where see the notes.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Belshazzar the king - See Introduction to the chapter,…
Belshazzar the king - See Introduction to the chapter, Section II. In the Introduction to the chapter here referred to, I have stated what seemed to be necessary in order to illustrate the history of Belshazzar, so far as that can be now known. The statements in regard to this monarch, it is well understood, are exceedingly confused, and the task of reconciling them is now hopeless. Little depends, however, in the interpretation of this book, on the attempt to reconcile them, for the narrative here given is equally credible, whichever of the accounts is taken, unless that of Berosus is followed. But it may not be improper to exhibit here the two principal accounts of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, that the discrepancy may be distinctly seen. I copy from the Pictorial Bible. “The common account we shall collect from L’Art de Verifier les Dates, and the other from Hales’ “Analysis,” disposing them in opposite colums for the sake of comparison:
Comparison of Historical Accounts of Nebuchadnezzar
Read full note →
From L’Art de Verifier
From Hales's Analysis
605
Nebuchacnezzar, who was succeeded by his son.
604
Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son.
562
Evil-Merodach, who, having provoked general indignation by his tyranny and atrocities, was, after a short reign of about two years, assassinated by his brother-in-law.
561
Evil-Merodach, or Ilverodam, who was slain in a battle against the Medes and Persians, and was succeeded by his son.
560
Nerigilassar, or Nericassolassar, who was regarded as a deliverer and succeeded by the choice of the nation. He perished in a battle by Cyrus, and was succeeded by his son.
558
Neriglissar, Niricassolassar, or Belshazzar, the common accounts of whom seem to combine what is said both of Neriglissar, and his son opposite. He was killed by conspirators on the night of the ‘impious feast,’ leaving a son (a boy).
555
Laborosoarchod, notorious for his cruelty and oppression, and who was assassinated by two nobles, Gobryas and Gadatas, whose sons he had slain. The vacant throne was then ascended by.
553
Laborosoarchod, on whose death, nine months after, the dynasty became extinct, and the kingdom came peaceably to ‘Darius the Mede,’ or Cyaxares who, on the will-known policy of the Medes and Persians, appointed a Babylonian nobleman, named Nabonadius, or Labynetus, to be king, or viceroy. This person revotled against Cyrus, who had succeeded to the united empire of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus could not immediately attend to him, but at last marched to Babylon, took the city, b.c. 536, as foretold by the prophets.
554
Nabonadius, the Labynetus of Herodotus, the Naboandel of Josephus, and the Belshazzar of Daniel, who was the son of Evil-Merodach, and who now succeeded to the throne of his
538
father. After a voluptuous reign, his city was taken by the Persians under Cyrus, on which occasion he lost his life.
It will be observed that the principal point of difference in these accounts is, that Hales contends that the succession of Darius the Mede to the Babylonian throne was not attended with war; that Belshazzar was not the king in whose time the city was taken by Cyrus; and, consequently, that the events which took place this night were quite distinct from and anterior to that siege and capture of the city by the Persian king which Isaiah and Jeremiah so remarkably foretold.
Made a great feast - On what occasion this feast was made is not stated, but is was not improbably an annual festival in honor of some of the Babylonian deities. This opinion seems to be countenanced by the words of the Codex Chisianus, “Belshazzar the king made a great festival ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων en hēmera engkainismou tōn basileiōn) on the day of the dedication of his kingdom;” and in Dan 5:4 it is said that “they praised the gods of gold, of silver, and of brass,” etc.
To a thousand of his lords - The word thousand here is doubtless used as a general term to denote a very large number. It is not improbable, however, that this full number was assembled on such an occasion. “Ctesias says, that the king of Persia furnished provisions daily for fifteen thousand men. Quintus Curtius says that ten thousand men were present at a festival of Alexander the Great; and Statius says of Domitian, that he ordered, on a certain occasion, his guests ‘to sit down at a thousand tables.’ “ - Prof. Stuart, in loc.
And drank wine before the thousand - The Latin Vulgate here is, “And each one drank according to his age.” The Greek of Theodotion, the Arabic, and the Coptic is, “and wine was before the thousand.” The Chaldee, however, is, as in our version, “he drank wine before the thousand.” As he was the lord of the feast, and as all that occurred pertained primarily to him, the design is undoubtedly to describe his conduct, and to show the effect which the drinking of wine had on him. He drank it in the most public manner, setting an example to his lords, and evidently drinking it to great excess.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Baltassar. He is believed to be the same as…
Baltassar. He is believed to be the same as Nabonides, the last of the Chaldean kings, grandson to Nabuchodonosor. He is called his son (ver. 2, 11, &c.) according to the style of the Scriptures, because he was a descendant from him. (Challoner; St. Jerome in Isaiah xiii.; Usher, &c.) --- Some think that he was brother of Evilmerodac. (ver. 11.; Baruch i. 11.) But he seems rather to have been his son. (Jeremias xxvii. 7.) Profane authors place Neriglissor and Laborosoarchod between them. They were not of the royal family, and might be looked upon as usurpers, or reigned in some other place; or they did not meddle with the Jews. (Calmet) --- It is wonderful that Josephus should prefer these authors; (Tirinus) yet he abandons the dates given by them. (Antiquities x. 12. & c. Ap. 1.) They represent Nabonides as a simple Babylonian raised to the throne, defeated by Cyrus, and suffered to retire into Carmania; whereas, Baltassar was slain. (ver. 29.) (Calmet) --- The others were of a different lineage, and are mentioned by Eus.[Eusebius,] &c. Evilmerodac certainly preceded him on the throne, and honoured Joachim in the 37th years of his captivity. (Worthington) --- Thousand; or, "for his officers over a thousand men." (Theodot.) --- Every. Chaldee: "and drank wine before the thousand," more than any, for this was deemed a great perfection; or he drank in their presence, but apart. (Calmet) --- The Persian monarchs used to sit in a separate apartment, with a veil before the door, so that they could see the guests without being seen. A great chandelier was before them; (Atheneus iv. 10.) probably on the outside, otherwise it would have defeated their purpose. Light sufficient would appear for Baltassar to see the hand-writing on his chamber wall. (ver. 5.) (Haydock) --- According to the order of time, this chapter should be placed after the vii. and viii. (Calmet) --- But those contain visions. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 5. Belshazzar’s feast, and Daniel’s foreshadowing of the downfall…
5. Belshazzar’s feast, and Daniel’s foreshadowing of the downfall of the Chaldœan Empire, based upon the mysterious handwriting on the wall
Dan_5:1-30
Read full note →
1Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank 2wine1 before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tested [in the taste of] the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father2 Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that [and] the king and his princes [lords], his wives and his concubines, might drink therein. 3Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at [in] Jerusalem; and the king and his princes 4[lords], his wives and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine1 and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
5In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6Then the king’s countenance was changed,3 and his thoughts troubled [would trouble] him, so that [and] the joints of his loins [loin] were loosed, and his knees smote one against another [this to that].
7The king cried aloud [with might] to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldæans and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon Whosoever [That any man that] shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and shall be the third ruler [rule third] in the kingdom. 8Then came in all the king’s wise men: but [and] they could not read [call] the writing, nor [and] make known to the king [make the 9king know] the interpretation thereof. Then was [the] king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him,4 and his lords were astonished.
10Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet-house [house of the drinking]; and the queen spake and said, O 11king, live for ever; let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed.5 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and, in the days of thy father, light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom [and] the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made [appointed him] master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldæans, and soothsayers; 12forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences [riddles], and dissolving of doubts [knots], were [was] found in the same [in him] Daniel, whom the king named [put his name] Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew [or, and shew] the interpretation.
13Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah,6 whom the king my father brought out of Jewry. [Judah]?6 14I have even heard of [upon] thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom, is [was] found in thee. 15And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read [call] this writing, and make known unto me [make me know] the interpretation thereof: but [and] they could not shew the interpretation of the thing. 16And I7 have heard of [upon] thee that thou canst make [interpret] interpretations and dissolve doubts [knots]: now, if thou canst read [call] the writing and make known to me [make me know] the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler [rule the third] in the kingdom.
17Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself [thee], and give thy rewards [largesses] to another; yet I will read [call] the writing unto the king, and make known to him [make him know] the interpretation. 18O thou king, [Thou O king—] the most high God gave [to] Nebuchadnezzar thy father a [the] kingdom, and majesty [greatness], and glory, and 19honour. And, for [from] the majesty [greatness] that he gave him, all people, nations [the nations, peoples], and languages, trembled and feared [were trembling and fearing from] before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he 20put down.8 But [And] when his heart was lifted up, and his mind [spirit] hardened in pride [to act proudly], he was deposed from his kingly throne [the throne of his kingdom], and they took [caused to pass away] his glory the 21dignity] from him. And he was driven from the sons of men [mankind]; and his heart was made like [with] the beasts [living creatures], and his dwelling was with the wild-asses: they fed him with [would make him eat] grass [herbage] like oxen, and his body was [would be] wet with [from] the dew of heaven [the heavens]; till [that] he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men [mankind], and that he appointeth [will set up] over it whomsoever he 22[may] will. And thou9 his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, 23though [because] thou knewest all this; but [and] hast lifted up thyself against the Lord10 of heaven [the heavens]: and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk [are drinking] wine11 in them: and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, 24hast thou not glorified. Then was the part of the hand sent from [before] him; and this writing was written [signed].
25And this is the writing that was written [signed], MENE, MENE, TEKEL, 26UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing [or, word]: MENE 27[NUMBERE]; God12 hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL 28[Weighed]; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting, PERES [DIVIDED]; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia].
29Then commanded [said] Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet [the purple], and put a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and made a proclamation concerning [upon] him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldæans slain.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_5:1-4. The desecration of the sacred vessels of the temple at the royal feast. Belshazzar the king made a great feast. The name of the king בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר differs in its orthography merely from the Chaldee name בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר, which Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan_1:7 (cf. infra, Dan_5:12 of this chapter), had conferred on Daniel, as it omits the t-sound between the letters l and sh. It is therefore a softened form, having the same etymological significance in its elements, and both are equivalent to Beli princeps, = the Bel-sarussur of the Babylonian inscriptions (cf. Introd., § 8, note 3). According to Hitzig (on Dan_1:7, and on this passage), Bel-tsh-âzar is synonymous with the Sanscrit Pâla-tshâçara, “provider and devourer,” while in Bel-shazzar the middle member of this compound, the Sanscr. and Zend copula tsha, “and,” has been dropped out and replaced by the Heb. relative שׁ, so that the shortened form signifies. “provider, who (is) devourer.” This hypothesis appears altogether too artificial, and, like the direct derivation of the word from the Aryan, is doubtful, especially as the Bel-sarussur of the inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments favors it but little. Ewald’s assumption that the royal name בֵּלְשַׁ׳ comprehends the name the male god Bel, while that of Daniel, בֵּלְטְשַׁ׳, includes that of the goddess Belt, is likewise without sufficient proof, and is opposed by Dan_4:5 [8], and also by the orthography with ט instead of ת.—Concerning the hypothesis that Belshazzar was the same us Evil-merodach, the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, see the lntrod., § 8, note 3.—Made a great feast, i.e., caused it to be made. עֲבַד, “he had prepared,” as in Dan_3:1. לְהֶם, “bread, food,” comprehends the beverages (מִשְׁתֵּא, Dan_5:10) also, as the second half of the verse shows; cf. in the Heb, Gen_26:30; 1Sa_25:36; Ecc_10:19.—And drank wine before the thousand. This does not probably mean that he “vied with them in drinking” (Hävernick), but that he “drank in their presence, while seated at a separate table,”—as was the custom of the Persian kings on the occasion of their great banquets, according to Athenæus, Deipnos, iv. 10. On the expression, “to eat and drink before others,” cf. Jer_52:33; it differs materially from “to eat and drink with others,” Exo_18:12; Act_10:41, etc. The number of the king’s guests, a thousand lords (grand-officers, mighty ones, cf. Dan_4:33 [36], which the Sept. doubles, δισχίλιοι), is not remarkable, when it is remembered that, according to Ctesias (in Athen., l. c.). the Persian king provided daily for fifteen thousand persons at his table; that, according to Curtius, Alexander the Great invited ten thousand to a wedding feast; and that Ptolemy Dionysius (according to Pliny, H. N., XXXIII. 10) supported a thousand soldiers of the army of Pompey the Great from his kitchen. [“The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand” (Keil).] However, according to the genuinely Oriental custom, which is attested, e.g., by Herodotus, II. 78. in the case of the Egyptians, and by Ælian, V. H., xi. 1, among the Persians, the wine-drinking or carousal follows upon the feast proper. At such times, and especially at a court like the Babylonian immediately prior to the Persian period, the banqueters may have given way to all the excesses of their dissolute frivolity, in the manner described in the ensuing narrative. In relation to the drunkenness and wantonness of the Babylonians, cf. Isa_14:11; Isa_47:1; Jer_51:39; Herod., I. 193, 195; Athenæus, XIV. p. 601; Curtius, V. 1 etc.
Dan_5:2. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded, etc. בִּטְעֵם חַמְרָא, “while tasting, while enjoying the wine,” therefore, while under its influence; cf. Pro_20:1; Act_2:13; and in regard to טעם, cf. Job_6:6. [It “does not mean merely sipping in order to determine the flavor, or as a prelude to drinking more freely, but drinking with relish, and therefore plentifully” (Stuart).]—To bring the golden and silver vessels, namely, out of the “treasure-house of the gods,” in which they had been deposited by Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan_1:2. The etymology of the name Belshazzar invented by Saadia and favored by Hitzig, by which it is derived from this very act of causing the vessels to be brought from the treasure-house (בְּלַשׁ, “to seek” and אוֹצָר), is an idle vagary that never entered into the mind of the writer.—That the king.… and his concubines might drink therein. The ו in וְרִּשְׁתּוֹן is expressive of the design; cf. Dan_1:5 b. שְׁתָח with בְּ, “to drink from a vessel,” occurs also in Dan_5:3; Dan_5:23; cf. Winer, § 51, 1.—His wives and his concubines. שֵׁגָל designates the legal consort as contrasted with the concubine (לְחֵכַה), as in the Hebrew (Psa. 15:10; Neh_2:6). The Sept. represents only the concubines as present at the feast (both here and in Dan_5:3; Dan_5:23), being apparently governed in this by what is described in Est_1:9 et seq. (cf. Josephus, Ant., XI. 6, 1) as the court custom of the ancient Persians; but even with reference to them, Herodotus (Dan_5:18) testifies that their wives (κουρίδιαι γυναῖκες) were admitted to banquets (cf. also Plutarch, Sympos. I. 1 and Macrob. Dan_7:1, who represent that at least concubines were present at the Persian feasts). It is clear that the luxurious Babylonians were even more lax in the observance of a strict etiquette, from Herod, i. 191; Xenophon, Cyrop., iv. 2, 28, and especially from Curtius, i. 1, 38. From this may appear the propriety with which Bertholdt (p. 366), on the strength of Dan_5:10 of this chapter, which he misunderstood, charges ignorance of the Babylonian custom in question on the prophet.
Dan_5:3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem. Merely the golden vessels are here mentioned, while the silver ones are omitted, on the principle a potiori fit denominatio. The temple” (הֵיּכְלָא) in this place, as in 1Ki_6:3; Eze_41:4, is the temple proper, consisting of the holy and the most holy place, and is here distinguished from the “house of God,” i.e., the whole of the sacred area of the temple.
Dan_5:4. They drank wine, and praised, etc. אִשְׁתִּיו (with א prosthet., Winer, Gramm., § 23, note 1) resumes the וְאִשְׁתִּיּו of the preceding verse supplemented by חַמְרָא, “wine,” in order to connect immediately with it the praising of the gods, and thus to present in a striking manner the profanity and lasciviousness of the scene.13 —On the six-fold number of the materials from which the idols were constructed, “gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone,” compare the similar number (“gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble”) in 1Co_3:11; also Psa_115:5-7; Bar_6:7 et seq.; Wis_15:15.14 On the number itself, as the number of the world amenable to judgment because of its hostility to God, cf. Auberlen, Dan., p. 304 et seq.; and my Theologia naturalis, p. 816 et seq.—The aggravated feature of this profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple does not consist in the “placing of Jehovah and the idols of the king upon the same level” (Hävernick), but in the fact, which Daniel mentions with censure in Dan_5:23, that Belshazzar proudly exalted himself above the God of Israel, and in mockery employed the vessels stolen from His sanctuary to drink wine while singing the praises of the victorious gods of Babylon. It was thus essentially an exaltation of the idols above Jehovah, who had succumbed to them in battle, and whom they had despoiled (cf. Kranichf. on this passage).
Dan_5:5-6. The finger on the wall, and the consequent terror of the king. In the same hour, therefore while the sacrilegious act was in progress; immediately and suddenly. cf. Dan_3:6.—Came forth fingers of a man’s hand. The Kethib נְפָקוּ (3 plur. masc.) is sufficiently explained by its position before the feminine subject אֶצְבְּעָן, or also by the supposition that the mind of the writer reverted in an indefinite manner to the Divine powers here engaged. The feminine plural נְפָקָה, substituted for it by the Keri, is therefore to be rejected, as an easier reading (similar to that in Dan_2:33). The participle וְכָתְבָן (“and writing,” instead of “and wrote”), which follows the verb נְפָקוּ, has a realizing effect, as in Dan_2:7 a; Dan_3:9 a.—Over against the candlestick on the wall of the king’s palace. The wall of the banquet-hall was not panelled nor draped, but rather a simple, light-colored “wall of lime or plaster” (כְּתַל = the כּוֹתָל of the Targums), such as the ruins of the palaces at Nineveh still exhibit in great number, according to Layard (Nin. and Babylon, p. 651). Upon a spot of this wall that was especially exposed to the light from the lamp above the king, he suddenly beheld the mysterious and terrifying phenomenon of the hand engaged in writing.—And the king saw the part (the extremity) of the hand that wrote. פַּס יְדָא properly designates here and in Dan_5:24 the “extremity of the hand,” probably including the fingers, hence what the first sentence describes by אֶצְבְּעָן. The rendering of Gesenius and Dietrich in the Handwörterbuch, “palm of the hand, palma,” is hardly correct; nor is that of Hitzig, who, in connection with Saadia, takes יְדָא in the wider sense of “the lower arm, including the hand,” and hence explains פס־ידא by “the whole hand.” The writer appears rather to have employed the words “fingers” and “extremity of the hand” interchangeably, with design,—“in order to excite more effectually the conception of a mysterious person in the background, by the observation that only the extremity of the organ employed in writing was visible” (Kranichfeld). Whether the phenomenon of the mysterious hand is to be placed solely to the account of “the fancy of the king under the influence of wine,” and therefore to be reduced (with Kranichfeld) from an objective and actually transpiring miracle to a merely subjective apprehension (similar to the perception of the fourth person in the fiery furnace—see on Dan_3:24), or otherwise, depends entirely on the other question, whether the mysterious writing on the wall, which certainly was visible to others as well as to Belshazzar (cf. Dan_5:7-8; Dan_5:16; Dan_5:25), is to be regarded as having been previously carved or painted in a natural way and by human agency, or whether it is to be accepted that the inscription was made by supernatural intervention at the time of the banquet and before the eyes of the terrified king. In support of the former theory reference might perhaps be made to the distinction between an older and a later cuneiform writing among the Babylonians, the former of which differed materially from the latter, or even to the hieroglyphics which the primitive Babylonians are said to have employed (cf. Spiegel, Art. Nineve u. Assyrien, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., vol. xx. p. 234 et seq.), but with which the later ages were entirely unacquainted. It is conceivable that the king may suddenly have noticed an inscription in characters of that former time, that were traced on bricks and inserted in the wall, and that such characters were not intelligible to the ordinary magians of the time, but required the all-surpassing knowledge of Daniel to decipher. But, aside from the evident design of the narrator to report a positively miraculous incident, this theory is militated against and positively overthrown by the nature of the writing, which does not bear the character of the primitive oracles of the kind represented the Sibyllines, but is a Divine sentence of destruction upon the king and his people, that was called forth by the insolent presumption of the present ruler, and is adapted to the circumstances of his time (cf. on Dan_5:25 et seq). The theory of an actual miracle is therefore to be received, and the psychological explanation cited above, as well as every other naturalistic theory, must be rejected.15 —Then the (color of the) king’s countenance was changed; literally, “Then the king, his color was changed to him.” [“מַלְכָּא (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted” (Keil).] The intransitive שְׁנָא (“to change”) has the accusative suffix in שְׁנוֹחִי, instead of the dative; cf. בְּשׁוּבֵנִי in the Heb. of Eze_47:7. However, the more circumstantial expression עֲלֹוהִי זִיוֹהִי שָׁנַיִן, Dan_5:9, has substantially the same signification, as is the case also with the somewhat different expressions in Dan_5:10 and Dan_7:28. On זִיוִין, see on Dan_4:33.—And his thoughts troubled him; רעיונין, the uncomfortable and terrifying thoughts concerning the meaning of the writing, which sprang from the guilty conscience of the king. cf. Dan_2:30.—The joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The tremulous knocking together of the knees is a consequence of the yielding of the joints of the loins, and this again, like the change of color in the countenance, is the natural effect of terror.16 cf. with חֲרַץ, “hip, loin,” the etymologically equivalent Heb. חלץ (only in the dual, חֲלָצַיִם), אַרְכּוּבָא, “knee,” appears not to be etymologically related to ברכים ,ברך, but rather to signify originally “combination, commissura;” cf. commissura genu, Plin., H. N. XI. 103.
