Daniel 5

Daniel Chapter FiveVerse 1 This chapter relates the events of the last night of the Babylonian empire. The first thing that the Christian student confronts in the study of this chapter is a barrage of assertions by critical commentators that the events here recorded are “unhistorical.” This should produce no uneasiness whatever upon the part of believers. The events here reported are unassailable; and this may be viewed as the only accurate report of that final fatal night of the power of Babylon. The contradictory, inaccurate, and confusing secular records of the sixth century B.C. have, of course, been made the grounds of denying the historical accuracy of this chapter. The key fact to remember, however, is that there are numerous ancient writers who have mentioned the fall of Babylon, including: Berosus, Abydenus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Josephus, and that, “They contradict each other!"[1] Josephus contradicts Berosus; Herodotus and Zenophon agree with Daniel in vital points; statements by Berosus and Abydenus are known to be unhistorical, etc., etc. The point of this is simply that the extra-Biblical records of events related to this chapter are an unqualified can of worms. There is no single author of that remote period who could be trusted above the simple and straightforward record we have before us in this chapter. Moreover, there has never been a single charge against the Book of Daniel that could not be paralleled by as many or more charges of inaccuracy against any other author in human history who treated the subject discussed here. Daniel is far more trustworthy than any other writer whose works have come down to us. “The historical credibility of this narrative is established, because opponents of its genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that the Biblical account is fiction, any situation that can be comprehended as accounting for it in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and the times of the Maccabees."[2]The words of Young on this subject are: “The fifth chapter of Daniel, though it has often been attacked as inaccurate in its statements, is nevertheless noteworthy for its accuracy."[3] In the text we shall note a number of passages once alleged to be inaccurate which are now known to be exactly true. The summary of the chapter is: the king’s insolent deed (Daniel 5:1-4); the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5-9); the queen-mother’s suggestion (Daniel 5:10-12); the king’s request (Daniel 5:13-16); Daniel’s admonition to the king (Daniel 5:17-24); Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting (Daniel 5:25-28); and the sequel (Daniel 5:29 to Daniel 6:1). Daniel 5:1-4 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was in 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 brass, or iron, of wood, and of stone. The date of this remarkable banquet was the night in which Babylon fell, usually given in the history books as in 538 B.C. A Babylonian text (presumably of Herodotus) was cited by Millard, which gave the date of this event as October 12,539 B.C.[4]“Belshazzar the king …” It was at one time the arrogant assertion of Biblical enemies that there never was any such king as Belshazzar during the final years of Babylon. Andrews was boasting as recently as in 1924 that, “The statements of the historians and the evidence of the Inscriptions make it abundantly clear that at the time of the conquest the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus."[5] He even went on to say that it is “impossible” that Belshazzar could have been king at that time. But, as has been the case so frequently, in the case of blatant and confident denials of God’s Word, archeologists have excavated from the mud of Mesopotamia dramatic and undeniable proof of the Bible’s accuracy. “One of the cuneiform documents expressly states that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar."[6] It follows, of course, that if a man has been entrusted with the kingship and is exercising all of the authority and privileges of autocratic rule, then he should properly have been addressed as “king,” exactly as in this chapter. That Nabonidus the “king’s” father was still living, and that Belshazzar’s true status was that of a sub-king while his father was either absent or incapacitated appears in Belshazzar’s promise to make Daniel the “third ruler” in the kingdom, indicating that Belshazzar himself was the “second ruler” in the kingdom, under his father, the true king, Nabonidus. Thus the Book of Daniel fits the true facts of history perfectly. Charges are also leveled against this passage because of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as “the father” of Belshazzar. This is no problem whatever. In the Hebrew usage of the term, the word father is often used for grandfather, as in Genesis 9:20-25, where Canaan, a grandson, is called Noah’s son. Also, father is also used for ancester. Jeffery admitted that this usage of father in such a loose sense was common, but went on and called such an explanation “unsatisfactory."[7] “That this true explanation is indeed “unsatisfactory” to critics is of no concern at all to believers. Owens declared unequivocally that, “Daniel 5:2 refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s predecessor."[8]“And drank wine before the thousand …” (Daniel 5:1). Jeffery stated that this might mean either of two things: (1) the king, by drinking first, opened the drinking phase of the banquet, or (2) that he drank before the thousand in the sense of doing so in their presence.[9] It is our opinion that the king probably did both. The critical allegation that Belshazzar’s actions here “were very similar to those of Antiochus Epiphanes,"[10]is absolutely untrue. Antiochus robbed the treasury of the temple, but he did not do so for pleasure, as did Belshazzar here, but because he found himself in dire financial straits. Besides that, look at the rewards that Belshazzar heaped upon Daniel. We might go so far as to say that nothing in this passage is remotely suggestive of Antiochus Epiphanes. Frequent references to this alleged resemblance by critics is merely their device of trying to import such a likeness into the chapter. Keil and many other great scholars have exposed this error repeatedly. Belshazzar’s behavior here was incredibly arrogant and sinful. To begin with, he was not actually king in the full sense of that word. “Belshazzar here had insolently and arrogantly taken to himself a higher position and authority than were rightfully his. Many elected officials of church and state have done likewise."[11]“Gobryas, Cyrus’ great general, was at that very moment making his way up the bed of the Euphrates, its waters diverted by a canal, leaving the gates of Babylon unguarded."[12]The bringing of the women into the banquet hall, probably at a point in the feast when the drinking had begun, is a strong suggestion of the immorality and debauchery which usually attended such affairs. Keil tells us that both Herodotus and Xenophon confirm the fact of Babylon’s fall upon the occasion of a drunken feast in Babylon.[13]Verse 5 “In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers. The king spake and said unto the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king’s wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were perplexed.“THE ON THE WALL"Excavations in Babylon have uncovered a great hall more than 50 feet by 160 feet;[14] and, “Robert Kildewey’s excavations at Babylon have uncovered just such a large banqueting hail with walls of white plaster."[15] This is mentioned to emphasize the minute accuracy of everything mentioned in this chapter.

