DANIEL 5 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Writing on the Wall1 King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them.

BARNES, "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 NebuchadnezzarFrom 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.

1

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 his538 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 engkainismou2

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.

CLARKE, "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, Jer_27:11 : “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

3

have disturbed. I believe the only sovereigns we can acknowledge here are the following:1. Nabopolassar;2. Nebuchadnezzar;3. Evil-merodach4. 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.

GILL, "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

4

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_21:5and 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. 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.

HENRY 1-9, "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 5

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 ofthe 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 6

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.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

7

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 lordsalso, 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.

JAMISON, "Dan_5:1-31. Belshazzar’s impious feast; The handwriting on the wall interpreted by Daniel of the doom of Babylon and its king.

Belshazzar — Rawlinson, from the Assyrian inscriptions, has explained the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and the heathen historians of Babylon, Berosus and Abydenus, who say the last king (Nabonidus) surrendered in Borsippa, after Babylon was taken, and had an honorable abode in Caramania assigned to him. Belshazzar was joint king with his father (called Minus in the inscriptions), but subordinate to him;hence the Babylonian account suppresses the facts which cast discredit on Babylon, namely, that Belshazzar shut himself up in that city and fell at its capture; while it records the surrender of the principal king in Borsippa (see my Introduction to Daniel). The heathen Xenophon’s description of Belshazzar accords with Daniel’s; he calls him “impious,” and illustrates his cruelty by mentioning that he killed one of his nobles, merely because, in hunting, the noble struck down the game before him; and unmanned a courtier, Gadates, at a banquet, because one of the king’s concubines praised him as handsome. Daniel shows none of the sympathy for him which he had for Nebuchadnezzar. Xenophon confirms Daniel as to Belshazzar’s end. Winer explains the “shazzar” in the name as meaning “fire.”made ... feast — heaven-sent infatuation when his city was at the time being besieged by Cyrus. The fortifications and abundant provisions in the city made the king despise the besiegers. It was a festival day among the Babylonians [Xenophon].

8

drank ... before the thousand — The king, on this extraordinary occasion, departed from his usual way of feasting apart from his nobles (compare Est_1:3).

K&D, "The verses describe the progress of Belshazzar's magnifying himself against the living Do, whereby the judgment threatened came upon him and his kingdom. A great feast, which the king gave to his officers of state and to his wives, furnished the occasion for this.

The name of the king, בלשאצר, contains in it the two component parts of the name which Daniel had received (Dan_1:7), but without the interposed E, whereby it is distinguished from it. This distinction is not to be overlooked, although the lxx have done so, and have written the two names, as if they were identical, Balta'sar. The meaning of the name is as yet unknown. לחם, meal-time, the festival. The invitation to a thousand officers of state corresponds to the magnificence of Oriental kings. According to Ctesias (Athen. Deipnos. iv. 146), 15, 000 men dined daily from the table of the Persian king (cf. Est_1:4). To account for this large number of guests, it is not necessary to suppose that during the siege of Babylon by Cyrus a multitude of great officers from all parts of the kingdom had fled for refuge to Babylon. The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand. The words, he drank wine before the thousand (great officers), are not, with Hävernick, to be explained of drinking first, or of preceding them in drinking, or of drinking a toast to them, but are to be understood according to the Oriental custom, by which at great festivals the king sat at a separate table on an elevated place, so that he had the guests before him or opposite to him. The drinking of wine is particularly noticed as the immediate occasion of the wickedness which followed.

CALVIN, "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.

9

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. (240) 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. (241) 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

10

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.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

11

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:

COFFMAN 1-4, "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.

12

"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 5:29-6:1).Daniel 5:1-4Belshazzar 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

13

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]

14

COKE, "IntroductionCHAP. V.Belshazzar's impious feast. A hand-writing, unknown to the magicians, troubleth the king. At the recommendation of the queen, Daniel is brought: he reproveth the king of pride and idolatry, readeth and interpreteth the writing. The monarchy is translated to the Medes.Before Christ 539.THIS chapter contains the history of Belshazzar's polluting the sacred vessels taken from the temple of God, of the hand-writing against the wall denouncing his consequent punishment, of the interpretation of that hand-writing by Daniel, of the death of the king, and the kingdom's being transferred to another people.Verse 1Daniel 5:1. Belshazzar the king— The grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the Labynetus of Herodotus, and the last monarch of the Babylonian kingdom. This last king is said by Ptolemy to have reigned 17 years, and we read of the third year of Belshazzar, Daniel 8:1 but Laborosoarchod reigned only nine months. Certain it is from Jeremiah 27:6-7 that the kingdom would be continued to the son's son of Nebuchadnezzar, and from 2 Chronicles 36:20 that to him and his sons the sovereignty would be continued until the kingdom of Persia; and therefore one at least of his grandsons must have reigned in Babylon after Evil-merodach, who could not be the last king, or Belshazzar. And there is very little reason to doubt, from a review of the circumstances recorded in Scripture and by the profane historians, that the Belshazzar here meant was not the short-lived tyrant above mentioned, whose cruelties are recounted by Xenophon, and who was the daughter's son; but rather the son's son of Nebuchadnezzar, or Nabonadius the son of Evil-merodach. And this is the opinion of Jerom from Berosus in Josephus, cont. Revelation 1:20. The arguments usually adduced to settle this difficulty may be seen at large in the Univ. Hist. vol. 4: Note. p. 422, &c. as also in Dr. Prideaux, Conn. p. 1: b. 2.Made a great feast— For the principal officers of his court. This feast was made at a time of public rejoicing; being an annual festivity, when the whole night was spent in revelling. Cyrus took this advantage to make himself master of the city, as Herodotus and Xenophon relate, and Jeremiah foretold. See Jeremiah 50:24; Jeremiah 51:29; Jeremiah 51:64. This chapter, according to the order of time, might be placed after the 7th and 8th. In the style of the Hebrews, the grandfather is frequently called father. See Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

15

Ver. 1. Belshazzar the king.] Son to Evilmerodach, grandson to Nebuchadnezzar, whose line failed in this king, according to Jeremiah 27:7. Of Evilmerodach, Daniel saith nothing, because nothing remarkable happen in his time but what was before related. [2 Kings 25:27]Made a great feast.] Of this feast, see Jeremiah 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?

POOLE, "Belshazzar’s impious feast, Daniel 5:1-4. The hand-writing on the wall, which the magicians could not explain, troubleth him, Daniel 5:5-9. At the recommendation of the queen Daniel is brought in, Daniel 5:10-16. He reproveth the king of pride, profaneness, and idolatry, Daniel 5:17-24. He readeth and interpreteth the writing, Daniel 5:25-29. Belshazzar slain; the kingdom translated to the Medes, Daniel 5:30,31.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 Daniel 5:11 twice, and Daniel 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

16

grandson; under these three was the captivity, Jeremiah 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.

PETT, "IntroductionChapter 5 Belshazzar’s Feast.When Nebuchadnezzar died he was succeeded by his son Amel Marduk (Evil-Merodach - 2 Kings 25:27-30), who was then succeeded within two years by Nergal-shar-usur (Jeremiah 39:3; Jeremiah 39:13), Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law. He only survived for four years and died leaving on the throne a son, who was a minor, Labashi-Marduk, and within a short while this son had been replaced by Nabonidus, possibly the scion of a noble family of Aramaean stock in Haran, who seized the throne with the help of disaffected people and cemented his position by marrying the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, who bore him a son named Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar).Nabonidus eventually left his son Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, to hold the reins of kingship, first in order to conduct campaigns elsewhere, including Arabia, and then in order to spend his time in the city of Teima in Arabia possibly pursuing the study of astrology. He also refused to pay due deference to Marduk, absenting himself for long periods from the Babylonian akitu festival, to the anger of the priests who certainly regarded him with hostility. He favoured the moon god, Sin, rebuilding his temple in Haran. He was also an antiquarian. However, he may in fact have suffered from ulcers as tradition suggests (The prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran), and that would help to explain his retirement, and the remainder may simply have been due to his ‘scholarly’ nature and dislike of functions, which would have been interpreted as ‘odd’, if not worse.Thus his son ruled for many years in Babylon as a junior co-regent, with the powers, if not the name, of kingship. The title of ‘sharru’ (overall king) was never applied to him and he was rather entitled officially ‘mar sharri’ (son of the overall king). But the title melek (king) was regularly applied to under-kings, and Belshazzar could thus be called ‘melek of Babylon’.Nabonidus returned to his duties in the last part of his reign and just prior to this

17

incident, was defeated by the forces of Cyrus at Sippar, and fled. At this time Belshazzar was still ruling in Babylon at the time this chapter commences. (Nabonidus later returned to Babylon and was captured).Verse 1‘Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.’The abrupt introduction of the subject is typical of the author (compare Daniel 3:1; Daniel 4:1). Belshazzar (mentioned as Bel - shar - usur on cuneiform tablets, where he is always called ‘son of the king’) was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and son of Nabonidus, the latter later in life going into semi-retirement in Arabia to study astrology, leaving Belshazzar to act in his place as king. A Persian document says of Nabonidus ‘he freed his hand. He entrusted the kingship to him. Then he himself undertook a distant campaign’, demonstrating that it was not the first time he had done it. Decrees were issued in their joint names, and their names were regularly associated in various ways. Thus while not strictly ‘sharru’ (overall king) Daniel is justified in calling him ‘melek’, ruler, as he also does Cyrus’ general, Darius the Mede, for he exercised kingly authority and was more than just a governor.The ‘thousand’ is a round number meaning ‘a good number’. The word ‘a thousand’ was used among other things to depict a larger military unit, as against ‘a hundred’ or ‘a ten’. Large feasts like this were typical of oriental royal feasts. Indeed there were much larger ones. That a great feast was held on the night of the fall of Babylon is attested by both Herodotus and Xenophon. During the feast Belshazzar became inebriated. The drinking of wine was a large part of such feasts.This gathering took place while the city of Babylon was surrounded by enemies, for the Medo-Persians had invaded Babylonia under one of Cyrus’ generals named Ugbaru, and the city was virtually under siege. But due to their strong defences they were confident of holding out.‘Drank wine before the thousand.’ The king would be seated alone at his table on a raised platform as befitted his status.

EBC, "THE FIERY INSCRIPTIONIN this chapter again we have another magnificent fresco-picture, intended, as was the last-but under circumstances of aggravated guilt and more terrible menace-to teach the lesson that "verily there is a God that judgeth the earth."The truest way to enjoy the chapter, and to grasp the lessons which it is meant to inculcate in their proper force and vividness, is to consider it wholly apart from the difficulties as to its literal truth. To read it aright, and duly estimate its grandeur,

18

we must relegate to the conclusion of the story all worrying questions, impossible of final solution, as to whom the writer intended by Belshazzar, or whom by Darius the Mede. All such discussions are extraneous to edification, and in no way affect either the consummate skill of the picture or the eternal truths of which it is the symbolic expression. To those who, with the present writer, are convinced, by evidence from every quarter-from philology, history, the testimony of the inscriptions, and the manifold results obtained by the Higher Criticism that the Book of Daniel is the work of some holy and highly gifted "Chasid" in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, it becomes clear that the story of Belshazzar, whatever dim fragments of Babylonian tradition it may enshrine, is really suggested by the profanity of Antiochus Epiphanes in carrying off, and doubtless subjecting to profane usage, many of the sacred vessels of the Temple of Jerusalem. The retribution which awaited the wayward Seleucid tyrant is prophetically intimated by the menace of doom which received such immediate fulfilment in the case of the Babylonian King. The humiliation of the guilty conqueror, "Nebuchadrezzar the Wicked," who founded the Empire of Babylon, is followed by the overthrow of his dynasty in the person of his "son," and the capture of his vast capital."It is natural," says Ewald, "that thus the picture drawn in this narrative should become, under the hands of our author, a true night-piece, with all the colours of the dissolute, extravagant riot, of luxurious passion and growing madness, of ruinous bewilderment, and of the mysterious horror and terror of such a night of revelry and death."The description of the scene begins with one of those crashing overtures of which the writer duly estimated the effect upon the imagination."Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.": The banquet may have been intended as some propitiatory feast in honour of Bel-merodach.. It was celebrated in that palace which was a wonder of the world, with its winged statues and splendid spacious halls. The walls were rich with images of the Chaldeans, painted in vermilion and exceeding in dyed attire-those images of goodly youths riding on goodly horses, as in the Panathenaic procession on the frieze of the Acropolis-the frescoed pictures, on which, in the prophet’s vision, Aholah and Aholibah, gloated in the chambers of secret imagery. Belshazzar’s princes were there, and his wives, and his concubines, whose presence the Babylonian custom admitted, though the Persian regarded it as unseemly. The Babylonian banquets, like those of the Greeks, usually ended by a "Komos" or revelry, in which intoxication was regarded as no disgrace. Wine flowed freely. Doubtless, as in the grandiose picture of Martin, there were brasiers of precious metal, which breathed forth the fumes of incense; and doubtless, too, there were women and boys and girls with flutes and cymbals, to which the dancers danced in all the orgiastic abandonment of Eastern passion. All this was regarded as an element in the religious solemnity; and while the revellers drank their wine, hymns were being chanted, in which they praised "the gods of gold and silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone." That the king drank wine before the thousand is the

19

more remarkable because usually the kings of the East banquet in solitary state in their own apartments.Then the wild king, with just such a burst of folly and irreverence as characterised the banquets of Antiochus Epiphanes, bethought him of yet another element of splendour with which he might make his banquet memorable, and prove the superiority of his own victorious gods over those of other nations. The Temple of Jerusalem was famous over all the world, and there were few monarchs who had not heard of the marvels and the majesty of the God of Israel. Belshazzar, as the "son" of Nebuchadrezzar, must-if there was any historic reality in the events narrated in the previous chapter-have heard of the "signs and wonders" displayed by the King of heaven, whose unparalleled awfulness his father had publicly attested in edicts addressed to all the world. He must have known of the Rabmag Daniel, whose wisdom, even as a boy, had been found to be superior to that of all the "Chartummim" and "Ashshaphim"; and how his three companions had been elevated to supreme satrapies; and how they had been delivered unsinged from the seven-times-heated furnace, whose flames had frilled his father’s executioners. Under no conceivable circumstances could such marvels have been forgotten; under no circumstances could they have possibly failed to create an intense and profound impression. And Belshazzar could hardly fail to have heard of the dreams of the golden image and of the shattered cedar, and of Nebuchadrezzar’s unspeakably degrading lycanthropy. His "father" had publicly acknowledged-in a decree published "to all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth"-that humiliation had come upon him as a punishment for his overweening pride. In that same decree the mighty Nebuchadrezzar-only a year or two before, if Belshazzar succeeded him-had proclaimed his allegiance to the King of heaven; and in all previous decrees he had threatened "all people, nations, and languages" that. if they spake anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they should be cut in pieces, and their houses made a dunghill. [Daniel 3:29] Yet now Belshazzar, in the flush of pride and drunkenness, gives his order to insult this God with deadly impiety by publicly defiling the vessels of His awful Temple, {Daniel 1:2 Comp #/RAPC 1 Maccabees 1:21 ff.} at a feast in honour of his own idol deities!Similarly Antiochus Epiphanes, if he had not been half mad, might have taken warning, before he insulted the Temple and the sacred vessels of Jerusalem, from the fact that his father, Antiochus the Great, had met his death in attempting to plunder the Temple at Elymais (B.C. 187). He might also have recalled the celebrated discomfiture-however caused-of Heliodorus in the Temple of Jerusalem. {#/RAPC 2 Maccabees 3:1-40}Such insulting and reckless blasphemy could not go unpunished. It is fitting that the Divine retribution should overtake the king on the same night, and that the same lips which thus profaned with this wine the holiest things should sip the wine of the Divine poison-cup, whose fierce heat must in the same night prove fatal to himself. But even such sinners, drinking as it were over the pit of hell, "according to a metaphor used elsewhere. Psalms 55:15 must still at the last moment be warned by a

20

suitable Divine sign, that it may be known whether they will honour the truth." Nebuchadrezzar had received his warning, and in the end it had not been wholly in vain. Even for Belshazzar it might perhaps not prove to be too late.For at this very moment, {Comp. Daniel 3:7} when the revelry was at its zenith, when the whirl of excited self-exaltation was most intense, when Judah’s gold was "treading heavy on the lips"-the profane lips-of satraps and concubines, there appeared a portent, which seems at first to have been visible to the king alone.Seated on his lofty and jewelled throne, which"Outshone the wealth of Ormuz or of Ind, Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand Showers on its kings barbaric pearl and gold,"his eye caught something visible on the white stucco of the wall above the line of frescoes. He saw it over the lights which crowned the huge golden "Nebrashta," or chandelier. The fingers of a man’s hand were writing letters on the wall, and the king saw the hollow of that gigantic supernatural palm.The portent astounded and horrified him. The flush of youth and of wine faded from his cheek; -"his brightnesses were changed"; his thoughts troubled him; the bands of his loins were loosed, his knees smote one against another in his trembling attitude, as he stood arrested by the awful sight.With a terrible cry he ordered that the whole familiar tribe of astrologers and soothsayers should be summoned. For though the hand had vanished, its trace was left on the wall of the banqueting-chamber in letters of fire. And the stricken king, anxious to know above all things the purport of that strange writing, proclaims that he who could interpret it should be clothed in scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and should be one of the triumvirs of the kingdom.It was the usual resource; and it failed as it had done in every previous instance. The Babylonian magi in the Book of Daniel prove themselves to be more futile even than Pharaoh’s magicians with their enchantments.The dream-interpreters in all their divisions entered the banquet-hall. The king was perturbed, the omen urgent, the reward magnificent. But it was all in vain. As usual they failed, as in very instance in which they are introduced in the Old Testament. And their failure added to the visible confusion of the king, whose livid countenance retained its pallor. The banquet, in all its royal magnificence, seemed likely to end in tumult and confusion; for the princes, and satraps, and wives, and concubines all shared in the agitation and bewilderment of their sovereign.Meanwhile the tidings of the startling prodigy had reached the ears of the Gebirah-the queen-mother-who, as always in the East, held a higher rank than even the reigning sultana. She had not been present at-perhaps had not approved of-the