Dan_5:7-9. The useless consultation with the Magians. The king cried aloud; בְּחַיִל, “with power,” as in Dan_3:4; Dan_4:11.—To bring in the astrologers (soothsayers), the Chaldæans, and the soothsayers (astrologers). Several classes of wise men are here mentioned to designate the entire number, as in Dan_2:2 (cf. 27) and in Dan_4:4; and among them the Chartummin or learned class (see on Dan_2:2), whose wisdom would be especially required in the present instance, are not even mentioned by name. This is evidently an oversight on the part of the writer, which is paralleled in the somewhat more complete enumeration of the principal classes of Magians in Dan_5:11, and also in the abbreviated expression, “the wise men, the soothsayers,” in Dan_5:15. The indefinite חכימי בבל in this verse, and the expression כֹּל חַכְּימֵי מַלְכָּא in Dan_5:8, show clearly that the author always refers to all the wise men, without excluding any of the chief classes, and especially so in this instance. But it cannot be required here, any more than in the similar case mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Daniel should have at once presented himself among all these wise men of Babylon (see on Dan_4:5). The position of the great Jewish wise man under Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, which was not official in the more limited sense, was probably continued to him under Belshazzar; and, moreover, the latter, who, according to Dan_5:11 et seq., knew little or nothing about Daniel, would be far more likely than was his father to ignore the prophet of Jehovah, and to seek the counsel of the heathen wise men at the outset. The words of the queen in Dan_5:11 et seq. by no means indicate that the king was wholly unacquainted with Daniel, but merely that up to that time no personal or official intercourse had taken place between them. This circumstance also finds a sufficient explanation in the greater freedom of action incident to the partly official and partly private station of Daniel, which devolved on him the obligation to attend to certain portions of “the king’s business” indeed (see Dan_8:27), but released him from the duty of frequently presenting himself before the king. The assumption of Hengstenberg and Hävernick, that on the accession of Belshazzar Daniel was formally deprived of his office as the chief Magian, is a very doubtful supposition, and stands in direct contradiction to Dan_8:27 (cf. Dan_8:1)—Whosoever shall read this writing, etc. כְּתָבָה (here and Dan_5:15), for כְּתָבָא Dan_5:8; Dan_5:16; Dan_5:25, appears to be the orthography of a later copyist, as in the case of כְּלָח, Dan_4:32, and of פִּשְׁרָח in Dan_5:12, below.—Shall be clothed with purple (marg.) and have (rather “with”17 ) a chain of gold about his neck. אַרְגְּוָן here, and in the Chaldaizing Heb. of 2Ch_2:6, equivalent to the Heb. אַרְגָּמָן (Exo_25:26-27, and often), the “red or genuine purple,” πορφύρα, was probably more costly and brilliant than the violet or blue purple תְּכֵלֶת, from which it must be distinguished. It formed the distinguishing feature of clothing among the Persian kings (Pollux, vii. 13), and was by them occasionally bestowed on high officials, as a mark of especial favor and exalted dignity; e.g., on Mordecai, Est_8:15; and on the purpurati, i.e., persons who were adorned with the purple κάνθυς, whom Xenophon (Anab., I. 5, 8), Curtius (Dan_3:2; Dan_3:10; Dan_8:3; Dan_8:15; Dan 13:13,14), and others mention (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop., Dan_1:3; Dan_1:2; Dan_2:4; Dan_2:6; Herodotus, 3:20, etc.). Purple was probably the badge of distinguished rank at the Babylonian as well as at the Persian court, especially as Babylon, like Tyre, was celebrated among the ancients for its manufacture of purple goods. Cf. Philostratus, Ep., 27; Eze_27:24; Jos_7:21; and generally, Heeren, Ideen, etc., I. 2, 205 et seq. With respect to their etymology, both forms, ארגמן and ארגון, may be most readily derived from the Sanscrit, in which both râgaman and râgavan occur as adjectives derived from râga, “red,” and signify “red-colored;” cf. Gesen., Addit. ad Thesaur., p. 111. Hitzig however refers to the Sanscr. argh = “to possess value, be costly,” and most of the older expositors prefer a Shemitic root, e.g.רגם.—הַמְנוּכָא, “chain, necklace” (Sept. and Theodot., μανιάκης; also Aquil. and Symm. on Gen_41:42), seems not to have been changed to הַמְנִיכָא (= Gr. μανιάκης), the form which is here and in Dan_5:16; Dan_5:29 preferred by the Keri. As among the early Egyptians (Gen_41:42), so also among the later Persians the golden necklace served as the ornament of princes and as the mark of special favor from the king, cf. Herod., III. 20; Xenophon, Anab., I. 2, 27; 5, 8; 8, 29.—And shall be the third ruler in the kingdom; rather, “shall have power in the kingdom as a triumvir.” תַּלְתּי not the same as תַּלְתָּא, Dan_5:16; Dan_5:29, is generally regarded as an ordinal number, “the third,” formed after the Heb. analogy, and is compared with the more usual תְּלִיתַי; but it may perhaps, and with greater probability, be regarded, with Kranichfeld, as a feminine adverbial formation after the analogy of adverbs like אְרָמִית, אָהְרִָיּ, etc., and be rendered accordingly, by like, or as a triumvir; while תַּלְתָא in Dan_5:16; Dan_5:29 is the corresponding masculine noun “triumvir” (formed from תְּלָתָא, “three”). There is therefore no difference in sense between the term employed in this passage and those found in the parallel verses cited above; but it is unnecessary and arbitrary to declare, with Hitzig. that the two forms are identical, and on that account to substitute תַּלְתַּי in this place. The dignity of triumvir which is here promised to the fortunate interpreter of the mystery is probably not identical with the office of one of the three governors of the province of Babylon mentioned in Dan_2:49, but designates the position of one of the three chief governors over the whole kingdom. The latter office is noticed in Dan_6:3, as established by Darius the Mede; but that statement may be regarded as merely indicating the restoration of a feature in the administration of government which had already existed under the Babylonian regime. The Sept. presents the correct idea: ἐξουσία τοῦ τρίτου μέρους τῆς βασιλείας; but the Peshito is less correct in its rendering by “the third rank in the kingdom,” which results in the idea that the recipient should immediately succeed in rank the king, who was supreme, and the prime minister or grand vizier, who filled the second place in the kingdom. This thought was certainly foreign to the author, and would be expressed as indefinitely as is possible by וְתַלְתִּי וגי׳. The evident meaning of these words is rather that the person concerned should be placed over the kingdom αὐτός τρίτος, or the third beside two other grand officials or שַׁלִּיטִין (cf. Dan_6:3).
Dan_5:8. Then came in all the king’s wise men. On the Keri עַלִּין see on Dan_4:4. The כֹּל חַכִּימֵי מַלְכָּא are evidently the same as those mentioned separately (although not exhaustively, and merely by way of indicating their office) in Dan_5:7. Kranichfeld is exceedingly arbitrary when he assumes a gradation between the three classes of wise men who are specially mentioned in Dan_5:7, and the summoning of all the wise men related in this passage, and consequently finds between the lines and preceding the אֱדַיִן, “then,” a series of incidents that are not expressly noticed (after the manner in which many expositors treat the καὶ εἰ̄πενὁ δοῦλος, Luk_14:22). Instead of this compare the relation of the general expression כֹּל חַכִיּמֵי בָבֶל in Dan_4:3, to the special classes of wise men which are immediately referred to (ibid. Dan_5:4), and also what has been observed above, on Dan_5:7, in relation to the careless style of the author.—But they could not read the writing, etc. Kranichfeld supposes that the reason for this was, that the mysterious inscription was written in the old Phœnician characters, which Daniel, being a Hebrew, would have recognized, while the Chaldœan Chartummin, who were acquainted only with the character in use among the ancient Babylonians, which corresponded to the later Syriac or Palmyrene, would naturally be unable to understand them. But in this instance we are probably to conceive of cuneiform writing, or of hieroglyphic characters (see on Dan_5:7), because the brick walls of the palaces in ancient Babylon generally contained only such. Prideaux, however, preceded Kranichfeld in the opinion expressed in the Universal History, part. III. p. 755, that the writing was not composed of the square characters in use among the Chaldœans, but of the ancient Arabic (?), which preceded the modern Samaritan.18
Dan_5:9. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled.… and his lords were astonished. The unusual, and even unique and incomprehensible characters in which the suddenly apparent writing was composed, increased the alarm produced by the apparition, and filled the king and his guests, now thoroughly aroused from their wild debauch, with anxious dread in relation to the misfortunes predicted by the supposed oracle. If, with Hävernick, and many earlier expositors, we could believe that Belshazzar’s feast was held during the siege of the city by the Medo-Persians, and with a design to ridicule the danger from that source, it would be still easier to explain so general an alarm, and it would not even be necessary, in that case, to allude to the fear of the many officials that their own deposition from office might be connected with the king’s impending fall; but that conclusion does not necessarily result from Dan_5:30 et seq.—Hitzig remarks on the Ithpael part. מִשְׁתַּבְּשִׁיּן and probably with justice, that “it not only comprehends the idea of alarm, but also that of confusion and excited movement.” “None retained their places; a general uproar ensued; groups were formed; and the people talked, and ran hither and thither to no purpose.”
Dan_5:10-12. The queen-mother refers Belshazzar to Daniel. Now (or “then”) the queen … came into the banquet-house. מַלְכְּתָא can only be the queen-mother (גְּבִירָה, 1Ki_15:13; 2Ch_15:16; cf. Jer_13:18)—not one of the king’s wives; for, according to Dan_5:2; Dan_5:23 these were already in the banquet-hall among the carousers. Hence, if Belshazzar was the same person as Evil-merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, this queen-mother, who here evidently displays a dignity and authority such as belonged to the gebiroth at the Israelitish courts (cf. the passages adduced), was probably the Nitocris whom Herodotus celebrates in I. 185. Cf. the Introd., § 8, note 3.19 —Instead of the Kethib עַלְלַת, the Keri, conforming to the usage of the later Chaldee, has עַלַּת; cf. on Dan_4:4.—לְָקָבֵל מִלֵּי מ׳ וגו׳ , “by reason (on account) of the words of the king and his lords.” So the majority of moderns, correctly; for a confused, excited talking, whose sound possibly penetrated to the apartments of the queen mother, is implicitly included in משתבשין. Dan_5:9 The plural מִלִּין, as well as the complementary genitive, is opposed to the version of the Vulg., Luther, Bertholdt, Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.: “by reason of the matter, or the affair.”—O king, live for ever. Cf. on Dan_2:4, where also the defective רַעְיוֹנָךְ וְזִיוָךְ has been noticed.
Dan_5:11. And in the days of thy father light (נַהִירוּ , cf. on Dan_2:22), and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. Cf. 1Ki_3:28; Wis_8:11.—King Nebuchadnezzar, the king, thy father. The subject is briefly repeated at the close of the sentence, because its first position was somewhat distant from the verb, similar to Son_5:7.
Dan_5:12. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit … were found in the same Daniel. The wisdom of Daniel, which had been extolled in Dan_5:11, is again mentioned as the reason for the distinction conferred on him by Nebuchadnezzar, for the purpose of preparing Belshazzar to listen to the counsel which follows.—Interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts; rather, “to interpret; dreams, show riddles, and loosen knots.” This triplicate circumstantial clause,—the first and third of whose members are expressed in the Heb. [Chald.] by participles, and the second by the infinitive אַחֲוָיָא—is a genitive, depending on וְּשָׂכְלְתָנוּ which closes the series of objects governed by the principal verb הִשְׁתְּכַחַת in the manner of a parenthesis. Hitzig holds differently, taking the three terms מְפַשַּׁר, אְַהַוָיָא, and מְשָׁרֵא, under the precedence of the Vulgate, as three nouns of action, coordinated to the preceding ones (“an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding”), and consequently assuming six subjects to חִשְׁתְּכַחַת בֵּהּ. But מְפַשַׁר and מְשָרֵא are clearly Pael participles, and they cannot be taken as nomina actionis, even under reference to the Heb. מְכַסֵּה, “a covering,” or to מְשֹׁמֵם, Dan_9:27. It is exceedingly doubtful whether the figurative expression “to loosen knots” (cf. the Lat. nodos solvere; and also Seneca’s “nodosa sortis verba,” Œdip., 101) contains an illusion to the “loosening of the loins,” in Dan_5:6 (as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., assert), or not, in view of the merely superficial relation between משרא and משתרין. In … Daniel whom the king named Belteshazzar; בֵּחּ בְּדָנִיּאֵל (cf. Dan_5:30), an emphatic pleonasm. The giving of the name is referred to, as in Dan_4:5, as something honorable to the prophet.—Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Concerning the form וּפִשְׁרָח, see above, on Dan_5:7. [“The tone in which this last clause is spoken betokens that the speaker herself is conscious of an elevated rank and a kind of authority, or, at least, a right to give advice; a tone which only such a woman as stood in the relation of a mother (not a wife) could assume in the East before a king” (Stuart).]
Dan_5:13-16. Daniel’s appearance before the king. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. הֻצַל and הֻעַלּוּ are Hebraizing Hophal-forms, like הוּסַק, Dan_4:33, or like חָנְחַת in Dan_5:20.—Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, etc. [“The question did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel.”—Keil.] This question clearly indicates that no direct intercourse had hitherto taken place between the king and Daniel (see on Dan_5:7), but also, on the other hand, that the former had some knowledge of the prophet. The use of the name Daniel instead of Belteshazzar, in the king’s address, was probably dictated simply by a desire to avoid the use of a name so nearly identical in sound to his own—although it certainly belonged to the prophet in the official language of the Babylonian court. Hitzig therefore commits a decided error, when he assumes a historical improbability in this place, suggestive of a later Jewish authorship.—Whom the king.… brought from (rather “hitherto, out of”) Jewry? דִּי הַיְתִי is probably to be referred to the captives, as Theodotion, the Sept., Luther, Hitzig, etc., hold, and not specially to the person of Daniel, which is the view of the Vulgate, Kranichfeld, etc. On the form אַבִי for אַבִּי (cf. the voc. אַבָּא = Ἀββᾶ, Rom_8:15), see Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others, on this passage.—On Dan_5:14 of. Dan_5:11; on Dan_5:15 cf. Dan_5:8. [“It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with אֱלָהִין, gods” (Keil).]—The wise men, the astrologers (“soothsayers”). On this combination cf. on Dan_5:7.—That they should read this writing, etc. דִּי, as the accompanying imperfect indicates, is in this place the telic conjunction “that, in order that.” Upon this clause which indicates the design, depends that which follows, construed with ל c. Inf. (cf. Dan_2:16). Concerning the form כְּתָבָח see supra, on Dan_5:7.—But they could not shew the interpretation of the thing (or “word”). מִלְּתא cannot be rendered by “matter, thing,” any more than מִלּ־ן in Dan_5:10; it rather signifies, collectively, the words written on the wall (against Hitzig and others).—Concerning תַּלְתָּא Dan_5:16 b., see supra, on Dan_5:7.
Dan_5:17-24. Daniel’s censuring address to the king, as the prologue to the interpretation of the writing. Let thy gifts be to thyself. This refusal of the royal presents was designed merely to decisively reject, at the outset, and in a manner becoming the prophet of Jehovah, any influence that might be brought to bear on him. It is not, therefore, a pert expression, which the king might justly punish, nor is it inconsistent with the fact that Daniel ultimately accepted the reward offered for the interpretation, Dan_5:29, since he regarded it as a recognition of his God. The assertion of v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., that we should expect either that the enraged king would punish the prophet who bears evil tidings and couples them with threatenings and censure, or that, in Dan_5:29, Daniel would despise the royal purple and the golden necklace, all this is simply adapted to afford a conception of the manner in which a Maccabæan tendency-writer would have treated this history, and of the probable issue to which he would have conducted it.
Dan_5:18. O thou king, the most high God, etc. The absolute position of the vocative אנְתָּה מַלְכָּא at the beginning of the sentence, places the king rhetorically in a living relation with the facts reported in the following clause, with regard to his father Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan_5:19. And for the majesty (or “power”).… all people, nations (“tribes”), and languages trembled and feared; properly, “were trembling and fearing,” were in a state of fear and trembling. The Keri has זָיְעִין instead of זָאַעִין, similar to דָּיְרִין (Dan_2:38; Daniel 3:31; Dan_4:32) instead of דָּארִין; see on Dan_2:38. Concerning the triad, “people, tribes, and tongues,” see on Dan_3:4.—Whom (soever) he would (cf. Winer, Gramm. § 47,1, a).… he kept alive. מָחֵא is derived by Theodotion (ἔτυπτεν) and the Vulgate (percutiebat; cf. Luther, “er schlug”) from מְחָא “to smite;” but the parallelism requires the Aphel partic. of חְיָא, “to live,” and מָחֵא must either be considered as such (namely, as a peculiar, old-Chaldaic contraction of מַחְיֵא, which is generally contracted to מַחֵי, e.g., Targ. Deu_32:39), or, with Saadia, Rashi, Buxt., Bertholdt, Gesenius, Fürst, Hitzig, etc., the usual contracted form מַחֵא must be substituted for מָחֵא. [“The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar’s power in Dan_5:18-19 has undesirably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father (that monarch) in power and majesty.… The last clause in Dan_5:19 reminds us of 1Sa_2:6-7” (Keil).] Dan_5:20. But when his heart was lifted up. רִם = רִים, is a preterite with intransitive signification, not a passive partic., as v. Lengerke suggests. Cf. Winer, § 22, 4.—And his mind hardened in pride. רוּחַ, the nearest synonym to לְבַב, is also frequently used interchangeably with it in the Hebrew, e.g., Psa_51:12; Psa_51:19. תקף, in this place, is about equivalent to the Heb. חוֹק in Exo_7:13.20 —He was deposed … , and they took his glory from him; or, “his glory was taken from him.” Instead of וִיקָרָא the best MSS. have ויקרה, which is possibly to be read as וִיקָרֵהּ (Hitzig); but on the other hand the case may be analogous to פִּשְׁרֵא, supra, Dan_5:8 and Dan_4:15.
Dan_5:21. And his heart was made like the (heart of) beasts. Read שַׁוִּי, not שַׁוִּיו (Keri) or שֱׁוִי (v. Leng., Hitzig), or even שֻׁוַּי (Ewald). The 3d sing. active שַׂוִּי is used, instead of the more usual 3d plural active, to express an impersonal sense. There are thus three several modes of indicating that sense employed in Dan_5:20-21 : a, the passive (חָנְחַת Dan_5:20, טְרִידDan_5:21); b, the 3d plural active (הֶעְדִּיו Dan_5:20, יְטַעֲמוּנֵהּ Dan_5:21); c the 3d sing. active (שַׁוִּי Dan_5:21)—a rapid change, that is conditioned by the rhetorical, or if it be preferred, the poetical elevation of Daniel’s remarks.—[And his dwelling was with the wild asses. This “circumstance is added by the speaker, and not found in Dan_4:29 (32). It is added for the sake of stronger impression” (Stuart).]—Till he knew that… God. appointeth over it (or “them”) whomsoever he will. Cf. Dan_4:14, at the close of which, as here, the Keri substitutes עֲלַהּ for the Kethib עֲלַיהּ.
Dan_5:22. And thou.… hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.21 Properly, precisely because (דִּי כָּל־קְבֵל) thou knewest all this,” hence, because of a defiant opposition to the well known design and will of the Highest. The words indicate the reason not for what Belshazzar should have done, but for what he did not perform (thus Kranichf. correctly, against v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc.).
Dan_5:23. And thou has praised the gods of silver, and gold, etc., cf. Dan_5:4. The descriptive addition in this case, “which see not, nor hear, nor know,” is based on Deu_4:28; cf. Psa_115:5 et seq.; Psa_135:15 et seq.—And (rather “but”) the God in whose hand thy breath is. Cf. Job_12:10; Num_16:22. On the following, “whose (“or with whom”) are all thy ways” (אָרְחָן ways = experiences, Targ. Job_8:13), cf. Jer_10:23.—Hast thou not glorified; a litotes for, “hast thou dishonored, disgraced.” [“This is surely plain and faithful admonition; and probably the king’s conscience was smitten by it.”—Stuart.]
Dan_5:24. then (or “therefore”) was.… . sent from him. בֵּאדַיִן, properly “then,” namely at the time when thou didst thus exalt thyself against God. The post hoc in this instance is really a propter hoc.—שְׁלִיחַ does not, as, e.g., in Ezr_6:12 (cf. the Heb. Dan_11:42), designate the stretching forth of the hand, as if God Himself were the writer; but rather indicates the emanation of the hand from God in a general way, and therefore, so as not to exclude the intervention of angels, but rather to presume it. Hitzig remarks correctly: “The hand that writes is that of an angel who stood before God (Dan_7:10), and received the commission to write this.”