Therefore, there cannot be any excuse for Jeffery’s comment that, “The fact that this chapter does not agree with actual history is of no importance."[16] It is our contention that such a remark is irresponsible, inadmissible, and unacceptable to a believer. The critical proposition that, “Such stories were not written to teach history, but to teach a religious lesson,"[17] and that the authors were totally unconcerned with historical accuracy is a base falsehood. It is our conviction that, at last, the critical community have totally over-reached themselves by accepting a premise so false and ridiculous. If Biblical writers tried to teach religious lessons by relating false stories, they themselves were fraudulent, dishonest, and untruthful. One cannot help wondering if Biblical critics themselves are guilty of alleging “falsehoods” in order to teach religious lessons. After all, the critical approval of such methods surely raises the question. Thus it is clear that allegations like the one just cited actually tell us far more about the critics than they tell us about the Bible. “The third ruler in the kingdom …” (Daniel 5:7). This, of course, implied that Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler; and, “This is a mark of accuracy such as would be almost inconceivable if the Book of Daniel were a product of the 2century."[18] As Culver stated it, “No Jew of Palestine in the 2century could possibly have written a thing like this."[19]It is important to note that Belshazzar’s actions were especially wicked because of the contempt he showed by his actions against the true God. The sacred vessels dedicated to the service of Jehovah and robbed out of the Temple by Babylonian conquerors were used by this arrogant and lustful king as instruments of his sensuous pleasure, while at the same time he was praising the idol gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone. The Jewish opinion to the effect that Belshazzar had deliberately decided to insult Jehovah because of a miscalculation on his part is quite interesting. Jeremiah had prophesied that the Jewish captivity would end in 70 years; and it is alleged that Belshazzar mistakenly calculated that the 70 years were ended, that the victory over Jehovah and his people was complete, and that it was at that time perfectly safe for him to insult and blaspheme Jehovah. Below is given the possible manner of his miscalculation: “Belshazzar figured on the basis of Jeremiah’s statement that Belshazzar had been in the kingdom some 23 years at that time (though not king all of that period), that the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was 45 years, and that Evil-Merodach had been king two years, thus making up the full seventy."[20]Belshazzar, however, made the same mistake some make today in counting Israel’s captivity from the beginning of Israel’s deportation instead of from the completion of it. “Bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers …” (Daniel 5:7). “Once more these monumental frauds appeared. Not only did they not know God (1 Corinthians 1:21) in “their wisdom”, they knew little else."[21]THE QUEEN-MOTHER’S Verse 10 “Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: the queen spake and said, O king, live forever; let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed. There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the holy gods, were found in him; and the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothesayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and 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.“The appearance of the queen and her addressing the king without being solicited to do so attest, “…The remarkable accuracy of this chapter. In Babylonia, the queen-mother held the highest rank in the royal house."[22] The queen who appeared in this scene could not have been the king’s wife, for the “wives and concubines” of the revelers were already present. Barnes gives us the name of this queen. “She was Nitocris and could not fail to have been well acquainted with the character and services of Daniel."[23] This grand lady might well have been a believer in the true God; and, as Jeffery stated, “Although gods is used in the plural form both in this place (Daniel 5:11), and in Daniel 4:8, the sense is singular."[24] One of the primary words for God in the Old Testament is [~‘Elohiym], and the term is plural; but as in the case here, the meaning is singular. We have already noted that “father” in these passages might mean any one of a number of things. Culver believed that in this passage it only meant “Father in a legal sense,"[25] basing his view upon the probable fact of Belshazzar’s having been “adopted” into the ruling dynasty. Other scholars appear to be certain that Belshazzar was actually a blood descendant of Nebuchadnezzar through Evil-Merodach, and therefore he was really the grandson of the famous Nebuchadnezzar. Until more is certainly known of the history of that whole period, it is a waste of time to wade through all of the guesses and theories. Verse 13 “Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, who art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah? I have heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in thee And now the wise men, the enchanters, 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. But I have heard of thee, that thou canst give interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now, if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.“THE KING’S REQUESTThe account here is probably abbreviated. Notice that the king mentions Daniel’s being of the children of the captivity of Judah. Did the king suddenly remember this, or did this information appear in the words of the queen somewhat earlier? The text does not tell us. The bankruptcy of the human family concerning any reliable knowledge of the future, or of the supernatural, is pitifully apparent in such a passage as this. Babylon was the head of the ancient world at the time of this episode; and yet its king, calling for the wisest men on earth, as they were alleged to be, found them absolutely ignorant of any information that could have been valuable to the king. But, is it any different now? The answer is NO! All that men know of the future, or of the will of Almighty God, is found in the Bible. Only within its sacred pages may one learn how the lost fellowship with our Creator may be restored and how a mortal may be rescued from the certain destruction that is coming upon all of Adam’s rebellious race.

As regards such verities as life and death, time and eternity, heaven and hell, life after death, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal Judgment, the eternal destiny of men, or any other of those most important problems confronting the human mind, our brilliant educators, philosophers, and intellectuals are on an absolute parity with the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers of ancient Babylon. Only in the Word of God may one find the “Words of Life.” Despite this, the world rushes on in the gathering shadows neglecting its only true source of that knowledge which is able to save the soul. Verse 17 “Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; nevertheless I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty: and because of the greatness that he gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: and he was driven from the sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts; and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; until he knew that the Most High God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and setteth up over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this, but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk wine from 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 his hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, thou hast not glorified. Then was the part of the hand sent from him, and this writing was inscribed.“DANIEL’S TO THE KINGDaniel’s refusal of the king’s gifts has been interpreted in radically different manners. Some have seen it as an affirmation by Daniel that he would interpret the writing without regard to gifts; and others have declared that, “Daniel’s speech to the king here was insulting, and if he had made such a speech he surely would have been punished."[26] We reject such a view, and also the same author’s contention that the majority of this passage in Daniel 5:17-24 is an interpolation, basing that notion on the absence of most of this from the Septuagint.

It is possible, however, that this abbreviated account may have lost some of its color by the omission of the formalities and stereotyped salutations that usually marked such court appearances. Regarding the gifts, Daniel later accepted them in spite of the disclaimer that stands here. Barnes’ view of this passage appears to be the best. He said, “Daniel (in refusing the gifts) meant merely that, ‘I do not act from hope of reward,’ intimating that what he did would be done from a higher motive than a desire for reward or office."[27]Verse 25 “And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE; MENE TEKEL, U - PHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and brought it to an end.TEKEL; thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.“DANIEL’S OF THE In the interpretation, it should be noticed that Daniel read the last word as Peres, instead of U-Pharsin. The reason for this was that, “The U' in Aramaic is a simple connective such as and.’ The Ph' is an aspiration of P’ to accommodate the preceding vowel sound. The passage reads: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Peres, the Mene being repeated for emphasis.'"[28]The words could be pointed in two different directions, thus making two different meanings of the passage possible. The two meanings are (1) "a mina, a mina, a half shekel (Tekel = shekel), and half minas."[29] (2) The other meaning is that given in the passage above. Keil noted, however that "divided" in the meaning ofPERES does not mean merely, cut in two. "The word means to divide into pieces or to dissolve the kingdom."[30] We would say that it was to be shattered or smashed. Of particular interest is the announcement that the kingdom will be given to "The Medes and Persians." This cannot mean that part would be given to Medes and another part to the Persians. "The writing indicates that the Babylonian kingdom would be turned over to the Medes and Persians; here the Medes and Persians are taken to be a single unit. Also, the Medes and Persians are noted as combined in <a href="/bible/parallel/DAN/6/8" class="green-link">Daniel 6:8</a>; <a href="/bible/parallel/DAN/6/12" class="green-link">Daniel 6:12</a>; <a href="/bible/parallel/DAN/6/15" class="green-link">Daniel 6:15</a>."[31] This makes it positively certain that no "Median Empire" was developed between Babylon and the Greeks. Only this one government, that of the Medes and Persians, existed between Babylon and the Greeks, meaning that the Greek empire was the third, not the fourth world kingdom identified with the Great Image in Daniel 2. The meaning of those three mysterious words of this passage may be reduced to only three words in English, as follows: ; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED, or ; WEIGHED; AND SMASHED.[32] Culver preferred, COUNTED; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED.[33]"<a href="/bible/parallel/DAN/5/28" class="green-link">Daniel 5:28</a> proves conclusively that the author of Daniel believed that the successor to Babylon was a dual kingdom, including two national elements; he was not guilty of supposing that the second and third empires of Daniel 2 were the Median and Persian powers respectively. Unbelieving criticism is hung’ by this verse!"[34] Amen! Verse 29 “Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him, that he should be made the third ruler in the kingdom.“DANIEL According to the rules of courtesy in those times, it would have been improper for Daniel to have refused the honors bestowed upon him by Belshazzar; and Daniel’s acceptance here of the gifts mentioned in Daniel 5:17, indicates that Daniel meant no disrespect whatever to the king in that passage. A very valuable comment on this is: “If Belshazzar was intended to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, certainly the portrait here is utterly unlike anything that we know of Antiochus. He was cruel and treacherous and would never have kept such a promise as the one which king Belshazzar here kept with reference to Daniel."[35]The whole critical conspiracy of making the Book of Daniel a product of the second century self-destructs upon a careful study of the Book of Daniel. It is not merely an erroneous theory, but an impossible one. Verse 30 “In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.“THE Darius did not take the Median kingdom; Darius the Mede took the kingdom for the Medo-Persians. No “Median kingdom” is in the passage. It was just like saying that Eisenhower the Texan took the presidency! or that William the Frenchman took the kingdom of England in 1066. Of course, the critics are certain that there never was such a king as Darius; and it is difficult to know just what the passage here indicates. We believe that the passage stands without any support whatever from secular history. Truth revealed in God’s Word needs no outside support. Faith can wait on the ultimate answer here. Many ancient kings had more than one name; and it is possible that Darius was another name for Cyrus whom the secular historians identify as the ruler who captured Babylon. Culver concluded that Darius was a sub-king under Cyrus.[36] “Some authorities have identified Darius with Gobryas (of which the name may be a corruption), who is said to have commanded the attacking army at the siege of Babylon, and as viceroy of Cyrus to have taken over the government of the city, appointing governors, etc."[37] Either of these very plausible and reasonable solutions of the problem could be correct; but no believer need feel any embarrassment by a little problem like this. It is the truth that Darius the Mede received the kingdom!