21

luxurious revel, held when the Persians were at the very gates. But now in her young son’s extremity, she comes forward to help and advise him. Entering the hall with her attendant maidens, she bids the king to be no longer troubled, for there is a man of the highest rank-invariably, as would appear, overlooked and forgotten till the critical moment, in spite of his long series of triumphs and achievements-who was quite able to read the fearful augury, as he had often done before, when all others had been foiled by Him who "frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad." [Isaiah 44:25] Strange that he should not have been thought of, though "the king thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the whole college of magis and astrologers. Let Belshazzar send for Belteshazzar, and he would untie the knot and read the awful enigma."Then Daniel was summoned; and since the king "has heard of him, that the spirit of the gods is in him, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in him," and that he is one who can interpret dreams, and unriddle hard sentences and untie knots, he shall have the scarlet robe, and the golden chain, and the seat among the triumvirs, if he will read and interpret the writing."Let thy gifts be thine, and thy rewards to another," {so Elisha, 2 Kings 5:16} answered the seer, with fearless forthrightness: "yet, O king, I will read and interpret the writing." Then, after reminding him of the consummate power and majesty of his father Nebuchadrezzar; and how his mind had become indurated with pride; and how he had been stricken with lycanthropy, "till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men"; and that, in spite of all this, he, Belshazzar, in his infatuation, had insulted the Most High God by profaning the holy vessels of His Temple in a licentious revelry in honour of idols of gold, silver, brass, iron, and stone, which neither see, nor know, nor heal-for this reason (said the seer) had the hollow hand been sent and the writing stamped upon the wall.And now what was the writing? Daniel at the first glance had read that fiery quadrilateral of letters, looking like the twelve gems of the high priest’s ephod with the mystic light gleaming upon them.M. N. A. M. N. A. T. O. L. P. R. S. Four names of weight.A Mina. A Mina. A Shekel. A Half-mina.What possible meaning could there be in that? Did it need an archangel’s colossal hand, flashing forth upon a palace-wall to write the menace of doom, to have inscribed no more than the names of four coins or weights? No wonder that the Chaldeans could not interpret such writing!It may be asked why they could not even read it, since the words are evidently Aramaic, and Aramaic was the common language of trade. The Rabbis say that the words, instead of being written from right to left, "pillar-wise," as the Greeks called it, from above downwards: thus-

22

p t m m r q n n s l a aRead from left to right, they would look like gibberish; read from above downwards, they became clear as far as the reading was concerned, though their interpretation might still be surpassingly enigmatic.But words may stand for all sorts of mysterious meanings; and in the view of analogists-as those are called who not only believe in the mysterious force and fascination of words, but even in the physiological quality of sounds-they may hide awful indications under harmless vocables. Herein lay the secret.A mina! a mina! Yes; but the names of the weights recall the word m’nah, "hath numbered": and "God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it."A shekel! Yes; t’qilta: "Thou hast been weighed in a balance and found wanting."Peres- a half-mina! Yes; but p’risath: "Thy kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."At this point the story is very swiftly brought to a conclusion, for its essence has been already given. Daniel is clothed in scarlet, and ornamented with the chain of gold, and proclaimed triumvir.But the king’s doom is sealed! "That night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain." His name meant, "Bel preserve thou the king!" But Bel bowed down, and Nebo stooped, and gave no help to their votary."Evil things in robes of sorrow Assailed the monarch’s high estate; Ah, woe is me! for never morrow Shall dawn upon him desolate! And all about his throne the glory That blushed and bloomed Is but an ill-remembered story Of the old time entombed,""And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old."As there is no such person known as "Darius the Mede," the age assigned to him must be due either to some tradition about some other Darius, or to chronological calculations to which we no longer possess the key.He is called the son of Achashverosh, Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1), or Xerxes. The apologists have argued that-1. Darius was Cyaxares II, father of Cyrus, on the authority of Xenaphon’s romance, and Josephus’s echo of it. But the "Cyropaedia" is no authority, being, as Cicero said, a non-historic fiction written to describe an ideal kingdom. History knows nothing of a Cyaxares II.

23

2. Darius was Astyages. Not to mention other impossibilities which attach to this view, Astyages would have been far older than sixty-two at the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Cyrus had suppressed the Median dynasty altogether some years before he took Babylon.3. Darius was the satrap Gobryas, who, so far as we know, only acted as governor for a few months. But he is represented on the contrary as an extremely absolute king, setting one hundred and twenty princes "over the whole kingdom," and issuing mandates to "all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth." Even if such an identification were admissible, it would not in the least save the historic accuracy of the writer. This "Darius the Mede" is ignored by history, and Cyrus is represented by the ancient records as having been the sole and undisputed king of Babylon from the time of his conquest. "Darius the Mede" probably owes his existence to a literal understanding of the prophecies of Isaiah [Isaiah 13:17] and Jeremiah. [Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:28]We can now proceed to the examination of the next chapter unimpeded by impossible and halfhearted hypotheses. We understand it, and it was meant to be understood, as a moral and spiritual parable, in which unverified historic names and traditions are utilised for the purpose of inculcating lessons of courage and faithfulness. The picture, however, falls far below those of the other chapters in power, finish, and even an approach to natural verisimiltude.

PARKER, " The Hand At the FeastDaniel 5This reads like a torrent—king, and feast, and great feast, and lords a thousand strong, and wine-drinking worthy of the occasion. That is the beginning. If it were a piece of music the last note would be as the first; whether it be another note, we must wait a while to know: it will be a grand note,—whether harmonious and sympathetic with the beginning we shall see. There was no harm in making a great feast to a thousand lords. Many persons are content to stop at that point; if there is no harm in an exercise they take it for granted that they may indulge it without limit or licence. That is a point the devil often begins at. It is something to have reached the conclusion that there is no harm in this or that reply to local suggestion or personal temptation. He is a subtle beast, more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God hath made, for he saith to the Son of God, Thou art hungry; if thou hast power, why not turn these stones into bread? The suggestion was harmless: it was beneficent; when was he ever less a devil? when was he ever more the tempter and the destroyer, the seducer and the assassin of mankind? Study your point; ascertain distinctly where you are; write down in the record every day, write in your clearest hand, so that there can be no mistake in deciphering the line, Nothing good ever came from a bad source. That will keep you right when you

24

cannot summon to immediate service your metaphysical piety. Always have a good moral injunction well at hand; from that you may pass into the metaphysics of religion, the profoundest depths of theology. It is said that it is not an arithmetical exaggeration to suppose that Belshazzar had a thousand lords; it is not a rhetorical number; it might be a piece of dry statistics. Look at the picture: who can blight it? who would disturb it? The king, the lords, the wine, the revel: who would interpose or send into a scene so gay with all colours a spectre or ghost? It is the ghost we cannot keep out. We bar out the burglar, but the ghost comes in without noise or invitation, and tarries as long as he will. The life that ignores ghostly presences is a fool"s life.Belshazzar tasted the wine, and the wine burned in his blood, and he "commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem,"—not necessarily his father according to the flesh, but his predecessor, the larger sense in which the word "father" is often used. A bright idea has struck him in wine. In vino veritas (In wine is truth); in such wine is the devil. Having good wine, he would have good vessels; the goblet should be worthy of the liquor. Perhaps it was an aesthetic mood; rather let us incline to the comment which assigns to this action the attribute and the wickedness of defiance. There was no aestheticism in it; it was the vulgarity of the man awakened by wine, that never fails when taken in due quantities to wake up every devil that is in a man. Belshazzar would outdo his fathers; what is wickedness if it cannot also be modern, new, inventive, and put into remote and fading perspective the audacity of earlier trespassers? All the people should drink out of these cups, vessels, goblets; the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines, drank in them, and laughed over them, and left the slime of their throats on the gold and silver of the sanctuary. It was a night of triumph; the air was full of defiance; there was a noise in the banqueting hall that the queen-mother overheard. We do not all go to these violent extremities, but the act is not to be judged by its violence, but by its essence, its nature, its purpose, its spirit. We say violent delights have violent ends, but there is no need to pause in self-complacency and to return a verdict in favour of ourselves to the effect that such violence as this has never marked our lives. We may tell lies in whispers; we may break all the commandments in silence; we may not have the frankness of a bold chivalry; we may be doing the deed without acquiring fame for its accomplishment. Search your hearts; hold God"s own candle over the secret lie. We need not judge ourselves by the accidents of this Oriental occasion; the accidents, we know, have all died away, and they may or may not have been literally true, but the inner reality abides evermore that men have moments of intellectual and spiritual dropsy, moral inflation, times when self-control is lost, when reverence is soured into profanity, and when man imagines that he has now but to put out his hand to a given tree, and snatch from its branches all he can hold of Deity.What became of it all?"They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone" [and the gods did not hear a word of their doxology] ( Daniel

25

5:4).This Isaiah , on the part of the banqueters, a curious logic—"They drank wine, and praised the gods." There is a point at which wine-drinking has in it an element of religion; there are tears of quite a pietetic kind at the beginning of a wine feast; men feel mellow towards one another, kind, forgiving, hopeful; they forget wives and children, or remember them only in some sentimental way that has in it no virtue, or touch or colour of sacrifice; they talk in vague philanthropic generalities, and the next draught turns them swiftly from piety to profanity and blasphemy. The action was that of a contrast. The vessels might have been held aloft as the vessels belonging to the service of Jehovah, and whilst the vessels were held aloft and then brought to the fiery lips of the drinkers, those who imbibed the liquid damnation began to praise the gods of heathendom and to ask loudly, or with subdued breath, or with significant whispering, or with sneering that had no words, Where is the God of Jerusalem? His vessels are here; his sacramental cups are here: where is he himself? And merrily the feast went on, and the wine disappeared like rivers in forests, and the night was redolent with all the odours of unholiness.Thus the four verses contain quite a little story by themselves. Say what we may about chapter and verse, as a mechanical device often misleading the reader, yet in this instance there seems to be something useful in the typographical distribution of the matter. Daniel 5:5 opens with a new paragraph boldly indicated. It is in very deed a new paragraph, God"s own paragraph. If it were written here only it might be called part of a romance, assigned to a very hoary antiquity, and quoted when we were in a mood to recall our mythological romances, but it is written every day: it is written in our diaries; it is written in our family Bibles; it is written on the face of our pulpits; it is graven upon our family altars."In the same hour came forth fingers of a man"s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king"s palace" ( Daniel 5:5).That "hand" is the terror of men, or it is the surest proof of their defence, security, and progress. That hand presents two distinct aspects; we could not do without it: the bad man needs it to frighten him into prayer; the good man needs it often to save him from despair. Where is the hand of the Lord? It is everywhere—not everywhere visible, but sight is not the limit of existence; vision does not determine our possession. What can we see? We do not see anything that is worth seeing; at best we see but image, type, symbol, hint, indication: all the things that are to be seen are patent only to the vision of the soul:—"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"—see him everywhere, see him at all times, see him at midnight as certainly as at midday; the darkness and the light are both alike to him, and he makes them both alike to us, if so be our hearts are alive with the sensitiveness of love and expectation. "In the same hour"—could the fools not have had an hour to themselves? Does God divide the hour of revel? Does he write across the face of the bad man"s programme? Does God interfere with the soliloquy of the rich atheist, saying to him, "Thou fool!"? Thus God will not let us quite alone. He can make us

26

sober: one look, and the marrow chills; one touch, and the brain recovers itself from the sleep or the madness of wine, and awakes to ask eternal questions.Did this occur long ago, in some old forgotten Babylon? This is occurring today, in our cities, within the range of our vision. Whilst we are discussing the supernatural, the supernatural is asserting itself; whilst we write volumes that amount to nothing more than notes of interrogation, the supernatural is operating, arranging, adjusting, tearing down, putting up, colouring, and disposing, according to a will immeasurable, incomprehensible, but always, though not on the face of it in all instances, beneficent. This hand came out beside the candlestick. God loves light. God lighted the candle; why should he not use it? Never suppose you can light anything; it is only God that lends you a spark. He went to the candlestick, and there he wrote. The night does not exclude him; he did not wait for the sun to rise; his judgment took effect at the time and on the spot. What is the matter with Belshazzar? How white he is! What a new expression in his erewhile dreamy eyes—eyes that were just yielding to the felonious slumber of intoxication! The joints of his loins are loosed, and his knees smite against one another; the man who a few minutes ago was iron is now straw. Did this happen long ago in some banquet-hall deserted? It happened last night; it will happen to-night; it will occur in vivid and monitional repetition until the end of time. Drunken men see strange sights. We try to persuade them that it is a species of nightmare. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; cursed are the wicked in heart, for they too shall see God: God is love;—Our God is a consuming fire. See him we must; the aspect of his revelation may largely depend upon ourselves. Marvellous is this action of the ghostly element or ministry upon the human mind! Men who could fight a whole army have their hair blanched in one night by the touch of a spectral finger; soldiers that never feared the face of man fear the face of un-namable and invisible guests who are unbidden to the wedding feast or funeral morsel, and there sit down and do what they like with the inventions of men. You have to meet the ghost somewhere; there is a time coming when you only can answer the question, meet the emergency, and satisfy the demand: there is no discharge in that war. Infidel, Agnostic, unbeliever, irreverent sneerer, what canst thou do for those whom thou dost mock and seduce? God has so arranged the economy of his providence that he must have a few moments with us quite alone. Sweetest mother cannot speak for us then; tenderest friend cannot come between us and God at that moment: there must be a secret interview with the supernatural. We have not lived like beasts; why should we die like them? Men put away these thoughts from themselves, and attempt to fill up the vacancy with frivolity; it ends in mockery, disappointment, and piercing pain, Do not suppose you can exclude God by noise, by wine-drinking, by high feasting, and by committing yourselves to revels that warm the blood and goad the passions,—"Thou God seest me." Sometimes we see part of his hand, and we see what it is doing; at others we see all his hand, and can recognise what it is doing, and when we have looked upon the action for a little while we say, "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing." The hand of the Lord is in heaven, on earth, and it grips the bridle that holds the devil back. "The Lord reigneth"; in that doctrine let us find assurance, consolation, stimulus, invincible

27

defence. Poor Belshazzar! He was weak as other men. Where now the repartee that set the Babylonian table in a roar? Quite chapfallen, quite gone. Is the candle used then blown out?"The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers" [and the king offered them scarlet and a gold chain, and a place in the triumvirate: He shall be the triumvir if he will tell me the upshot of this unexpected business. They all came; they could not read the writing; some read it horizontally, others read it vertically; some, perhaps, tried to read it diagonally; but they had never seen that alphabet before]. "Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied" [and the queen-mother came in and said, There is a man that can tell thee all about it]. "Then 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, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.... And I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: 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. Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself) and give thy rewards to another" ( Daniel 5:9, Daniel 5:13-14, Daniel 5:16-17).How the prophet always clears a space for himself; how on great occasions men distribute themselves into proper classes. When the occasion is little, one man is as good as another; there is a general hum of conversation, and it is difficult to tell the great man form the small, the obscure man from the famous: but when the crisis comes, by some law hardly to be expressed in words, men fall into their right relations, and there stands up the man who has the keys of the kingdom of God. Preachers of the word, you will be wanted some day by Belshazzar; you were not at the beginning of the feast, but you will be there before the banqueting hall is closed; the king will not ask you to drink wine, but he will ask you to tell the secret of his pain and heal the malady of his heart. Abide your time. You are nobody now. Who cares for preachers, teachers, seers, and men of insight, while the wine goes round, and the feast is unfolding its tempting luxuries? Midway down the programme to mention pulpit, or preacher, or Bible, would be to violate the harmony of the occasion. But the preacher, as we have often had occasion to say, will have his opportunity. They will send for him when all other friends have failed; may he then come fearlessly, independently, asking only to be made a medium through which divine communications can be addressed to the listening trouble of the world. Daniel will take the scarlet and the chain by-and-by, but not as a bribe; he will take the poor baubles of this dying Babylon and will use them to the advantage of the world through actions that shall become historical, but he will not first fill his hands with bribes, and then read the king"s riddles. The prophet is self-sustained by being divinely inspired. He needs no promise to enable him to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Indeed, he has nothing to say of himself. Every

28

Prayer of Manasseh , in proportion as he is a Daniel , has nothing to invent, nothing to conceive in his own intellect; he has no warrant or credential from the empty court of his own genius; he bears letters from heaven; he expresses the claims of God. O Daniel , preacher, speaker, teacher, thunder out God"s word, if it be a case of judgment and doom; or whisper it, or rain in gracious tears, if it be a message of sympathy and love and welcome.Then Daniel began to talk as only Daniel could talk; then he looked the king into another man; then he read the writing to him:—"Numbered," "wanting," "divided." There is some incoherence that is better than the finest rhetorical continuity; a hiatus may be more significant than an elaborate detail. Let the king hear the principal words, and he will understand; he will not come up again to ask petty questions. There is an interpreter within the man; the moment he hears the right word from without, the interpreter within will say, That is the word of the Lord—"numbered," "wanting," "divided." "That night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain." He began riotously, and thus he ended. The first note of this tragic anthem was one of revel; the last was a groan of helplessness, defeat He died drunk.