Dan_5:25-28. The reading and interpretation of the writing. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin = numbered, numbered, weighed, and-dividers. The forms מְנֵא תְּקֵל, and also פְּרֵס, which in Dan_5:28 takes the place of פַּרְסִין, are unmistakably passive participles Peal, by which the surely-impending future is expressed in the manner of a Præteritum propheticum, but with greater brevity and emphasis. The forcible laconic utterance of a mysterious oracle sounds forth from these disconnected consecutive passive participles; and this tendency and signification appear also in the unusual and antique form of the participles, of which only the first, מְנֵא, has a somewhat regular formation (analogous to קְרֵב, Dan_3:26, or שְׁכֵכ, for שְׁכִיב, in the later Chaldee), while the e-sound in תְּקֵל and פְּרֵס is decidedly abnormal, and conflicts with the ordinary usage. תְּקֵל appears to have been selected as an equivocal mediating form between תְּקִיל, the regular passive participle of תְּקַל, and תִּקַּל (from קלל, “to be light;” cf. Dan_5:27); מְנֵא was possibly chosen because of its assonance to מָאנַיָּא, Dan_5:2; Dan_5:23; and in like manner פְּרֵס = פְּרִיס may contain an amphibole, by way of an allusion to the name פָּרָס—hence a reference to the world-power which was chiefly instrumental in the “division,” i.e., the overthrow of the Chaldæan empire. Kranichfeld rejects, but without any reason, this assumption of a designed two-fold sense of the terms, and especially of תְּקֵל, which is adopted by Hitzig and others; although Hitzig is probably in error when he assigns to פרס (upon the ground of Isa_63:7, and in connection with Ibn-Ezra and Rashi) the meaning of the Heb. שָׁבַר or פָּרַק, “to break.”22 As Dan_5:28 shows, the writer represents the destruction of the Chaldæan empire, which is foretold in פְּרֵס (פַּרְסִין), precisely as a division between the allied nations of the Persians and the Medes, although he might properly have mentioned the Persians only, as effecting the destruction of the kingdom. The substitution of the plural active partic. פַּרְסִין for the abnormal passive partic. פְּרֵס in the written oracle itself, which results in a change of construction similar to that observed in Dan_5:20-21 (cf. also Dan_2:7; Dan_3:9; Dan_6:14, and the remarks on שָׁמְרִין, Dan_3:4), appears to have been made for the sake of clearness. The unusual פְּרֵס would have accorded more exactly with the two preceding terms, but would scarcely have been intelligible; while the plur. וּפַרְסִין, “and dividers,” or, “and they divide,” could not be misunderstood. (Ewald’s interpretation: “and in pieces and in ruins,” is without any linguistic proof.) However, the expressions “to number” or “count,” and “to weigh” are found elsewhere also, as figures to designate a final judicial determination; cf. Psa_56:9; Psa_62:10; Job_31:4; Job_31:6. The repetition of מְנֵא as indicating the character of the entire sentence, is designed merely to add a solemn emphasis to the words; cf. the frequent ἀμήν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν in the New Testament, and O.-T. passages like Gen_14:10; Deu_2:27; Deu_14:22, etc.; and, generally, Ewald, Lehrb., § 313 a.
Dan_5:26. God hath numbered thy kingdom. מַלְכוּתָךְ is not “thy kingdom,” but “thy kingship” the duration of thy reign, the days of thy sovereignty.23 The verb מְנָה is written with ה probably with design, in order to indicate the change of the vowel as compared with מְנֵא.—And finished it. הַשְׁלְמָהּ, literally, “has made it complete,” or “has fully numbered it;” i.e., has brought it to the end of the time assigned to it. Cf השלים, Isa_38:12.
Dan_5:27. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. “Thou,” i.e., thy moral personality, thy moral character and worth; cf. Job_31:6 : “Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity.”—Thou “art found wanting” seems to refer to the threatening כִּי קַלּוֹתָ, “for thou art vile” (or “too light”), which the prophet Nahum (Dan_1:14) hurls at the Assyrian king; and in so far may serve to substantiate what has been observed above on the two fold sense of תְּקֵל. חַסִּיר, properly “wanting” (= חָסֵר), namely in moral worth or capacity.
Dan_5:28. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. In regard to the abnormal form פְּרֵס, which is followed by the regular fern. pass. part., פְּרִיסַת, see above, on Dan_5:25. God is naturally conceived of as the divider; the related tribes of the Medes and the Persians are named as the recipients, although the latter clearly appears as the principal power. The oracle contains an etymological allusion to פַּרָס only, and none to מָדַי, an assonance to which might have been readily found in the root מדד, “to measure” (cf. מִדָּה, מִנְדָּה, Ezr_4:20; Ezr_6:8; Ezr_7:24). The evident design with which the Persians, as the preponderating power in the Medo-Persian kingdom (for only thus was it known to the author, as the comprehensive וּפַרְסִין indicates: cf. on Dan_2:39), are thus brought into prominence, is not contradicted by Dan_6:1, where Darius the Mede is mentioned as the first foreign ruler over Babylon after the Chaldæan dynasty was overthrown. The actual state of affairs compelled the author to represent that at that time Media still held the same rank as Persia, at least formally and officially, and at first even gave a dynasty and name to the whole empire; and this was done with sufficient clearness by the mention of the Medes before the Persians in this verse.24
Dan_5:29-30. The consequences. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel; rather, “and caused Daniel to be clothed.” The literal rendering is, “Then said Belshazzar, and they clothed,” etc.; a similar construction as in Dan_2:49; Dan_4:17; Dan_4:25. In the Heb. וַיַּלְבִּישׁוּ (fut. with vav convers.—cf. Neh_13:9; 2Ch_24:8; Jon. 2:11), rather than וְהִלְבִּישׁוּ would have corresponded to וְהַלְבִּשׁוּ. The enrobing is therefore to be regarded as immediately succeeding the command, and Hävernick’s opinion, that “the sudden death of the king prevented the execution of his design,” is evidently wide of the narrator’s meaning. The opinion that the prophet was invested with the royal insignia of the purple and the necklace on the same evening, involves no questionable feature, which could lead us to refer the execution of the king’s command to the following day (Dereser), or even to regard the whole incident as improbable (Hitzig, etc.); but rather, the immediate bestowal of the promised marks of favor and honor harmonizes fully with the oriental despotic methods of administering government and justice, which under different circumstances observed the most rapid modes of executing punishment (see Dan_3:6; Dan_3:20 et seq.). The “public announcement” of the promotion which had taken place (the verb כְּרַז = Sanscrit krus, κηρύπτειν, signifies to proclaim publicly, as was shown on Dan_3:4), in the same night and in every street by means of heralds, is however an unjustified demand which the closing words of Dan_5:29 by no means involve. The solemnity in question may have been confined to the range of the royal palace, and even to the banquet hall (which, according to Dan_5:1, must be regarded as an extended building, and as filled with an extraordinary multitude).—Concerning the probable motive (namely, because his God and Lord was thus honored) which induced Daniel, despite his former refusal, to accept the expressions of the royal favor, see on Dan_5:17. In connection with this, the assumption is still admissible, that any protest which the prophet may have offered, remained without effect, in view of the stormy haste of the king in his alarm, and was lost amid the acclamations and the noisy conversation of the excited throng. Cf. Jerome: “Accepit autem (Daniel) insigne regium, torquem et purpuram, ut Darius, qui erat successurus in regnum, fieret notior et per notitiam honoratior. Nec mirum, si Baltasar, audiens tristia, solverit præmium, quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura, quæ dixerat, aut dum Dei Prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.”
Dan_5:30. In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldæans, slain—evidently through a conspiracy of a number of his magnates, which may have existed previously, but which did not attempt the execution of its design, until the interpretation of the mysterious writing by Daniel gave the conspirators courage. Only this opinion seems to be justified by the language of this passage and by the context,25 to the exclusion of the more general view, by which the king was slain at the hands of the victorious Medo-Persians, who are supposed to have taken the city on that night, and by which Belshazzar is in consequence identified with Nabonidus, the last Chaldæan king—all of which is based on a combination of Isaiah 16; Isa_21:5; Jer_51:39; and of Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5, 15 et seq.; Herodotus, I. 190, etc., with this narrative. The latter view has recently been defended, especially by Hengstenberg (p. 325 et seq.), Keil (Einl., p. 457), Hävernick, etc., and also by nearly all the rationalistic expositors and critics (also by Stähelin, Einl. ins A. T., p. 350 et seq.), and is certainly supported by the opening verse of chap. 6, in case it be immediately connected with the one before us, as is done by the writers named. It is however more than questionable whether this arrangement corresponds to the conception and design of the author; for (1) the words, “And Darius the Median took the kingdom,” together with the subjoined reference to his age, “being about threescore and two years old,” seems intended to introduce the narrative concerning Darius and his relations to the Babylonian dynasty, much rather than to close that relating to Belshazzar. (2) Berosus and Abydenus relate nothing of a taking of Babylon while a luxurious banquet, held by the last Chaldæan king and his magnates, was in progress, as the tradition of Xenophon and Herodotus asserts (cf. Introd. § 8, note 3, and especially the extracts from Kranichfeld on this question there adduced). (3) Berosus, in Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 1, does not, indeed, state that Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, became the victim of a conspiracy, but he does ascribe that fate to Evil-merodach, the immediate successor of his father Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan_5:11; Dan_5:13; Dan_5:18; Dan_5:22). The conspiracy in the case of the latter was headed by Neriglissar, the brother-in-law of the king, and removed the latter under circumstances entirely similar to those under which Belshazzar is said by our passage to have been slain, by murderers whose names are not given. The identity of the latter with Evil-merodach thus becomes highly probable (cf. Introd. l. c.). (4) Finally, the prophecy of the mysterious writing in Dan_5:25, which transfers the Chaldæan empire to the hands of the Medes and Persians, does not oppose, but it rather favors, the mode of division we advocate, on which an entirely new section begins with Dan_6:1. For precisely as in Dan_2:38-39, Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold, appears first as an individual, and then as identified with his dynasty and as the representative of the Babylonian world-kingdom, so Belshazzar appears first under the conception of a single person—in the words, “numbered, numbered, weighed”—but afterward as identified with his kingdom, in the closing prediction expressed by פְּרֵס or פַּרְסִין.26 The interval of perhaps 22–24 years which thus falls between his own destruction and that of his kingdom, will, in view of the recognized perspective character of all prophecy, appear no more questionable than the still greater number of years which, according to that earlier prediction, were to elapse between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the ruin of his dynasty. Similar groupings of immediate with more distant events are frequent in the O.-T. prophecies; in particularly noteworthy and instructive instance of which fact may be found in the remarkable prophecy to the wife of Jeroboam by Ahijah of Shiloh in 1 Kings 14, that comprehends three distinct events, between which extended intervals intervene: (1) The death of the sick prince, Abijah (Dan_5:12-13); (2) the overthrow of Jeroboam’s dynasty, more than 28 years later (Dan_5:10; Dan_5:14; cf. 1Ki_15:29 et seq.); (3) the ruin of the kingdom of Israel, which did not transpire until two centuries afterward (Dan_5:15 et seq.; cf. 2 Kings 17). The fundamental law of all Messianic typology, by which later events are grouped organically with earlier ones, and by which one and the same guilty act conditions a succession of Divine judgments in the course of developments, underlies this collocation in the perspective vision of a single prophecy. “The cause of the sad end of the kingdom of the ten tribes existed already in the beginning made and cultivated by Jeroboam, two and a half centuries before; the fate that extinguishes the house of Jeroboam is at bottom the same which destroys the kingdom of the ten tribes. Jeroboam’s sin destroys his dynasty and his kingdom; for this reason the destruction of both is comprehended in the same prophecy, and not merely because the destruction of the dynasty coincides with that of the kingdom” (Kranichfeld; cf. also Bähr, on 1 Kings chap. 14 p. 149 of vol. 7 of the Bibelwerk). Substantially the same principles apply to the predictions of evil denounced by our prophet against Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, and against Belshazzar and his kingdom. The connection of widely separate events which they embody, is natural and organically necessary; and therefore the reference to two events of fulfilment, although separate in point of time, upon which we insist, involves no arbitrary features.—The assertion of Keil (Einl. l. c.) that if the two events were not coincident, the author would have been required to state, in Dan_6:1, how the second fact in the fulfilment stands related to the first, or, in other words, “when and how the transmission of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians came to pass,” is entirely uncalled for, and is opposed by the analogy of Ahijah’s oracle, whose final and complete realization by the overthrow of Israel, is likewise not expressly noticed; and in addition the mere mention of the taking of Babylon by Darius is a sufficient indication of the anti-typical relation of that event to Dan_5:25-28. The annexed reference to the age of Darius seems rather to indicate a reference to a period considerably later, than a design to designate the particular night in which Belshazzar was slain as falling in the sixty-second year of Darius. There was certainly no apparent motive for the author to make a chronological statement of this sort.—In relation to the peculiar opinion of Ebrard (Die Offenbarung Johannis erklärt, p. 55 et seq.), that chap. Dan_5:30 together with Dan_6:1, refers to the overthrow of Laborasoarchad, the grandson and third successor of Nebuchadnezzar, by Nabonidus (= Darius the Mede), see on Dan_6:1 et seq. (cf. supra Introd. § 8, notes 3 and 4).
ethico–fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
1. The principal object in an apologetic point of view will have been realized in this section, whenever the identity of Belshazzar with Evil-merodach is established, and when, in consequence, the repeated designation of Nebuchadnezzar as his father (Dan_5:11; Dan_5:13; Dan_5:18; Dan_5:22), the correspondence of the mode of his sudden and violent death (Dan_5:30) with that attested by Berosus with regard to Evil-merodach, and the accession of Darius the Mede Co the throne of Babylon at a period considerably later, shall have been properly substantiated. After what has been observed upon this question on Dan_5:30, and also in the Introd. (§ 8, note 3), it only remains to examine the question, “In how far does the narrative yield to the tendency-critical attempts to represent it as a romantic fiction of the Maccabæan age?”—According to Bleek (Einl. § 266), v. Lengerke (Daniel, p. 241 et seq., p. 256) and others, the story was inspired by the plundering of the temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in the year B. C. 168, and above a year before the Maccabæan revolt. The brutal manner in which the Syrian king at that time penetrated into the temple of Jehovah, and seized, with polluted hands, the golden lavers and other sacred vessels (1Ma_1:21 et seq.; 2Ma_5:15 et seq.), is said to have led the pseudo-Daniel to compose this history, and “by the fate of Belshazzar to warn the Syrian monarch, that a similar Divine judgment would be visited on him, because of his sacrilege.” But the narrative concerning the Seleucidæ and the Maccabees makes no mention of a luxurious banquet, such as a sacrificial feast, at which anything transpired that would at all compare with the profanation of the sacred vessels, as described in this chapter; and the only remaining parallel between the passages cited from 1James , 2 d Maccabees, and Dan_1:2 (cf. Dan_5:2), is surely insufficient to justify the adoption of the charge that the history was invented to further a tendency! Any other embellishment of the sacrilege that took place at that time would certainly have been more appropriate than the one here offered, which does not charge the insolent spoiler of the temple with venting his frivolous pride on the stolen relics, but reserves this for his son and successor! The tendency-narrator might well be charged with clumsiness, if he had represented his Epiphanes-Belshazzar as not merely easy to be excited and capable of contrition and repentance while influenced by terror, but also as promising and conferring the highest dignities and honors of his kingdom upon a zealous theocrat and prophet of Jehovah. The circumstance that such a theocrat is permitted to accept such honors and rewards (Dan_5:29) without further question, is likewise in strange contrast with the rigid monotheism and anti-Hellenistic fanaticism of the Judaism of Maccabæan times, as whose representative the author is said to have written, and for which his work is alleged to have been designed (cf. 1Ma_1:24; Dan_11:28).—In no wise superior to this theory of the date of the history, as advocated by Bleek and v. Lengerke, is the assertion of Hitzig, that although this section was not composed before the revolt of the Asmonæans, it yet originated in the first year after that rising took place, immediately after and in consequence of the magnificent feasts which Antiochus Epiphanes held in B. C. 166 near Daphne, when, besides splendid games and luxurious banquets, there was a solemn procession in the presence of many ladies of the highest, as well as of lower rank, in which “the images of all conceivable gods were carried, together with an incredible number of golden and silver vessels.” If the report by Polybius (Dan_5:31, cp. 3, 4) respecting those festivities be carefully examined, it will reveal a most marked discrepancy between the historical original and the supposed copy, which was framed after it by the alleged pseudo-Daniel. Polybius does not mention the sacrilegiois use during those feasts of sacred vessels belonging to the temple with a single syllable. He states indeed that the expense connected with those festivities was chiefly met out of the treasures stolen from various temples—but from Egyptian temples, which the pseudo-Daniel would assuredly have placed in the category of the vain “gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone” (Dan_5:4; Dan_5:23), and whose desecration he would have been more ready to applaud than to censure. But beyond all this, Polybius reveals no trace of a knowledge that the wild festivities were interrupted by a terrifying incident, which compelled the proud Syrian king to recognize the judicial interference of superior Divine power; nor of any inclination on the part of that prince to honor and promote the prophet who opposed him with earnest censure, despite his boldness; nor yet of a course on the part of the heroic Jewish defender of his faith towards the heathen ruler, which, although not slavishly subservient, was yet courteous, and mindful of the obedience due from a subject to his superior. But if such a meeting between a Jewish zealot and the proud Antiochus, who was fanatically devoted to his Hellenistic faith in the gods, had transpired during a public feast in the Maccabæan age, a materially different kind of incidents might have been looked for, from that described in this chapter. Both the ὑπερηφανία and φρονοκτονία of the blood-thirsty tyrant, and the defiance inspired by faith, prepared for conflict, and careless of death, which was characteristic of the martyr of the theocracy who was engaged in an open revolt against the despot, would have been brought into collision in a manner entirely different from anything found in the report of Polybius—which contains no mention whatever of such an interruption during the feasts of Daphne—and also from the description found in our alleged tendency-forgery. The latter, if it were really the work of a pseudological apocalyptist of the Maccabæan times, would, without any doubt whatever, have presented to our notice persons of the stamp of Matthias (1Ma_2:2; 1Ma_2:18 et seq.), Judas and Simon Maccabæus (ibid. Dan_3:1 et seq.), and Eleazar (2 Maccabees 6) as opponents of the raging heathen, instead of a man like Daniel. A narrative of the kind before us, as respects its contents and progress, would be wholly inconceivable as a product of the orthodox Palestinian Judaism of the year B. C. 166, and would rank as an unequalled historical monstrosity.
2. Accordingly, if confidence may be placed in the pre-Maccabæan, and, what amounts to the same thing, in the Babylonian origin of the history during the captivity, it will be possible for that very reason to examine the miracle of the mysteriously introduced hand which traced the writing, as here recorded, without being restrained by sceptical considerations. It will not be necessary to inquire in this connection, how such a thing could take place, but merely, whether and why such an event was necessary.—The necessity for a miraculous announcement to Belshazzar of the impending judgment was conditioned by the fact that his impious conduct had reached an intolerable height when he desecrated the sacred vessels of Jehovah’s temple to a common use, and exposed them to the ridicule of a besotted heathen mob, and also that it threatened danger to the faith in Jehovah of the community of exiles. If such an act of presumption was permitted to pass without being Divinely censured and punished, it might certainly be expected that not only the last spark of reverence for the mighty God of the Jews would fade from the consciousness of the royal officials and the Babylonian population, but that the faithful adherence of the Jewish captives to their confession would gradually lose its firmness, and give way to a tendency to favor the idolatrous worship of the Babylonians, and to adopt their luxurious, dissipated, and immoral mode of life. Dangers such as these are described, in a realizing manner, in the second part of Isaiah (see Isa_46:6 et seq.; Isa_57:5 et seq.; Isa_65:3 et seq.; Isa_58:2 et seq.; Isa_59:3 et seq. Cf. supra, Introd. § 1, note 1); and it appears from the penitential prayer of our prophet in chap. 9, that they existed for his people, and threatened the continuance of the theocracy and its Messianic faith, while in the land of exile. With regard to them it became imperatively necessary that a stern example should be made of the presumptuous king, while giving utterance to his witticisms and blasphemies, and while surrounded by the sycophants of his court and the women of his harem, that thus the name of the only true God might be brought powerfully to the recollection of all, and that an emphatic testimony, coupled with an immediate execution of the threat, might be borne against the impious conduct of the idolaters. Such a testimony, however, could only possess sufficient weight if it were demonstrated to be absolutely miraculous, admitting of no natural explanation (i.e., for the purpose of destroying its supernatural force), and transpiring under the observation of all who were present. For this reason all the various attempts to limit the incomprehensible character of the incident, that have been made by modern expositors since M. Geier, are to be rejected, without exception; e.g., the assumption of Geier, which decidedly conflicts with Dan_5:8, that the writing was visible to the king and Daniel, but to no others (similarly Calvin remarks that the Chaldæans were all smitten with blindness—“ita exeæcatos fuisse, ut videndo non viderint”); the coarsely naturalistic attempt at explanation made by Bertholdt, that the hostile party of the king’s courtiers, who were in league with the Medo-Persian besiegers of the city, produced the writing in a purely natural manner, but gave a mysterious appearance to the transaction, in order “to gratify their malice and over-confidence, by announcing his last hour to the victim of their treason;” and finally, the psychological visionary mode of interpretation, advocated in the last century by Lüderwald, and more recently by Kranichfeld—the latter by means of an attempt to transfer the miraculous feature to the imagination of the king (cf. his observation on Dan_5:8, p. Dan 221: “How and when during the hilarious banquet the writing itself was traced on the wall, was of no importance to the author, as the wonderful feature was alone significant for his purpose, that the king should observe, at the moment of the blasphemous act by which he ridiculed the God of Israel, the hand which wrote the sentence that changed the confident humor of the idolater into anxious fear”). In opposition to these naturalizing interpretations, and especially to the one last mentioned, see the remarks on Dan_5:5, and compare Buddeus, Hist. eccl. V. Test., II. p. Dan 508: “Verum quis non videt, hæc omnia ad meras conjecturas redire, quæ eadem rejiciuntur facilitate, qua afferuntur. Satius itaque fuerit, in iis acquiescere, quæ Daniel ipse de hac re tradiderit, scripturam scil. ita comparatam fuisse, ut sapientes et magi, etsi earn viderent (Dan_5:8), non tamen legere, muto minus interpretari potuerint; Danielem autem eam ita et legere et interpretari potuisse, ut rex ipse statim convinceretur, lectionem istam atque interpretationem veram esse.” Also cf. Pfeiffer, ubia vexataD, p. 503 ss., and Starke, Synops. on the passage.