Commentary On Daniel Five by Eric HallDaniel 5In this chapter, Daniel says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father. In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son. Let’ s recall what we had to say in our introduction about these questions: Belshazzar was once thought to be merely a figment of Daniel’ s very active imagination. Then an inscription was found in which Belshazzar was mentioned by name and was said to have been left in charge when the Persians invaded just like Daniel 5 says happened. By the time of the Greek historian Herodotus (called the father of history), writing about 100 years later, the name of Belshazzar had been completely forgotten except for the mention in the book of Daniel. The story of Herodotus provides a good example of the bias of historians against the scripture. You have probably heard that the three big pyramids at Giza were built as tombs for Pharaoh’ s from the 4th dynasty. How do we know this? After all, no pharaoh has ever been found in one of these pyramids, and no evidence of any royal burial has ever been found. The answer is that some tour guide told Herodotus that this was the case and historians have been repeating it ever since with no other evidence. What if the Bible had said this instead? Would historians have accepted it so readily as the true explanation? I doubt it. If Daniel had been written in the second century as the liberals suggest then how did the author know about Belshazzar? To a truly unbiased historian, this mention would be enough evidence to prove the early date for the book of Daniel. But the historians in our universities are hardly unbiased. They will obtain a naturalistic answer no matter what amount of evidence they have to disregard. (I don’ t mind their bias as much as I mind their claim that the bias does not exist. I have a bias toward believing God and his word, but I also readily admit that bias.) 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in Daniel 5 and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter when Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus? The Hebrew use of “ father” and “ son” can simply mean “ ancestor” and “ descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar. Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. A second explanation is that “ by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.” This may have been the usage in Jeremiah 27:7. Jeremiah 27:7 All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave. 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon when his father was the actual king? Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon. One commentator has written: Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy. Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found which imply that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about! The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’ s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in Daniel 5 indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king. Just the opposite is true, however! Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first! How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this? One modern scholar has written: We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538. Perhaps we already know! 3: Why not just call him the “ son of Nabonidus” since that is what he actually was? Nabonidus was a very unpopular king. This may explain why he was absent from the city of Babylon for 14 years. Also, inscriptions have been found that show Nabonidus claimed to have authority from Nebuchadnezzar to administer his kingdom. Thus, it is quite likely that his sons were required to be addressed as sons of Nebuchadnezzar to stress this connection. (Belshazzar and his mother both refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter.) This is not unlike presidents who like to stress their connections with Lincoln, FDR, JFK, or Ronald Reagan. Verse 1-4 1 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. 2 Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought in the golden and silver vessels which had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. It was bad enough when Nebuchadnezzar looted the temple and stole the gold and silver vessels, but now Belshazzar and his friends were using them in a drunken feast while they praised their false gods and idols. What else was going on while the king was giving this feast? History tells us that this ‘ great feast’ was occurring while the Persians and Medes were camped outside of the city! Belshazzar was no doubt trying to drown his fears with this drunken feast, but as dark as things seemed they were about to get much worse. The ‘ Nabonidus Chronicle,’ which has recently been unearthed, says that Belshazzar’ s father Nabonidus had abandoned the city and fled leaving his son (and, as we will see, perhaps his own wife) to face the enemy forces alone. Looked at in this light, Belshazzar becomes a very pitiable and perhaps even sympathetic character. The ‘ Nabonidus Chronicle’ also says that the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any battle, which as we will see is precisely the picture we get from Daniel 5. Verse 1 says that Belshazzar “ tasted the wine.”Some feel that this phrase refers to a ritual that preceded the feast in which the king tasted the wine. Others think that this is a euphemism for saying that the king was drunk – which seems to fit the context very well. If alcohol did indeed play a part in the king’ s fall, then Belshazzar would join the ranks of many kings and kingdoms that have fallen due to drunkenness – including Alexander the Great, Napoleon at Waterloo, and the French in World War II. Notice how the vessels mentioned in the first chapter (written in Hebrew) play a prominent role in this story from the fifth chapter (written in Aramaic). It is this type of evidence that causes even liberal scholars to agree that Daniel was written by a single author even though two languages were used. We might pause at this point and wonder why these temple vessels were so important. After all they themselves like the false gods of the Babylonians were just made of gold and silver. They were important because they were God’ s. They were important because God made them important – and neither Belshazzar nor we have any right to question their importance. Here is an important lesson for us: No person is in a position to tell God what is important and what is not important. Most religious division is caused by people who decide all by themselves that God couldn’ t possibly think that BLANK is important, where they fill in the BLANK with some clear command of God they don’ t want to do. ‘This is what Jesus said that is important and this is what Jesus said that is not important…’ ‘ This is the part of God’ s pattern for proper worship that is important and this is the part that is not important…’ ‘ This is the part of God’ s plan for salvation that is important and this is the part that is not…’ ‘ This is the part of what Paul said about Christian conduct that is important and this the part that is not…’ Good starting point: Everything that God has to say about anything is of the utmost importance and we should treat it that way. Verse 5-6 5 Immediately the fingers of a man’ s hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’ s palace, opposite the lampstand; and the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’ s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. No trumpet blast, no earthquake, no fanfare. Just the fingers of a hand that appeared, wrote four words (2 of which were identical), and then vanished – leaving only the words on the wall. Everything stopped as the king gazed at the words. His color changed, his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The ‘ color’ or ‘ countenance’ in verse 6 literally means ‘ brightness.’ That is, his bright looks, his cheerfulness, and his hilarity changed. One commentator has written: Belshazzar had as much of power and of drink withal to lead him to bid defiance to God as any ruffian under heaven; and yet when God, as it were, lifted up his finger against him, how poorly did he crouch and shiver. How did his joints loose, and his knees knock together! Verse 7-9 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king 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.” 8 Then all the king’ s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed; and his lords were perplexed. Belshazzar promises to make the interpreter the third ruler in the kingdom. Why the third? Belshazzar could make someone only the third ruler, because he himself was the second ruler, and his father Nabonidus was the first ruler. It would be helpful if the liberals who see mistakes around every corner in the Bible would bother to read the Bible that they love to attack. If they did they would discover that Daniel knew Belshazzar was not the supreme ruler in Babylon. The wise men “ could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation.” Why couldn’ t the king’ s advsiors read and interpret this message? Many theories have been advanced to explain why the king’ s wise men could not read this message or interpret it. (Why they could not interpret it is easier to explain than why they could not read it.) 1: What language were the words written in? Many think that the words were written in Aramaic since that is the language used in Chapter 5. However, if this were the case then the wise men would have been able to read the words. Others think that the words were written in Hebrew. This would better explain the facts that we have in this chapter. The wise men might not have been able to read Hebrew, whereas Daniel certainly could have read the message. Other suggestions include the Phoenician language and an unknown language known only to Daniel. There is very little evidence for such suggestions. 2: If the language was Aramaic, then how can we explain why the wise men were unable to read it? The words may have been written using just consonants and no vowels. Thus, in interpreting the message, Daniel completed the words by filling in the appropriate vowels. Some suggest that the wise men were stricken with blindness, but the king was apparently unable to read the message as well. The Jews believe that the words were written vertically forming an anagram. If this were true then the message would be unintelligible if read horizontally. Others think only the first letters of the words may have been given, or the words may have been jumbled. The simplest explanation seems to be that the words were written in Hebrew, and Daniel was the only person around who could read Hebrew. Verse 10-12 10 The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall; and the queen said, “ O king, live for ever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change. 11 There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, 12 because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.” The queen in verse 10 was probably the wife of Nabonidus, Belshazzar’ s mother, since verse 2 tells us that Belshazzar’ s ‘ wives’ were present at the feast and this queen was not at the feast, but came in when she heard the trouble. Herodotus tells us that Nabonidus’ wife was named Nitocris. Whoever this queen was, she was not at the drunken feast. This suggests that she may have been the real power here since someone was presumably worrying about the Persians who were camped outside. We have said earlier that it is quite likely that Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to secure his claim to the throne. These verses support that claim. This queen seems to have known a lot about Daniel and his dealings with Nebuchadnezzar. This would be easy to explain if Nebuchadnezzar were her father. Notice that even the queen herself refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar. How did Belshazzar know about the temple vessels in the first place? Perhaps his mother told him about the items that her father had brought back from Jerusalem. Further, note in verse 10 that the queen entered the king’ s presence unbidden. According to Esther 4:11 she could have been put to death for this under the Persian system. Perhaps a similar system was used by the Chaldeans. The translators of the Septuagint thought so because they felt this behavior was so odd that they added the phrase ‘ The king called the queen on account of the mystery’ to explain it. But is this really that odd if this queen is Belshazzar’ s mother and the wife of the king? Again we are faced with question of why Daniel was called last and not first. Since this happens each time he is called, I am inclined to believe that God was behind it and arranged things so that it would happen this way each time. He seems to have wanted all of the other wise men to be proved incapable before Daniel was called – and this is just what happened each time. Verse 13-16 13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, “ You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. 14 I have heard of you that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. 16 But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Belshazzar, apparently meeting Daniel for the first time, relays the story of what has happened and offers Daniel the same rewards as he offered the others if he can interpret the writing. (“ You are that Daniel” in verse 13 can be translated “ Are you that Daniel?” which would further suggest that the king did not know who Daniel was.) Daniel had apparently lost his power and was living in obscurity. When did he lose his power and position? No doubt he lost it when Nebuchadnezzar died. In verse 13 Belshazzar refers to ‘ the king my father.’ He is not speaking of Nabonidus but of Nebuchadnezzar. Even Belshazzar himself referred to Nebuchadnezzar as his father. It was apparently very important to Nabonidus and Belshazzar that they legitimize their rule at every opportunity. Also, by mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar gave Daniel an opportunity to give him a little history lesson, which Daniel proceeds to do…. Verse 17-24 17 Then Daniel answered before the king, “ Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; nevertheless I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty; 19 and because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him; whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him; 21 he was driven from among men, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom he will. 22 And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this, 23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “ Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. Why did Daniel refuse the king’ s gifts? It would not have been wrong to accept them, since he had earlier accepted the gifts and favors of Nebuchadnezzar, as had his three friends on two occasions. Perhaps Daniel felt that he was too old to get back into government service, which would have been required had he assumed the position that Belshazzar offered. (However, he did serve a role in the Persian government, which took over the very next day!) The best explanation, however, may be that Daniel knew that Belshazzar’ s rule (and indeed the Chaldean kingdom) was not going to last much longer. Indeed, Belshazzar was killed that very night. As mentioned above, before Daniel interprets the message, he gives the king a history lesson. In verse 19 Daniel reminds Belshazzar that Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute sovereign. He could dispense life and death at his whim – unlike Belshazzar who seems to be much less powerful and mighty. Would Nebuchadnezzar have spent the night in a drunken feast with the enemy camped just outside the city? Daniel is telling the king: “ I knew Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Nebuchadnezzar!” The “ but” in verse 20 is the turning point in the story. Nebuchadnezzar was great, but…He was filled with pride and refused to give the glory to God. As bad as Nebuchadnezzar’ s punishment was, Belshazzar’ s punishment was going to be worse. Finally, like any good history teacher, Daniel reminds the king in verse 22 that he already knew all of this but he had not learned from the past. Verse 25-28 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Daniel next translates (perhaps) and interprets the four words (three different words) on the wall. Even if the king could have read the words they would have been hard to understand. Literally they mean “ Number, Number, Weight, Division.” The meaning is hardly clear. Daniel will need to tell the king what they mean. The first word ‘ MENE’ (mene) was repeated twice. This word means numbered, counted out, or measured. It meant that the years of Belshazzar’ s reign had been counted out to their very last one. Both his days and the days of his kingdom were numbered – that is, they were both coming to a swift end. The second distinct word was ‘ TEKEL’ (tekel). This word meant ‘ weighed’ and Daniel explained that Belshazzar had been weighed and found wanting. He did not measure up. The third distinct word was ‘ PARSIN.’ (The ‘ U’ in ‘ ’ in the King James Version means ‘ and.’ Thus, the final word on the wall was ‘ PARSIN.’ ) The word means ‘ to divide’ and Daniel says that Belshazzar’ s kingdom had been divided or separated from him and given instead to the Medes and the Persians who were at that time besieging the city. The ‘ divided’ or ‘ shared’ or ‘ fragmented’ may also refer to the sharing of power by the Medes and Persians. This would further discredit the liberal contention that Daniel thought a separate Median kingdom ruled before the Persians. There is a double word play at work with this word. This word also points to the word ‘ Persian,’ which means that Daniel knew that the kingdom that defeated the Chaldeans was the Persians operating with the Medes – and not the Medes all by themselves as the liberals suggest. These three words can also be translated to mean three different measures of weights. This may also explain why the king’ s advisors were unable to tell the king what the words referred to. Liberals have latched onto this and have suggested that instead of being written by God, the words were really written by a waiter at the feast who was trying to remember how much food to serve. (This would be funny if it were not so sad…) Verse 29 29 Then Belshazzar commanded, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put about his neck, and proclamation was made concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. Belshazzar was true to his word even though Daniel had given him very bad news. He made Daniel ‘ king for day’ – literally. One might have though that Belshazzar would have had Daniel killed on the spot for his effrontery. Why didn’ t he? He may not have wanted to appear untrue to his word in front of his guests. If he had lived, Daniel might not have fared well after the guests were gone. He may also have thought that God would spare him if he bestowed his gifts on Daniel and made him his prime minister. Verse 30 That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. While the king and his friends had been having their drunken feast, the Medes and the Persians were camped outside. History tells us that the Medes and the Persians diverted the river Euphrates to expose a dry river bed leading into the city under the wall. The historian Xenophon in telling the story confirms several of the details that we see here in Chapter 5. He wrote that “ the whole city that night seemed to be given up to revelry.” He also said that the king was killed the night the city was taken. The historian Herodotus, writing about 80 years after these events, explained what happened on that night: Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man’ s thigh, and thus got into the town. Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about, or had they noticed their danger, they would never have allowed the Persians to enter the city, but would have destroyed them utterly; for they would have made fast all the street-gates which gave upon the river, and mounting upon the walls along both sides of the stream, would so have caught the enemy as it were in a trap. But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and took the city. Owing to vast size of the place, the inhabitants of the central parts (as the residents at Babylon declare), long after the outer portions of the town were taken, knew nothing about what had chanced, but as they were engaged in a festival, continued dancing and revelling until they learnt the capture but too certainly. Verse 30 tells us that Belshazzar was killed that very night and verse 31 tells us that Darius the Mede took over after Belshazzar. Who was Darius the Mede? Recall our earlier comments on this subject: One critic (Professor H. H. Rowley of England) has written: The references to Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem of the book. … The claim of the Book of Daniel to be a work of history, written by a well-informed contemporary, is shattered beyond repair by this fiction of Darius the Mede. … So far as Darius the Mede is concerned, we have seen that there is no way of reconciling the Book of Daniel with assured history, and all the efforts of the apologists, of whom the present century has seen a new and plentiful crop, definitely fail. The truth of the matter is that this learned professor is dead wrong. (In fact, later work has shown that much of his supposed evidence was flawed.) Listen to what he had to say about this supposed historical inaccuracy in Daniel. Its very historical mistakes add to the fulness of its religious message to our hearts, for the God Who maketh the wrath of men to praise Him can also convert the mistakes of His servants, whose hearts are consecrated to His service, to rich use. If the book of Daniel has no historical reliability then it has no religious message at all. What does Jesus think about the historical reliability of Daniel? O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (Luke 24:25) In any event, Darius the Mede presents no difficulty at all. Daniel never claims that the Medes conquered the Chaldeans all by themselves – in fact he said just the opposite in Daniel 6:12. Darius was a governor who was subject to Cyrus, the king. In fact, in Daniel 9:1, we read explicitly that Darius ruled the kingdom of the Chaldeans – that is, Cyrus gave him that specific newly conquered territory to govern. (Notice Daniel does not say that Darius ruled the kingdom of the Medes!) It is interesting to note that Daniel gives far more information about the personal background of Darius than he does for Belshazzar or even Nebuchadnezzar . Daniel 5:30 says that Darius was 62 when he began to reign. (This use of a very particular detail does not sound like a vague recollection about a forgotten or imagined king.) Daniel 5:30 also tells us his nationality – Darius was a Mede. Daniel 9:1 says that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus. Thus, unlike even Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel tells us the age, the nationality, and the parentage of Darius. The late-date proponents claim that: The author of Daniel believed that a Median kingdom, under Darius, conquered Babylon and subsequently gave way to the Persian empire under Cyrus. Darius the Mede never actually existed but was a confused reflection of a later Persian ruler, Darius I (Hystaspes). The four kingdoms in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are thus Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Five reasons why this view is wrong: (1) The book of Daniel never claims that Darius was the king of Media but only that he was of Median descent. (2) The author of Daniel says that Darius and Cyrus had different ancestries (Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede), NOT that they ruled separate kingdoms. (3) Daniel 6:12 says that Darius was subject to the law of the Medes and Persians. If Darius ruled an independent kingdom of Media then why was he subject to the law of the Persians? (4) Daniel’ s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall in this chapter indicates that the Persians would be the main element of the empire that succeeded the Babylonians.(5) The vision in chapter 8 depicts a combined Medo-Persian empire as a single ram with two horns. The horn depicting Persia comes up last, but BEFORE the ram sets out to conquer. But couldn’ t the author of Daniel have been referring to Darius I, a later Persian king? No, for the following five reasons:

1. Darius I was Persian (a cousin of Cyrus) and not a Mede.2. Darius I was in his 20’ s when he began to reign, not 62.
2. Darius I began to reign 7 years after the death of Cyrus, whereas Darius the Mede and Cyrus were both in power when the Chaldeans were conquered.
3. In Daniel 5:31 we read that Darius received the kingdom and in Daniel 9:1 we read that he was made king. These passages imply that Darius’ power to rule came from a higher earthly authority (Cyrus). This was not true of Darius I who took control after the death of Cambyses.
4. The liberals would have us believe that Daniel was written in the second century BC and that Daniel mistakenly thought Darius I preceded Cyrus. Any such author would have been laughed to scorn. Every schoolboy of the time would have read the Greek historians and would have known that such was not the case. The Jews would never have let enter the canon a book containing such a grievous error. Just because the name ‘ Darius the Mede’ has not been found in any ancient inscriptions does not mean that he did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The critics made similar claims about Belshazzar and archaeology later proved them wrong. (We wait in vain for their apology…) Who then was Darius? We suggested in our introductory comments that Darius the Mede was an early governor of Babylon under Cyrus. The references to Darius in Daniel do not say that he ruled the Persian empire – only that he took control of the conquered Chaldean empire. It was a well known practice of Cyrus to appoint Medes to high positions in order to foster goodwill and loyalty. Which governor was he? John Whitcomb in his book Darius the Mede wrote the following: Gubaru the Governor of Babylon fits the Biblical description of Darius the Mede so remarkably that the writer believes he will be recognized in due time as the monarch who played such an important role in the life of Daniel and the fall of Babylon.