PULPIT, "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.Daniel 5:1Belshazzar 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 הברין instead of Theodotion reads, "Baltasar the king made a great feast to thousands of his .רברביןlords, 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 אלף (aluph) being put as the interpretation

29

of רברב (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 קובלא (see Eastern Aramaic word) means "a feast" in Eastern Aramaic, though not in Western. It is a possible solution of the presence of the clause that קבל, excluded from the text and its place supplied by לחם, was placed in the margin. לקבל, however, means "before." If there was also in the margin אלפא, "thousands," in the emphatic state; as the translation into Hebrew of רברב (Genesis 36:17, Genesis 36:15 Onkelos). If, further, חברין, "companion," appeared as a various reading for רברבין, that would easily be read wine;" the verb "to drink" would be added to complete the sense. We have" ,חמרthus 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 קבל 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 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 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 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 Labasi-marduk, or with

30

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 "Belit-shazar," 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.

2 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father[a] had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them.

BARNES, "Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine - As the effect of tasting the wine - stating a fact which is illustrated in every age and land, that men, under the influence of intoxicating drinks, will do what they would not do when sober. In his sober moments it would seem probable that he would have respected the vessels consecrated to the service of religion, and would not have treated them with dishonor by introducing them for purposes of revelry.

Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels - These vessels had been carefully deposited in some place as the spoils of victory (see Dan_1:2), and it would appear that they had not before been desecrated for purposes of feasting. Belshazzar did what other men would have done in the same condition. He wished to make a display; to do something unusually surprising; and, though it had not been contemplated when the festival was appointed to make use of these vessels, yet, under the excitement of wine, nothing was too sacred to be introduced to the scenes of intoxication; nothing too foolish 31

to be done. In regard to the vessels taken from the temple at Jerusalem, see the note at Dan_1:2.Which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken - Margin, “grandfather.” According to the best account which we have of Belshazzar, he was the son of Evil-Merodach, who was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (see the Introduction to the chapter, Section II.), and therefore the word is used here, as in the margin, to denote grandfather. Compare Jer_27:7. See the note at Isa_14:22. The word father is often used in a large signification. See 2Sa_9:7; also the notes at Mat_1:1. There is no improbability in supposing that this word would be used to denote a grandfather, when applied to one of the family or dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar The fact that Belshazzar is here called “the son” of Nebuchadnezzar has been made a ground of objection to the credibility of the book of Daniel, by Lengerke, p. 204. The objection is, that the “last king of Babylon was “not” the son of Nebuchadnezzar.” But, in reply to this, in addition to the remarks above made, it may be observed that it is not necessary, in vindicating the assertion in the text, to suppose that he was the “immediate” descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, in the first degree. “The Semitic use of the word in question goes far beyond the first degree of descent, and extends the appellation of “son” to the designation “grandson,” and even of the most remote posterity. In Ezr_6:14, the prophet Zechariah is called “the son of Iddo;” in Zec_1:1, Zec_1:7, the same person is called “the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo.” So Isaiah threatens Hezekiah Isa_39:7 that the sons whom he shall beget shall be conducted as exiles to Babylon; in which case, however, four generations intervened before this happened. So in Mat_1:1, ‘Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ And so we speak every day: ‘The sons of Adam, the sons of Abraham, the sons of Israel, the sons of the Pilgrims,’ and the like.” - Prof. Stuart, “Com. on Dan.” p. 144.That the king and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein - Nothing is too sacred to be profaned when men are under the influence of wine. They do not hesitate to desecrate the holiest things, and vessels taken from the altar of God are regarded with as little reverence as any other. It would seem that Nebuchadnezzar had some respect for these vessels, as having been employed in the purposes of religion; at least so much respect as to lay them up as trophies of victory, and that this respect had been shown for them under the reign of his successors, until the exciting scenes of this “impious feast” occurred, when all veneration for them vanished. It was not very common for females in the East to be present at such festivals as this, but it would seem that all the usual restraints of propriety and decency came to be disregarded as the feast advanced. The “wives and concubines” were probably not present when the feast began, for it was made for “his lords” Dan_5:1; but when the scenes of revelry had advanced so far that it was proposed to introduce the sacred vessels of the temple, it would not be unnatural to propose also to introduce the females of the court.A similar instance is related in the book of Esther. In the feast which Ahasuerus gave, it is said that “on the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, etc., the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty,” etc. Est_1:10-11. Compare Joseph. “Ant.” b. xi. ch. 6: Section 1. The females that were thus introduced to the banquet were those of the harem, yet it would seem that she who was usually called “the queen” by way of eminence, or the queen-mother (compare the note at Est_5:10), was not among them at this time. The females in the court of an Oriental monarch were divided into two classes; those who were properly concubines, and who had none of the privileges of a wife; and

32

those of a higher class, and who were spoken of as wives, and to whom pertained the privileges of that relation. Among the latter, also, in the court of a king, it would seem that there was one to whom properly belonged the appellation of “queen;” that is, probably, a favorite wife whose children were heirs to the crown. See Bertholdt, in loc. Compare 2Sa_5:13; 1Ki_11:3; Son_6:8.

CLARKE, "Whiles he tasted the wine - He relished it, got heated by it, and when Wine got fully in, Wit went wholly out; and in consequence he acted the profane part of which we immediately read.

GILL, "Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine,.... As he was drinking his cups, and delighted with the taste of the wine, and got merry with it: or, "by the advice of the wine" (h), as Aben Ezra and Jarchi interpret it, by a personification; as if that dictated to him, and put him upon doing what follows; and which often puts both foolish and wicked things into the heads of men, and upon doing them: then he commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels, which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; what these vessels were, and the number of them, we learn from the delivery of them afterwards to the prince of Judah by Cyrus, Ezr_1:9, these were put into the temple of Bel by Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_1:2 and from thence they were now ordered to be brought to the king's palace, and to the apartment where he and his nobles were drinking: that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein; Saadiah says, this day the seventy years' captivity ended; and so, in contempt of the promise and prophecy of it, he ordered the vessels to be brought out and drank in, to show that in vain the Jews expected redemption from it.

JAMISON, "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 33

becomes a confirmation of genuineness when cleared up, for the real harmony must have been undesigned.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 [Cyropaedia, 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 (2Sa_5:13; 1Ki_11:3; Son_6:8).

K&D, "Dan_5:2חמרא while he tasted the wine, i.e., when the wine was relished by him; thus ,בטעם

“in the wanton madness of one excited by wine, Pro_20:1” (Hitz.). From these words it appears that Belshazzar commanded the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem to be brought, not, as Hävernick thinks, for the purpose of seeking, in his anxiety on account of the siege of the city, the favour of the God of the Jews, but to insult this God in the presence of his own gods. The supposition of anxiety on account of the siege does not at all harmonize with the celebration of so riotous a festival. Besides, the vessels are not brought for the purpose of making libations in order to propitiate the God to whom they were consecrated, but, according to the obvious statement of the text, only to drink out of them from the madness of lust. ן that ,וישתthey may drink; before the imperf. expresses the design of the bringing of the vessels. בthe wives ,שגלן .to drink out of, as Gen_44:5; Amo_6:6 ,שתה of the king; cf. Neh_2:6with Psa_45:10. לחנן, concubines; this word stands in the Targg. for the Hebr. פלגש. The lxx have here, and also at Dan_5:23, omitted mention of the women, according to the custom of the Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans (cf. Herod. Ch. 5:18; Corn. Nep. proem. §6); but Xenophon (Cyr. v. 2. 28) and Curtius (v. 1. 38) expressly declare that among the Babylonians the wives also were present at festivals.CALVIN, "Here king Belshazzar courts his own punishment, because he furiously stirred up God’s wrath against himself, as if he was dissatisfied with its delay while God put off his judgment for so long a period. This is according to what I have said. When the destruction of a house is at hand, the impious remove the posts and gates, as Solomon says. (Proverbs 17:19.) God therefore, when he wishes to execute his judgments, impels the reprobrate by a secret instinct to rush forward of their own accord, and to hasten their own destruction. Belshazzar did this. His carelessness was the sign of his stupidity, and also of God’s wrath, when in the midst of his own pride and crimes he could delight in reveling. Thus his blindness more clearly points out God’s vengeance, since he was not content with his own intemperance and excesses, but must openly declare war against God. He ordered, therefore, says he, the gold and silver vessels to be brought to him which he had taken away from Nebuchadnezzar These vessels appear to have been laid up in the treasury; hence Nebuchadnezzar had never abused these vessels in his lifetime; we do not read that

34

Evil-Merodach did anything of this kind, and Belshazzar now wishes purposely to inflict this insult on God. There is no doubt he brought forth those vessels by way of ridicule, for the purpose of triumphing over the true God, as we shall afterwards see.We have already explained the sense in which the Prophet calls Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, since it is usual in all languages to speak of ancestors as fathers; for Belshazzar was of the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar, and being really his grandson, he is naturally called his son; and this will occur again. There are some who think Evil-Merodach was stricken with that grievous affliction mentioned in the last chapter: possibly his name was Nebuchadnezzar, but there is no reason for adopting their opinion; (245) it is frivolous to fly directly to this conjecture when the name of the father occurs. the Prophet says Belshazzar committed this under the influence of wine Since טעם, tegnem, signifies “to taste,” no doubt he here speaks of tasting; and since this may be metaphorically transferred to the understanding, some explain it to mean being impelled by wine, and thus his drunkenness took the place of reason and judgment. Nights and love and wine, says Ovid, have no moderation in them. (246) This explanation I think too forced; it seems simply to mean, when Belshazzar grew warm with wine, he commanded the vessels to be brought to him; and this is the more usual view. When, therefore, the savor of the wine prevailed, — that is, when it seized upon the king’s senses, then he ordered the vessels to be brought It is worth while to notice this, to induce us to be cautious concerning intemperance in drinking, because nothing is more common than the undertaking many things far too rashly when our senses are under the influence of wine. Hence we must use wine soberly, that it may invigorate not only the body but the mind and the senses, and may never weaken, or enervate, or stupify our bodily or mental powers. And this is, alas! too common, since the vulgar proverb is well known — pride springs from drunkenness. For this reason the poets supposed Bacchus to have horns, since intemperate men are always puffed up, and the most wretched fancy themselves kings. What then must happen to monarchs, when in their forgetfulness they dream themselves kings of kings, and even deities? The Prophet wishes to mark this fault when he says, Belshazzar, under the influence of wine, ordered vessels to be brought to him It now follows, —“La nuiet, l’amour, le boire sans mesure,N’ induit a rien sinon a toute ordure.”— Ed. 'COKE, "Daniel 5:2. Whiles he tasted the wine— When he grew warm with wine. Houbigant. The golden and silver vessels here spoken of, were those carried by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple of Jerusalem to the treasure-house of his god, (see chap. Daniel 1:2.) and which were there set apart for religious uses. So that this farther profanation of them, as Dr. Prideaux observes, was contrary to the rules of their own religion, and may be supposed to have been committed by Belshazzar in an excessive riot of drinking, as the text, according to Houbigant's translation,

35

implies.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which [was] in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.Ver. 2. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine.] (a) And was mastered by it; being now in his cups, as they say, and well whittled, "swallowed up of wine," as the prophet expresseth it. [Isaiah 28:7] Aben Ezra rendereth it, in consilio vini, doing as the wine advised him.Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels.] Being intoxicated, he casteth off all care of God and man, and falleth into the sins of sacrilege and blasphemy.Which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple.] And should have restored them hither again. We read that when Gensericus had spoiled and plundered Rome, he took the vessels of gold and silver which Titus had brought from the temple in Jerusalem, and carried them with him to Carthage; these vessels, among other spoils, Belisarius met with when he took Carthage, and carried them to Constantinople. But the good Emperor Justinian would not receive them into his treasury, but sent them again to Jerusalem to be disposed of for the good of the Church, according to the discretion of the Christian bishops who lived there. (b)

POOLE 2-5, " This king having the wine, liked it so well, that he resolved to make a merry day of it, and in order to it, sent for the vessels of God’s temple, which he did in scorn and contempt, triumphing thereby over God and his people; but this sport lasted not long: they had more honour for the vessels of their own idols, which they kept sacred and untouched; therefore the prophet upbraids them with this insolent profaneness, for the concubines also drank of them.Verse 4At the same time insulting the great God of heaven and earth. The name of God is never more profaned than among drunkards and epicures.Verse 5In the same hour: by this it did appear what was the cause of the king’s punishment and ruin, namely, his reproaching of God and profaning the holy vessels.Fingers of a man’s hand; the likeness of a man’s hand, which Rabbi Solomon saith was managed by the angel Gabriel; it is clear it was immediately from God. This was a plainer testimony then that of his father’s dream, for hereof were above a thousand witnesses, besides his conscience that shook him, a thousand more.

36

Over against the candlestick by this it appears how the feast continued far in the night in which Babylon was taken and Belshazzar slain, Daniel 5:30.The king saw the part of the hand that wrote: God intended it for him, and that he should see it with his own eyes, and it should not be brought him by report, which affords ground of doubting; but here was undeniable proof and conviction, the visible hand of God was here; and it was also for terror to him, and spoiled his draughts of wine, and was a cooler to their jollities.

PETT, " ‘Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the gold 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 from them.’We are not told of any reason why he did this, but he seemingly knew of them and no doubt persuaded himself in his drunken stupor that it was time they were used. It was probably his means of declaring the power of Babylon, and possibly his own defiance of a God Who had helped his grandfather, and Whom he felt had let him down, at a time when that power was being fatally undermined. The fact that they were sacred vessels suggests that this was a direct act of blasphemy, for such sacred things were generally treated with respect. It is clear that Daniel no longer held such high office under Nabonidus and Belshazzar, for he was not called to the feast and is later mentioned as though he was in retirement. It would not be unusual, given the changes in rulership that had taken place. Perhaps also he had previously in times past used his influence against their use.‘While he tasted the wine’ probably means while Belshazzar was under its influence.The presence of the important womenfolk, including Belshazzar’s wives, is attested elsewhere with regard to Babylonian drinking feasts, even though they were feasts of great lasciviousness. Their presence, and the general behaviour at the feast, added to the blasphemy of using the sacred vessels. The concubines would be lesser wives of the harem who were of common stock.‘Nebuchadnezzar his father’ simply means that Nebuchadnezzar was his ancestor. He was in fact his grandfather. The word translated does not strictly mean ‘father’. It means ‘one through whom you trace your descent’. Compare ‘your father Abraham’ (Genesis 28:13; Genesis 32:9). (It can also be used in other ways more loosely. Compare the words of Jesus, ‘you are of your father the Devil’ - John 8:44).

PULPIT, "Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. The Septuagint has included the last clause of the

37

Massoretic recension of the first verse, "And he drank wine, and his heart was lifted up, and he commanded to bring the vessels of gold and of silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought from Jerusalem, and to pour out wine in them for those companions of his ( ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἑταίροις)." The translator seems to have regarded the first syllable of the name Belshazzar as a separate word, and has translated it according to the meaning the word has in Eastern Aramaic, "heart" (Exodus 12:23, Peshitta). After this initial mistake—if mistake it was—the remaining change was easy. The syntax here, according to the Massoretic text, is different from what we should expect. אמר (‛amar), "to say," is translated "command" in eight cases in this book, and in every other case it is followed immediately by the infinitive' of the action commanded. Hence we are inclined, with the LXX; to omit "whiles he tasted the wine." While the LXX. Aramaic seems to have בהין, "in them," it has not had "king," "wives," or "concubines." As the Septuagint is the shorter, on the whole, we prefer it, though we maintain the Massoretic reading of "in them," referring to the vessels. Theodotion and the Peshitta follow the Massoretic reading. Whether or not the libation offered to the gods was in the mind of the writer, the mere fact that the sacred vessels were used for the purposes of a common feast was desecration. The addition of the "wives" and "concubines" adds at once to the degradation in the eyes of an Eastern, and to the stately rhetorical cadence of the verse. This renders all the stronger the suspicion engendered by the omission of these features in the Septuagint. It is to be observed that the Septuagint translator must have had an Eastern Aramaic manuscript before him, or he could never have translated bal "heart." At the same time, the presence of women at Babylonian feasts was not so uncommon as it was in the rest of the East, as we learn from the Ninevite remains. Certainly Quintus Curtius mentions this in connection with Alexander's visit to Babylon (Daniel 5:1 ). But was an obscure Jew likely to know this in Palestine? It is very difficult for a person writing in a different age to keep strictly to verisimilitude in these matters. Even a contemporary may make a blunder in writing, not a novel, but a biography, as Froude, in his 'Life of Carlyle,' declares he was "quietly married in the parish church of Temple." To be quietly married in a parish church in any part of Scotland, in the early years of this century, would be a contradiction in terms. Yet Froude had often been in Scotland, and knew Carlyle well. Could a Jew living in Palestine have all his wits about him so as to note every varying feature which distinguished the habits of Babylon from those of the rest of the East? The question may be asked why were the vessels of the Lord in Jerusalem singled out to be desecrated by a common use? It might, of course, be that the sacred vessels of the temples of the gods of all conquered nationalities were brought in, and thus that the singling out of the Jewish sacred vessels was due, not to the preference of the Babylonian monarch, but to the Jew, who saw only those. We think this can scarcely be. It was certainly the policy of Nabunahid to draw all worship to Babylon (Annals of Nabunahid, col. 3. line 20, "The gods of Akkad, which Nabunabid had brought to Babylon, were carried back to their city"). But this would lead him to avoid anything that would savour of disrespect to these gods whom he had brought to dwell in Babylon. We do not think it would have been merely the beauty of those vessels that led to their desecration, for the temple at Jerusalem had suffered several

38

plunderings before the capture of the city, and the period between the age of Hezekiah and Zedekiah was not one in which wealth and artistic talent were likely to increase. Some suspicion must have reached the court of Babylon that the Jews were in league with Cyrus; perhaps the contents of the second Isaiah had reached the knowledge of the Babylonian police. If so, the act of Belshazzar was an act of defiance against Jehovah of Israel.