3. In accordance with this, the homiletical treatment of the section is chiefly concerned with the miracle of the writing and its mysterious origin and contents, as the central point of the narrative, and also of its theological and ethical importance. As in the preceding chapter the object of the narrative was to show that “pride goeth before destruction,” so the aim here is to illustrate the “judgments that are prepared for scorners” (Pro_19:29), the “snare” into which “they bring the whole city” (Pro_29:8), the “non-immunity from punishment of the blasphemers of the Divine Wisdom” (Wis_1:6). Cf. Psa_1:1; Jer_15:17; Pro_13:1; Pro_14:6; Pro_24:9; also Sir_27:28 : “Mockery and reproach are from the proud; but vengeance as a lion shall lie in wait for them;” Psa_72:4 : “He shall break in pieces the oppressor” (or blasphemer); 1Co_5:10 : “Nor revilers … shall inherit the kingdom of God,”—and other oracles directed against the reviling and blaspheming of the Holy One, which may afford a theme for a homiletical treatment of the section as a whole. Starke is therefore correct in designating as the leading features of the narrative “Belshazzar’s transgression and his punishment.” Cf. Geier’s arrangement of subjects in this chapter: “(1)Regium flagitium (Dan_5:1-4); (2) subsequens portentum (Dan_5:5-6); (3) portenti interpretamentum, partim ut profanis impossibile (Dan_5:7-9), partim ut Danieli expeditum ac facile (Dan_5:10-28); (4) interpretamenti complementum (Dan_5:29-30).”—With reference to the relation of the fundamental idea in this narrative to that of the preceding section, cf. Melancthon: “Supra proposuit regem agentem pœnitentiam et propagantem veros cultus, querm Deus etiam ornavit præmiis. Nunc addit contrarium exemplum regis impii, restituentis idolatriam, non agentis pœnitentiam, quem Deus punit et regno exuit … Has blasphemias enim cito sequuntur pœnæ, juxta secundum præceptum: ‘Non habebit Deus insontem,’ etc. (Exo_20:7).”
Upon separate points the following passages may be used, as furnishing suitable matter for homiletical discussion.
Dan_5:2-4. Luxurious banquets and carousals are dangerous precipices, even for the pious and unsuspecting (cf. Jdg_1:12); at them Satan himself is the host and master (Cramer, in Starke, under reference to 1Co_10:20), and there religion, the fear of God, brotherly love, uprightness, morality—and, in short, everything is forgotten (Starke).
Dan_5:17. Daniel’s disinterestedness and modesty. On these Jerome observes: “Æmulemur Danielem, regis dignitatem et munera contemnentem, qui absque pretio proferens veritatem jam illo tempore prœceptum evangelicum sequabitur: ‘Gratis accepistis, gratis date’ (Mat_10:8). Alioquin et tristia nuntiantem indecens erat libenter dona accipere.”
Dan_5:25-28. The oracle against Belshazzar, whose spirit is: “If thou wilt neglect to number thy days, to weigh thyself in the balance of divine righteousness (Job_31:6), and to measure thyself by the rule of the Divine law, thou shalt be weighed by God in the scale of His judgment, and—be found wanting.” Cf. the figure of farming grain, Amo_9:9; Isa_30:24; Jer_15:7; Mat_3:12; Luk_22:31, etc.; and also Joachim Lange: “Outside of Christ we are always wanting in the scales of God, and are lighter than nothing,” Psa_62:10, and Starke: “The duration of every kingdom is pre-determined by God; without the permission of God, no monarch is able to extend or limit it,” etc.
Footnotes:
[1][ The emphatic state in חַמְרָא, like the art. in Heb. and Gr., is equivalent to the pers. pron. his wine.—
[2]אב frequently used, in all the Shemitic tongues, of a forefather, whether immediate or remote.
[3]Literally, the king—his bright looks changed for him—
[4]Literally, his bright looks were changing upon him.—
[5]Literally, and let not thy bright looks be changed.—
[6]The form יְהוּד, apocopated for brevity’s sake from יְהוּדָה, is exclusively applied in Biblical Chaldee to Judæa.—
[7]The pronoun is emphatic, being expressed.—
[8]The participial form of these verbs (whom he was willing he was killing, and whom he was willing he was making live, and whom he was willing he was raising, and whom he was willing he was depressing) indicates the continued as well as absolute power of the autocrat.—
[9]The pronoun here is resumptive of that which stands absolutely in Dan_5:18.—
[10]מַרא is the Chaldee equivalent of אדון.—
[11][ The emphatic state in חַמְרָא, like the art. in Heb. and Gr., is equivalent to the pers. pron. his wine.—
[12]אלהא is significant of the true God, like האלהים].
[13][“As the city was already besieged, and the real king Nabonned had gone into the field against the armies of the Medes and Persians under Cyrus, the sense of security which this feast implied must be accounted for by their confidence in the assumed strength of the city. Plainly it was supposed to be absolutely impregnable.—It may be added that God had given up the king and the princes to a blind infatuation, of such sort as usually precedes destruction.”—Cowles.]
[14][“The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula ו into two classes: gold and silver—brass, iron, wood, and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the variety of these gods.”—Keil.]
[15][The appearance of the fingers “immediately awakened the thought that the writing was by a supernatural being, and alarmed the king out of his intoxication.”—Keil.]
[16][“It is an appalling scene when a sinning mortal knows that the great God has come to meet him in the very midst of his sins!—How changed the scene from the glee of his blasphemous revelry to this paleness of cheek, convulsion of frame, remorse of conscience, and dread foreboding of doom! Many a sinner has had a like experience, and other thousands must have it!”—Cowles.]
[17][The phrase וְחַמְנוּכָא דִי וגו׳ “does not depend on ילַבֵּשׁ, but forms a clause by itself; and a chain of gold shall be about his neck.”—Keil.]
[18][“But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldæan wise men should not have known these old Shemitic characters, even although at that time they had ceased to be in current use among the Babylonians in their common writing. Then, from the circumstance that Daniel could at once read the writing, it does not follow that it was the well-known Old-Hebrew writing of his fatherland. ‘The characters employed in the writing,’ as Hengstenberg has rightly observed (Beitr., I. p. 122), ‘must have been altogether unusual, so as not to be deciphered but by Divine illumination.’ Yet we must not, with M. Geier and others, assume that the writing was visible only to the king and Daniel. This contradicts the text, according to which the Chaldæan wise men, and, without doubt, all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.”—Keil.]
[19][“The ‘queen’ in this passage is the queen-mother, as may be inferred from the fact that the king’s (Belshazzar’s); wives and concubines are with him in his carousals, while this woman was not: and also from her intimate acquaintance with Daniel and the incidents of Nebuchadnezzar’s life. She was probably the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and the mother of Belshazzar.”—Cowles. If Rawlinson’s conjecture (Herodotus i. 421) be correct, that the real king Nabonadus bad lift his son Belshazzar temporarily in charge of Babylon, this woman may have really been the consort of the actual king.]
[20][“The perpetual incense of flattery, coupled with the daily experience of being dependent on no one, and of having every one dependent upon himself, tempts an absolute monarch to feel himself almost a god.—It is fully time for the Almighty to hurl such a hardened sinner down.”—Cowles.]
[21][Keil argues that these words “place it beyond a doubt that Belshazzar knew these incidents in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and thus that he was his son, since his grandson (daughter’s son) could scarcely have been so old that the forgetfulness of the Divine judgment could have been charged against him as a sin.” Most readers, however, will regard this as a strained argument, for surely Belshazzar had ample means of knowing what his grandfather had set forth by a royal proclamation, and these events are here not merely alluded to as aggravating his sin, but rather by way of contrast, and possibly for an incitement to similar repentance.]
[22][Keil regards as פַּרְסִין “a noun-form, and plur. of פְּרֵס=Hebr. פֶּרֶס (cf. פַּרְסֶיהֵן, Zec_11:16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments.” He adds that מְנֵא “is twice given perhaps only for the sake of the parallelism, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two word.”]
[23][The author is led to this forced interpretation by his attempt to identify Belshazzar with Evil-merodach, and consequently to defer the capture of Babylon beyond the night under consideration.]
[24][“In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative; for the hegemony of the Medes was of a very short duration, and after its overthrow by the Persians the form of expression used is always ‘Persians and Medes,’ as is found in the book of Esther.”—Keil]
[25][The requirements of the language are obviously met quite as well by the presumption that the king fell that same night together with his empire, and so the author candidly admits a little further on, although himself driven to another view by his preconceived theory of the identity of Belshazzar with Evil-merodach.]
[26][The weakness of these arguments is obvious, and indeed seems to have been apparent to the writer himself. The collateral considerations which he adduces below are too vague to support a theory so plainly at variance with the tenor of the text and its connections.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 whiles he tasted the wine--While under the effects of…
whiles he tasted the wine--While under the effects of wine, men will do what they dare not do when sober.
his father Nebuchadnezzar--that is, his forefather. So "Jesus . . . the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Mat 1:1). Daniel does not say that the other kings mentioned in other writers did not reign between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, namely, Evil-merodach (Jer 52:31), Neriglissar, his brother-in-law, and Laborasoarchod (nine months). BEROSUS makes Nabonidus, the last king, to have been one of the people, raised to the throne by an insurrection. As the inscriptions show that Belshazzar was distinct from, and joint king with, him, this is not at variance with Daniel, whose statement that Belshazzar was son (grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar is corroborated by Jeremiah (Jer 27:7). Their joint, yet independent, testimony, as contemporaries, and having the best means of information, is more trustworthy than any of the heathen historians, if there were a discrepancy. Evil-merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar (according to BEROSUS), reigned but a short time (one or two years), having, in consequence of his bad government, been dethroned by a plot of Neriglissar, his sister's husband; hence Daniel does not mention him. At the elevation of Nabonidus as supreme king, Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was doubtless suffered to be subordinate king and successor, in order to conciliate the legitimate party. Thus the seeming discrepancy becomes a confirmation of genuineness when cleared up, for the real harmony must have been undesigned.
Read full note →
wives . . . concubines--not usually present at feasts in the East, where women of the harem are kept in strict seclusion. Hence Vashti's refusal to appear at Ahasuerus' feast (Est 1:9-12). But the Babylonian court, in its reckless excesses, seems not to have been so strict as the Persian. XENOPHON [Cyropædia, 5.2,28] confirms Daniel, representing a feast of Belshazzar where the concubines are present. At the beginning "the lords" (Dan 5:1), for whom the feast was made, alone seem to have been present; but as the revelry advanced, the women were introduced. Two classes of them are mentioned, those to whom belonged the privileges of "wives," and those strictly concubines (Sa2 5:13; Kg1 11:3; Sol 6:8).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 1. On Belshazzar see Introduction, III, 3, (4). It…
BELSHAZZAR’S VIEW OF THE DOOM WRITTEN BY JEHOVAH AGAINST HIS KINGDOM, AND ITS FULFILLMENT.
1. On Belshazzar see Introduction, III, 3, (4). It is not distinctly stated that this famous feast occurred in Babylon, though the cuneiform texts agree very well with the usual supposition. We are to think of this banquet — if it indeed represents, as it may, an historic incident — as occurring at a time when the army of Cyrus had already captured the entire city with the exception of the royal palace and temple citadel. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4), (5); 4.] These “thousand lords” — which, of course, is but a round number, though Alexander is said to have had ten thousand nobles at his marriage feast (Curtius) — were surrounded and entrapped, yet, as can be paralleled in many a history, their very danger seems to have made them more full of braggadocio. It may have been a desire to encourage certain fainting hearts, or to restrain a possible latent wish to surrender or betray this little patriotic remnant of Belshazzar’s formerly vast army, which led him to be excessively boastful, while the insult to the sacred vessels of Jehovah may have been provoked by the fact — as is seen from many prophecies, for example, Isaiah 13; Isaiah 14; Isa_44:28; Isaiah 45; Jeremiah 50; Jeremiah 51 — that the large Jewish population in Babylonia hailed the victories of Cyrus with unconcealed delight. Indeed it has been suspected by some scholars that the immediate edict by Cyrus for the Jews’ “return” may have been in payment for some important help rendered by them in the capture of Babylon. This hypothesis would have more weight, however, if the Jews had been the only people sent back to their own land, which was not the case. (See Introduction to Ezekiel, VII.) The Babylonians were celebrated for their feasts and drunkenness. Modern excavations have given us many details connected with these banquets. The walls of these banqueting halls were made of brick, but were covered from the floor to a considerable height with slabs of alabaster, while above these the walls were decorated with paintings on the stucco representing hunting and mythological scenes. The guests, as may be seen from the pictures, were commonly divided into groups of four who sat on raised seats facing each other, each group having a special table richly ornamented and covered with a fancy cloth. They were clothed in long robes which descended to their feet, and shod with sandals, their arms being bare and adorned with armlets and bracelets, while in the hand of each, a cup of elegant shape, the bottom often being in the form of a lion’s head, is held aloft preparatory to pledging the health of a friend or the king. These cups when emptied were refilled from a large jar standing on the floor. The wine drinking was the important part of these “feasts.” The guests are always seen in the sculptures not eating but drinking. It was a peculiarity of the Babylonians, distinguishing them from other orientals, that women were allowed at these feasts. In the British Museum may still be seen a representation of a little garden party where the Babylonian king and queen are drinking together, while above them the ghastly head of one of the king’s enemies hangs from a limb of one of the trees.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 1. Belshazzar] Babyl. Bêl-shar-uṣur, ‘Bel, protect the king!’ LXX.…
1. Belshazzar] Babyl. Bêl-shar-uṣur, ‘Bel, protect the king!’ LXX. Theod. and Vulg. confuse this name with Belteshazzar (Dan_1:7), representing both by Βαλτασαρ, ‘Baltassar.’
to a thousand of his lords] in accordance with the magnificence of Eastern monarchs.
Read full note →
and drank, &c.] and before the thousand was drinking wine. By ‘before’ is no doubt meant, facing the guests, at a separate table, on a raised dais at the end of the banqueting-hall. We have little or no information respecting the custom of the king at state-banquets in Babylon: but something similar is reported, or may be inferred, of royal banquets among the Persians (Athen. iv. 26, p. 145 c, ll. 1–3; cf. Rawl. Anc. Mon.4 iii. 215), and Parthians (Athen. iv. 38, p. 153 a–b).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (1) Belshazzar.—On this king see Excursus C. As he…
V.
(1) Belshazzar.—On this king see Excursus C. As he was the son of Nabonidus, a space of about thirty years must have elapsed since the event recorded in the last chapter. The Babylonian empire survived the death of Nebuchadnezzar only twenty-five years.
Read full note →
A thousand.—There is nothing unreasonable in the number of the guests; in fact, the LXX. have doubled the number. (See Est_1:3-4.)
Before the thousand.—The king appears to have had a special table reserved for himself apart from the guests. For this custom comp. Jer_52:33.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Vers. 1-31. BELSHAZZAR"S FEAST. In regard to this chapter…
Vers. 1-31. BELSHAZZAR"S FEAST. In regard to this chapter the peculiar state of the Septuagint text has to be noted. At the beginning of the chapter there are three verses which seem to be either variant versions of the Septuagint text, or versions of a text which was different from that from which the Septuagint has been drawn. Throughout the chapter, further, there are traces of doublets. Most of these variations occur in the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis.
Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. As we have just indicated, there are two versions in the Septuagint of several verses in this chapter, and the verse before us is one of these. The first of these is "Baltasar the king made a great feast on the day of the dedication of his palace, and invited from his lords two thousand men." The other reading, which appears to have formed the text, is, "Baltasar the king made a great feast for his companions." The first version seems to have read the dual instead of the singular a proof of the state of the language, for the dual has practically disappeared in the Targums. The second version has evidently read yrbh instead of ybrbr. Theodotion reads, "Baltasar the king made a great feast to thousands of his lords, and drank wine before the thousands." The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic text. The numeral is thus omitted in the text of the Septuagint,inserted in the dual in the margin, and appears in Theodotion in the plural. As the shortest text is also the oldest, and omits the numeral, we feel inclined to do so also, the more so as the numeral may have resulted from pLUa ( aluph) being put as the interpretation of brbr (rabrab). The clause in the marginal version, "on the day of the dedication of his palace," or, as it is rendered by Paulus Telleusis, "in the day of the dedication of the house of his kingdom," is worthy of notice. From the fact that early in his reign every Ninevite king seems to have begun a palace, this statement has a great deal of verisimilitude. The clause in the Massoretic text, "and drank wine before the thousand," is meaningless, unless as a rhetorical amplification. From the fact that only the first clause appears in the text of the Septuagint, the authenticity of the rest of the verse is rendered doubtful; the more so that albwq means "a feast" in Eastern Aramaic, though not in Western. It is a possible solution of the presence of the clause that lbq, excluded from the text and its place supplied by was placed in the margin. lbql, however, means "before." If there was also in the margin apla, "thousands," in the emphatic state; as the translation into Hebrew of brbr. (Gen_36:17, 15 Onkelos) If, further, yrbj, "companion," appeared as a various reading for ybrbr, that would easily be read rmj, "wine;" the verb "to drink" would be added to complete the sense. We have thus all the elements to produce the different versions of the story of the feast. The fact that in what we regard as the marginal reading the clause appears quite differently rendered, confirms us in our suspicion that the Massoretic text presents a case of a "doublet." The reading which begins the chapter in the LXX may be due to regarding lbq as the verb "to receive." The name Belshazzar has been the occasion of much controversy. It was regarded as one of the proofs of the non-historicity of Daniel that this name occurred at all (as Bertholdt). We were told that the last King of Babylon was Nabunahid, not Belshazzar. The name, however, has turned up in the Mugheir inscription as the son of Nabunahid, and not only so, but in a connection that implies he was associated in the government. From the annals of Nabunahid (2 col.; vide " Beitrage zur As-syriologie," Delitzsch and Haupt, 1891-92, pp. 218-221) we find that from his seventh to his eleventh year, if not from an earlier to a later date, Nabunahid was in retirement in Tema, and "came not to Babil," and the king"s son (Mar Sarri) was with the nobles (rabuti) snd the army. Even when the king"s mother died, the mourning was carried on by the king"s sou, Belshazzar. Dr. Hugo Winckler ("Geschichte Babyloniens u. Assuriens," pp. 315, 316) says Nabunahid remained intentionally far from the capital, and abode continually in Tema, a city otherwise unknown. Not once at the new year"s feast, where his personal presence was indispensable, did he come to Babylon. What occasioned it, we know not; but it appears as if he had devoted himself to some kind of solitary life, and would not disturb himself with the business of government. Not once while Cyrus was marching against Babylon did he rouse himself, but allowed things to take their course. The government appears to have been carried on by his son, Bel-shar-utzur, for while Nabunahid lived in Tema in retirement, it is mentioned that his son, with the dignitaries, managed affairs in Babylon, and commanded the army. Also in several inscriptions in the concluding prayer, he is named along with his father, while it is usually the name of the king that is there mentioned. Belshazzar is, then, no mere luxurious despot, like the Nabeandel of Josephus, no incapable youth flushed with the unexpected dignity of government in the city of Babylon, while his father was shut up in Borsippa; he is a bold capable warrior. Tyrannical and imperious he may be, yet faithful to his father, as had Nebuchadnezzar been to Nabopolassar his father. We need not even look at the identifications of Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, with Labasimarduk, or with Nabunahid. The name Bel-shar-utzur means "Bel protects the king," and is rendered in the Greek versions "Baltasar," and in the Vulgate "Baltassar," and identical with the name given to Daniel, as we have remarked elsewhere. In the Peshitta the name here is rendered "Belitshazar," while Daniel"s Babylonian name is "Beletshazzar." We do not know when this feast took place. If we take the Septuagint text here as our guide, it did not take place at the capture of the city by Cyrus. If for five, six, or seven years he was practically king, Belshazzar may have built a palace, and the feast may have been held at its dedication. We knew that the Babylonians were notorious for their banquets banquets that not infrcquently ended in drunkenness. Although the number of the guests is doubtful from diplomatic reasons, the number itself is not excessive. We read of Alexander the Great having ten thousand guests.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS Vers. 1-4.