“THE BOOK OF DANIEL”

The Hand Writing On The Wall (Daniel 5:1-31)

1. So far in our study of the book of Daniel, we have seen… a. The faith of young Daniel, who made the commitment not to defile himself - Daniel 1b. The first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Daniel - Daniel 21) Prophesying the rise and fall of four world empires

2. Foretelling the establishment of the kingdom of Christ c. The faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the face of fire

• Daniel 3d. The second dream of Nebuchadnezzar and it is fulfillment, confirming that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men - Daniel 4

2. We now come to the Daniel 5, where we find an incident familiar to many… a. The event is often called: “The Hand Writing On The Wall"b. As with any Old Testament account, it was written for our admonition - cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11 [As we begin with the text, we first read of…]

I. BOOZE AND IN A KING’S COURT (Daniel 5:1-4) A. , THE KING…1. The time is now about 539 B.C. a. Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B.C. b. He was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach - cf. 2 Kings 25:271) After two years he was assassinated by Nergilissar, his brother-in-law 2) Who in turn died four years later (556 B.C.), leaving the throne to his infant son, Labashi-Marduk 3) Labashi-Marduk was soon deposed by a priestly revolution c. Nabonidus, a former priest under Nebuchadnezzar, was made king in 556 B.C.

1. Who was more interested in scholarly and religious pursuits
2. So he appointed his son Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon in his place d. Belshazzar therefore became co-regent in 550 B.C.
3. He was “second” in command
4. Which explains why he offered Daniel only the “third” position in the kingdom - cf. Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:293) Nebuchadnezzar is called his “father”

• Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:22a) Nabodonius (Belshazzar’s father) may have been Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, and it was common to refer to one’s ancestor as “father” b) Or “father” may be used figuratively

2. Belshazzar throws a big feast - Daniel 5:1-3a. Nebuchadnezzar had taken gold and silver vessels from the temple in Jerusalem - cf. 2 Chronicles 36:10b. Belshazzar adds insult to injury by using them in the feast

B. THEY PRAISED THE GODS OF GOLD AND SILVER…1. The king and guests foolishly praised the creation rather than the Creator 2. Would we ever stoop so low? a. Worship the gods of silver and gold? b. Become guilty of idolatry? 3. We do if we succumb to the sin of covetousness! - Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5a. When we make mammon (material riches) our god - cf. Matthew 6:24b. When we make created things the prime focus of our time and interest

[As we continue in Daniel 5, notice how quickly things change as we read of…]

II. PANIC AND IN A KING’S COURT (Daniel 5:5-9) A. THE HAND WRITING ON THE WALL…1. The fingers of a man’s hands appear - Daniel 5:5 a2. They write on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace

• Daniel 5:5 b3. Belshazzar sees the part of the hand that wrote - Daniel 5:5 c B. THE QUAKING KING…1. In the case of King Belshazzar… a. One moment his heart is puffed up with pride b. The next moment, his knees are knocking together - Daniel 5:6– A vivid illustration of: “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.” - Proverbs 16:183. All he saw was a man’s hand… a. What if he had seen the face of God? b. If just a tiny manifestation of God’s power had that effect, then what would be the effect of coming face to face with God?