3 So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them.

GILL, "Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem,.... That is, the servants to whom the orders were given fetched them from the temple of Bel, and brought them to the king's house; and though only mention is made of golden vessels, yet no doubt the silver ones were also brought, according to the king's command: and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them; by which they were profaned, being dedicated to holy uses, but now put to common use, and that by such impious persons; and who did it, not on account of the value and antiquity of these vessels, and in admiration of them, and to the honour of their festival; but in contempt of them, and in a profane and scurrilous way, as follows:

JAMISON, "This act was not one of necessity, or for honor’s sake, but in reckless profanity.

K&D, "Dan_5:3היכלא denotes the holy place of the temple, the inner apartment of the temple, as at

1Ki_6:3; Eze_41:1. אשתיו for שתיו, with אprosthet., cf. Winer, chald. Gr. §23, 1.

39

CALVIN, "The Prophet uses the word “golden, ” probably, because the most precious vessels were brought; silver might also have been added, but the more splendid ones are noticed. He does not say that Nebuchadnezzar carried them off, but implies it to be the common act of all the Babylonians. They obtained the victory under the direction of this king, hence he used the spoils; and since they were all engaged in the victory, the Prophet speaks of them all. In using the phrase, “the temple,” he expresses more than before, by saying, not from Jerusalem only but from the temple of God’s house.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which [was] at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.Ver. 3. Then they brought the golden vessels.] Made and appointed for a better use; as were likewise much of our Church lands, vessels, and utensils, concerning which a learned man complaineth, Possidebant Papistae, possident iam rapistae. Luther cried out earnestly against this abuse in Germany, Knox in Scotland, Calvin at Geneva: I see, said he to the senate there in a sermon, that we have taken the purse from Judas and given it to the devil; neither can I endure such sacrilege, which I know God in the end will punish most severely. Belshazzar paid dear for his boosing in the bowls of the sanctuary.And the king and his princes … drank in them.] As if they had been swine troughs. This was to outsin his father and grandfather, who yet were none of the best.

PETT, "Verse 3-4‘Then they brought the golden vessels which 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 in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood and of stone.’The blasphemy of the situation is starkly brought out. We cannot doubt the intent of the king. The golden vessels were those connected with the sanctuary itself (see Daniel 1:2). And in the midst of that lascivious, drunken feast they drank from them and drunkenly sang songs of worship to man made gods, gods made of earthly materials with no intrinsic life. The description is deliberately derisive.His act was an insult to the God of Israel, perhaps a deliberate slight on the God Who had so influenced Nebuchadnezzar, who had seemingly never used the vessels in such a way. In Belshazzar’s drunken mind there may have been in mind that ‘the Most High God’ was failing them in their hour of need, so that they would show Him how much they cared.

40

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:3, Daniel 5:4Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. The corresponding verses in the Septuagint differ in several points from those above; the Septuagint third verse contains, condensed, the Massoretic third and fourth verses, but adds new matter in its fourth verse: "(3) And they were brought, and they drank in them, and blessed their idols made with hands; (4) and the God the eternal, who hath dominion over their spirit ('breath,' πνεῦμα), they did not bless." In the introductory portion, which contains, as we think, marginal readings, we have the second and fourth verses brought into connection, "In that day Baltasar, being uplifted with wine, and boasting himself, praised in his drink all the gods of the nations, the molten and the carved, but to God the Highest he gave not praise." The reading of the latter portion of this seems better than the text, as it is briefer; the description of God as he that has power "over their breath," is a preparation for what we find in Daniel 5:23, "and thy breath is in his hand." Theodotion is, as usual, much nearer the Massoretic text, but while the Massoretic only mentions the "golden" vessels being brought, Theodotion mentions the silver also, and the verb hanpiqoo is translated singular, as if it were hanpayq, and "Nebuchadnezzar" understood. A various reading adds, "and the God of eternity, who hath power of their breath, did they not bless," according to the Alexandrine and Vatican codices. In both these cases Jerome follows Theodotion. The Peshitta agrees only in the latter, putting the verb in the singular. Modern translators, as Luther and Ewald, the Authorized and Revised English Versions, retain the plural, but make the verb passive, as if it were written honpaqoo. Calvin alone preserves both number and voice. The French Version, which makes it impersonal, is probably as good as any. It is, however, not impossible that the true reading is huphal; that seems better than Calvin's suggestion, that what Nebuchadnezzar had done is now transferred to all the Babylonians. The praises of the gods being sung was especially natural, if this were a dedication of a palace. In such a case the various elemental deities would be invoked to bless the residence of the king.The fact that the vessels belonging to the temple of the God of the Jews were brought forward from the treasury of Bel would afford an occasion for praising Bel, the god who had given them the victory. While they praised these god, of the nations, they did not even mention Jehovah—an addition in the text of Theodotion and the LXX; both text and margin, and therefore one that, we think, ought, in some form, to lie in the text. It is singular that in the Cyrus Cylinder, 17, the overthrow of Nabunahid is attributed to Marduk, "whom Nabunahid did not fear." The reason of Belshazzar thus ostentatiously praising the gods might be to get over the reputation of unfaithfulness to the gods, which was weakening them, father and son, in their struggle with Cyrus. Belshazzar most likely was, at this very time, carrying on war against Cyrus. The object of this festive gathering of his nobles

41

might be to hearten them in their struggle against the King of Persia.

4 As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

BARNES, "They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, ... - Compare the note at Dan_5:1. Idols were made among the pagan of all the materials here mentioned. The word praised here means that they spake in praise of these gods; of their history, of their attributes, of what they had done. Nothing can well be conceived more senseless and stupid than what it is said they did at this feast, and yet it is a fair illustration of what occurs in all the festivals of idolatry. And is what occurs in more civilized Christian lands, in the scenes of carousal and festivity, more rational than this? It was not much worse to lavish praises on idol gods in a scene of revelry than it is to lavish praises on idol men now; not much less rational to “toast” gods than it is to “toast” men.

CLARKE, "And praised the gods of gold - They had gods of all sorts, and of all metals; with wooden gods, and stone gods, beside!

GILL, "They drunk wine,.... That is, out of the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, and perhaps till they were drunk: and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone; for they had gods of all these materials; See Gill on Dan_1:2, and these they praised by offering sacrifices unto them; or rather by singing songs, and drinking healths, and by ascribing all their victories over the nations of the world to them; as that by their means they had got such large dominions, and such great wealth and treasures, and particularly these vessels of gold and silver; and so insulted and triumphed over the God of Israel, and defied the prophecies and promises of the deliverance of them that went under his name.

JAMISON, "praised — sang and shouted praises to “gods,” which being of gold, 42

“are their own witnesses” (Isa_44:9), confuting the folly of those who fancy such to be gods.

K&D, "Dan_5:4In this verse the expression they drank wine is repeated for the purpose of making manifest the connection between the drinking and the praising of the gods. The wickedness lay in this, that they drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of

Israel to glorify (שבח, to praise by the singing of songs) their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place “Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods” (Hävernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (Dan_5:23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated (see under Dan_1:2); the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel. And it was not a spirit of hostility aroused against the Jews which gave occasion, as Kranichfeld has well remarked, to this celebration of the victory of his god; but, as the narrative informs us, it was the reckless madness of the drunken king and of his drunken guests (cf. Dan_5:2) during the festival which led them to think of the God of the Jews, whom they supposed they had subdued along with His people, although He had by repeated miracles forced the heathen world-rulers to recognise His omnipotence (cf. Dan_2:47; 3:32f., 4:14 [Dan_4:17], 31 [34], 34 [37]). In the disregard of these revelations consisted, as Daniel represents to Belshazzar (cf. Dan_5:18), the dishonour done to the Lord of heaven, although these vessels of the sanctuary might have been profaned merely by using them as common drinking vessels, or they might have been used also in religious libations as vessels consecrated to the gods, of which the text makes no mention, although the singing of songs to the praise of the gods along with the drinking makes the offering of libations very probable. The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula וinto two classes: gold and silver - brass, iron, wood and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the vanity of these gods.CALVIN, "Here the Prophet shews more distinctly and clearly how the king insulted the true and only God, by ordering his vessels to be brought to him. For when they had been brought forth, they praised, says he, all their gods of gold and silver; meaning in defiance of the true God they celebrated the praises of their false deities, and thanked them, as we find in Habakkuk. (Habakkuk 1:16.) Although there is no doubt they sacrificed heartily the produce of their industry, as the Prophet there expresses it, yet they exalted their own gods, and thus obliterated the glory of the true God. And this is the reason why the Prophet now takes pains to state those vessels to have been brought from the temple of God ’s house For he here strengthens the impiety of the king and his nobles for erecting their horns against the God of Israel. There is then a great contrast, between God who commanded his temple to be built at Jerusalem, and sacrifices to be offered to him and false gods. And this was the head and front of Belshazzar’s offending, because he thus purposely rose up against God, and not only tyrannically and miserably oppressed

43

the Jews, but triumphed over their God — the Creator of heaven and earth. This madness accelerated his ultimate destruction, and it occurred for the purpose of hastening the time of their deliverance. Hence I have represented him to have been drawn by God’s great instinct to such madness that vengeance might be ripened.They drank, says he, wine, and praised their gods. The Prophet does not ascribe the praise of their gods to drunkenness, but he obliquely shews their petulance to have been increased by drink. For if each had been sober at home, he would not have thus rashly risen up against God; but when impiety exists in the heart, intemperance becomes an additional stimulus. The Prophet seems to me to mean this, when he repeats, they were drinking; for he had said, the king and his nobles, his wife, and concubines, were drinking He now inculcates the same thing in similar words, but adds, they drank wine, — meaning their madness was the more inflamed by the excitement of the wine. Then they praised the gods of silver, etc. The Prophet here reproachfully mentions gods of gold, silver, brass, wood, and stone, since we know God to have nothing in common with either gold or silver. His true image cannot be expressed in corruptible materials; and this is, the reason why the Prophet calls all the gods which the Babylonians worshipped, golden, silver, brazen, wooden, and stone. Clearly enough the heathen never were so foolish as to suppose the essence of Deity to reside in gold, or silver, or stone; they only called them images of their deities; but because in their opinion the power and majesty of the deity was included within the material substance, the Prophet is right in so completely condemning their criminality, because we hear how carefully idolaters invent every kind of subtlety. In the present times, the Papacy is a glaring proof how men cling to gross superstitions when they desire to excuse their errors; hence the Prophet does not here admit those vain pretenses by which the Babylonians and other heathens disguise their baseness, but he says, their gods were of silver and gold And why so? for although they orally confessed that gods reign in heaven, (so great was the multitude and crowd of their deities that the supreme God was quite shrouded in darkness,) although therefore the Babylonians confessed their gods to have dwelt in heaven, yet they fled to statues and pictures. Hence the Prophet deservedly chides them for adoring gods of gold and silver. As to his saying, then the vessels were brought, it shews how the slaves of tyrants obey them in the worst actions, because no delay intervened in bringing the vessels from the treasury. Daniel therefore signifies how all the king’s servants were obedient to his nod, and desirous of pleasing a person brutish and drunken; at the same time he shews the shortness of that intemperate intoxication; for he says, — COKE, "Daniel 5:4. And praised the gods of gold— Here is a kind of competition, or the appearance of a triumph of the false gods over the true one, whom still Nebuchadnezzar had honoured and acknowledged, and prohibited by a solemn decree that any one should speak lightly of him. The competition appears much stronger in the Alexandrine and Coptic versions, which add, "But the everlasting God they praised not." Such a wanton and sacrilegious insult deserved and called for exemplary punishment.

44

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.Ver. 4. They drank wine.] To the honour of their goddess Shac; for so these feast days were called σακεαι ημεραι, being like the Roman saturnalia.And praised the gods of silver and of gold.] As if these their dung hill deities had mastered and spoiled the God of Israel, who either would not, or could not defend his temple and people from falling into the power of their invincible conqueror. This was blasphemy in a high degree, and therefore presently punished by God.

5 Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote.

BARNES, "In the same hour - On the word “hour,” see the note at Dan_4:19.Came forth fingers of a man’s hand - Not the whole hand, but only the parts usually employed in writing. Not a man writing; not even an arm, but fingers that seemed to move themselves. They appeared to come forth from the walls, and were seen before they began to write. It was this that made it so impressive and alarming. It could not be supposed that it was the work of man, or that it was devised by man for the purpose of producing consternation. It was perfectly manifest to all who were there that this was the work of some one superior to man; that it was designed as a Divine intimation of some kind in regard to the scene that was then occurring. But whether as a rebuke for the sin of revelry and dissipation, or for sacrilege in drinking out of the consecrated vessels, or whether it was an intimation of some approaching fearful calamity, would not at once be apparent. It is easy to imagine that it would produce a sudden pause in their revelry, and diffuse seriousness over their minds.The suddenness of the appearance; the fingers, unguided by the hand of man, slowly writing in mysterious characters on the wall; the conviction which must have flashed across the mind that this must be either to rebuke them for their sin, or to announce some fearful calamity, all these things must have combined to produce an overwhelming effect on the revellers. Perhaps, from the prevalent views in the pagan world in regard to the crime of sacrilege, they may have connected this mysterious appearance with the

45

profane act which they were then committing - that of desecrating the vessels of the temple of God. How natural would it be to suppose - recognizing as they did the gods of other nations as real, as truly as those which they worshipped - that the God of the Hebrews, seeing the vessels of his worship profaned, had come forth to express his displeasure, and to intimate that there was impending wrath for such an act.The crime of sacrilege was regarded among the pagan as one of the most awful which could be committed, and there was no state of mind in which men would be more likely to be alarmed than when they were, even in the midst of scenes of drunken revelry, engaged in such an act. “The pagan,” says Grotius, “thought it a great impiety to convert sacred things to common uses.” Nuerous instances are on record of the sentiments entertained among the pagan on the subject of sacrilege, and of the calamities which were believed to come upon men as a punishment for it. Among them we may refer to the miserable end of the Phocians, who robbed the temple of Delphos, and whose act was the occasion of that war which was called the Holy War; the destruction of the Gauls in their attempt upon the same temple; and of Crassus, who plundered the temple of Jerusalem, and that of the Syrian goddess. - See Lowth, in loc. That a conviction of the sin of sacrilege, according to the prevalent belief on the subject, may have contributed to produce consternation when the fingers of the hand appeared at Belshazzar’s feast, there is no good reason to doubt, and we may suppose that the minds of the revellers were at once turned to the insult which they had thus offered to the God of the Hebrews.And wrote over against the candlestick - The candlestick, or lamp-bearer, perhaps, which had been taken from the temple at Jerusalem, and which was, as well as the sacred vessels, introduced into this scene of revelry. It is probable that as they brought out the vessels of the temple to drink in, they would also bring out all that had been taken from the temple in Jerusalem. Two objects may have been contemplated in the fact that the writing was “over against the candlestick;” one was that it might be clearly visible, the other that it might be more directly intimated that the writing was a rebuke for the act of sacrilege. On the probable situation where this miracle occurred, the reader may consult Taylor’s “Fragments to Calmet’s Dictionary,” No. 205. He supposes that it was one of the large inner courts of the palace - that part of the palace which was prohibited to persons not sent for. See the note at Dan_5:10.Upon the plaster of the wall - The Chaldee word means “lime,” not inappropriately rendered here “plaster.” The “manner” of the writing is not specified. All that is necessary to suppose is, that the letters were traced along on the wall so as to be distinctly visible. Whether they seemed to be cut into the plaster, or to be traced in black lines, or lines of light, is not mentioned, and is immaterial. They were such as could be seen distinctly by the king and the guests. Compare, however, the remarks of Taylor in the “Fragment” just referred to.And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote - It is not necessary to suppose that the others did not see it also, but the king was the most important personage there, and the miracle was intended particularly for him. Perhaps his eyes were first attracted to it.