The downward road.
the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand "(ver. 1). The history of the fall of Babylon must form the background of any homiletical treatment of this chapter (see the histories; and the Exposition above). The clearing up of the difficulty of this portion of Scripture, of the seeming discrepancy between Daniel"s statements and the records of secular history, by the discovery of clay cylinders, simultaneously by M. Oppert and Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1854, is one of the most interesting episodes in the history of Christian apologetics; and is eminently suggestive in that line of things, showing particularly how easily Biblical mists would be cleared away if only we could have at hand all the facts. But we turn hero to the bearing of the passage on the ordinary life of man.
I THE POSITION OF PRIVILEGE. Guilt must ever stand related to knowledge. What were the king"s opportunities of knowing the will of God? They were more than some may think, such as ought to have saved him from the degradations of that night, The parallel with our own position is clear. Though our advantages are in degree greater. For Belshazzar there was:
1. The witness of creation.
2. The open page of providence. (See ver. 22.)
3. The voice of that moral nature which is common to every man.
4. The interpretation of them by the high Chaldean culture; e.g. the revelation of the glory of God in the stars of heaven was one that shone with special clearness on the Chaldean plain (see Sir G. C. Lewis" "Astronomy of the Ancients," ch. 5.).
5. Special Divine revelations; e.g. in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar"s dream (he had not been dead twenty-three years); in the deliverance of the heroic three, by the presence of the Saviour in the fire; by the insanity and recovery of the king. Nor must we forget that Belshazzar was not further away from the Divine than a modern worldling; for in his own realm lived the Church, with whom lay the oracles of God. Compare Louis XIV and the Huguenots. And enough had been done to draw attention to these.
II THE STARTING-POINT. The sin of the king was nothing else than that practical atheism (vers. 22, 23) which so often shows itself callously indifferent to all those serious considerations which even people of ordinary prudence entertain (note: the city at the moment in a stare of siege); and which usually is associated with epicurean life.
III THE ROAD DOWN. A distinct gradation in evil is marked in this, as in every other career. The steps may be different with different sinners; but there is a gradual descent with all, though it must be admitted that on "that night" some were taken by the king at lightning speed. The king:
1. Ignored all the circumstances of his position. This was indeed terrible. For long the Persian lines had been drawn round the city; engineers had been turning the river from its bed. At this hour things were becoming critical. Facts are stubborn things, which even a heathen might note.
2. Defied Providence.. Such extravagance at such a time. Imagine the authorities of Paris banqueting it the Isle siege. A false security the presage of ruin.
3. Sacrificed his own dignity. As king as man. Not usual for Babylonian kings to make themselves the boon companions of their subjects even the highest. We owe respect to men, as made in the image of God rational, moral, immortal, etc.; but not the less to ourselves.
4. Plunged into drunkenness. The lightning leaps which immediately follow are to be distinctly assigned to the drunken condition of the king. Much may and should be here said on the intimate relation existing between moral and spiritual degradation generally and alcohol; and also on the close connection between alcohol and many forms of vice. It is the root of many vices. (The writer of these notes feels that educated men are still the children of many illusions anent this powerful chemical agent; these are well dealt with in "Dialogues on Drink," by Dr. Richardson.)
5. Jested with things sacred. Sure mark of a "fool" in the Bible sense. "Holy vessels will we have for such delicious wine," may the king be supposed to say. (Matthew Henry is full and good on this.)
6. Violated the decencies of domestic life. The bringing the harem into the banquet-chamber was a gross offence against even the Oriental idea. (On this see Dr. Raleigh, "Esther," lect. 2.)
7. Insulted God. Drank they out of vessels sacred to him, unto other gods. So the indifference of a passive practical atheism culminates in open defiant antagonism against God.
IV THE DREADFUL END. The loss of everything kingdom, life, etc. Many things will need to be looked at ere the final ruin of the night comes up for consideration; but this is the place specially to observe that it was the kings own sin and folly of that very hour that led straight to ruin. Had the king and "the lords" been on the alert, not even the turning of the river from its bed had laid them at the mercy of the besiegers. But the revelry incapacitated them. Sin is its own avenger! R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-9.
Blasted merriment.
All merriment is not forbidden. Banqueting is not in itself a sin. Jesus Christ himself honoured with his presence a marriage festival, and contributed, by miracle, the wine for the occasion. On the restoration of the prodigal son, a banquet was prepared, while music and dancing were the fitting exponents of the father"s joy. God is not a foe to rational pleasure. He gives both the capacity and the occasion for joyful hilarity. But when excess of wine inflames the carnal passions, when it degenerates into sensuality, extravagance, and profanity, it is a sin.
I ROYAL REVELRY. We are not told what was the occasion of this banquet. Possibly it was to celebrate the anniversary of the king"s accession; or else an annual festival in honour of Chaldea"s gods. But:
1. It was an unseasonable banquet. The foe was already besieging the city. Belshazzar was presuming that Babylon could resist any siege, and that their supplies could last for an indefinite period. There is a time to be merry, but there"s also a time for fasting and penitence. The man is a fool who cannot be serious at fitting limes. Gravity is more seemly than gaiety when disaster occurs. He is a doomed man who will not listen when God speaks with voice of thunder. But he shall hear.
2. The revelry proceeded to the extreme of self-abandonment. Wisdom, dignity, good sense, decorum, reason, were all drowned in the depths of the wine-cup. The king led the way to extravagance, revelry, folly, debauchery. He who should have been a guide to virtue, and a pattern of propriety, uses his high influence to pervert and to pollute men. Belshazzar alone is mentioned as the leader of these bacchanalian orgies. All manliness and nobleness were sacrificed at that foul shrine of pleasure.
3. Excess led to wanton profanity and sacrilege. We do not attempt to measure the sin of these Oriental lords by the standard of modern refinement or modern religious belief; but judged only by the standard of public conscience prevailing in that age, they stand censured and condemned. The ancient nations, however strong their attachment to their peculiar deities, allowed other peoples to worship their chosen gods, and held it to be the grossest sin to lay violent hands on. temple furniture, Throughout the long reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the gold and silver vessels of Jehovah"s temple had been scrupulously preserved; and the captive Hebrews had always cherished the hope that these precious vessels would again adorn the temple in Jerusalem. Though Belshazzar had now reigned probably eighteen years, he, too, had not ventured to secularize these sacred things. Nor do we think he would have done so now unless he had been madly inflamed with wine. Sensuality is twin-sister to impiety.
II AN ALARMING OMEN. It came in the form of writing. God might have chosen other signs to betoken his displeasure. An earthquake might have shaken the palace to the ground, and buried these revellers in the dust. Fire from the seven-branched candlestick might have streamed forth, and consumed both king and guests. A voice of thunder might have announced, in unmistakable tones, Jehovah"s anger. But this unveiling of his presence and his indignation implies the calm and undisturbed patience with which God proceeds. The kings of Babylon had been famous for writing grave decrees. God will show them that a mightier King than they is upon the scene, and that he too can write decrees in the sight of all. And there was an element of kindness mingled with this judgment. It did not proceed with summary and overwhelming suddenness. Though destruction was near at hand, there was yet time for repentance. But why should king and courtiers be so terrified? Why should they conclude that the portent was unfavourable? Perhaps it was an indication of approaching conquest: tidings that the siege should be raised? Why tremble? What cowardice is here? Why is conscience lashing them with thongs, and afflicting them with such strange alarms? They have just been praising their gods of silver and stone. Will not these protect them now, and recompense their homage with good things? Alas! a sense of sin has fastened itself on them. Self-accusation has sent its fangs into their inmost souls. In a moment they are like dead men. After all, justice slumbereth not. "Verily, there is a God in the earth!
III IMPOTENT PRIESTCRAFT. The astrologers and soothsayers are summoned to the scene. These were the royal counsellors in matters of religion, and professed to know the secrets of the gods. They had been maintained at the king"s expense, and surely should render some proper service in return. But in the hour of urgent need these false supports fail. Ah! better not to lean upon a staff than to lean upon a rotten staff! Better not to trust to a cable in a storm than to have a cable with a faulty link! Every scheme which the king can devise to stimulate these men to attempt the solution is done; but in vain. He does not upbraid them with their empty pretentiousness. He tempts them with fascinating bribes. They shall be raised to affluence and to honour if only they will relieve the king from this scare of terror. Yet the "oracles are dumb." Stricken with feebleness and silence are all the votaries of idolatry. False religion may serve some temporary advantage as an instrument of worldly government; but when a storm of Divine anger beads upon a man, no refuge nor retreat can false faith furnish. When sharp disease invades the vital parts of the body, it is of unspeakable importance that the medicine should have genuine virtue. But no comparison can fitly set forth the moment,ms urgency of having sterling piety. To be deceived in matters of the soul is to imperil everything is to lose body and soul everlastingly. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 6 Belshazzar the king made a great feast.
Dan_5:1
Belshazzar the king made a great feast.
Read full note →
Belshazzar
This feast is, like how many other events, rescued from oblivion by the interposition of a Divine hand. The presence of God in history is its salt, and keeps it from perishing. When does credible history begin, but with the exodus of Israel from Egypt? What kind of interest attaches to European history, apart from the work of God in the church? Let English history be read, minus the Reformation and Puritan element, and it would be very meagre and watery. What rescues human life from insignificance? The presence of God What gives to the work of every day a serious interest? The presence of God. Whereever we see the finger of God, we are arrested. We may see it in the page of history, in the life of a family, in the quiet prosperity of a church. This poor, luxurious, profane king, who comes up, drinks, trembles for an hour before us in the blaze of splendour, and then passes away swiftly into chaos and old night--this reveller would never have been heard of, but for the fingers of a mans hand that wrote ever against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of his palace. There is nothing interesting in this man. He does nothing, says nothing, is nothing; nothing but a dark ground on which fiery letters are written, the more luminous because the ground is black. We take a kind of interest in Nebuchadnezzar, with his proud, stormy greatness; with his gigantic plans and terrible visions. We read of his insanity with concern approaching to horror. If Belshazzar excites any feeling in our minds it is utter astonishment at his folly. Was this a time to give a great feast to the thousand of his lords? Cyrus, with his mighty army, lay outside his city--Cyrus, who had already defeated him in a pitched battle--Cyrus, the greatest soldier in the world. What had the gods of gold and silver done for Nebuchadnezzar? How had they avenged the slight put upon the golden image which he had set up? What had they done for the poor insane king? How had they helped Belshazzar lately, when Cyrus beat him and shut him up in Babylon, a prisoner in his own capital? They slighted the great and awful past, with its stern lessons; and they have always had a hard and dreadful future, who made early work of the past. If men will not take the trouble to read the warnings of yesterday, to-morrows fingers will write a word on their walls which will scare their eyeballs, and make their knees shake! Oh, take kindly to the warnings of all history, but of your own in particular, for it is as grave and important to you as over Belshazzars ought to have been to him. But when they made light of the God of Israel over their cups, they made light of those portions and parcels of the dreadful past, which they must have known and remembered. Thou, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this. They lifted up themselves against the Lord of heaven, though they had seen His marvellous works wrought before them. The fiery furnace, the four men in the fire, the dream, the madness, the recovery, the proclamation; they knew it all; they slighted it all; and at this time, too, with the foe at their gate, and such a foe! The Chaldeans are called in, as of old, and, as usual, are at fault. Then the queen mother, Nitocris, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, came into the banquet-house. Profane history speaks well of this lady. She was a wise and prudent woman, and had the chief administration of affairs Her memory was all alive. She recollected past perplexities. She remembered Daniel, and said, Let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Then Daniel was brought in before the king. Scarlet and a gold chain! and, in the meantime, the Mede and the Persian are entering by stealth, like thieves in the night, through the dried-up bed of the Euphrates! Let thy gifts be to thyself. Tekel Weighed in the balances and found wanting. A very significant word. It represents God as putting us into a just balance, and judging accordingly. This is not an unusual figure. Thou dost weigh the path of the just. By the Lord actions are weighed. All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits. We all remember how strongly the Bible speaks of a just weight. Look at this great appearance of royal government, pride, pomp, and circumstance of state--Belshazzars rule over the poor people of Babylon--how fine it all looks. But look at it; is it doing what it professes to do? Is it defending the city? Is if caring for the poor? Drunken on the night of the seige. A sham government. Light as a leaf before the whirlwind. God takes it up, weighs it, finds it worthless, and throws it to Cyrus. Then the officer of justice steps in and does his work. Pass for what you are; and be what you pass for; or Peres, the sentence will go against you. You pass for a Christian, you use the passwords of the Christian religion; men take your word, just as without suspicion we take our pounds of meat and tea, and pay for them. Is it only seemingly good weight? Tekel you will be found out. A light ruler! But stop! before we blame Belshazzar and other light kings, let us ask a question--Are you doing in the royal line what you profess to do? Are you ruling your households in the fear of God? Is there a just government there! Is there equity, love, purity, the law of truth, swaying the family? Ye the scrutiny of Heaven is there a kingdom of God there? And how is the inner kingdom ruled? You profess to have a conscience, a presiding judge--reason. Are you taking it easy, and making light of your responsibilities, of the charge which God has laid upon you, and thinking that God doth not see? Let integrity and uprightness preserve us, O God of our salvation. (B. Kent.)
Belshazzars Feast
Now let us look at the scene. What is this a picture of? Can you express the whole of that revel in one word? I think I can, and this is the word--godlessness. When, presently, the soothsayers have proved their ignorance, and the enchanters are unable to decipher the mystic writing upon the wail, and Daniel comes, what is the supreme charge that he makes against Belshazzar? He does not charge him with drunkenness, though he is drunk: he does not charge him with sacrilege, though he has sent for the golden vessels of the House of God in order that these drinking men may drink from them; he does not charge him with lasciviousness of life, although there are tokens of it on every hand in that banqueting hall. This is the charge that Daniel makes against the king. He passes from the superficial to the central, and in these words he makes his supreme charge against the king: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast then not glorified. Every power of the king was a God-given power--his breath, all his ways, his throne, his opportunity, his kingdom, his capacity for laughter and for tears--everything God-given, and yet he sat on the throne without reference to the other throne: exercised his kingship without reference to the other kingship; laughed without reference to God; entered into all the avenues of his own life and enjoyed the very blessings of Heaven, and yet without reference to God, and this not because of ignorance. And now mark in the case of this king how that supreme sin works itself out. Foolhardiness! The enemies are at the gate; Darius is on his way; the very kingdom over which the man presides in self-satisfying security is being undermined and shaken to its foundations. Foolhardiness! A feast where there ought to have been preparations for a fight Belshazzar has been living as though Nebuchadnezzar had never lived; Belshazzar has been living as though his father had never come under the immediate government of God; he has been living as though the great lessons of the past had never been uttered or taught. And you tell me he has forgotten! No, he never forgot; these men do not forget--they act as though they had forgotten, but forgotten they have not. But you say to me: How do you know he has not forgotten? Because when the wine has worked into his brain and the wit is out therefore, the underlying memory asserts itself in idiotic insult: Fetch the vessels of the House of God, and we will drink from them. That is how godlessness works out in its finality. If you let me turn aside for a moment, I can quite understand there is a young man who is living a godless life to-night, and he says: I never meant to do it. Belshazzar never meant to do it. Do not allow the sin to blind you to the facts of life that are patent on every hand. Do you suppose that any murderer who has gone to his doom ever meant to commit murder? Never. But it was the last bitter fruitage of the root of godlessness. That is how godlessness works itself out. And I look at that great banqueting hall with its thousand lords, and I look at Belshazzar, the man who knew, who had lived as though he did not know, who remembered in the midst of the revelry, and then insulted God.. Now, still watching that hall and that scene, I pray you mark the next fact: the Divine assertion in the midst of the revelry, the handwriting by which God asserted His own presence and His own Divine right amid all the revelry of foolhardy men. For let me say at once that all the mystery of the soothsayers and the enchanters was not due to the mystery of the writing, but to their attempt to explain away simple, evident truths. Mene, everyone knew that it meant remembered; Tekel, everyone know that it meant weighed; Upharsin, everyone knew that it meant divided. And whereas I do not for a single moment want to take away from the fact that there dwelt in Daniel the spirit of insight into spiritual things; in Daniel as in many another man, the spirit that sees into the heart of spiritual things is the spirit of a little child. It was the cleverness of the soothsayers that prevented their understanding the writing on the wail, and all the heated feverishness of the king to get someone to explain it was not heated feverishness to get someone to explain it, but to explain it away; and what Daniel did was to come and speak the truth and enforce it and drive it home, the truth that was patent to the king. This was God asserting Himself in the life of this man. It was an assertion of Himself that interfered with all human arrangements, that disturbed the feast. Just look at the king. His knees smote together, his countenance was changed, he sees all the horror of his own foolhardiness and all the awful fruitage of his own sin. If he can he will escape it; if he can he will undo the past and blot out his own handwriting; but he cannot, and God has come into the midst of the revelry to disturb the life of this man. Now, mark the writing for a moment. Remembered, counted, finished--there is no more. The solemnity of this whole story lies in the fact that it is not a warning uttered, but a verdict pronounced. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. In looking at the narrative as we have been doing for the last few minutes, I cannot possibly put any single word of hope into the story. It is not a story of hope; it is a story of judgment; swift, sure, irrevocable--nothing left. A man had his opportunity, had his examples, had his warnings, best of all had God--failed. Now, why take you back to the old story? Only in order that I may now for a few moments endeavour to take out of the story the principles of importance and ask you to face them. And what is the first? That the supreme sin of every life, including all others within it, is the sin of godlessness. Godlessness is the root of sin. And if it should happen that to-night in the case of some person in this house the end should come, if your years are numbered and the last hour is upon you and you have failed, what is your sin? Exactly what this mans sin was. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. You belong to God, everything you have is a Divine gift, and all these years of your life up to the present moment What is the story of your life? You are God-created; His image is on your brow; the supreme glory of the Godhead in some sense is reproduced and re-expressed in you. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways. What relation have you borne to Him? And I want to ask you now for a moment, since God created man and God preserved man, what relation have you borne in the days and years of your life to the God who created you, to the God who has preserved you? That is the supreme thing; there is no other question left; there is no other problem ought to vex the heart of man but that. Now, is it true of you that you have not glorified Him? You have thought of Him as a distant Deity; you have thought of Him, perhaps, as a supreme intelligent force behind Nature, to be spoken of reverently and nothing more; you have thought of Him as the God of judgment and the God of mercy, for you have lived in the gentle light which breaks from the cross of the Crucified. But these things are of no moment; the question is, How have you answered your knowledge and your conviction concerning God? And remember, godlessness is the life lived within the provision of God that never recognises the One who provides. I would have you very solemnly put away from your mind the false idea that godlessness is the peculiar condition of the man who dwells in the slum, that godlessness is that which expresses itself in profanity and bestiality and lasciviousness--all those things are true, but there is a godlessness which is refined, cultured, pleasant, and yet is the most arrant and hardening godlessness of the age, issuing in indifference and presently manifesting itself, it may be, in the sceptical allusion and the pitying and patronising attitude which a man takes up to those who are godly people.
Oh! the blight of it. That is the supreme sin. And out of this sin of godlessness spring all the other sins. Folly! A man has lost the balance of life who has lost his sense of and obedience to God. But what was the supreme sin of the man illustrated in the story of the prodigal? It was this, that he took his fathers substance and wasted it in riotous living. And that is the sin of humanity the whole way along. It is you sin that every gift God has bestowed upon you, you have wasted upon yourself. And there is no man more blind, no man more utterly foolish, no man proving his insanity more than the man who lives through these days so swiftly passing without reference to God and without relation to God. Godlessness issues in folly; godlessness leaves a man a prey to all the lusts to play about the life to tempt. And what is the other lesson? It is that, sooner or later, God asserts Himself in every human life. The freedom of the will is a limited freedom. God in His great universe will never allow the will of man to be so free as wreck for evermore all who come into contact with him. Liberty and licence are two things, and there must be a moment when God arrests the life and deals with the man. This man knew about Nebuchadnezzar and yet did not humble himself; he never laid the glory of his own opportunity at the footstool of the Divine sovereignty, and made wreckage of his life in consequence. God, at some point, comes into every mans life, arresting it. Ah! you will say, I have not glorified God, and the godlessness of principle hag blossomed into the fruitage of evil habit. Do not play with the habit do not try to cut off the habit; get down to the principle, and by way of the cross of Christ to-night find your way back into the Kingdom of God, yielding to Him your whole life, trusting in the Saviour who comes with matchless patience wooing you back to God, and then, when presently the story is told of your life, instead of the sentence being passed, Found wanting, it will be written, Ye are complete in Him. (G. Campbell Morgan.)