4. What about the coming Judgment? Will we be able to stand? a. Not if we are wicked - cf. Psalms 1:5b. But we can if we have pure hearts and holy hands

• cf. Psalms 24:3-5 C. THE …1. Once again, a king appeals first to those unable to help
• Daniel 5:7-92. Just as Nebuchadnezzar did in Daniel 2, 43. People often do the same thing today in times of crisis a. They go to the wrong place for help

1. Looking to their own strength or wisdom
2. Or that of other people b. When they need to trust in God first - cf. Proverbs 3:5-10; Matthew 6:33 [As we continue with the Biblical account, we read of…]

III. THE ARRIVAL OF GOD’S MAN (10-16) A. THE ADVICE OF THE QUEEN…1. The queen was likely the “queen mother”, for the wives were already present - Daniel 5:10-12; cf. Daniel 5:22. Note that the queen was not present at the banquet… a. Could the one who knew where to turn in time of trouble, have also known the banquet was no place for her to be? b. Those who like to party and “live it up” are usually those who are lost in despair when trouble strikes!

B. DANIEL BEFORE THE …1. Twice the king says “I have heard of you” - Daniel 5:13-16a. It sounds as though the king knew him only by reputation b. He evidently had not made much effort to know Daniel prior to this event 2. People in the world are not much different a. They make little effort to get to know the people of God b. But in times of sickness, trials, and death, where do they turn? To the church, of course – The time to get to know God’s people is before, not after!

[Next comes…]

IV. THE (Daniel 5:17-24) A. DANIEL REJECTS THE KING’S REWARD…1. At this point the character of Daniel really shines - Daniel 5:172. Unlike many, who teach only if given gifts (or “love offerings”) 3. Daniel willingly tells the truth for free

B. DANIEL A LESSON FROM HISTORY…1. The lesson from Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream is recounted

• Daniel 5:18-212. We would do well to learn from history a. Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it b. This is especially true with inspired history!

C. DANIEL REBUKES THE KING…1. Belshazzar did not learn from his father’s experience

• Daniel 5:22-24a. He exalted himself, when he should have glorified God b. This handwriting on the wall was sent

2. When will people learn from history? a. Should we not learn from the pride of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus? b. Should we not learn from the murmuring of the Israelites in the wilderness? – Indeed, inspired history was written for our learning! - Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11 [Belshazzar failed to benefit from his knowledge of God’s dealings with mankind, and so upon him was to come…]

V. THE AND (Daniel 5:25-31) A. THE HAND WRITING ON THE WALL …1. The meaning of: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” - Daniel 5:25-28a. Mene - God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it b. Tekel - You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting c. Peres (Upharsin) - Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. 2. From the Believer’s Study Bible: a. The term mene (Aram.) could be the monetary “mina,” or a participle meaning “numbered.” Its repetition produces the sense “thoroughly numbered.” God had set limits on Belshazzar’s kingdom. b. The term tekel (Aram.) could be a monetary unit corresponding to the Hebrew shekel, or a participle meaning “weighed.” c. The final word upharsin (Aram.) could also be a monetary unit, a half-mina or half-shekel, or a plural participle from the verb paras, “divide,” meaning “and divided.” d. The message of Daniel’s interpretation is that Belshazzar’s kingdom had been numbered for destruction. The king himself is weighed and found wanting. The kingdom was to be taken away and given to the Medes and the Persians.

B. A THIRD OF NOTHING…1. Belshazzar is true to his promise - Daniel 5:292. But as we will soon see, what he gave Daniel was a “third of nothing”

C. “THIS NIGHT YOUR SOUL WILL BE OF YOU…“1. How quickly the proud and boastful can fall, despite power and wealth - Daniel 5:30-31a. Herodotus indicates that Babylon fell as a consequence of the diverting of the waters of the Euphrates, allowing the enemy to enter under the city walls b. Other sources explain it as the result of treason and subterfuge from within, resulting in the opening of the gates to the conquering armies 2. This is reminiscent of Jesus’ story of the rich fool - Luke 12:15-21a. Boasting one day b. Dead the next

1. The announcement of doom in this story was provoked in part because… a. The king misused and abused some pieces of metal b. These pieces of metal were God’s pieces of metal – For such disregard of what belonged to God, a kingdom would be buried!

2. Remember that we are the temple of God today - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17a. If God did not view lightly the misuse of His vessels then… b. Will He be casual about the impenitent abuse of His church today? – Just as He destroyed the one who defiled His temple of old, so He will destroy those who defile His temple (the church) today!

Let’s not wait for “The Hand Writing On The Wall” to tell us it is too late, that judgment has been passed and the sentence is final.

Let’s instead heed “The Hand That Wrote On The Ground” (i.e., Jesus, John 8:6; John 8:8), while there is still time for mercy and forgiveness…

Chapter Five This chapter fast forwards to 539 B.C. and the last night of Babylonian rule. King Belshazzar (grandson of Nebuchadnezzar) throws a drunken, idolatrous feast that is interrupted by a hand writing on the wall (Daniel 5:1-12). Daniel is brought in, and explains that it proclaims the judgment of Belshazzar and the fall of Babylon into the hands of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:13-29) which occurs that very night (Daniel 5:30-31).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The character of King Belshazzar contrasted with that of Daniel

• The meaning of the writing on the wall as explained by Daniel

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Belshazzar’s feast and the writing on the wall - Daniel 5:1-12- Daniel explains the writing on the wall - Daniel 5:13-29- Belshazzar’s fall - Daniel 5:30-31

2. What is the setting leading to the hand writing on the wall? (Daniel 5:1-4)- A drunken, idolatrous feast using gold vessels from the house of God in Jerusalem

3. What reaction did the king have to the hand writing on the wall? (Daniel 5:6)- Countenance changed, troubled thoughts, hip joints loosened, knees knocking

4. Who was unable to tell the king the interpretation of the writing? (Daniel 5:7-8)- His wise men (astrologers, Chaldeans, soothsayers)

5. Who counseled the king to call for Daniel to interpret the writing? (Daniel 5:10-12)- The queen (likely the queen mother, daughter of Nebuchadnezzar)

6. Before interpreting the writing, what did Daniel tell King Belshazzar? (Daniel 5:17-24)- The king could keep his reward (gifts) for himself

• He had not learned from what happened to King Nebuchadnezzar
• He had failed to humble himself before God, and did not glorify Him

7. What was the inscription written on the wall, and the interpretation? (Daniel 5:24-28)- Mene (to number): God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it

• Tekel (to weigh): You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting
• Upharsin (to divide): Your kingdom has been divided, given to the Medes and Persians

8. What happened that very night? (Daniel 5:30-31)- King Belshazzar was slain

• Darius the Mede received the kingdom

Daniel 5:1

Daniel 5:1. Between the close of the preceding chapter and the beginning of this is an interval of 25 years. We are down at the last year of the Babylonian Empire and Belshazzar is on the throne in the capital city. The Biblical account overlooks a few comparatively unimportant rulers between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. This man is called the king in this verse, but that title must be understood as meaning he was only “acting king,” because his father Nabonadius was the actual king, but had left his son on the throne in Babylon while he was conducting a war in another part of the country. This fact accounts for other statements occurring in the record, and it is of such great importance that I sit all quote a paragraph from ancient history, “ But out of ail this confusion and uncertainty a very small and simple discovery made a few years since has educed order and harmony in a very remarkable way.