CLARKE, "Fingers of a man’s hand - The fingers were collected about the style or pen as in the act of writing.

46

GILL, "In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, &c. From heaven, as Jarchi; or they came forth as if they came out of the wall: this was done by the power of God, though it might be by the intervention or means of an angel; so Josephus Ben Gorion (i) says, that an angel came and wrote what follows; and Saadiah says it was Gabriel, called a man, Dan_11:21, but this is conjecture; however, at the very time the king and his nobles were feasting and revelling, praising their idols, and reproaching the God of Israel, this wonderful phenomenon appeared: and wrote over against the candlestick, upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; this candlestick was either upon the table, as Saadiah; or affixed to the wall, or hung as a chandelier in the midst of the hall; or, be it where it will, right over against it this hand appeared, and wrote, that, by the light of it, it might be clearly and distinctly seen: though Gussetius (k) thinks, not a candlestick, but a "buffet", is meant; where stood the drinking cups and vessels, and which he takes to be more agreeable to the signification of the word; and moreover observes, that it is not likely this feast should be made in the night, or at least it is not certain it was, or that it was yet night when this affair happened: however, this writing was upon the plaster of the wall, made of lime, and was white; and if the writing was with red colour, as Ben Gorion says, it was the more visible: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote; the back part of the hand; had he only seen a writing, but no hand writing it, he might have thought it was done by some present; but seeing a hand, and only part of one, or however not any other members of the body of a man, nor a man himself, it struck him with surprise, and he concluded at once there was something extraordinary in it; whether any other saw the hand besides himself is not certain; however, he saw it for whom it was particularly designed.

JAMISON, "In the same hour — that the cause of God’s visitation might be palpable, namely, the profanation of His vessels and His holy name.

fingers of ... hand — God admonishes him, not by a dream (as Nebuchadnezzar had been warned), or by a voice, but by “fingers coming forth,” the invisibility of Him who moved them heightening the awful impressiveness of the scene, the hand of the Unseen One attesting his doom before the eyes of himself and his guilty fellow revelers.against the candlestick — the candelabra; where the mystic characters would be best seen. Barnes makes it the candlestick taken from the temple of Jerusalem, the nearness of the writing to it intimating that the rebuke was directed against the sacrilege.upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace — Written in cuneiform letters on slabs on the walls, and on the very bricks, are found the perpetually recurring recital of titles, victories, and exploits, to remind the spectator at every point of the regal greatness. It is significant, that on the same wall on which the king was accustomed to read the flattering legends of his own magnificence, he beholds the mysterious inscription which foretells his fall (compare Pro_16:18; Act_12:21-23).part of the hand — the anterior part, namely, the fingers.

47

CALVIN, "Here Daniel begins his narration of the change which took place, for at that instant the king’ acknowledged something sorrowful and disturbing to be at hand. Yet, as he did not at once understand what it was, God gave him a sign as an omen of calamity, according to the language of the profane. In this way God sent him warning when he saw the king and his nobles raging with mad licentiousness. There appeared, then, the hand of a man, says the Prophet, using this expression from its similitude and form. We are sure it was not a man’s hand; it had the appearance of one, and hence was called so. Scripture often uses this method of expression, especially when treating external symbols. This is, then, a sacramental form of speech, (251) if I may use the expression. God, indeed, wrote the inscription by his own power, but he shews King Belshazzar the figure as if a man had written it on the wall; hence the fingers of a hand were put forth. This expression conduces in no slight degree to the reality of the miracle; for if Belshazzar had seen this on the wall from the very first, he might have supposed some artifice had placed the hand there; but when the wall was previously bare, and then the hand suddenly appeared, we may readily understand the hand to have been a sign from heaven, through which God wished to shew something’ important to the king. The fingers of a hand, then, were put forth, and wrote from the midst of the candlestick, or lamp. Clearly, then, this was a feast by night, and Babylon was taken in the midst of the night. No wonder their banquets were protracted to a great length, for intemperance has no bounds. When men are accustomed to spend the day in luxury, I confess indeed they do not usually continue their banquets till midnight; but when they celebrate any splendid and remarkable feast, they do not find the daylight sufficient for their festivites and the grosser indulgences of the table.Hence the hand appeared from the candlesticks to render it the more conspicuous. That hand, says the Prophet, wrote on the surface of the palace wall. If any one had announced to the king this appearance of a human hand, he might have doubted it; but he says the king was an eye-witness, for God wished to terrify him, as we shall afterwards see, and hence he set before him this spectacle. The king, then, perceived it; perhaps his nobles did not; and we shall afterwards see how the terror operated upon the king alone, unless, indeed, some others trembled with him. When, therefore, they saw his countenance changed and exhibiting proofs of terror, they began to fear, although they were all desirous of affording him some consolation. Hence God wished to summon this impious king to His tribunal when the hand of a man appeared before him in the act of writing. We shall see what it wrote in its proper place.

COFFMAN, ""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

48

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 HANDWRITING 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

49

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]

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.Ver. 5. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand.] Taken off from the arm. This strange sight marred all the mirth immediately, making good the proverb, Ubi uber, ibi tuber; ubi mel, ibi fel. Lege Dei aeterna sancitum est ut illicita voluptas pariat ultricis conscientiae furias et supplicia, iuxta illud, Where the breast is, there is the friut, where the honey is, there is the venom. Eternity is confirmed by the law of God that forbidden pleasures give birth to vengeful and enraged conscience and that just punishment is near. Revelation 18:7. Carnal mirth goeth out in a snuff.Upon the plaster of the wall.] When the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against unrighteousness, he would have it to be well noted and noticed by all.

SIMEON 5-6, "BELSHAZZAR WARNED OF HIS IMPENDING RUINDaniel 5:5-6. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister 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, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.IN former days, God was pleased to reveal his mind and will to men by dreams, and visions, and signs of different kinds; and this he did, not to his friends only, but also to his enemies. To Nebuchadnezzar he revealed his purposes towards the world at large, in the successive establishment and ruin of four mighty empires, and of the final erection of the Messiah’s kingdom, which should stand for ever. His purposes

50

also towards this monarch in particular he was pleased to make known through the same medium of communication. In like manner, to the impious Belshazzar he here in a miraculous manner foretold the impending destinies of himself and of his falling empire. The effect of this revelation upon the mind of Belshazzar is described in the words which we have just read; and it will give occasion to many useful reflections, whilst we consider,I. His overwhelming fears—[That the sight of a hand-writing upon the wall of his room should surprise him, we may well expect. But why should it create in him such terror as is described in our text? What though he did not understand the writing? he need not on that account to be dismayed, if he had no inward reason to interpret the sign itself as auguring ill of him. But conscience, which had long been silenced by him, now lifted up its voice, and spoke to him in the language of keen remonstrance, and of dire foreboding: and this it was that made “his loins to shake, and his knees to smite one against the other.”Now this is a striking and instructive incident. We may, by carelessness and dissipation, drown for a season the voice of conscience; (unhappily for them, many succeed in this too well!) but sooner or later it will speak, and that too in such an authoritative tone as will make the stoutest sinner tremble. Every one, whether willingly or not, must listen to it at last: and the longer our attention to it is delayed, the more poignant and terrible will its reproaches be. Behold the convictions of the converts on the day of Pentecost, or the desponding and self-destroying attitude of the jailor! Yet these were the kindlier offices of conscience for their good [Note: Acts 2:37; Acts 16:26-30.]. In many who continue to withstand its dictates, it stings, it rankles, it corrodes, it fills with gloom and melancholy, destroying all their peace, and leaving them nothing but “a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation to consume them.” And oh! with what horrors does it fill them at the instant of their departure from the body, and will fill them in the day when they shall be summoned to the judgment-seat of Christ! What “fearfulness will then surprise the hypocrites, when they see nothing before them but dwelling with devouring fire and in everlasting burnings [Note: Isaiah 33:14.]!” How will they then “call upon the rocks to fall upon them, and the hills to cover them from the wrath of that Lamb” of God, whom here they have neglected and despised! Brethren, listen to the voice of this faithful monitor: let not its slightest whispers be unheeded by you: cherish it; consult it on all occasions; labour to the uttermost to “keep it pure; attend to it, and it will prove your kindest friend: neglect it, and it will be to all eternity your bitterest enemy.]Consequent on these terrors were,II. His anxious inquiries—[“He cried aloud to bring in all the magicians,” that he might inquire of them the

51

import of what was written: and when they were unable to give a satisfactory reply, he was induced to send for Daniel, who on former occasions had expounded the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, but had since been neglected by the weak ungrateful prince who now sat upon the Chaldean throne: now was he glad to learn, even from him, a just interpretation of the words before him.Here again then we see what sinners will be driven to, when Conscience summons them to its bar, and constrains them to call their former ways to remembrance. Then they will be glad to be instructed in the written word of God: yea, they will request instruction even from a neglected and despised Daniel, in whose judgment and fidelity they can trust, when they have seen, that those on whom they before relied were “physicians of no value.” But let not these inquiries be delayed. There is a hand-writing against us all; a writing so plain and intelligible, that “he who runs may read it.” It requires no Daniel, no person of extraordinary wisdom, to expound it. We may see in the sacred volume, which lies open before our eyes, “the wrath of God revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” You need not go to men to interpret this to you: go to God; and he will expound it to you, and by his Spirit will “give you an understanding to understand it.” But it is not a sentence of condemnation only that is written there: no; blessed be God! there are many glorious sentences which proclaim pardon and peace through the atoning blood of Christ — — — Read these; meditate on these: and your fears shall speedily be dispelled, and your sorrows be turned into joy. Mark the answers given to those whose terrors we have before spoken of, and the effect of those answers on their souls; and then you will see what you may assuredly expect as the result of your inquiries, if only they be made in sincerity and truth [Note: Acts 2:37-38; Acts 2:46-47; Acts 16:26-30; Acts 16:34.].]The instruction given him was however unavailing: it had no effect on,III. His confirmed obduracy—[He listened not only to the instructions, but also to the reproofs of Daniel, who set before him the guilt lie had contracted, by his misimprovement of those judgments which had been inflicted on Nebuchadnezzar for his pride; as also by his utter neglect of Jehovah, “in whose hand his life was;” and particularly in so heinously insulting God, as to take the sacred vessels of the sanctuary and profane them in his drunken revels, and make them an occasion of exalting his gods of wood and stone above him. Having set before him these grounds of God’s displeasure, Daniel proceeded to explain the writing, and to tell him from God, that his life and kingdom were just ready to be delivered over to his enemies. All this he heard without offence; and he even gave orders, that the promised rewards should instantly be conferred on this faithful servant. But we hear not one word of humiliation on account of all his wickedness: he does not, like Ahab, humble himself in sackcloth and ashes [Note: 1 Kings 21:27.]; he does not, like the Ninevites, proclaim a fast; he does not even, like Pharaoh, say, I have sinned; nor does he even, like Simon Magus, desire Daniel’s intercession, that these judgments might not fall

52

upon him [Note: Acts 8:24.]. He seems altogether insensible, given over to a reprobate mind and an obdurate heart.And do we not often see a similar result from all the most faithful expositions of God’s word? A momentary fear perhaps may be excited, even to terror; but no solid improvement follows it; no godly sorrow is produced in the soul; no humiliation before God; no cries for mercy; no departure from iniquity. But, if we thus “harden ourselves against God, can we prosper?” No: “he that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without a remedy.”]In reading this account, we cannot but observe,1. The vanity of all earthly enjoyments—[What can we conceive more gratifying to flesh and blood, than to be entertaining, as Belshazzar did, such multitudes of his nobles, together with all his wives and concubines? Yet, behold, how in an instant all his pleasure vanished, and was turned into insupportable agony of mind! Nor is such a change uncommon: many in the midst of the most licentious scenes have been struck with horror, and made to anticipate their final doom: even a thought passing through the mind has been sufficient to cast a damp over the spirits, and to rob the soul of all its gaiety. What folly then to seek our happeness in things which are so unsatisfactory at best, and which may so speedily become an occasion of our more aggravated woe! Let us remember, that all which the world can afford is “vanity and vexation of spirit.” As for “laughter, it is mad; and of mirth, it may be asked, What doeth it?” Yea, even in “laughter, the soul is often sorrowful; and the end of all such mirth is heaviness.”]2. The comfort of a good conscience—[Daniel was not alarmed, notwithstanding his life was in jeopardy, as well as the life of all who dwelt in Babylon. But Daniel enjoyed the testimony of a good conscience, and therefore had confidence towards God. He knew that the enemy could only kill the body; and that the death of the body would translate his soul into the more immediate presence of his God. Thus Paul, when ready to be offered up a sacrifice, contemplated his departure with joy, assured, that the Lord, the righteous Judge, had prepared for him a never-fading crown of righteousness and glory. And Peter also, when on the very eve of expected martyrdom, and chained to two soldiers, was sleeping as sweetly, as if he had known that God had decreed to liberate him from his prison. Such are the effects of peace with God, and peace in our own conscience. Let us but maintain “a conscience void of offence towards God and man,” and nothing shall have power to disturb our rest. Assured that “nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus,” we shall smile at all the storms that encompass us around, and “commit ourselves with confidence into the hands of a faithful Creator.”]3. The blessedness of an interest in Christ—

53

[Whatever “hand-writing there is against us” in the Scriptures of truth, Christ has “blotted it out, and taken it out of the way, nailing it, as a cancelled bond, unto his cross [Note: Colossians 2:14.].” Search the sacred volume from one end to the other, and not one word will be found menacing to a believing penitent. The very moment we believe in Christ, all our iniquities, of whatever kind, are blotted out as a morning cloud, and shall never more be remembered against us. Is there then any one amongst us that “trembles at God’s word?” let him know, that the more he trembles, the less reason he has to tremble; since God looks upon him with complacency [Note: Isaiah 66:2.], and engages “in no wise to cast him out.” Suppose that such an one beheld at this moment written on the wall before him, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin;” and that we were authorized to expound it to him, “Thy days are numbered; thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting; and all that thou hast shall now be divided by thy surviving relatives, thy soul being summoned into the presence of its God;” even were this so, he need not fear, because Christ, being apprehended by faith, shall be put into the scale, and make it preponderate in his favour. We do not mean by this, that Christ and his merits are to be added to something of our own; (for He alone must be put into the scale against our sins;) but this we mean; that if there were the sins of the whole world lying on the soul of a single individual, the blood of Christ, applied by faith, should cleanse him from it, and the righteousness of Christ be a sufficient plea for his acceptance with God. Seek then, Beloved, to be united unto Christ by faith; and then, instead of trembling at his approach, you shall “rejoice before him at his coming.”

PETT, "Verse 5‘In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand and wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace. And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.’Excavation has revealed that the walls of the Babylonian palace were covered with white plaster so that any dark object would be highlighted against it in the light of the great lampstand. Only the king is actually mentioned as seeing the hand that wrote. But it does not necessarily mean that no other saw it, although it is possible. Perhaps the emphasis is rather on the fact that the blasphemous king, who had ordered the blasphemy, also saw the hand because the message was for him. We can imagine the mysteriousness of the scene. The dark hall, the flickering of the lamps, the inebriated condition of those present, the boisterous singing, and then the awed silence as they became aware of what was happening in the flickering light from the lampstand.