The Night Feast of Belshazzar
Belshazzar was the last of the Babylonian kings. The great feast which he made for a thousand of his lords was on the last night of his reign. He belonged to the proud and profligate race of the Chaldeans, whom the Hebrew prophets describe as given to pleasures, dwelling carelessly, and trusting in wickedness. All this can be abundantly shown from the Hebrew prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; from the Greek historians, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Diodorus and from inscriptions on monuments that remain to this day. And knowing all this concerning the young men of that great and mighty city of ancient time, we are not surprised that Babylon became a desolation. The day of doom is not far off from thy great city when its young men have become tender and delicate; nerveless and spiritless about the nobler demands of effort and duty. There is no more effectual way to destroy a great and mighty nation than to give its young men all the money they want, provide them with plays and festivities and amusements and dances and wine, and then leave them to sweat the life and manhood out of body and soul in the hot-bed of pleasure and self-indulgence. That is the way Babylon was ruined. That is the way imperial Rome became an easy prey to northern barbarians. That is the way Christian Constantinople came under the debasing and abominable sway of Mohammedans. That is the way Venice ended a thousand years of independent and glorious history with shame and servitude. Belshazzar had everything to flatter his pride and indulge his passions. He was an absolute monarch, holding the life and property of his thousand lords and his countless people entirely at his disposal. His servants were princes. His concubines were the daughters of kings. His capital was enriched with the spoils of nations--his provinces were cultivated by captive people. He was hasty and violent in temper, yet effeminate and luxurious in his habits of living. He was gracious and indulgent toward his favourites; and yet when their best efforts to please him did not happen to suit his caprice of the moment, he would be cruel as the grave. The great hall of the palace, in which he feasted his thousand lords reclining upon couches, was large enough to accommodate four times as many guests arranged as we now seat ourselves at table. It was adorned with carvings and sculptures of colossal dimensions, and the lofty walls were emblazoned with the trophies of war and the symbols of idolatrous worship. The profane orgies of royal mirth were adorned with every artistic decoration that the genius of the age could supply. I believe that the fine arts are capable of ministering to the highest and purest civilisation; but thus far they have done little to enlighten the ignorant, to lift up the degraded, or to help the world forward in the career of moral improvement. They have always flourished in the corrupt and reeking society of a dissolute and licentious age. Rome, the modern Babylon, was never more depraved and abominable than when it had Michael Angelo to build St. Peters, and Raphael to fresco the Vatican. The capital of France was never more like Rome than when the Grand Monarque, Louis the Fourteenth, dazzled the world with his splendid court, and the great masters of every land were decorating the palaces of Fontainbleau, Versailles, and the Louvre, with the loftiest achievements of art. In three hundred years the highest art has done less to refine and improve the common people in Rome and Naples than would be done by the spelling-book and New Testament in one year. Belshazzar inherited the pride, the glory, the riches, the power, the palaces, the capital, the kingdom of his great father. He inherited enough to ruin any young man who was not fortified by great strength of character and a severe mastery of his own appetites and passions. At the time immediately preceding the great feast which Belshazzar made for his thousand lords, the province of Babylon had been overrun and the capital assailed by a great army from the north. But, for some strange and inexplicable reason, the besieging force had apparently withdrawn. No effort appears to have been made to discover what had become of the enemy, or what had occasioned their disappearance. It was enough that they could no longer be seen from the towers and walls. It was taken for granted that the siege was abandoned and the war was over. The whole city was immediately given up to rejoicing and every form of riotous excess. Belshazzar set the example, and people and princes were only too ready to imitate their king. The music and the banquet and the wine; the garlands, the rose-edours, and the flowers; the sparkling eyes, the flashing ornaments, the jewelled arms, the raven hair, the braids, the bracelets, the thin robes floating like clouds; the fair forms, the delusion and the false enchantment of the dizzy scene, take away all reason and all reverence from the flushed and crowded revellers. There is now nothing too sacred for them to profane, and Belshazzar himself takes the lead in the riot and the blasphemy. Even the mighty and terrible Nebuchadnezzar, who desolated the sanctuary of Jehovah at Jerusalem, would not use his sacred trophies in the worship of his false gods. But this weak and wicked successor of the great conqueror, excited with wine and carried away with the delusion that no foe can ever capture his great city, is anxious to make some grand display of defiant and blasphemous desecration. At the very moment when their sacrilegious revelry was at its height, the bodiless hand came forth and wrote the words of doom upon the wall of the banqueting-room; the armies of Cyrus had turned the Euphrates out of its channel, and marched into the unguarded city along the bed of the stream beneath the walls; they were already in possession of the palace-gates when Belshazzar and his princes were drinking wine from the vessels of Jehovah, and praising the gods of gold and silver and stone; and that great feast of boasting and of blasphemy was the last ceremonial of the Chaldean kings. The reckless and the profane not unfrequently display the greatest gaiety and thoughtlessness when they are on the very brink of destruction. The feeling and the appearance of safety are not always to be taken for reality. Death still enters the banquet-hall anti the ball-room as well as the bed-chamber. The last opportunity for any good work is apt to look just like all that came and went before it. We seldom know that; it is the last, until it is gone never to return. Our only safe way to improve the last opportunity is to use all that come as if any one might be the last. The apparent thoughtlessness of the gay and worldly does not prove that they are at peace with themselves A smiling face and a reckless manner are sometimes put on to hide an anxious and an aching heart. To find joy in everything we do, we must do everything for God. To have the light of Heaven upon our faces in all the dark hours of trial and trouble, we must have Heavens peace in our hearts. The messages of the gospel is Gods way of peace for man. Belshazzar and his thousand lords did not profane the golden vessels of Jehovah until they had drunk wine. Indulgence in the intoxicating cup prepares the way for every excess and profanation. No man can be sure that he will be saved from any degree of shame or crime when once he has a put an enemy in his mouth to steal away his reason. The eye of the Great Judge is upon every scene of profanity and dissipation. The handwriting appeared upon the wall of the bouquet-room in Belshazzars palace in the hour of their wildest mirth, to show that God was there. And God is in every scene of wickedness and dissipation not less really than in the Holy Place of His own sanctuary. The finger of God is ever writhing the witness of His presence with us upon the living tablets of our hearts. That infinite and awful Witness is in every storehouse, workshop, and place of business, every day of the week and every hour of the day. In the deepest solitude we must all have one companion. To every act and word of our lives there must be one witness, and that witness is the holy and sin-hating God. We cannot escape our accountability to Him. Why, then, not live so that we can give Him our account with joy? Conscience is a mysterious and mighty power in us all. The great and terrible king Belshazzar was completely mastered and unmanned by its secret whisper. He was afraid, because an accusing conscience always makes darkness and mystery terrible to the guilty. It is mightiest in the mighty. Miltons Satan, Byrons Manfred, Shakespeares Macbeth and Richard the Third are truthful illustrations of the harrowing torture produced in the mightiest mind by the calm, solemn voice within, which only says, You are wrong. The Supreme Creater has put us absolutely in the power of that mysterious judge which pronounces sentence in our own bosoms upon all our conduct and motives. And we cannot conceive anything worse for a man than to die and go into the eternal world with an unappeased and accusing conscience to keep him company and to torment him for ever. Belshazzar had riches, and pleasure, and glory. He was absolute master in the greatest palace and the greatest city the world had ever seen. But what is his life worth to the world now, except to warn men not to live as he did? With all his splendour and luxury he lived a wretched man, and he died as the fool dies. He lifted himself up against God, he trusted in wickedness, and so he became but as the chaff which the wind driveth away. And the same sovereign God counts out the days of life to us all. He weighs our character, our conduct, our motives, in the balances of infinite truth. And there is no deficit so damaging as that which is charged to one who is found wanting before God. It has been said that the thought of our responsibility to God is the greatest thought ever entertained by the greatest mind. Certainly the discoveries and demonstrations of science cannot carry our minds so far over the sweep of ages and over the expanse of the universe as the bare thought that our individual being is bound inseparably and for ever to the being of the infinite and eternal God. Whatever we do, wherever we are, we can never cease to be responsible to Him. For He has appointed us to do His work. He has given us the means, the faculties, and the opportunity; and He holds us answerable for using them well. What the world wants most is men in whose minds the great thought of responsibility to God is ever present--men who are made strong by the consciousness that they are doing Gods work. (D. Marsh, D.D.)
Belshazzars Feast
The character of Belshazzar appears to have been of the most contemptible description. He was addicted to the lowest vices of self indulgence, and felt no restraint whatever in the gratification of his desires. With all this there was combined an arrogance of the haughtiest kind, which would brook no interference with his designs, and would submit to no expostulation in the interests of morality. At length, however, the cup of his iniquities became full.
1. The intemperance by which this banquet was characterised. He cared for nothing but the revelry of the hour. We know too well the concomitants of an excess like this.
2. The profanity by which this banquet was characterised. There is an old fable which tells of a man who had the choice which of three sins he would commit--drunkenness, adultery, or murder. He chose drunkenness, as being apparently the least, but when he was intoxicated he committed both the others, and thus ended by being guilty of all three. Profanity is rampant even in our midst. Who among us has not often had his ears pained and his heart sickened by the unhallowed use of the name of God by those who have no reverence for him in their hearts? O that men would remember that holy law which says that the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain!
3. This night was one of supernatural visitation. What means the sudden lull in the noisy revel? The king is pointing, with a shudder of agony, where a mysterious hand is tracing letters on the wall. No ray of hope brightens the gloom of that awful sentence.
4. A night of terrible retribution. God threatens, but He means what He says, and He will bring it to pass. God is faithful who has threatened. (W. M Taylor, D.D.)
Excessive Social Enjoyment
Social enjoyment, when guided by reason, when bounded by temperance, when springing from mutual benevolence, is not forbidden by religion, and may tend, in so far, within these limits, to promote the welfare of the world. Considering, however, the shortness of mans life, the solemnity of his condition as a lost sinner, the infinite eternity into which he must soon enter, and the tribunal of Divine holiness before which he must soon stand, it appears evident that man has not much time to spend in feasting. Considering the destitution and misery that are in the world, it is also clear that he cannot devote much of his means to this end without being guilty of inhumanity to his fellow-creatures and disobedience to that God who commands us, according to our ability, to show kindness to the poor. Much immorality, much inhumanity, much ungodliness, are manifested by all classes in the large sums which they expend, and the time, more precious than gold, which they dissipate, in feasts and entertainments. It is one of the crimes of our land, and fast becoming one of its calamities, that our ancient simplicity, and our ancient sobriety and frugality, are fast departing from among us, and that, instead of them, there is coming in a flood of epicureanism, and affectation, and frivolity. Luxury, love of false refinement, refinement of manners and not of morals, refinement in appearance apart from dignity of character, is coming in upon us more and more, in every succeeding generation. And unless there be a change in the morality of the land, effected by its religion, or some awful calamity be sent to us by a righteous Providence, this growing luxuriousness will, in a short time, be the ruin of our beloved country. It will dissolve the national character. It will be worse than hurting the trade or hurting the agriculture of the land. It will hurt the population. It will produce a degenerate race of men. Luxury, as all history shows, is one of the greatest among national evils. (William White.)
Belshazzars Feast
I. THE FEAST OF BELSHAZZAR. It was a great annual festival, commemorative of some great event. Some think it was Sacae, the Saturnalia of the Babylonians. Others say it was a feast in honour of the kings birthday, or of his coronation. Whatever feast it was, it seems to have been attended with the pomp, religious rites, and services of the empire. The Babylonians were famous above all other nations for intemperance, especially in drinking. A feast commemorative of a mans birthday or of his marriage is not necessarily sinful. A national festival is not in itself sinful; nor was it the eating and drinking in moderation, but the excess, and the spirit in which it was done, that made Belshazzars feast so impious. Their excess was a great sin, but their defiance of Jehovah and impious mockery in using the sacred vessels brought from Jerusalem was a far greater sin. The king and his lords, by using the holy vessels of the Jewish temple for their licentious and idolatrous festival, hurled defiance at the God of Abraham, and showed their contempt for the power of Him who doeth according to His will in the armies of Heaven. The king, heated with wine, commanded them to bring in the vessels of the Jerusalem temple. There was needless insult to the captive Jews, as well as impious blasphemy against their God, in this desecration of their holy vessels. Any and every perversion of holy things is a desecration of them. When the sacrament is taken without faith to discern the Lords body, or to cover some sinister design, or as a passport to some office, then the sacred vessels of the Lords house are desecrated to an unholy end. In whatever way religion is dragged from its lofty and controlling sphere, and made to gild the claims of a party or of a sect, then and there we have a repetition of Belshazzars profanation. When the Sabbath is made a day of pleasure, of visiting, feasting, and writing letters--when the house of God is used for anything but the purposes of religious worship--then we have an approach to the desecration of Belshazzars feast. But let us leave this disquisition about the desecration of holy things and observe the feast. It was one of the greatest splendour. A mysterious writing appeared upon the plastering of the palace wall. As the king and his lords could not read the inscription, it is said, why were they thus afraid? They were afraid because their own consciences condemned them. All men who live in sin dread what is future and unknown. It has been asked why the wise men of Babylon could not read the inscription. The words are mainly Chaldean. Why could not the Chaldee scholar read them then as well as now? To this we answer, all the learned men of Spain could make an egg stand on the table after Columbus had shown them how. Several reasons are assigned by commentators for the inability of the kings astrologers to read the writing. One is, that the words were written in the ancient Hebrew character, the knowledge of which was even then lost to all except the Jewish priests and scribes, and not in the modern Hebrew character, which differs little or nothing from the Chaldee. The characters, the forms of the letters in which the Old Testament is commonly written, is not the ancient Hebrew characters. It is supposed that the square form of the letters now used is not the primitive form. English letters are alike, but the Greek characters are different. So, when, for convenience sake, the printer puts the Greek word aionios in English letters, the mere Greek scholar does not know his old acquaintance, nor the mere English scholar divine whence it comes nor what it means. If the inscription on the wall at Belshazzars feast was in ancient Hebrew characters, it is not strange that his wise men were unable to read it. Others think that the words were inscribed in hieroglyphics, of which the astrologers had no key, and that we have not the original in our Bible, but translations of the forms of the letters, as well as of the sense; others think that the writing was intelligible only to such as were aided in reading it by the Spirit of God: and others think they were so intoxicated or so frightened that they could not read. I only insist, however, on the fact that the kings astrologers could not read this inscription, and that Daniel could; and you will be pleased, no doubt, to observe how the interpretation was brought out. It was obtained, as is often the case with our greatest blessings, through the agency of woman, the aged grandmother of the king, the queen dowager, as our European cousins would call her. Blank terror and alarm reign in the court. The king and his courtiers are at their wits end. No one seems to be calm and self-possessed but Nitocris, the widow of old Nebuchadnezzar. She instantly steps up and suggests that Daniel should be sent for, and gives her reasons. It often happens that a woman, whose sex is usually so easily agitated by trifles, when overtaken by some great crisis, which calls forth an the latent energies of her soul, is found to display a calmness, a magnanimity., a self-possession that puts to shame the powers of the other sex. These astrologers were not enchanters--they were not diviners--they professed no communion with evil spirits. They were men who studied the signs of the Heavenly bodies, and having no written revelations, they believed that God had written the past, the present, and also something of the future in the sky--that the stars were the letters of that revelation, and that by studying them they might interpret things to come. In allowing himself, therefore, to be placed at their head, Daniel does not violate the laws of Moses against soothsayers, witches, and the like Satan-possessed persons. These wise men of Babylon were not peeping and muttering spirit tappers, whose pretended revelations were filling the land with lunatics. They were magi, but not magicians. They were philosophers, but not sorcerers. They held communion with Gods outward world, and not with the spirits of the dead or with devils.
II. THAT ONE SIN OFTEN LEADS TO ANOTHER. Sensuality is usually connected with profaneness, and both lead to ruin.
III. LEARN THAT THERE IS GREAT GUILT AND DESERVED PUNISHMENT IN NOT TAKING WARNING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF GOD UPON OTHERS, ESPECIALLY OUR OWN COUNTRYMEN AND ANCESTORS. (W. A.. Scott, D.D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 SECT. XVII.—BELSHAZZAR’S FEAST (Chap. 5.)
HOMILETICS
SECT. XVII.—BELSHAZZAR’S FEAST (Chap. 5.)
Read full note →
This chapter deservedly a favourite with general readers [126]. The magnificence, excitement, and revelry of the royal feast; the profligate king, when heated with wine, calling for the sacred vessels of the Temple, and, with his princes, wives, and concubines, drinking out of them to the honour of heathen deities; the sudden appearance, in the midst of the carousal, of a weird hand, tracing distinct but unintelligible characters on the wall; the consternation of the whole party, and the sudden stop put to all the mirth; the terror of the conscience-stricken monarch, causing his very knees to smite against each other; the hasty summoning of the magicians and soothsayers to decipher the mysterious writing; the perplexity of the king and his party when these men declare their inability to read or understand it; the appearance of the queen-mother [127] on the scene, reminding the terror-stricken king of the aged servant of his father, or rather his grandfather [128], Nebuchadnezzar, whom his excesses had driven from his court, but who was doubtless able to interpret the handwriting; Daniel’s entrance at the royal summons, with his venerable mien and hoary locks, now above eighty years of age; his faithful reproof addressed to the profane and licentious king; the solemn reading and interpretation of the divine message on the wall, each word falling like a death-knell on the ear of the guilty monarch; the bestowment of the promised reward on Daniel, the golden necklace [129] put on his neck and the proclamation issued that made him third ruler in the kingdom [130]; in the midst of this the startling report that the Persians were in the city, and immediately thereafter a tumultuous noise outside, and the entrance of foreign soldiers, brandishing naked blood-stained swords, into the banquet-hall; and, finally, the promiscuous slaughter that ensues, in which the king himself is slain [131], and the great Babylonian empire comes to an end. Seldom, if ever, have so many thrilling events been brought together in so short a space. The whole scene fitted solemnly to remind us of another, of which it may be regarded as a type—that hour of doom which is to overtake a godless and guilty world, when not a mere hand on the wall, but the Son of man Himself shall appear in the clouds, striking terror into every impenitent heart. We may note—
[126] Dr. A. Clarke is of opinion that this chapter is out of its proper place, and should come in after chapters 7 and 8. Chronologically this is true; but for other reasons it has been placed where it is, leaving the whole of the second part of the book prophetical. Hengstenberg observes that in this chapter the objections are less numerous and particularly feeble. An objection has been made on the ground that no king of Babylon of the name of Belshazzar is known in history; and that the name of the last king was not Belshazzar, but Nabonnedus, according to Berosus, or Labynetus, according to Herodotus, who was not slain in Babylon, but surrendered himself a prisoner to Cyrus at Borsippa, and was kindly treated by the conqueror. Strange to say, as already remarked in the Introduction, a clay cylinder, now in the British Museum, was in 1854 discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson among the ruins of Mugheir, the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, on which is an inscription stating that the building in which it was found was the work of Nabonidus; the last of the Babylonian kings, who repaired it in 555 b.c., and that Bel-shar-ezer (or Belshazzar) his eldest son, had been admitted by him to a share in the government. There were thus two kings of Babylon at the time the city was taken; the one, the father, of whom the historians speak, and who was then at a distance; the other, the son, who was in the city at the time, and who, according to both Daniel and Xenophon, was slain on the occasion. According to Josephus and Berosus, Belshazzar, called by Metasthenes and the Septuagint Baltassar, was the son of Evil-Merodach, and reigned seventeen years; the two who reigned between Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, being Neriglessar, his brother-in-law, who slew him, and reigned four years, and Laborosoarchod, his son, who reigned only nine months; whose names, as only petty kings and usurpers, would not, Dr. Cumming thinks, be acknowledged in the chronicles of Babylon or by the sacred writers. Keil, with Hoffmann, Hävernick, and others, is inclined to regard Belshazzar as the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and to identify him with Evil-Merodach, it being the rule with Eastern kings to have several names.
[127] “The queen.” According to Herodotus, this was Nitocris, a prudent woman; the queen, not of Belshazzar, but of his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, the former being already at the feast among his wives and concubines. According to Polyhistor, it was Amiyt, daughter of Astyages, sister of Darius the Mede, and aunt of Cyrus. Prideaux takes her for the mother of Belshazzar and widow of Nebuchadnezzar. So Keil. Dr. Rule observes: “Perhaps she was the wife of Nabonadius, left in the city when her husband sallied forth to meet the enemy, but who had not returned. If so, she would well remember the events of the latter part of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.” According to Josephus, she was the grandmother of Belshazzar; while Origen, Ephrem Syrus, and Theodoret, make her his mother.