It is found that Nabonadius. the last king of the Canon [royal blood line], associated with him on the throne during the later years of his reign his son, Bilsharuzar [Belshazzar], and allowed him the royal title. There can be little doubt that it was this prince who conducted the defense of Babylon, and was slain in the massacre which followed the capture; while his father, who was at the time in Borsippa, surrendered, and experienced the clemency which was generally shown to fallen kings by the Persians. . . .

My attention has been further drawn to a very remarkable illustration which the discovery of Belshazzar’ s position as joint ruier with his father furnishes to an expression twice repeated in Daniel, fifth chapter. The promise made and performed to Daniel is, that he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Formerly it was impossible to explain this, or to understand why he was not the second ruler, as he seems to have been under Nebuchadnezzar, and as Joseph in Egypt, and Mordecai in Persia. It now appears that, as there were two kings at the same time, Belshazzar, a subject, could only make him the third personage in the Empire."— Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, pages 139, 412. This information will be referred to again and I urge the reader to make eareful note of its location. The simple word /east means a good meal of food for the fleshly body, but the context shows this was a banquet for they drank wine in connection with it.

Moreover, it was a royal or state affair for it was attended by a thousand of his lords, which is defined “a magnate” in Strong’ s lexicon. These men were princes or outstanding persons In the Babylonian Empire and hence were special guests at this great feast.

The king participated in the drinking and did so in a cooperative attitude, for it says he drank wine before the thousand, That was unusual for the rule was that kings indulged themselves with wine and royal gratifications in their own private apartments.

Daniel 5:2

Daniel 5:2. Whiles he tasted the trine. Belshazzar was an idolater in genera! life, but nothing indicates that this feast was at first intended to be anything but a royal banquet. But intoxication will cause a man to do things he would not do when sober. This drunken king commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels that had been taken from the temple at Jerusalem. We have no account of their having been used before this after being brought to Babylon.

The text says the vessels had been taken by his father Nebuchadnezzar, because that word is used very generally in the Bible and other literature. It sometimes means any forefather; in this case it means his grandfather. Perhaps it will be well to verify the last statement by a quotation from ancient history. “LINE OF KINGS— (of Babylon) Nabapolas sar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodaeh, Nerigiissar, Laborosoarchod or Labos soracus, and Nabonadius the last king. He, not being of royal birth, married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (probably Neriglissar’s widow), and as soon as his son by this marriage, Belshazzar (Betsharuzur), is of sufficient age, associated him on the throne.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 49. For the difference between wives and concubines see the comments on Genesis 22:21, Volume 1.

Daniel 5:3

Daniel 5:3. The order of Belshazzar was obeyed and the king and his company drank wine from the sacred vessels that had been taken front the Lord’s service at Jerusalem.

Daniel 5:4

Daniel 5:4. The writer must have been greatly affected by the conduct of the king and his party. In one unbroken statement he says they <tr(mk wine and praised the gods of gold, etc. Thus an occasion that started out as a royal banquet was turned into a drunken, religious service to dumb idols that were made by human hands.

Daniel 5:5

Daniel 5:5. The familiar expression “ handwriting on the wall” is not technically correct, for this verse begins and ends with a distinction between the hand and its fingers. A well known commentator thinks that when the king saw the writing but could not see Him to whom the hand belonged, the invisibility of that One would heighten the “ awful impressiveness of the scene.” I will agree with that opinion, but will add that the “impressiveness” of the scene would he even more awful to see only the fingers that held the writing instrument. Such a scene would eliminate every hint of any mechanical trick of some objector to the merrymaking.

Daniel 5:6

Daniel 5:6. Countenance is from zrsv which Strong defines, “ cheerfulness.” The statement means that the merrymaking spirit that had been showing itself in the king’ s face was altered and he looked pale. Strong defines the original tor loins, “ vigor; the loin (as the seat of strength).’’ Webster defines the English word, “The seat of generation or procreation.” Joints is from a word that means something that binds or holds together, and In this place it refers to the muscles. So the clause the joints of his loins were loosed means that the abdominal region of his body had a feeling as if it were falling apart. The same thought is expressed in Psalms 22:14 by the words, “ My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” This is a prophecy of Christ on the cross and the moral nature of the case is different, but it describes the mental and physical feeling that was being experienced. Smote is derived from naqaph and Strong says it means “ to knock together.” Thus we can get a mental picture of the king as he looked upon the weird performance going on over on the wall of his palace. His face turned ashy pale, the abdominal portion of hia body seemed to be all in a quiver, and his knees pounded each other.

Daniel 5:7

Daniel 5:7. Aloud means more than merely being audible; it is from an original that means “ with might.” In addition to the physical feelings the king had by reason of the strange sight, he was perplexed because he could not even read the writing, much less understand what it meant. His common sense told him that such a demonstration had a great significance and that it concerned him since it occurred within his palace. In his fright and perplexity he shouted his orders to summon the Chaldeans and other socalled wise men. Those heathen rulers were so accustomed to relying on their soothsayers and their kind for special information that Belshazzar never thought about calling for Daniel. It was natural for him to expect his own Babylonian wise men to solve the problem that confronted him.

See the comments on chapter 2: G on the subject of offering gifts to these men. They were asked to perform a double feat; read the writing and teli its meaning.

Daniel 5:8

Daniel 5:8. All the king’s ivise men means those ordinarily employed by him and who were supposed to be “ standing by” for service whenever needed; that is why Daniel was not present at this call. As we would expect, these men could not do the king any good in his great confusion.

Daniel 5:9

Daniel 5:9. The failure of the king’ s wise men to read the writing affected his countenance in the same way that writing did in verse 6, but it did not seein to have the same effect on his body. Doubtless he had consulted these wise men many times and had been satisfied with their work. However, there was never a situation like the one before them now. It was similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar in some respects. The failure to recall to that monarch his dream indicated that they could not have interpreted it either.

So with the wise men before Belshazzar, for if they could not even read the writing, something that was present before them and needed no future knowledge to do, it was evident they could not give the interpretation after it was read. It is no wonder, then, that the king was worried and his lords astonished.

Daniel 5:10

Daniel 5:10. A queen was not the king’ s wife as a rule but instead she was his mother, and the word is so rendered by various versions. See an example of this subject in 1 Kings 15:13, and it is further explained by the following from Smith’ s Bible Dictionary. “ This title is properly applied to the queenmother, since in an Oriental household it is not the wife but the mother of the master who exercises the highest authority. Strange as such an arrangement at first sight appears, it is one of the inevitable results of polygamy.” This helps to explain, also, why the queen was so well acquainted with the events in the life of Nebuchadnezzar. Being older, and also associated near the throne for many years, she would have some personal recollection of those events, and she also had access to the records of the empire, (See comments on chapter 4:1, 2.) Learning of Belshazzar’s difficulty in solving the mystery about the writing, she came into his presence to console him with her information.

Daniel 5:11

Daniel 5:11. The queen related to the king the story of a certain man in whom was the spirit of the holy gods. For information on “ thy father” see the comments on verse 2. Master of the magicians means he was given a rank of “ chief magician,” not that he had any authority over them. The point the queen was making was the superior wisdom this particular “ magician” must have possessed for the king to give him the rank.