PULPIT, "In the same hour oame 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

54

saw the part of the hand that wrote. The two versions given in the Septuagint here do not seriously differ from each other or from the Massoretic text, only that they both omit "the part of," and represent the king as seeing the hand. Theodotion has ἀστραγάλους, which maybe rendered "finger-joints;" otherwise this version is very like both the Massoretic and the LXX. The Peshitta presents no point of remark. The word translated "lamp" (nebhrashta) became in Talmudic times the equivalent of menoorah, "the golden candlestick." From this it has been supposed that "the candlestick" was the golden candlestick which later proved the crowining glory of Titus's triumph, and is still to be seen carved on his arch. When the other vessels of the house of the Lord were brought to deck the table of the monarch, it would not be unnatural that the golden candlestick should also be brought. In the great hall in which a thousand guests were accommodated, more lamps than one would be required. The Septuagint (text) adds, "over against the king:" this would individualize the lamp referred to; but there does not seem to be any support for this reading, which may be due to the desire to explain the satatus emphaticus. Gesenius derives the word נברשתא from נור, "light," and אש, "flame." As ו as a consonant was unused in Assyrian, this derivation is by no means impossible We know that the Ninevite monarchs surrounded the great halls of their palaces with bas-reliefs of their victories. The remains of Babylon have not given us anything like the gypsum slabs of Kouyounjik. Yet the Babylonian monarchs not unlikely followed the same praetices as those of Nineveh. The walls were built and plastered, and then the slabs were moved up to them. In the ease of Belshazzar, the palace walls might well be fresh; no gypsum slabs had yet recorded his prowess. As he looks to the white plaster, the fingers of a hand come out of the darkness, and write opposite him. "The king," thus it is in the Massoretic text, saw the "part" of the hand that wrote. Pas is the word. Furst renders it "wrist;" Gesenius, "the extremity;" Winer, vola manus," the hollow of the baud;" with this Buxtorf agrees. The balance of meanings seems to be in favour of "hollow of the hand," only it is difficult to understand the position of the hand relatively to the king when he saw the hollow of the hand. The smoke from the numerous lamps would obscure the roof of the hall of the palace; however numerous the lamps, their

BI, "In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand.The Handwriting on the Wall

1. There are many Belshazzar’s in the world, even at this present moment. There is, in human nature, an evil rebelling principle against the God who made us; and men are to be found whose wills are in violent opposition to His laws and authority. They have idols of their own hearts whom they resolve to serve, let the consequences be what they may. Such are not singled out by miracle as warnings to the reprobates, but there is a handwriting against them, and that of terrible import, which they can neither see nor read. Their days are numbered, their career fixed, their punishment entered in the great book of life and death.2. Men do not sufficiently consider the omniscience of God. They would persuade themselves that there are places where He cannot see them; that there are things

55

which He does not know. How stubborn and perverse is the will of man! It effectually closes his eyes to the truth, and makes him believe what he wishes. It makes him fancy that God is absent whenever he dares to insult Him, and that God is blind to the sins which he could in his wickedness desire Him not to behold. Among the most perilous delusions of sin, must it be considered by the Christian, that his very heart can be so seared against the convictions of truth, that he can for a moment being himself, like some of the heathen, to imagine the all-seeing, ever-present, all-pervading Godhead, stripped of his very nature, and slumbering, absent, or unobservant in the recesses of wickedness.3. How would it be with each of us if there were a handwriting against the wall to warn us of the end of our career and the arrival of our day of account? Sudden death, under any circumstances, is indeed sufficiently terrible. Even to the good, it is very awful; but what must be its horrors to the wilfully wicked? The Almighty now has recourse to the ordinary means of providence, for the most part, to check the sinner in his career. If a man die in his sins, let him not plead ignorance or incapacity. (A. B. Evans, D.D.)

The Awakening Hour of ConscienceThis chapter develops two solemn facts.

1. That neither the revolutions of time nor the opposition of man can hinder the fulfilment of the Divine word.2. That at the period when men fancy themselves most secure the peril is frequently the most imminent.

I. THAT IT IS AN “HOUR” THAT MUST DAWN ON THE MOST OBDURATE NATURES. There are two classes of dormant consciences; those that have never been aroused—infants and savages; and those that have been partially quickened, but deadened again—seared. There is an hour for the awakening of each—even the most lethargic. It was so now with Belshazzar. Other consciences of the same class have had their awakening hour—Cain, Herod, Judas, Felix, etc. II. THAT IT IS AN “HOUR “ INTRODUCED BY A DIVINE MANIFESTATION. There “came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.”

1. It was very quiet; no lightning flashed, no thunder pealed, but the gentle movements of a mystic hand.2. It was very unexpected; it was in the midst of the gladness, when the tide of festive joy ran high.3. It was very palpable; there was no way of ignoring it. It moved against the light of the candlestick. It is in this quiet, unexpected, and palpable manner that God frequently brings that idea of Himself into the soul, which ever rouses the conscience.

III. THAT IT IS AN “HOUR” ASSOCIATED WITH GREAT MENTAL DISTRESS. “Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” Two 56

things are observable here”1. The influence of an awakened conscience upon “thoughts.” Our thoughts are governed by different principles. Sometimes intellect controls them, and we are ever in the region of investigation; sometimes imagination has the command, and then we sport in the realms of beauty; sometimes avarice, and then the market is our home, and good bargains the joy of our heart; sometimes “fleshly lusts,” and then the whole nature is brutalised. But here the guilty conscience controls them, and this is Hell. A guilty conscience always throws the thoughts upon three subjects—the wrong of the past, the guilt of the present, and the retribution of the future.2. The other thing observable is the influence of “troubled thoughts” upon the physical system. “The joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” David felt thus, for he said, “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.”

IV. IT IS AN “HOUR” WHICH IS SOMETIMES THE HARBINGER OF ETERNAL RETRIBUTION. Oftentimes the hour of moral awakening ushers in the bright and propitious morning of conversion. It was so in the case of Zaccheus, the sinners on the day of Pentecost, the Philippian gaoler, and others. Indeed, such an hour must always precede the dawn of true religion in the soul. But here, as with Judas, it was the harbinger of retribution. “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.” What a night! “That night” separated him for ever from his pleasures, his friends, and his empire; “that night” terminated for ever his opportunities of spiritual improvement, and quenched every ray of hope within his breast; “that night” every star in the firmament of his being went down to rise no more, and left the whole of the boundless expanse overhung with clouds surcharged with the elements of inconceivable storms. Sinner, the day of grace is waning fast; the hour of awakening steals on. That hour shall either issue in the dawn of a new and happy life, or the chaos of moral anguish and despair! (Homilist.)

Called to AccountObserve how many and great offences Belshazzar crowded into a single festival, into a single day. In the midst of this scene of guilty riot, the Almighty alarmed them with the messenger of his displeasure. The remarkable prophecy of the handwriting was no less remarkably fulfilled. Thus was it shown to the Assyrian, as well as to the Jew, that the “Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men.” Thus was exhibited a most impressive instance of His power, His government, His justice. In these days the government of the Almighty has not ceased. The mode of its administration only is changed. Though the justice of God may appear to be delayed, it is not abolished. His laws, far from being repealed, are more fully explained and enforced by more powerful sanctions. The day of account must come; and to us it will come with augmented weight and solemnity. Our conduct in the present transitory state must determine our fate for ever. Seeming suspension and delay faust not be depended on. The king of Babylon was suddenly called to judgment. We do not want the supernatural writing on the wall, nor the prophet to give us its interpretation. We possess the permanent writing of the Gospel, and that in characters which every man can read. The Gospel, however, contains no promise that we shall not be suddenly called to our account. It ought, indeed, to be one powerful caution against any criminal pursuit, that we may not live to enjoy the fruits of success, or even

57

to complete the crime. Whatever may have been our place or station in society, we shall be finally punished or rewarded, not according to the extent of our endowments or possessions, but according to the zeal and diligence with which they have been employed and improved. (W. Barrow, LL.D.)

RetributionBelshazzar was the king of Babylon, one of the most splendid cities in the world. It was built in an immense plain; and its walls measured a circumference of sixty miles. A hundred gates of brass adorned it; and hanging gardens, terrace above terrace, clothed its regal palace with living verdure. Through the midst flowed the great river Euphrates, painting in its depths the surrounding magnificence, and shedding beauty on temple and tower, that looked boldly from its banks. Yet the crowned lord himself of this wondrous city was a worthless wretch. He spent his time in luxurious repose, pampering the baser appetites, and permitting all the glory of his great abode to be sustained by the debauchery of his people. Many years he went on, and did his pleasure. God permitted him to choose his own course, and work out his own destiny, in the station assigned. The scene of our text is laid at the return of a certain idolatrous festival. The king had prepared a rich feast to grace it. He called in a thousand of his lords to the sparkling tables. His wives with his concubines came to join the company. And they reclined at the costly viands, spread all around in grateful abundance. So they went on, hour by hour, intoxicating their senses, and burying their souls in unbounded revelry. At length, heated with wins, Belshazzar ordered the sacred vessels, taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple of God at Jerusalem, to be brought for service in this scene of rioting and drunkenness. And they all, king, prince, wives, and concubines, used these instruments of holiness as their own goblets. They polluted them with their voluptuous lips, and poured out libations to the idols, and sang impious songs in honour of false gods.Then, suddenly, they saw the fingers, as of a man’s hand, writing over against the candlestick, upon the plastered wall. Dim grew the lamps before those letters of fire. Wherefore those letters written on the wall? Simply to announce a punishment for the crime committed that very night! Thus are they generally understood. But the reference was, doubtless, larger and more solemn. It embraced the king’s whole being, and was a final judgment on the long course of his guilty life. “Thou art weighed in the balances, and found wanting.” Was the king utterly at a loss, even at the first, to know the meaning inscribed by that miraculous hand? So it is commonly supposed. And the idea seems to be justified by his offering a reward to anyone who should be able to read it. But, affrighted as he was at the terrible appearance, there is reason to believe that he was not altogether surprised. For, you will observe, it was not the wondrous miracle nor the blinding splendour that most moved the king. No; the text informs us it was his thoughts that troubled him. It was not stupid amazement and blind fear. No; his thoughts, rising clear and strong, and breaking at once through the fumes of intoxication, troubled him. And how was it that the king’s thoughts troubled him? Oh, was it not by the interpretation they gave of the miraculous writing? Did not they translate that burning symbol, whose separate words he could not read, into one large commentary on his whole sinful life? Yea; guilty conscience woke from her slumber in his bosom, and compelled even the monarch to travel with her far away from the brilliant hall of felting to scenes of cruel bloodshed and dungeons of unjust imprisonment. Far into years long gone and forgotten, she hurried him as ghosts are said to hurry their victims; and, once

58

more to the king’s awakened mind, they were filled with their own fresh scenes and real characters. Yet he called in the wise man of God to read the writing, and, as he had promised, rewarded him with a chain of gold about his neck, and by proclaiming him the third ruler in the kingdom. But not for a moment could he stay the righteous goings of the Divine law. Hard on the sentence pronounced pressed its dreadful execution. Terrible interruption came to that scene of joy, where “a thousand hearts beat happily, and music arose with its voluptuous swell.” That very night the Persian general, having turned the river Euphrates from its course, marched his troops along the empty channel. The drunken Chaldeans had left open their brazen gates. I have but pictured the operation in a single instance of a law which is universal and eternal—the law of retribution. It is not Belshazzar alone, and Babylon, and two thousand years ago, of which I have spoken, but of every wilful offender against God’s law who walks our own streets. It is to be feared most of us do not live with a practical regard to this law of retribution. And wherefore? Is it because we have not found conclusive evidence of its reality? It cannot be; for not only is it a law expounded in Scripture. It is suggested by all the analogies of nature which Scripture has used for its illustration. It is written everywhere in history. It is taught in all civil regulations. We see the same law governing domestic life. How many families, rising to riches and honour by the path of the virtues, have as surely fallen by that of the vices! Two or three generations measured their ascent, and two or three more have sunk them in poverty and shame; and then men talk of the wheel of fortune. Nay, it is the revolution of Providence; it is the justice of God! This moral law, too, while exactly adjusting individual fortunes, as easily weighs kingdoms. The Roman empire was built from the feeblest beginnings, by the force of temperance, industry, and valour. She spread her arms over the nations, gave law to savage tribes, made the mention of her citizens a universal joy and terror, and became another name for the world. But luxury flowed in, stagnant sloth extended, corruption prevailed, ambition battled; and she that had ruled mankind by virtue, dissolved in vice, fell a prey to barbarians. All known religions, too, of merely human invention, have confessed the same principle. How deeply have they sunk caverns of torment in the world of spirits! In fine, the vilest sinner himself has fearful anticipations of his doom. Retribution, then, is not only a solemn doctrine of holy writ, but a great fact in human nature. Our disregard of it comes not from any want of proof. How, then, is it to be accounted for? Doubtless, we may say generally, by our own guilty negligence. Yet there are more special reasons. First, the very strength with which it has been believed by some, and the terrific manner in which it has been set forth, have produced unbelief in others. Morbidly excited religionists have averred that the slightest offence is worthy of eternal punishment. No wonder that our ideas of God, of justice, of mercy, yea, and our human hearts, should rebel against such representations. But, recoiling in horror from this over-statement and extravagance, many have gone into a perilous extreme of indifference and doubt. Men have lived as if there were to be no day of reckoning at all, and put their souls to imminent hazard. How many, too, view retribution simply as a doctrine of the understanding, to be uncertainly reasoned about, refuted, or proved, and a fit subject for sectarians to try their armour upon in theological warfare! We have received it too much as an opinion to be discussed, rather than a reality to be felt in a perpetual pressure on the heart. This account shows us, in the first place, that men generally allowed to go on for a while as they please, really to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. It is sometimes said, guilt always receives its full punishment immediately in this life. But this is plainly not true, as matter of fact; and, if it were, we can hardly conceive how sin or virtue should exist at all. Were the stripes inflicted at once, and for 59

every even the smallest offence, transgression would be a thing to be avoided just as we avoid tasting poison, plunging into deep water, or handling coals of fire. Probation, a trial of men to see whether they will do right, would be entirely out of the question. There could be no free moral will but would at once break down. We should he machines, moving with regularity as the sun and moon do. Bat how was it with Belshazzar? Time was given him to degrade himself fully, and offer abundant sacrifices to the gods of flesh and sense. Nearly seventeen years had he reigned. He had gathered everything rich and beautiful around him. And yet the angel of judgment had not sensibly touched him. But, secondly, the account from Scripture, while it shows we have a season of clear and proper probation, makes retribution something equally positive and distinct. Though not now mingled in equal proportions with sin, it will at length break in upon it suddenly and sharply. Our own experience will furnish us with cases of commencing retribution similar to that of the Asiatic king. We have seen the young man despising wholesome restraints, neglecting regular duties, moving joyously through all the rounds of sinful pleasure. Was the sword of vengeance stretched at once over his head, and his soul summoned to its trial? No; year after year he went on, and spent his substance in riotous living, and robbed his brothers’ patrimony. Noble were the powers of his mind, and, like jewels, they might have shone in his noble frame. But, alas! their strength was all melted down in the fires of appetite and the heats of passion. At length the too-sorely taxed system began to tremble from the height of its proud strength. Loathsome disease infected the nerves, and loosened every fibre. And death is not the end of retribution, but the signal of its more perfect reign. Death is often piously spoken of as a circumstance in life. But it is not a small circumstance. The time arrives for this temple of the human body to be taken down. Finally, the account from Scripture presents retribution, not only as a principle thus sure and dreadful in its operations, but as a law of rigorous justice. Even to the dissolute king it was said, “Thou art weighed in the balances, and found wanting.” Retribution shall be measured and meted out to thee in exact proportion to thy sin. Thou shall suffer as much as thou deservest, and no more and no less. The unbounded and unqualified declarations which are so common are apt to make us forget this just and guarded style of the Scriptures. A man is to reap exactly what he sows, of the same kind and in the same degree. Turning aside, then, from all ingenious speculations, here is the solemn fact that should press upon our hearts and control our lives. We must eat the fruit of our own doings, and all of it. Oh! were we but once thoroughly persuaded of this simple truth, what revolutions would take place in our lives! How should we avoid every inordinate passion as a raging fire! How should we cast all envious and uncharitable thoughts, like vipers, from our bosoms! What immense interest would life gain in our eyes! Steadily and for ever the work goes on. Events sweep by us, ever taking some stamp from the moral tamper of our minds, the transcript of which is entered in the book of judgment. As not the smallest particle of dust is ever annihilated, so not a thought we have cherished, not a feeling we have indulged, not the most trivial act done in the most sportive mood, shall be lost. Buried these things may be, and are, for a time, like seed in a field. The traveller walks over the smooth surface, and dreams not of the mighty process going on beneath. But, nevertheless, soon does the full harvest wave wide its golden treasure. Thus, too, the harvest-season of life shall come. Now is the spring-time of the moral year! (C.A. Bartol.)

60

6 His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking.

BARNES, "Then the king’s countenance was changed - The word rendered “countenance” is, in the margin, as in Dan_5:9, “brightnesses.” The Chaldee word means “brightness, splendor” (זיו zıyv), and the meaning here is bright looks, cheerfulness, hilarity. The word rendered was changed, is in the margin changed it; and the meaning is, that it changed itself: probably from a jocund, cheerful, and happy expression, it assumed suddenly a deadly paleness.

And his thoughts troubled him - Whether from the recollection of guilt, or the dread of wrath, is not said. He would, doubtless, regard this as some supernatural intimation, and his soul would be troubled.So that the joints of his loins were loosed - Margin, “bindings,” or “knots,” or

“girdles.” The Chaldee word rendered “joints” (קטר qeṭar) means, properly, “knots;” then joints of the bones, as resembling knots, or apparently answering the purposes of knots in the human frame, as binding it together. The word “loins” in the Scriptures refers to the part of the body around which the girdle was passed, the lower part of the back; and Gesenius supposes that the meaning here is, that the joints of his back, that is, the vertebral are referred to. This part of the body is spoken of as the seat of strength. When this is weak the body has no power to stand, to walk, to labor. The simple idea is, that he was greatly terrified, and that under the influence of fear his strength departed.

And his knees smote one against another - A common effect of fear Nah_2:10. So Horace, “Et corde et genibus tremit.” And so Virgil, “Tarda trementi genua labant.” “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 but up his finger against him, how poorly did he crouch and shiver. How did his joints loose, and his knees knock together!” - South’s Sermons, vol. iv. p. 60.

CLARKE, "The king’s countenance was changed - Here is a very natural description of fear and terror.

1. The face grows pale;2. The mind becomes greatly agitated;3. Pains seize on the lower part of the back and kidneys;

61

4. A universal tremor takes place, so that the knees smite against each other;5. And lastly, either a syncope takes place, or the cry of distress is uttered, Dan_5:7 : “The king cried.”