[128] “Thy father.” It is generally admitted that אַב (abh) frequently signifies an ancestor in general. Belshazzar was probably a son of Evil-Merodach, who only reigned two years, and so was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.
[129] “A necklace.” Among the Persians it is said to have been one of the highest honours to receive a neck-chain as a present from the king. An emblem, as among the ancient Egyptians and ourselves, of magisterial authority.
[130] “The third ruler in the kingdom.” This agrees with what has been noted as to Belshazzar having been associated with his father in the government, and thus made the second ruler; an undesigned coincidence, and a singular confirmation of the genuineness of the account. Jerome and others, however, understood the third ruler to be equivalent to the Greek τριστάτης, the title given to a member of a triumvirate in the government of a kingdom or empire. Dr. Rule observes that the word agrees with the term used in Eze_23:15; Eze_23:23, to denote Babylonian princes, שָׁלִישִׁים (shalishim), or “third men;” the origin being discovered in the three charioteers or soldiers who rode in the war-chariots (1Ki_9:22), as seen in the war scenes on the slabs of the Assyrian marbles.
[131] “In that night,” &c. For the account of the taking of the city, as given by Herodotus, see page 48, note (7). The night of that event is regarded by Gaussen as “a prophetic type of the last solemn judgment of the Lord; a night so great and so terrible that the Holy Spirit frequently refers to it as the emblem of that night, a thousand times more terrible, when the Lord Jesus shall be ‘revealed from heaven with His mighty angels.’ ”
I. The feast (Dan_5:1-4). It was—
(1.) Large; a thousand guests besides the king’s wives and concubines [132], marking the dissipated character of Belshazzar, as the kings of Chaldea are said to have rarely invited guests to their table.
(2.) Magnificent; held in the banquet-hall of the royal palace, the guests being the highest nobility [133] in the land, the king himself reclining apart on his sumptuous couch [134].
(3.) Idolatrous; celebrated with songs of praise to their gods of gold, silver, brass, and iron, wood and stone, the feast itself being possibly in honour of the tutelary deity of the city, as the supposed author of their fancied prosperity, and the successful competitor of Jehovah, to whom Nebuchadnezzar had shown so much partiality.
(4.) profane; the king, not satisfied with praising the gods of his own country, must insult and defy the God of the Jews by sending for the golden vessels of the Temple, which, nearly seventy years before, Nebuchadnezzar had brought from Jerusalem; and then, with his riotous guests, drinking out of them to the honour of his gods, as if he would again triumph over Jehovah whom Bel had conquered, like the Philistines when they placed the ark in the temple of Dagon.
[132] “His wives and his concubines.” The presence of women at feasts was a custom with the Babylonians, as appears from Xenophon. The Alexandrian translator (the Septuagint), following the custom of his own time, has, strange to say, everywhere passed over the women at the feast of Belshazzar; another corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the account, as showing the writer’s intimate acquaintance with the manners and usages of the country.—Hengstenberg.
[133] “His lords,” “his princes,” רַבְרְבָנוֹהִי (rabhrebhanohi), the reduplication of רַב (rabh), great; “great men,” “magnates” of the realm. An objection has been grounded on the use of this word, which is found in the Targum, but not in the older Aramaic writings; an objection, as Hengstenberg remarks, which would apply also to the pseudo-Daniel in the time of the Maccabees, and so prove too much.
[134] “Before the thousand,” לָהֳבֵל (laqabhel), “over against.” So Dr. Pusey, who gives the paraphrase of Ephrem Syrus, “Alone he lay over against all reclined.” A Greek scholiast, quoted by Dr. Pusey, observes, “It was their custom that each should have their own table.” So Athenæus: “When the Persian king makes a drinking feast, they (the guests) do not drink the same wine as he; they sitting on the ground, he lying on a couch with golden legs.”
II. The handwriting (Dan_5:5-9). It was—
(1.) Sudden; in the midst of the mirth and revelry of the feast.
(2.) Mysterious; a hand seen tracing characters high up on the wall, without any one appearing to guide it.
(3.) Real; the hand and the writing visible to every one on the wall over against the great chandelier [135]; hence no effect of excited imagination or of priestly imposture.
(4.) Alarming; all naturally seized with fear, but more especially the king, for whom it was intended, and whose eyes it now opened at once to his guilt and danger.
(5.) Perplexing; no solution of its meaning obtainable through the usual channels, in fulfilment of Isa_47:12-13; while there is felt an inward certainty that the writing must have a meaning. The handwriting on the wall a picture of the many denunciations against impenitent sinners written by the same divine finger in the Word of God; with this difference, that while that handwriting was obscure and unintelligible till Daniel interpreted it, the denunciations in the Bible are clear as written with a sunbeam, and so plain that a child may understand them.
[135] “Over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall.” Keil says, “The fingers wrote on the plaster of the wall over against the candlestick which stood on the table at which the king sat, and which reflected its light perceptibly on the white wall opposite, so that the fingers writing could be distinctly seen. The feast had been prolonged into the night; and the wall of the chamber was not wainscotted, but only plastered with lime, as in the chambers found in the palaces of Nimroud and Khorsabad, covered over only with mortar.” Dr. Rule thinks there was no ink nor colouring, the visibility of the writing being only by the effect of light and shade on the sharp relief of the characters made on the lime or cement of the wall, such as is actually found remaining on those ruins where the walls are not lined with slabs.
III. The reproof (Dan_5:10-24). Daniel, sent for by the king at the queen’s suggestion, before interpreting the writing, addresses to the king a solemn reproof. That reproof an example of uncompromising faithfulness,
(1.) Reminds him of an admonitory fact in the history of his great ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan_5:20-21).
(2.) Points him to his own sin in disregarding that solemn monition (Dan_5:22).
(3.) Charges him directly with pride, impious defiance of the God of heaven, sacrilegious profanity, and honouring with his praise dumb idols, instead of the God in whose hand his breath was, and whose were all his ways (Dan_5:24).
(4.) After thus faithfully convicting him of his misdeeds “in the presence of all the wealth, rank, beauty, and power of his kingdom,” he declares that the writing on the wall proclaims to him the righteous judgment of God which now overtook him, and of which it was sent as a solemn precursor, announcing at once his guilt and his impending doom.
IV. The interpretation (Dan_5:25-28). Daniel, who had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar head of all the Magi in Babylon, and had already been distinguished as a prophet of the Most High God, now again is enabled to make good his title. Sent for in the hour of distress, after having been probably banished from the court for at least seventeen years as a drivelling fanatic, he proceeds, with the confidence and calm solemnity of an inspired man, to decipher the writing. He first reads the mystic words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN [136]. He then slowly gives the interpretation of each. MENE—repeated for emphasis, and to indicate the completeness and certainty of the fact—“numbered, numbered;” “God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it,”—the days of thy reign, thy dynasty, and the empire of which thou hast been the guilty head, are numbered, and now come to an end. TEKEL, “weighed;” “Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting,”—the cause of the approaching doom. PERES—the singular form of the verb of which UPHARSIN is the plural with the conjunction u (and) prefixed—“divided;” “Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians”—the very words seeming to indicate those to whom the empire was now to pass.
[136] “Mene, mene,” &c. “According to the account, it was only by supernatural illumination that Daniel was able to read and explain the writing, and only because the king believed him to possess it that he was called in for the purpose. The characters must therefore have been quite uncommon, so as not to be deciphered without divine illumination.”—Hengstensberg, who also remarks that the existence of a mystic writing in Babylon is supposed in the entire narration. He supposes the “magicians,” חַרֻמְמִּין (khartummin), of whom Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel the master, and who are included in the wise men of chap. Dan_2:48, were probably men skilled in such writing, such persons being found among the Egyptians, whose religious system stands in the closest relation to the Babylonians. Dr. Cumming remarks that these persons were not “magicians,” but philosophers, who held converse with God’s outer world, not with evil spirits, like the sorcerers and diviners of old. He thinks that the writing was in the pure Hebrew character, which we call Samaritan, and that it was simply from the strangeness of the character that the wise men were unable to understand it. Some of the old interpreters, as Polanus, Calvin, and Willet, ascribe their inability, not so much to the strange and unknown characters, as to the fact that they were blinded and astonished by the power of God. Dr. Rule thinks that the difficulty may have arisen from the characters or the language, or from both; and that the charracters were most probably cuneiform, no other being used in that age in Assyria and Babylonia, while there were many languages or dialects. All the ancient versions except the Syriac have, instead of four words, only three, Mene, Tekel, Phares, exactly as explained in the verses which follow. The words are differently rendered, according to the supposed form of the verbs, whether as perfect, participle, or imperative. Some think the first word is doubled for emphasis; others, as Calvin, for confirmation, and to show that the numbering was now completed. Maldonatus thinks that the reduplication, according to a Hebraism, indicates “he hath diligently numbered” alluding to the seventy years of the Jewish captivity, or the existence of the Babylonian empire. Calvin and Polanus, after R. Saadias, favour the idea of exactness. Dr. Rule observes that מנא (mene), whether in Chaldee or Hebrew, signifies to “number, count out, allot,” and is employed here in the sense it bears in Isa_65:12. In connection with the last word, פרס or ופרסין (peres or upharsin), Dr. Rule observes that the division or distribution indicated in the first word is unfolded in the distinct announcement of the prophet that the Medes and Persians, now employing their united forces in the siege, shall have the kingdom divided between them; the Medes, according to Herodotus, being Aryans, and the Persians of Aryan descent. Darius the Mede had precedence in the attack over Cyrus the Persian because of seniority, and held the sceptre till his death, when Cyrus took it; Darius, according to one account, having called him out of Persia to assist him in the war by taking the command of the army. Willet remarks that upharsin, the plural, refers to the Medes and Persians as the instruments, while peres, the singular, points to God as the author of the division. He thinks the writing gives both the thing predicted,—the division of the empire,—and the parties between whom it was to be divided, the Medes and Persians, Darius having Babylon, and Cyrus Assyria. Calvin, however, properly remarks, that the city was truly taken by the valour and industry of Cyrus, but that Cyrus admitted his father-in-law to the great honour of allowing him to partake of the royal authority, and that the Medes and Persians are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was properly no division of the empire. Gaussen remarks that each of the words appears to have a double signification, one in Hebrew and another in Chaldee, so that they became equivalent to six terrible sentences.
V. The end (Dan_5:29-31). Daniel’s interpretation soon tragically verified. The cup of Belshazzar’a iniquity now full. The hour of Babylon’s doom and his own had struck. The prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah were now to receive their fulfilment. The Medes and Persians already prepared by Jehovah to fulfil His purposes against Babylon (Isa_21:2). While Daniel was speaking, the Lord was admitting Cyrus and his Persians into the city by the two-leaved gates of brass (Isa_45:1-2), which opened on the river, and had that night been strangely left unshut [137]. “One post runs to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end. I will dry up her sea. The mighty men of Babylon have forborne to fight; they have remained in their holds; their might hath failed; they became as women. In their fear I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake, saith the Lord” (Jer_51:28-39). Belshazzar falls among the slain in the same night, and Darius the Mede, otherwise called Cyaxares [138], takes by courtesy the kingdom which Cyrus his nephew had conquered.
[137] Xenophon says this was done by Gadates and Gobryas, who had gone over from the Babylonians to Cyrus. Herodotus relates that in Babylon there prevailed such recklessness that no inquiry was made as to what was doing among the enemy, and so nothing was perceived of all those operations by which Cyrus had been preparing for the conquest of the city.
[138] “Darius the Mede.” Some have thought that this was Darius Hystaspes. So Porphyry, Tertullian, and Cyril of Jerusalem. But, as Willet observes, Darius Hystaspes reigned third after Cyrus; and Babylon was taken twice, the first time by Darius and Cyrus, and the second by Darius Hystaspes, through means of Zopyrus. Bertholdt, Bleek, and others object against the genuineness of the book, as a historical error, that he whom Xenophon calls Cyaxares II. is here called Darius, and assert that the later author of the book only gave him the name by a confusion with Darius Hystaspes; that of Cyaxares II., Herodotus and Justin say nothing, while Herodotus, Ctesias and others, state that the Median kings close with Astyages, after whom the Persian kingdom commences with Cyrus. To this Hengstenberg replies that clear reasons can be given to show that the scanty testimonies to the existence of a Median Darius are correct. Differences of names occur also in the Hebrew writings without any one thinking of charging them with error on that account. It is also generally allowed that Darius, like many other names of kings, is not a proper name, but an appellative or surname, a mere title borne by different kings, and denoting the Tamer or Subduer. The Armenian Chronicon of Eusebius confirms the credibility of Daniel by making mention of a Darius as the last of the Median kings. Dr. Pusey says, “Who Darius the Mede was is a matter not for sacred but for secular Babylonian history, whether the Cyaxares II. of Xenophon, or Astyages, or neither,” but some descendant of Cyaxares. The name Daryawash (Darius) is confessedly an appellative, and so it is consistent with his being known in secular history by some other name. The coin called Daric is said to have been so named not from Darius Hystaspes, but from an olderking. The Darius who expelled Naboned from Carmania more likely to have been a contemporary of Cyrus than one fifteen years later. Æschylus, moreover, makes Darius Hystaspes recount his origin from Darius the Mede.
Among the thoughts suggested by the narrative are the following:—
1. The short-lived nature of unhallowed pleasure. “As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool” (Ecc_7:6). Belshazzar and his nobles had given themselves up to pleasure, heedless of warning and danger. Their godless revelry had reached its height when king and princes are summoned to their account.
2. The certainty of divine retribution. Belshazzar’s life one of licentiousness and immorality. Despising the lesson taught by the case of his grandfather, and trusting in his fortifications, lofty walls, and brazen gates, he expected to sin on with impunity. But the judgment of hardened offenders “lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2Pe_2:3).
3. The suddenness with which punishment often overtakes the wicked. Here it was in the midst of festivity and mirth. The sacred vessels of the Temple were still in their hands, and the God defying praises of Bel on their lips, when judgment falls upon the profane rioters. The king, his princes, and his people, thought themselves secure, and laughed at the besiegers, when destruction burst upon the doomed city. “When they shall say, Peace and safety! then sudden destruction cometh upon them.” “Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and so that day come upon you unawares” (1Th_5:2; Luk_21:34).
4. The terror of a guilty conscience. It was Belshazzar’s guilty conscience that blanched his cheeks and made his knees smite against each other as he beheld the writing on the wall. “Tis conscience that makes cowards of us all.” “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” A heathen poet could write, “A righteous man will be found fearless, though the heavens should fall and crush him” [139].
[139] “Whiles he tasted the wine,” בִּטְעֵם חַמְרָא (bit’em khamra). Keil understands the expression to mean when the wine was relished by him, as Hitzig says, “In the wanton madness of one excited by wine.” The Vulgate has “temulentus,” tipsy. Vatablus and Calvin: heated and excited by the wine. Grotius: while drinking, the wine became more and more pleasant to him. M. Henry: when he had tasted how rich and fine the wine was, he, with a profane jest, thought it a pity not to have the best vessels to drink it in. A. Clarke: he relished it, got heated by it, and when wine got fully in, wit went wholly out. Belshazzar is usually represented as addicted to the lowest vices of self-indulgence. Wintle, however, thinks that the expression in the text may simply refer to the libation to the gods made at the beginning of the feast, and quotes the words of Virgil,’ “Primaque libato summo tenus attigit ore.”
5. The aggravated guilt of unheeded warnings. Belshazzar’s special guilt that he lived a life of sin, with the case of Nebuchadnezzar before his eyes. “Thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.” “He that, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy” (Pro_29:1). Unheeded warnings and neglected calls both hasten the stroke of judgment and make it heavier when it comes.
6. The sin of not glorifying God. The sin charged upon Belshazzar, as the sum and essence of his-guilt, that the God in whose hand his breath was and whose were all his ways, he had not glorified. The sin that robs God of His right and proclaims man a rebel against his Maker. “The Lord hath made all things for Himself.” All creatures to glorify God according to their several natures and capacities, because He has created all things, and for His “pleasure they are and were created.” The universal sin. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God.” The sin especially marked by God. Herod Agrippa eaten up of worms because he “gave not God the glory.” Yet few consider it a sin at all.
7. The stupidity of the human heart. Belshazzar’s riotous feast at the very time when the city and country were in imminent peril. With such an enemy as Cyrus at his gates and in possession of great part of the country, a fast would have been more becoming than a feast. Men often most heedless when in greatest danger. “In that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth; and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (Isa_22:12-13).
8. The destiny of men and nations in the hand of God. The days of Babylon and Babylon’s king were numbered. So the days of each State and of each individual in that State. “The number of his months is with Thee.” The hairs of our head are numbered, much more the days of your life. Yet man, as a free agent and a rational creature, generally responsible for the preservation of his own life and the life of others. The effect of sin to shorten the existence both of States and individuals. “The bloody and deceitful man shall not live out half his days.” On the other hand, prayer added fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life, and repentance saved Nineveh from an impending and threatened destruction.
9. The beneficial influence of woman. A woman’s presence and voice powerful amid the terror and consternation of Belshazzar’s banquet-hall. The aged queen the only one able to give counsel to the terrified and bewildered king. Presence of mind and perception of what is needed in times of perplexity and peril often found in woman. “The adaptation of woman to promote the comfort of life is a gracious provision of God; and the disposition to soothe anxiety, to alleviate suffering, to shield or aid in danger, is alike certain to operate and honourable to display.”—Cox.
10. The crime of wantonly profaning sacred things. This the acme of Belshazzar’s guilt. Men not unfrequently tempted, especially amid festivity and mirth, to commit this sin. God’s Word and ordinances sometimes profanely made to contribute to that mirth. “When the facts and the expressions of the Bible, its sublime, its pure, and its holy truths, are used, as they not uufrequently are, to point a pun, add edge to a jest or keenness to a sarcasm, to excite a laugh or to provoke a sneer, you have God’s vessels desecrated to an unhallowed and profane end. Never try to construct jests from the Bible.”—Cumming.
11. The danger of indulging in intoxicating drink. It was while drinking wine [140], perhaps not deeply, that Belshazzar, in his impious madness, called for the sacred vessels of the Temple to drink still more. The king, wicked and profane to begin with, made more so by the excitement of strong drink. Herod the Tetrarch a similar example. Wine given by a beneficent Creator for man’s refreshment and strength. But the same authority which states that wine “gladdeneth man’s heart,” says also, “Wine is a mocker, and strong drink is raging; and he that is deceived thereby is not wise” (Pro_20:1). The foulest crimes often, as at Belshazzar’s feast, the result of strong drink. “All those sanguinary conspiracies which issued in such a frightful effusion of Protestant blood in France were concocted at Blois, Bayonne, Paris, and Orleans, amid the festivities of the table, and in the society of the Salomes and other immoral women who constantly attended Catherine de Medici, the Herodias of the French.”—Gaussen.
[140] “Whiles he tasted the wine,” בִּטְעֵם חַמְרָא (bit’em khamra). Keil understands the expression to mean when the wine was relished by him, as Hitzig says, “In the wanton madness of one excited by wine.” The Vulgate has “temulentus,” tipsy. Vatablus and Calvin: heated and excited by the wine. Grotius: while drinking, the wine became more and more pleasant to him. M. Henry: when he had tasted how rich and fine the wine was, he, with a profane jest, thought it a pity not to have the best vessels to drink it in. A. Clarke: he relished it, got heated by it, and when wine got fully in, wit went wholly out. Belshazzar is usually represented as addicted to the lowest vices of self-indulgence. Wintle, however, thinks that the expression in the text may simply refer to the libation to the gods made at the beginning of the feast, and quotes the words of Virgil,’ “Primaque libato summo tenus attigit ore.”