Daniel 5:12

Daniel 5:12. The most of this verse is the same description of Daniel’ s talents we have had before, but the word doubts adds an interesting feature. It is from QiiTAn and Strong defines it, “ A knot (as tied up), i.e. (figuratively) a riddle.” It means that Daniel was able to untie all “ bard knots.”

Daniel 5:13

Daniel 5:13. When Daniel was brought in, the king first asked him a question for the purpose of identification. The text does not state whether Daniel made any direct reply, but its silence indicates that the king understood the prophet’s affirmative attitude toward the question.

Daniel 5:14

Daniel 5:14, As a reason for calling him into the situation, Belshazzar told the prophet of the favorable reputation that he had concerning his knowledge.

Daniel 5:15

Daniel 5:15, Wise men, the astrologers is very significant. All of the astrologers were considered wise men, hut there were wise men who were not asLrologers. Hence the king made the distinction as to which class of wise men had been brought in; it was the astrologers. He did this in respect for Daniel, who, though classed as a wise man (chapter 2: 13), was a higher rank than astrologers; he was one in whom was the spirit of the gods. Daniel was Informed of the failure of the astrologers.

Daniel 5:16

Daniel 5:16. The king repeated a part o£ the report lie had heard of Daniel, then made him a proposition. If he could read the writing AND make known its interpretation, he would receive personal gifts and other rewards. (See the comments at verse 1 for the meaning of third ruler.)

Daniel 5:17

Daniel 5:17. Let thy gifts he to thyself, etc. This is not to be taken to mean that Daniel thought it would be wrong to accept the gifts, for verse 29 shows he did accept them afterwards. Rewards is rendered “ fee’ in the margin which helps to describe the situation. (See comments at chapter 2: 6.) The meaning is that Daniel wanted the king to know he would tell the answer desired without regard for the reward.

Daniel 5:18

Daniel 5:18. Before going into the subject of the writing, Daniel related to Belshazzar the background that led up to the present crisis. The meaning of “ father” for Nebuchadnezzar is explained by a quotation from history given at verse 2. It should be noted that Daniel says God gave to Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom and his glory.

Daniel 5:19

Daniel 5:19. For the majesty means in view of or because of that majesty, the nations trembled and feared. The first is from zuwa which Strong defines, “ To shake (with fear); the second is from dechal and the same lexicon defines it, “ To slink, i.e. (by implication) to fear, or (causatively) be formidable,” We see these words are used in their worst or most unfavorable sense which agrees with the very next phrase, whom he would he slew. It is still to be understood that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar his great might and glory, but that does not mean that He approved of the abuses that the king made of the favors thus bestowed upon him.

Daniel 5:20

Daniel 5:20. The abuses were manifested by the things described in this verse. The pride of the king over his greatness was so displeasing to God that he caused the cruel monarch to be taken from his throne and he was shorn of his glory.

Daniel 5:21

Daniel 5:21. This verse repeats in detail what happened to Nebuchadnezzar, and it was what Daniel had prophesied should occur (chapter 4: 25), The only way that Daniel could know of its fulfillment was either by inspiration or from the word of the king himself (chapter 4: 2, 3), for it came upon him while away from the sons of men. However it was, all acounts agree and hence we know that they are true.

Daniel 5:22

Daniel 5:22. The general sense of the terms son and father is explained at verse 2. Though thou, knewest alt this. The kings of great empires kept records of their transactions and the people, especially men in high positions, had access to those records, Daniel knew that Belshazzar had seen the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience. The example should have taught him a lesson but it seems to have failed.

Daniel 5:23

Daniel 5:23. In conducting t.he kind of feast that was being done on this night, Belshazzar was in rebellion against the Lord of heaven. The king did not need to be informed of what was actually done on that night, but Daniel enumerated the items so as to make the contrast stand out. He and his family and royal group had given praise to gods that have no intellect of any kind, but had no glory to give to Him from whom even his breath was derived.

Daniel 5:24

Daniel 5:24. Then, because of and at the time of this abominable conduct, God sent the part of the hand. (See the comments in verse 5 about the fingers only being seen.)

Daniel 5:25

Daniel 5:25. We should remember that the wise men not only were unable to interpret the writing, but they could not read it (verses 8, 15), so the first thing done was to pronounce the words. In this paragraph I shall copy the words and give Strong’ s definition from the standpoint of a lexicon. Mene. “(Chaldee), past participle of menu, numbered.” Tekel. “ (Chaldee), to balance.” Upharsin. “ (Chaldee), to split up.”

Daniel 5:26

Daniel 5:26. The lexicon definitions of the writing were given in the preceding verse. I shall now comment on Daniel’s explanation of their significance. Numbered is derived from a word that is defined, “ To weigh out; by implication to allot or constitute officially; also to enumerate or enroll.” According to Daniel’ s interpretation it meant that the days of the Babylonian Empire had reached the number allotted to it by the Lord and the kingdom was to be declared ended.

Daniel 5:27

Daniel 5:27. A balance is a weighing device with a beam poised with its center on a neutral pivot. An article to be weighed is placed at one end of the beam, and a weight supposed to be equal to the article is placed at the other end. If the article is correct the beam wiil remain level or perfectly horizontal. The balance was a familiar instrument in Biblical times (1 Samuel 2:3; Job 31:6; Psalms 62:9). When a balance is used figuratively it means that a man is weighed or compared with what ia required of him and if he stands the test the “beam” will be level, and if not the balance will sink on the heavier end which will condemn the other. Belshazzar was weighed in the balances of God’s character requirements but was “found wanting,” or was unable to hold the beam level.

Daniel 5:28

Daniel 5:28. Peres and upharsin are from the same original word. The word means to split and was a fitting one here because the Babylonian kingdom was doomed to be taken over by another kingdom that was composed of two parts, the Modes and Persians,

Daniel 5:29

Daniel 5:29. Belshazzar fulfilled his promise in rewarding Daniel for solving the problem. See the comments at verse 17 on the matter of Daniel’s accepting these rewards. The quotation cited at verse 1 explains the meaning of third ruler.

Daniel 5:30

Daniel 5:30. The history above explains in what sense Belshazzar was king,

Daniel 5:31

Daniel 5:31. Darius the Median. As was stated at verse 28, the empire that succeeded the Babylonian was composed of the Medea and Persians, thus forming a dual monarchy. This kingdom is referred to ia various ways; sometimes by Its full title and at others as the Persian, It is occasionally mentioned by the single branch Median, which ft is in this verse. I shall copy a statement from ancient history on this subject as follows: “ After the death of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede is said in scripture to have taken the kingdom; for Cyrus, as long as his uncle lived, allowed him a joint title with him in the empire, although it was all gained by his own valour, and out of deference to him yielded him the first place of honor in it. But the whole power of the army, and the chief conduct of ail affairs being still in his hands, he only was looked on as the supreme governor of the empire, which he liad erected; and therefore there is no notice at all taken of Darius in the Canon of Ptolemy, but immediately after the death of Belshazzar (who Is there called Nabo nadius), Cyrus is placed as the next successor, as in truth and reality he was; the other having no more than the name and the shadow of the sovereignty, excepting only in Media, which was his own proper dominion."— Pri deaux’ s Connexion, Book 1, Part 2, Year 538.

Verse 30 merely states that Belshazzar was slain on the night of this feast, but nothing is said about what was going on near and inside the city. The lengthy quotation from history on that interesting subject may be found in connection witli Isaiah 13:7-8 in Volume 3 of this Commentary.