GILL, "Then the kings countenance changed,.... Or, "his brightness" (l); his ruddy countenance, his florid looks, his gay airs; all his jollity and mirth, that appeared in his face, were changed into paleness, sadness, and confusion: and his thoughts troubled him; what should be the meaning of this; perhaps he might immediately fear it presaged ruin and destruction to him; the sins of his former life might at once come into his thoughts, and those particularly he had now been guilty of; his luxury and intemperance, his idolatry and profanation of the vessels of the sanctuary, which his conscience might accuse him of, and give him great distress and trouble: so that the joints of his loins were loosed; or, "the girdles of his loins" (m); which were loosed or broke, through the agitation he was in; or he was all over in a sweat, so that he was obliged to loose his girdle; or, as persons in great fear and consternation, he was seized with a pain in his back; it opened as it were; nor could he hold his urine; as Grotius and others; see Isa_45:1, where this seems to be prophesied of: and his knees smote one against another; as is the case of persons in a great tremor, or under a panic. "Et subito genua intremuere timore".--Ovid.

JAMISON, "countenance — literally, “brightness,” that is, his bright look.joints of his loins — “the vertebrae of his back” [Gesenius].

K&D, "מלכא (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted. The plur. הי זי has an intensive signification: the colour of the countenance. Regarding זיו, see under Dan_4:33. The suffix to הי שנ is to be taken in the signification of the dative, since שנא in the Peal occurs only intransitively. The connection of an intransitive verb with the suff. accus. is an inaccuracy for which שובני, Eze_47:7, and perhaps also עשיתיני, Eze_29:3, afford analogies; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §315b. In Dan_5:9, where the matter is repeated, the harshness is avoided, and הי על is used to express the change of colour yet more strongly. The meaning is: “the king changed colour as to his countenance, became pale from terror, and was so unmanned by fear and alarm, that his body lost its firmness and vigour.” The bands or ligaments of his thighs (חלצים .equivalent to the Hebr ,חרץ)were loosed, i.e., lost the strength to hold his body, and his knees smote one against another. ארכובא with אprosth., for רכובא, in the Targg. means the knee. The alarm was heightened by a bad conscience, which roused itself and filled him with dark

62

forebodings. Immediately the king commanded the magicians to be brought, and promised a great reward to him who would read and interpret the mysterious writing.

CALVIN, "Here Daniel shews how the king’s mind was struck with fear, lest any one should think his fright without foundation. But he expresses, by many circumstances, how disturbed the king was, and thus the sufficiency of the reason would easily appear. It was needful for him to be so struck, that all might understand how God was seated on his throne, and summoned him as a criminal. We mentioned before how Daniel impresses us with the pride of this king, and his careless security is a clear proof of it. When the daily siege of the city ought to have rendered him anxious, he was celebrating his usual banquets, as if in profound peace. Whence he appears to be corrupted by a kind of spiritual drunkenness, so as not to feel his own calamities. This, then, is the reason why God roused him up and awakened him from his lethargy, because no ordinary means were effectual in recalling him to soundness of mind. The fear which he experienced might seem a convenient preparation for penitence. But we see the same thing in this case as we do in that of Esau; for he was not only touched with contrition when he saw himself cut off, but he uttered a loud and piercing’ lamentation when seeking his father’s“blessing,” and yet he was too late. (Genesis 27:24.) A similar occurrence is related here of King Belshazzar, but we must remark upon everything in order. Daniel says. The king’s countenance was changed; then, the joints of his limbs were loosened, and he was disturbed, or frightened, in his thoughts; and lastly, he adds, his knees smote together The word properly signifies, to strike one against another. By these signs the Prophet shews how King Belshazzar was frightened by the vision already mentioned. Without doubt, as I have just said, God inspired him with this terror, for we know even when God has openly ascended to his own tribunal, how stupid the reprobate remain, and how immovable! But God wished to affect the mind of this impious king, and to render his ignorance without excuse.Here we may remark, generally, in how many ways God touches men’s hearts — not those of the reprobate only, but also of his elect, for we see even the best men slow and slothful when God summons them to his judgment-seat. It becomes necessary to chastise them with rods, otherwise they never approach God of their own accord. He might, indeed, move their minds without violence; but he wishes to set before us, as in a glass, our slowness and slothfulness, since we do not obey his word with natural willingness. Hence he tames his children with cords when they will not profit by his word. With regard to the reprobate, he often chides their obstinacy, because, before he undertakes the office of judge, he kindly entices them; when they do not profit by this, he threatens; and when his threats are useless and devoid of efficacy, he then calls them to his tribunal. Respecting the fate of the King of Babylon, God had suffered Daniel to be silent, for his ingratitude and pride had closed the door, so as to prevent Daniel from undertaking the office of a teacher as he was prepared to do; hence the King of Babylon continued without one. But God suddenly appeared as a judge, by the writing of which we have shortly spoken, and

63

of which we shall say more in the proper place. Whatever its meaning may be: we see King Belshazzar not only admonished by an outward sign of his approaching death, but inwardly stirred up to acknowledge himself to be dealing with God. For the reprobate often enjoy their own pleasures, as I have said, although God shews himself to be their judge. But he treats King Belshazzar differently: he desires to inspire him with terror, to render him more attentive to the perusal of the writing. This time was, as I have said, a preparation for repentance; but he failed in the midst of his course, as we see too many do who tremble at the voice of God and at the signs of his vengeance, as soon as he admonishes them; but these feelings are but evanescent; thus proving how little they have learnt of the necessary lesson.The example of Esau is similar to this, since he despised God’s grace when he heard himself deprived of the inheritance divinely promised him. (Genesis 25:33.) He treated the blessing as a fable, till he found it a serious matter; he then began to lament, but all in vain. Such also was the fright of King Belshazzar, as we shall soon perceive. Even when Daniel explained the writing to him, he was by no means moved by it, but adorned Daniel with royal tokens of regard. Yet the object and use of this was totally different, for when the nobles were moved, and the reality became manifest, God in this way demonstrated his glory: and Darius, who took the city, with his son-in-law Cyrus, understood how his own valor and perseverance were not the sole cause of his victory, and how the satraps, Gobryas and Gadata, would not have assisted him so materially unless the whole affair had been under God’s auspices. Thus God shewed himself as in a glass to be the avenger of his people, as he had promised seventy years previously. It now follows: — COKE, "Daniel 5:6. Then the king's countenance, &c.— The expressions in this verse, in a collected view, contain such a description of terror as is rarely to be met with, the dead change of the countenance, the perturbation of the thoughts, the joints of the loins become relaxed, and the knees smiting hither and thither or against each other, are very strong indications of horror.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.Ver. 6. Then the king’s countenance was changed.] How soon is carnal joy extinct, the gallantry of it checked with troubles and terrors! how suddenly is it put out as the fire of thorns! [Psalms 118:12 Ecclesiastes 7:6] Surely as lightning is followed with rending and roaring; and as comets, when their exhaled matter is wasted, vanish and fill the air with pestilent vapours; so is it here.So that the joints of his loins were loosed.] If a bare citation to judgment were so terrible to this jolly prince, what shall the judgment itself be "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord," &c.

64

And his knees smote one against another.] The writing on the wall he could neither read nor understand; but his conscience had written bitter things against him, which being now held to the fire of God’s wrath become legible, as things written with the juice of an onion are visible when brought to the fire. The wounds also of an accusing conscience pierce the members of the body. [Proverbs 17:22] The mark that God set upon Cain was, in likelihood the perpetual trembling of his hands and whole body. Tullus Hostilius, who profanely derided the devotions of his predecessor Numa, had deservedly for his gods Pavorem fear, and Pallorem. wanness, (a) Caracalla, after the murder of his brother Geta, was so haunted with the furies of his own evil conscience, that he forbade any so much as to name him on pain of death, and was well nigh mad; so was Theodoricus the tyrant upon the sight of the fish’s head set before him, wherein he thought he saw the face of Symmachus whom he had wrongfully slain. The like befell our Richard III after the murder of his two innocent nephews; and Charles IX of France after the massacre at Paris.

POOLE, " His cheerful countenance was turned to paleness, fear and horror had quite blasted the majesty of his face, like an eclipse of the sun. So soon can the terrors of God shake the loftiest cedars; it is like an earthquake in the bowels. Thus can God terrify the tyrants of the earth, that he who hath the heart of a lion shall utterly melt away. Thus can the Lord spoil the mad mirth of drunken atheists in a moment; when they are in their cups, oh how valiant are they! as the king of Syria, 1 Kings 20:16,19, &c.PETT, "Verse 6‘Then the king’s face was changed on him, and his thoughts upset him greatly, and the joints of his limbs went slack and his knees smote one against another.’The effect on the king was dramatic. He was absolutely terrified. The picture is of someone in a blue funk. This serves to confirm that his attitude was one of deliberate blasphemy, for he now recognised that the God Whom he had been blaspheming was here to deal with him.

PULPIT, "Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The Septuagint differs in a somewhat important degree from the Massoretic text, "And his countenance was changed, and fears and thoughts troubled him." In this clause not improbably φόβοι and ὑπόνοιαι are double renderings of רעין . "And the king hasted and rose up, and looked at that writing, and his companions round about him ( κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ) boasted." It is clear that the text from which the Septuagint had repeated the verb בהל(bebal), which means originally "to hasten," and had the word "king "after it, if the Septuagint Aramaic were the original, we can easily understand how the word repeated might be omitted by homoioteleuton. While קם could easily be read קט after the square character had got place, קם could not in the script of the Egyptian Aramaic papyri be

65

easily read קם. consequently we are inclined to look on the reading of the Septuagint here as being the primitive one. The king, according to this verse, saw the handwriting, but not till he rose did he see what was written. This representation of the succession of events is natural, whereas the statements about his loins being loosed is mere amplification. The last clause storms to be a misreading of the clause which appears in the Massoretic at the end (which see). The first word seems to have been misread heberren, and thus a meaning is violently given to the other parts of the clause. The probability is in favour of the Massoretic reading here, Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The omen of a hand appearing to write on the wall of the palace was one that might easily cause the thoughts of the king to trouble him. Much more was the omen of importance when the king saw that the hand which had appeared to write had actually left certain words written. It was but natural that the brightness of the king's countenance should depart from him when he saw the hand. thus awfully coming out of the darkness, and writing, and that his knees should smite one upon another when what was written gleamed upon him from the wall before him. He might well be sure that the message so communicated would be laden with fate. Fear is naturally the first emotion occasioned by any mysterious occurrence; and then Babylon was, in all likelihood, being pressed by the advance of Cyrus. If he had any suspicion of the treachery that had sapped the power of his father, his apprehensions would be all the greater.

BI, "And his thoughts troubled him.The Problem of Life and its SolutionPoor king! He was not the first, nor is he the last man whose “thoughts” have troubled him. We only want to know that a man can think at all, to know that at some time the current of his thoughts has been disturbed. Some find the cause of disturbance and remove it, and are never seriously troubled more. Others do not, but are disturbed till death destroys the power of thought. Of course, some of one’s thoughts are peculiar to the individual. Some he shares with his family, society or nation, only. But the most disturbing thoughts are those which are common to the race, a part of the very fibre of human nature, like patterns woven in a carpet.I. SOME OF THE THOUGHTS THAT TROUBLE A MAN TILL SOLVED. His thought of God or gods, afar off. His thought of duty, responsibility, conscious of the force of “ought,” “should,” “right,” as though somehow, or somewhere, he should have to render account. Standards vary: men do not live up to their own standards of duty, right, etc.; may knowingly reject them all, but the thought remains. And his thought about life after death.II. THE TROUBLE THAT THESE THOUGHTS GIVE. It is not a sharp hurt, rather like a dull, steady pain, just enough to keep us conscious that something is wrong. They keep us uneasy, not quite happy at best, discontented, always wanting something, hardly knowing what. We lay this sense of unrest at the door of the weather, the crops, business, our health, the way people treat us, or do not treat us—anything. What is the source of the trouble in man? Not that there is a God, spirits, judgment, life after death, Heaven, hell. But the uncertainty, the suspense, the inability to settle down confidently on the one side or the other. This was the trouble with the king; that handwriting on the

66

wall; what does it mean?III. HERE IS THE PROBLEM of our life. What does it all mean? What is the truth of these things? Why should man think such thoughts at all? Is there any solution of the problem?IV. THE SOLUTION. So the matter stood when Jesus came. The old religions were losing their hold; could not solve the problem sufficiently to bring peace. Jesus comes. Matters not who He is, whence He came, how He got here. He suggests another answer, a full solution to this problem, and invites you to try that. The solution He offers for trial to each is this: There is one God, loving Father of men. His children gone astray, but children still, need a sacrifice to restore harmony. Take this, then, as an hypothesis, a guess at the truth, and try it. Work it back into the problem; live on the lines of thought, temper, word, deeds here suggested, and see effect on these questions. No harm in trying it. You are not asked to know these things, but believe them; accept them as unproven, and try them. If they are false you will know it. If true you will know it. (N. P. Dame.)

The Terror of a Guilty ConscienceUnder whatever circumstances a man may be placed, if he has peace with his conscience and with his God he cares comparatively little about other matters; the pressure of many difficulties is much less felt—even the weight of heavy affliction is greatly reduced. We all know what it is to enjoy with thankfulness the cheerful fire-side, when in the wintry night the blast howls around the dwelling, and the rain descends in torrents on the roof; we feel the peaceful comfort of our home, and, while reflecting on the fearfulness of the tempest, we experience no little measure of satisfaction, arising from a sense of safety; all is quietness within, though the fierce wind prevails tremendously without. So with the child of grace, having peace with God, through Jesus Christ our Lord; notwithstanding the waves of this troublesome world, the ceaseless temptations, the frequent trials, he reflects upon the abundant consolation inwardly supplied, and delights in the holy calm that attends it. On the other hand, let a man possess everything that will outwardly promote his ease; give him money, rank, and health, yet if he have not peace within he is miserable. A rebuking conscience will mar all the attempts of the worldly to still the inward uneasiness; they may change their pursuits and seek fresh gratifications, yet from time to time they will know the sad truth of the Divine declaration—“There is no peace to the wicked.” O, what wretchedness is there in the world! where, according to man’s frail judgment, appearances are favourable, what trouble prevails! The proper way to treat our subject will be first of all to notice what is related in the beginning of the chapter, then endeavour to make a profitable application of it to ourselves. Scripture gives no information respecting Belshazzar until the time when he had just about filled his cup of iniquity to the full, and the judgment of God was overtaking him. It is an awful thought that this character is only brought before us that we may mark his great wickedness, hear the Divine sentence pronounced, and read its speedy execution. But, ere God executed His predicted purpose, this haughty, wicked king was to receive another Divine intimation, the immediate forerunner of his destruction. But why, we may inquire, should Belshazzar be so terrified and alarmed! He could not read, and, therefore, knew not their meaning. As an idolater, why might he not suppose that some of those gods he had been so lately praising were communicating some favourable information? Why not think that, though the words were secret, still they might convey glad tidings? Such thoughts do not seem to have been entertained,