12. The condition of unconverted men in general. That condition exhibited in the case of Belshazzar, as described in the writing on the wall,—
WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES AND FOUND WANTING (Dan_5:27)
1. Weighed in the balances. The figure taken from the practice of weighing the precious metals to test their purity. The balances those of the sanctuary, of Him who is the Judge of quick and dead [141]. Held by One who is omniscient, and whose knowledge no action, word, thought, feeling, wish, or secret motive can elude; who “searcheth the heart and trieth the reins;” who is impartial and no respecter of persons; and, finally, who is spotlessly just, judging of each act, word, thought, and feeling according to its real character and circumstances, and awarding accordingly. His balances just ones, such as He loves and requires of men. The weights in the balance to weigh these actions, &c., are His own law, which is just, and holy, and good, and adapted to man’s moral nature; a law which he was created capable of fulfilling, and in the obedience of which he finds his happiness; a transcript of God’s own character, which is love, and therefore requiring only love—supreme love—to our Maker, the sum and source of all excellence, and the fountain of all blessings to His creatures, with disinterested, universal, and impartial love to our neighbour; a law that is spiritual, taking cognisance of the inward thoughts, feelings, and motives, as well as outward acts and words, and requiring love as the character and mainspring of them all; a law as broad as man’s moral nature and capabilities, requiring him to glorify God with his body and his spirit, whether he eat or drink or whatever he does, and to desire and seek the welfare of his neighbour as his own in respect to his whole being as an immortal creature, possessing body, soul, and spirit; a law that admits of no sin or the least disobedience, all such being rebellion against God; a law the penalty of which, for even the least transgression, is, as it ought to be, death, or the separation of the sinning and polluted soul from God, who is life and purity itself. Against such a law, written in men’s consciences and revealed in God’s Word, men are weighed. “The Lord weigheth the spirits.” “By Him actions are weighed.” Job gets here his desire: “Oh, that I were weighed in an even balance.” Men weighed now as they are at each moment; every action, word, thought, and feeling as it passes. The great day of public weighing hereafter, when God shall “judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He has appointed,”—shall “judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”
[141] “Weighed in the balances.” The ancient Egyptians represented in a symbolical manner this weighing of individuals and their actions, as taking place after death, on one of the mummy cases in the British Museum. The soul is represented as “weighed in the balances,” and answered for by the embalmer of the dead. The soul was believed, by the Egyptians at least, to repose in the tomb till its gradual increase in virtue and size demanded its translation to heaven. It is seen, on the case, after being weighed, larger and larger still, and at last, when fully grown, rising up to heaven on the spread wings of the attendant scarabæus, its cherubic emblem. The idea, however, of God as our observer and judge, weighing men and their actions as moral agents, was already a Biblical one. See Job_31:6; Psa_62:9; 1Sa_2:3; Pro_16:2; Isa_26:7.
2. Found wanting. Universally true ever since man fell. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” A fact universally admitted, even by the heathen. That man is a sinner as true as that he is mortal, and the latter simply because he is the former. Man not merely a sinful creature but a fallen one. “God made man upright, but he hath sought out many inventions.” Man’s fall from a state of innocence a universal tradition. His character, when left to himself, notoriously not love but selfishness. “Mind number one” man’s rule of action; not “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” which is the law of God. Instead of loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, He is not in all our thoughts, and we do not desire to have Him there. The language of the natural heart, “Depart from us; we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” Dislike to a just and holy God, disregard of His will, and independence of His authority, the characteristics of fallen man in respect to his Maker. His nature corrupt, and no more the transcript of his Creator. Sin the character of his inner and outer life. His whole life oue continued shortcoming. Found wanting at every moment. The same true of every action, word, thought, and feeling, so far as they are the product of his own unrenewed nature. Even when the will may be to do what is right, the performance is wanting. Found wanting in all the relations of life, as parent and child, master and servant, ruler and ruled. A continuance in all the requirements of the law, day and night, all life through, in thought, word, and action, necessary to make him weight. Yet he continues in none, not even for an hour or a minute of his life. Hence the penalty of death incurred daily and hourly. “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” “The wages of sin—all and any sin—is death.”. “Guilty before God,” the charge against every child of man; “guilty of death,” his sentence.
3. Our only hope. Hope of acceptance with God from ourselves or any works of our own impossible. Every such attempt to gain acceptance only a further shortcoming. No action, word, thought, feeling, put into the scale, but is itself short weight. No more hope from our neighbour than from ourselves. Each in the same predicament. Every man must bear his own burden. Yet man’s case not hopeless. Hope not found in himself but in another. That other is Jesus Christ, “our hope.” The hope provided by the Creator Himself. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help found.” “He hath laid help on one that is mighty.” He who was the “hope of Israel “is the hope of a guilty world. The glad tidings from heaven—“There is born unto you a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.” “This is the name by which He shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” God in our nature, the Eternal Word made flesh, He is provided as our surety and substitute, the just one taking the place of the unjust. God’s “Righteous Servant,” fulfilling all righteousness, that, accepting and trusting in Him, His righteousness might be reckoned to us, and we might be accepted in Him. “He hath made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Co_5:21). To those who accept of Him, and so are in him, He is of God made righteousness as well as sanctification and redemption. Made one with Him, through acceptance of Him and trust in Him, His perfect obedience is ours, and is thrown into the scale as our own. “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made righteous.” Christ’s works, not our own, make us full weight; His, and at the same time ours by virtue of union with Him. His righteousness, not our own, the garment for the marriage feast. The sin and ruin of the Jews that they rejected this robe of righteousness. “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom_10:3). Reader, what have you to weigh against God’s law? Christ’s works or your own? If the former, as evinced by a new heart and life, you are accepted; if the latter, still “found wanting.” Lose no time in accepting Christ as your righteousness. You may even yet have His works put into the empty scale as your own. But soon it will be too late. Accept in time, or you are undone.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 Dan 5:1, Dan 5:6, Dan 5:25, Dan 5:28-30
Dan 5:1, Dan 5:6, Dan 5:25, Dan 5:28-30
The case of Belshazzar may be fairly assumed as a case of clear and powerful conviction of sin which did not result in the soul’s salvation. There is a class of men who suffer for years under hopeless and fruitless convictions of sin. There are certain truths which one who is living in the state of mind here described needs especially to consider:
Read full note →
I. One is, that the suffering which accompanies hopeless conviction of sin is no more than a sinner deserves.
II. One who suffers under unavailing convictions of sin should see that it is no proper effect of religion to produce such convictions. The legitimate tendency of piety in the soul is all benignant.
III. A third truth which should command the faith of one who endures ineffectual convictions of sin is, that God is a sinner’s Friend.
IV. One who labours under fruitless convictions needs to see that the chief obstacle to his salvation is not the want of a more perfect understanding of the theory of conversion.
V. The chief obstacle to the termination of fruitless convictions in peace with God is to be found in some plain, practical affair of character and real life.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 244.
Dan 5:1-31
I. Belshazzar’s feast was characterised by great intemperance.
II. It was characterised by great profanity.
III. This night was one of supernatural visitation.
IV. This was a night of terrible retribution.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 98.
References: Dan 5:1-31.—W. M. Taylor, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 240. Dan 5:5.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 158. Dan 5:10-23.—Ibid. p. 220.
Dan 5:16
Note:—
I. The three principal sources and causes whence our doubts arise, and from which they get force to make their assault. They never come of truth or high discovery, but always of the want of it. (1) All the truths of religion are inherently dubitable. They are only what are called probable, never necessary truths, like the truths of geometry or of numbers. (2) We begin life as unknowing creatures that have everything to learn. We grope, and groping is doubt; we handle, we question, we guess, we experiment, beginning in darkness on towards intelligence. (3) It is a fact, disguise it as we can, or deny it as we may, that our faculty is itself in disorder. A broken or bent telescope will not see anything rightly. So a mind wrenched from its true lines of action or straight perception, discoloured and smirched by evil, will not see truly, but will put a blurred, misshapen look on everything.
II. Consider how doubts may be dissolved or cleared away. (1) The doubters never can dissolve or extirpate their doubts by inquiry, search, investigation, or any kind of speculative endeavour. They must never go after the truth to merely find it, but to practise it, and live by it. There is no fit search after truth which does not first of all begin to live the truth it knows. (2) The true way of dissolving doubts is to begin at the beginning and do the first thing first. Say nothing of investigation till you have made sure of being grounded everlastingly and with a completely whole intent, in the principle of right-doing as a principle. A soul once won to integrity of thought and meaning will rapidly clear all tormenting questions and difficulties. He will be in the Gospel as an honest man, and will have it as a world of wonderfully grand, perpetually fresh discovery.
III. Note a few points of advice. (1) Be never afraid of doubt. (2) Be afraid of all sophistries and tricks and strifes of disingenuous argument. (3) Have it as a fixed principle also, that getting into any scornful way is fatal. (4) Never settle upon anything as true because it is safer to hold it than not. (5) Have it as a law never to put force on the mind, or try to make it believe; because it spoils the mind’s integrity. (6) Never be in a hurry to believe, never try to conquer doubts against time.
H. Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subjects, p. 166.
References: Dan 5:17.—J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 403. Dan 5:22, Dan 5:23.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 149. Dan 5:23.—G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 161. Dan 5:24-31.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Quarterly vol. xii., p. 33. Dan 5:25.—F. W. Farrar, In the Days of Thy Youth, p. 325. Dan 5:27.—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 164; Ibid., Sermons, vol. v., No. 257. Dan 5:30.—R. D. Bickersteth. Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 65; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 56, and vol. vi., p. 244. Dan 5:31.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 233. 5—J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 113. Dan 6:1.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 233. Dan 6:1-3.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 220. Dan 6:1-10.—W. M. Taylor, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 299.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Belshazzar's Feast
Belshazzar's Feast
Belshazzar, king of Babylon, holds a great feast, at which he profanely uses the sacred vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the Temple at Jerusalem (Dan_5:1-4). He is terrified at seeing part of a human hand writing mysterious words on the wall of the banqueting room, and vainly offers great rewards to the wise men of Babylon if they can read and explain the writing (Dan_5:5-9). The queen tells him of Daniel, and of his fame for wisdom, acquired in Nebuchadnezzar's days. Daniel is accordingly sent for, and Belshazzar repeats to him his request and his promises (Dan_5:10-16).
Read full note →
Declining the offered reward Daniel rebukes Belshazzar for neglecting the lessons of humility taught by Nebuchadnezzar's history, and interprets the writing as a message of doom (Dan_5:17-29). That night Belshazzar is slain and Darius the Median receives the kingdom (Dan_5:30-31).
Teaching. The profanations of Belshazzar were very similar to those of Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma_1:20-24; 2Ma_5:15-17), and Belshazzar's fate would encourage the Jews in the time of Antiochus to hope that their oppressor would be similarly cut off.
1. Belshazzar the king] These words raise another historical difficulty, We learn from the inscriptions that Belshazzar was the son of Nabuna' id (Nabonidus), the last king of Babylon, and never occupied the throne himself. As Nabuna'id, however, was much occupied with antiquarian pursuits Belshazzar was practically 'prince-regent.' See on Dan_7:1; Dan_8:1.
2. Vessels] see Dan_1:2. His father Nebuchadnezzar] another historical difficulty. Nabuna'id was the father of Belshazzar, and was a usurper, who did not belong to the same family as Nebuchadnezzar. It is possible that he may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, but of this nothing is known. In that case 'father' would have the general sense of 'forefather' which it often bears in OT. But the emphasis laid on 'father' (Dan_5:11, Dan_5:13, Dan_5:18) and 'son' (Dan_5:19) seems to indicate that the writer had the literal relationship in view, and regarded Belshazzar as the actual son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar.
7. Scarlet] RV 'purple': so in Dan_5:16, Dan_5:29.
Be the third ruler] EM 'rule as one of three': so in Dan_5:16, Dan_5:29. The meaning is illustrated by the arrangement described in Dan_6:2.
12. Hard] RV 'dark.'
13. Jewry] RV 'Judah.'
19. People] RV 'peoples.'
25. The words are names of weights. The U in Upharsin stands for 'and,' and P(h) arsin is the plural of Peres (Dan_5:28). The literal meaning of the writing was 'amina, a mina, a shekel, and half minas.'
26-28. The interpretation given by Daniel is connected with the derivation of two of the terms. Mene signifies 'numbered'; Tekel (= shekel) suggests the process of weighing; and Peres is doubly explained, first by its etymology ('division'), and second by its assonance with 'Persian.'
30. Chaldeans] here used in the national sense, as equivalent to 'Babylonians.'
Was Belshazzar.. slain] The traditions about the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, which classical historians have preserved, are now known from the inscriptions of Cyrus himself to be incorrect. The army of Cyrus occupied Babylon without fighting, and Nabuna'id was captured. Cyrus himself afterwards entered the city in peace. A little later, however, there was a night assault made by Gobryas, the governor under Cyrus, in which 'the king's son' was slain.
31. Darius the Median (RV 'Mede')] presents the greatest historical difficulty in the book. In this v. he receives the kingdom of Babylon upon the death of Belshazzar. In Dan_6:1-2, Dan_6:25-26 he acts and speaks as a supreme sovereign; in Dan_6:28 he appears as a predecessor of Cyrus the Persian; in Dan_9:1 he is called 'Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.' No such person, however, is mentioned in any other historical source, and the inscriptions leave no room for an independent king of Babylon between Nabuna'id and Cyrus. Cyrus had conquered Media before invading Babylon, and his army comprised both Medes and Persians, Gobryas, the general of Cyrus, who acted under him as governor of Babylon, was probably a Mede, and the author of Daniel has apparently mistaken his subordinate office for an independent monarchy, and has confounded his name with that of Darius Hystaspes (the Darius of the book of Ezra), who was the father, and not the son, of Ahasuerus (Xerxes).
Took] RV 'received,'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv2, 11 Nebuchadnezzar was "father" of Belshazzar in the biblical sense…
father
Nebuchadnezzar was "father" of Belshazzar in the biblical sense that David is called "father" of Jesus, Luk 1:32. Belshazzar was probably a grandson.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 5 Belshazzar’s Feast
CHAPTER 5 Belshazzar’s Feast
1. Belshazzar’s licentious feast (Dan 5:1-4)
Read full note →
2. The writing on the wall (Dan 5:5-9)
3. Forgotten Daniel (Dan 5:10-16)
4. The message of Daniel (Dan 5:17-31)
Dan 5:1-4. This feast of wickedness and blasphemy needs no further annotations. But it shows the great decline morally in the great Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar, no doubt, had handled the golden vessels of the house of the Lord most carefully. He had stored them away, fearing to misuse them. The grandson sent for these vessels to drink out of them wine with his harlots and to praise his idols.
Dan 5:5-9. A mysterious finger then wrote over against the candlestick on the wall. The king saw plainly the part of the hand that wrote. The feast of licentiousness became suddenly a feast of gloom and consternation. Nor could the astrologers and wise men read the writing which had appeared on the wall.
Dan 5:10-16. At this point the queen, the aged widow of Nebuchadnezzar, appeared on the scene and called attention to an old man, who played such an important part during the reign of her husband. Daniel is sent for.
Dan 5:17-31. Daniel refused the honors of the king. He knew that ere long the blaspheming king would be no more. And Daniel was more than an interpreter of the handwriting on the wall. He is God’s prophet and messenger, as a reading of this portion of the chapter shows.
This chapter reveals the blasphemous character of the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Blasphemy, rejection of God’s truth are about us on all sides. There is a “Mene, Mene, Tekel” for apostate Christendom and for that final phase of Babylon as revealed in Rev 17:1-18; Rev 18:1-24.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Feast and the Handwriting.
The Feast and the Handwriting.
v. 1. Belshazzar, the king, the son of Nabonidus, either natural or adopted, and coregent with him, apparently the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine before the thousand, the banquet becoming a drunken orgy. He was in command of the capital at that time and excelled in most of the vices for which Oriental rulers were known.
Read full note →
v. 2. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, sitting before them on a platform or dais, when he had just gotten under the influence of the wine’s intoxicating power, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father, or grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the Temple which was in Jerusalem, Cf Jer 52:19; 2Ki 25:14-17, that the king and his princes, the foremost nobles of the realm, his wives and his concubines, whose presence at the royal banquets is mentioned also by secular historians, might drink therein, using them to parade their drunken mockery.
v. 3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the Temple of the house of God, out of the Sanctuary proper, which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines, drank in them. This act can in no wise be excused or condoned, not even as an act of religion, as a libation to the God of the Jews: it was a deed of reckless profanity.
v. 4. They drank wine and, in their intoxicated condition, praised the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. It was thus essentially an exaltation of their idols above Jehovah, of whom they thought that they had conquered Him in battle; but the prophet indicates the vanity of their idols by enumerating the materials of which they were made.
v. 5. In the same hour, suddenly, while they were still in the midst of their drunken revelry, came forth fingers of a man’s hand and wrote, or were writing, over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, which had no paneling or tapestry; and the king saw the part of the hand, the extremity of the moving fingers, that wrote. "Upon a spot of the wall which was particularly exposed to the light from the lamp above the king, he suddenly beheld the mysterious and terrifying phenomenon of the hand engaged in writing. "
v. 6. Then the king’s countenance was changed, literally, "Then the king, his color was changed unto him," and his thoughts troubled him, as his guilty conscience filled him with terror, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, they no longer possessed the strength to hold the body together firmly, and his knees smote one against another, his terror causing him to lose control of them entirely. "How changed the scene from the glee of his blasphemous revelry to this paleness of cheek, convulsion of frame, remorse of conscience, and dread foreboding of doom! Many a sinner has had a like experience, and other thousands must have it!" (Cowles. )
v. 7. The king cried aloud, his terror causing him to raise his voice with might, to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, that is, all the wisest men of the realm. And the king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon, as many as followed his summons at once, Whosoever shall read this writing and show me the interpretation thereof, explaining its meaning and applying its significance, shall be clothed with scarlet, with the costly purple garments worn by Oriental rulers, and have a chain of gold about his neck, this golden necklace serving as the mark of special favor from the king, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom, occupying the highest position in the realm, next to its emperor and coregent.
v. 8. Then came in all the king’s wise men, one after the other appearing in agreement with his summons; but they could not read the writing nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. In other words, they had to confess their complete failure.
v. 9. Then, on account of the utter inability of the wise men to give him the desired information, was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, he was filled with deepest apprehension and trepidation, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied, not only being filled with alarm, but also with confusion, which showed itself in excited movements. "None retained their places; a general uproar ensued; groups were formed; and the people talked and ran hither and thither to no purpose. "
v. 10. Now the queen, the queen mother, or dowager, very likely the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, the sound of which, as they raised their voices in their excitement, penetrated to her apartments, came into the banquet house; and the queen spake and said, O king, live forever! the customary address in her mouth detracting in no way from the quiet dignity of her coming. Let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed, by the worry and terror inspired by the mysterious writing on the wall.
v. 11. There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, the queen-mother thus repeating the very language of Nebuchadnezzar, 4:8; 9:18; and in the days of thy father, or grandfather, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the King Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, the king, I say, thy father, the repetition serving to give her words greater emphasis, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers, 4:9,
v. 12. forasmuch as an excellent spirit, a most extraordinary talent, and knowledge and understanding, interpreting of dreams and showing of hard sentences, giving the explanation of riddles and conundrums, and dissolving of doubts, literally, "untying knots," that is, finding the solutions of the most intricate problems, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now, let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. "As Daniel was probably, according to Oriental custom, deprived of the office to which Nebuchadnezzar had promoted him, as master of the magicians, at the king’s death, although he may still have remained in the service of the state, Belshazzar might easily have been ignorant of his services. "
v. 13. Then was Daniel brought in before the king; summoned to appear without delay. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king, my father, or grandfather, brought out of Jewry? The question was intended merely to fix the identity of Daniel beyond the slightest doubt and as such required no answer.
v. 14. I have even heard of thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee, the king omitting the adjective "holy" which the queen-mother had used, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.
v. 15. And, now, the wise men, the astrologers, the soothsayers only being mentioned as representing the entire class of wise men of the kingdom, have been brought in before me that they should read this writing and make known unto me the interpretation thereof; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing, they could not give the explanation of the words on the wall;
v. 16. and I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations and dissolve doubts, untie the hardest knots. Now, if thou canst read the writing and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about thy neck and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom, the promise made earlier in the evening in a more general way thus being applied to Daniel alone. Like Belshazzar, the unbelievers are often troubled by the terrors of an evil conscience and readily have recourse to almost any solution which offers in order to know their fate or to gain peace of mind.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 This is the son of Nebuchadnezzar who became king…
Belshazzar
This is the son of Nebuchadnezzar who became king after his father. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
for a thousand
"for 1,000" (See: Numbers)
he drank wine in front of
"he drank wine in the presence of"
the containers made of gold or silver
This can be stated in active form. AT: "the gold or silver containers that the Israelites had made" (See: Active or Passive)
containers
These were cups and other items that were small enough for a person to hold and to drink from them.
Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken
Here "Nebuchadnezzar" refers to Nebuchadnezzar's army. AT: "his father Nebuchadnezzar's army" or "the army of Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken" (See: Metonymy)
translationWords
king
feast
noble
wine
gold
silver
Nebuchadnezzar
temple
Jerusalem
concubine
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 5:1-30 Earthly kingdoms all pass away. As Nebuchadnezzar’s dream…
5:1-30 Earthly kingdoms all pass away. As Nebuchadnezzar’s dream implied, Babylon would pass away and a new sovereign kingdom would take its place (2:39). After Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562 BC, violence and debauchery increased in the palaces of Babylon until, during Belshazzar’s feast in 539 BC, even God’s holy vessels were polluted and defiled. God’s judgment came with lightning swiftness that night (5:30), and the next kingdom took over (see 2:32, 39; 5:31).
5:1 Many years later: This chapter opens in October 539 BC (see study note on 5:30). • The name Belshazzar means “Bel Protects [the King]” (Bel was a Babylonian god). Nabonidus (556–539 BC) placed his son Belshazzar on the Babylonian throne around 553 BC as ruler in his stead. Then Nabonidus moved to Tema in northwest Arabia, where he stayed for ten years. He returned to Babylon only in the unsuccessful attempt to oppose the Persians (cp. 5:30-31).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.