67

but a horrible dread took hold of him; terror and trembling seized on his flesh. He is full of impatience to know the meaning of the writing: “he cries aloud” for some to explain it, though fearful forebodings possessed his mind. But why, we ask again, is Belshazzar thus perplexed and distressed? Why does not the bold and daring spirit of the prince still support him? How is it that his boasting has vanished and his courage failed? How are we to understand these circumstances—an individual not afraid to insult and dare the Almighty God, yet suddenly beyond measure terrified merely at the sight of a hand and a few unknown words? Why not despise the writing, and indulge the jeer and the scoff at their purport, whatever it might be? Ah, there is such a thing as conscience; and, though for a long season stifled and confined, yet it sometimes bursts through all hindrances, and makes the sinner a terror to himself. It was so at this hour with Belshazzar. It was the time of God’s visitation; and he let loose the guilty thoughts upon the mind of this wicked prince; and these thoughts, so long smothered, are now the cause of trouble. Many a time, we may suppose, had the king of Babylon banished dull and serious considerations by betaking himself to his drunken cups; but now neither the abundance of wine, nor his numerous company, can rid him of these unwelcome thoughts; they will not leave him, and he is troubled. Wonderful effect of conscience! A sense of guilt came over the mind of Belshazzar as suddenly and as unexpectedly as when Joseph’s brethren “said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.” And this sense of guilt was accompanied with the dread of consequences. Behold, then, in this instance, how soon the Lord can alarm the most secure, and startle the most hardened. The thoughts of the guilty are abundantly sufficient to trouble him; nothing more is required—even in the midst of his sensual gratifications. But what information do we gather from this history? What lessons are there in it useful to ourselves? Belshazzar is arrested in the midst of his mirth and jollity, compelled to listen to the rebukes of a guilty conscience, and bear the burden of troubled thoughts. Alas, that we have so much reason to suppose that many now-a-days are in like case with this idolatrous prince! for, though they do not outwardly worship wood and stone,. still inwardly they serve their lusts, their pleasures, their means, or anything but their God. We may mark the torment of a reproaching conscience. It is often the cause of some perplexity that the wicked are not in trouble like other folk; the drunkard follows, time after time, his strong drink, and is apparently unrebuked in his vice; the worldly-minded likewise pursue their course, seeking only earthly things, and we possibly conclude that they are never plagued. But we see a very little way; we observe the outward man, and consider not enough what goes on within. Who can say what the thoughts of the ungodly are? Who can tell what passes in their minds? A man may brave for a while the eye of his fellow-creature; he may put on the manner of one determined to persist in his ways, but how is it with him when God turns His hand against him—when God makes conscience speak, and lets the thoughts of past guilt loose upon his mind? What is this but a foretaste of fiery indignation? Then the stoutest hearts fail; the mirth is dull, and the carnal indulgence unsatisfactory; even the excess of wine will not drive away the unwelcome reflections, for conscience is stirred, and its voice cannot be silenced. God has rebuked the sinner; and he is both amazed and terrified. O what a different picture would the world present if thoughts were as well known as words and deeds! The wish expressed would then be—As to the sufferings of disease and the difficulties of poverty, these I would willingly bear; only let me be free from the judicial rebukes of conscience, delivered from the dreadful harassings of troubling thoughts, and eased of the burden of a soul unreconciled to God. We may be resolved not to attend to 68

those things which bring our sin to remembrance, and to turn away when our guilt is set before us; but our resolution is nothing if the Lord determines to vex us in His sore displeasure. He makes us then attend to His word. Nothing earthly can remove it, and nothing is derived from Heaven to allay the uneasiness it creates; no balm to heal the galled conscience, no physician known to apply the means of cure. O what a pitiable state is that man in whose thoughts are a trouble—whom God thus in judgment afflicts! His master, Satan, can find no remedy; his friend, the world, can supply no consolation. His conscience is at last aroused, and conveys the dreadful assurance of approaching condemnation. The unreconciled, under such circumstances, may look around for help, for something to cheer; but all his resources are of no avail. And what increases tenfold his misery is this—that mercy had been freely offered, the gospel message proclaimed, and the Saviour set forth crucified for his sins. Vain, under these sad circumstances, to look for help to the things of the earth and to worldly friends. Belshazzar lacked neither the one nor the other; but they were of no advantage to him. He called his wise men of Chaldea, made them large promises, and entreated them to relieve his mind by explaining the mysterious writing; but they could do nothing for him, though great was the reward offered. You may be satisfied with the world now; you may argue that you have enough to do in attending to the affairs of this life, and cannot spare time for the matters of the soul; you may try to justify your present unbecoming anxieties, or defend your sinful indulgences; but, believe me, your sin will one day find you out; and had you all the wealth with the thousand lords of the king of Babylon, in that same day when your thoughts will trouble you, these will be of no avail; you will want other riches and another Friend. Alas for you that the want had not been sooner discovered. What, however, did Belshazzar consent to do in his extremity? He was even willing that the forgotten and despised Daniel should be sent for. But what has the prophet to say? Can he give any encouragement? The writing indeed he recognises; he knows the word of his God, and the awful meaning is at once perceived. The terror-stricken king awaits his doom, but not long; for the Lord made short work; in that very night hopeless Belshazzar is’ slain, and perishes. And is there not too much corresponding with this conduct in the bulk of mere nominal Christians? The minister of the gospel is lightly esteemed and rejected so long as sin and folly are not interrupted. But when the Lord turns the thoughts of the ungodly against themselves, and makes them “a trouble,” then the steward of God’s mysteries may come. And what is to be done? Can we, as ambassadors for Christ, tell those that have been all their days living in sin that they shall die in peace? Can we speak smooth things to them, and give a sleeping-draught to the soul, that it may pass stilly indeed, but without good hope, to eternity? Nay, this cannot be. We must clear our own consciences, and be faithful in the sight of God; like Daniel, we must declare the truth. To the last, indeed, we proclaim the blessed truth, that Christ is mighty to save, and that “him that cometh unto him shall in no wise be cast out.” Further than this we cannot venture to go. Think not, then, that we can quickly calm all your fears, and remove your anxieties, when you have been through life living without God in the world. “Knowing then the terrors of the Lord,” let us be persuaded to shake off more completely the chilling influence of the world, to lay aside “the sin that doth most easily beset us,” and resist more resolutely the assaults of Satan. When sorrowing most heavily over our own sins and short-comings, yet we shall not altogether lack the consolations of Jesus; these will give ease and quiet; and the more we seek them, the more peace they will supply. One thing, however, if true believers, we may attain unto, and to which the ungodly and worldly-minded are always strangers; when any burden presses upon our souls we are taught by the Spirit how to cast it in prayer upon 69

the Lord, and we know He will sustain. Then, though weighed in the balances, we shall not be found wanting. (J. Downes, M.A.)

Troublesome ThoughtsMore trouble comes to men from their thoughts than from all other sources put together. Let us consider:I. THE REASON FOR THE KING’S TROUBLED THOUGHTS.

1. A visible cause. Mystery not necessarily fearful. The princes wondered, the king was in terror.2. A cause in the king himself.

(1) He had led a wicked life.(2) He had just been guilty of a pointed insult to God. Men interpret events in the light of their own thoughts. Events mean different things to different persons. Especially is this true in case of conscious guilt. A policeman enters a school-room—many wonder, one turns pale. Fear God and be brave.

3. The reality back of the appearance: “God hath numbered thy kingdom,” etc.II. THE KING’S CONDUCT.

1. More anxiety to have the writing interpreted than to humble himself before God.2. He seeks interpretation from all others before Daniel. Then he flatters him and offers reward. The world will flatter those who interpret the truth to suit them. Balak and Balaam. Daniel interpreted fearlessly. Facts not changed by false interpretation. Interpret for the honour of God.

III. THE BIBLE IS STILL THE GREAT TROUBLER OF MEN’S THOUGHTS. There is a conscience in man which makes him feel that the Bible speaks to him. There is a reality back of this word, both of the promise and the warning. (H..R. Parmeles.)

7 The king summoned the enchanters, astrologers[b] and diviners. Then he said to these wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his 70

neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.”

BARNES, "And the king cried aloud - Margin, as in the Chaldee, “with might.” This indicates a sudden and an alarming cry. The king was deeply terrified; and, unable himself to divine the meaning of the mysterious appearance of the hand, he naturally turned at once to those whose office it was to explain dreams and supernatural appearances.

To bring in the astrologers ... - See the note at Dan_2:2; Dan_4:7.And said to the wise men of Babylon - Those just referred to - the astrologers, etc. Having the power, as was supposed, of interpreting the indications of coming events, they were esteemed as eminently wise.Whosoever shall read this writing - It would seem from this that even the characters were not familiar to the king and to those who were with him. Evidently the letters were not in the ordinary Chaldee form, but in some form which to them was strange and unknown. Thus there was a double mystery hanging over the writing - a mystery in regard to the language in which the words were written, and to the meaning of the words. Many conjectures have been formed as to the language employed in this writing (compare the note at Dan_5:24), but such conjectures are useless, since it is impossible now to ascertain what it was. As the writing, however, had a primary reference to the sacrilege committed in regard to the sacred vessels of the temple, and as Daniel was able to read the letters at once, it would seem not improbable that the words were in the Hebrew character then used - a character such as that found now in the Samaritan Pentateuch - for the Chaldee character now found in the Bible has not improbably been substituted for the more ancient and less elegant character now found in the Samaritan Pentateuch alone. There is no improbability in supposing that even the astrologers and the soothsayers were not familiar with that character, and could not readily read it.And show me the interpretation thereof - The meaning of the words.Shall be clothed with scarlet - The color worn usually by princes and by persons

of rank. The margin is “purple.” So the Greek of Theodotion - πορφύραν porphuran. So also the Latin Vulgate - “purpura.” On the nature and uses of this color, see the note at Isa_1:18.

And have a chain of gold about his neck - Also indicative of rank and authority. Compare Gen_41:42. When Joseph was placed over the land of Egypt, the king honored him in a similar manner, by putting “a gold chain about his neck.” This was common in Persia. See Xen. “Cyrop.” I. 3, 2, II. 4, 6, VIII. 5, 18; Anab. I. 5, 8. Upon most of the figures in the ruins of Persepolis the same ornament is now found. Prof. Stuart renders this, “a collar of gold.”And shall be the third ruler in the kingdom - Of course, the king was first. Who

71

the second was, or why the one who could disclose the meaning of the words should not be raised to the second rank, is not stated. It may be, that the office of prime minister was so fixed, or was held by one whose services were so important to the king, that he could not be at once displaced. Or the meaning may be, that the favored person who could interpret this would be raised to the third “rank” of dignity, or placed in the third class of those who held offices in the realm. The Chaldee is, “and shall rule third in the kingdom,” and the idea would seem rather to be that he should be of the third rank or grade in office. So Bertholdt understands it. Grotius understands it as the third person in rank. He says the first was the king; the second, the son of the king; the third, the prince of the Satraps.

CLARKE, "Whosoever shall read this writing - He knew it must be some awful portent, and wished to know what.

GILL, "The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers,.... Or, "with strength" (n); with a strong voice, as loud as he could; which is expressive of the fright he was in, and of his eagerness and impatience of information; laying aside all decency, and forgetting his royal majesty, like a man out of his senses, quite distracted, as it were: of the "astrologers", &c. See Gill on Dan_1:20, Dan_2:2, this was the usual course the kings of Babylon took, when they had matters of difficulty upon them, as appears from Dan_2:2 and though they found it oftentimes fruitless and vain, yet still they pursued it; so besotted and addicted were they to this kind of superstition: and the king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon; who were presently brought in from the several parts of the city where they dwelt, and probably many of them might be at court at that time; and being introduced into the hall where the king and his nobles were, he addressed them in the following manner; whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof: pointing to the writing upon the wall, which continued; and which neither the king nor any about him could read or interpret, and therefore both are required to be done: he shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck; or "with purple" (o); the colour wore by persons of rank and figure; and the chain of gold was an emblem of honour and dignity, and more to be regarded for that than for the value of the gold of which it was made: and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom; not rule over the third part of the kingdom, as Aben Ezra; but be the third man in the kingdom; next to the king and the queen mother, or to the king and the heir apparent; or one of the third principal rulers; or one of the three presidents of the kingdom, as Daniel afterwards was.

JAMISON, "He calls for the magicians, who more than once had been detected in imposture. He neglects God, and Daniel, whose fame as an interpreter was then well-established. The world wishes to be deceived and shuts its eyes against the light [Calvin].

72

The Hebrews think the words were Chaldee, but in the old Hebrew character (like that now in the Samaritan Pentateuch).third ruler — The first place was given to the king; the second, to the son of the king, or of the queen; the third, to the chief of the satraps.

K&D 7-8, "Since there are in this verse only three classes of wise men named as ordered to come to the king, to whom he promised the reward for the reading and the interpretation of the writing, and in Dan_5:8 it is first stated that all the king's wise men came, the probability, is, that at first the king commanded only the three classes named in Dan_5:7 to be brought to him. On this probability Kranichfeld founds the supposition that the king purposely, or with intention, summoned only the three classes named to avoid Daniel, whom he did not wish to consult, from his heathen religious fear of the God of the Jews. But this supposition is altogether untenable. For, first, it does not follow from Dan_8:27 that under Belshazzar Daniel was president over all the wise men, but only that he was in the king's service. Then, in the event of Daniel's yet retaining the place assigned to him by Nebuchadnezzar, his non-appearance could not be explained on the supposition that Belshazzar called only three classes of the wise men, because the supposition that מלכא חכימי כל (all the king's wise men) in Dan_5:8 forms a contrast to the three classes named in Dan_5:7 is not sustained by the language here used. But if by “all the wise men of the king,” Dan_5:8, we are to understand the whole body of the wise men of all the classes, and that they appeared before the king, then they must all have been called at the first, since no supplementary calling of the two classes not named in Dan_5:7 is mentioned. Besides this, the words, “the king spake to the wise men of Babylon,” make it probable that all the classes, without the exception of the two, were called. Moreover it is most improbable that in the case before us, where the matter concerned the reading of a writing, the חרטמים, the magicians Schriftkenner, should not have been called merely to avoid Daniel, who was their רב (president) (Daniel 4:6 [Dan_4:9]). Finally, it is psychologically altogether very improbable, that in the great agitation of fear which had filled him at the sight of the hand writing, Belshazzar should have reflected at all on this, that Daniel would announce to him misfortune or the vengeance of the God of the Jews. Such a reflection might perhaps arise on quiet deliberation, but not in the midst of agitating heart-anguish.

The strange circumstance that, according to Dan_5:7, the king already promised a reward to the wise men, which presupposes that they were already present, and then that for the first time their presence is mentioned in Dan_5:8, is occasioned by this, that in Dan_5:7 the appearing of the wise men is not expressly mentioned, but is naturally presupposed, and that the first two clauses of the eighth verse are simply placed together, and are not united to each other by a causal nexus. The meaning of the statement in Dan_5:7 and Dan_5:8 is this: The king calls aloud, commanding the astrologers, etc., to be brought to him; and when the wise men of Babylon came to him, he said to each of them, Whoever reads the writing, etc. But all the king's wise men, when they had come, were unable to read the writing. As to the names of the wise men in Dan_5:7, see under Dan_2:2. יקרה for יקרא, from קרא, to read. As a reward, the king promises a purple robe, a gold chain for the neck, and the highest office in the kingdom. A robe of purple was the sign of rank worn by the high officers of state among the Persians, - cf. Est_8:15 with Xenophon, Anab. i. 5. 8, - and among the Selucidae, 1 Macc.

73

10:20; and was also among the Medes the princely garb, Xen. Anab. i. 3. 2, ii. 4. 6. ארגון, Hebr. ארגמן, purple, is a word of Aryan origin, from the Sanscrit râga, red colour, with the formative syllables man and vat; cf. Gesen. Thes. Addid. p. 111f. וגו' די והמנוכא does not depend on ילבש, but forms a clause by itself: and a chain of gold shall be about his neck. For the Kethiv המנוכא the Keri substitutes the Targum. and Syr. form המניכא(Dan_5:7, Dan_5:16, and Dan_5:29), i.e., The Greek μανιάκης, from the Sansc. mani, jewel, pearl, with the frequent formative syllable ka in the Zend, whence the Chaldee word is derived; it signifies neck- or arm-band, here the former. The golden neck-chain (στρεπτὸς χρύσεος) was an ornament worn by the Persians of rank, and was given by kings as a mark of favour even to kings, e.g., Cambyses and the younger Cyrus; cf. Herod. iii. 20; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 27, 5. 8, 8. 29.

It is not quite certain what the princely situation is which was promised to the interpreter of the writing, since the meaning of תלתי is not quite clear. That it is not the ordinale of the number third, is, since Hävernick, now generally acknowledged, because for tertius in Aram. תליתי is used, which occurs also in Dan_2:39. Hävernick therefore regards תלתי, for which תלתא is found in Dan_5:16 and Dan_5:29, as an adjective formation which indicates a descent or occupation, and is here used as a nomen officiicorresponding to the Hebr. שלישי. Gesenius and Dietrich regard תלתי as only the singular form for תליתי, and תלתא as the stat. abs. of תלת, third rank. Hitzig would change תלתי into תלתי, and regard תלתא as a singular formed from תלתאין, as triumvirfrom triumvirorum, and would interpret it by τρίτος αὐτός, the third (selbst-dritt): as one of three he shall rule in the kingdom, according to Dan_6:3. Finally, Kranichfeld takes תלתי to be a fem. verbal formation according to the analogy of אחרי ,ארמית, in the sense of three-ruler-wise, and תלתא for a noun formed from תלתא, triumvir. Almost all these explanations amount to this, that the statements here regard the government of a triumvirate as it was regulated by the Median king Darius, Dan_6:3 (2); and this appears also to be the meaning of the words as one may literally explain תלתי and תלתא. Regarding the Keri עלין see under Dan_4:4, and regarding פשרא, under Dan_4:15.

As all the wise men were unable to read the writing, it has been thought that it was in a foreign language different from the usual language of Babylon, the knowledge of which could not legitimately be expected to be possessed by the native wise men; and since, according to Dan_5:17, Dan_5:24., Daniel at once showed his acquaintance with the writing in question, it has from this been concluded that already the old Babylonians had handwriting corresponding to the later Syro-Palmyrenian inscriptions, while among the Hebrews to the time of the Exile the essentially Old-Phoenician writing, which is found on the so-called Samaritan coins and in the Samaritan Scriptures, was the peculiar national style of writing (Kran.). But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldean wise men should not have known these old Semitic 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 74

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 Chaldean wise men, and without doubt all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.

CALVIN, "The Prophet narrates how King Belshazzar sought a remedy for his anxiety; hence we gather how his mind was so immediately wounded, and how he felt he could not escape God’s hand, otherwise he would not have called the wise men so suddenly in the midst of the banquet. Again, when the Prophet says, He cried out loudly, he was clearly so astonished as to forget his being king, for to cry out at table was not consistent with his dignity. But God expelled all pride from him, by compelling him to burst forth into a cry, like a man completely beside himself. We must now consider the remedy to which he resorted: he ordered the Chaldeans, and magi, and astrologers to be called We learn from this how exceedingly prone men are to vanity, lying, and falsehood. Daniel ought to have been first, even among the Chaldeans, for that was an answer worthy of remembrance which he had given to the grandfather of this king, when he predicted his becoming like the beasts of the forest. Since this prophecy was verified by the event, his authority ought to have flourished even to a thousand years. He was daily in the king’s sight, and yet he was neglected, while the king sent for all the Chaldeans, and astrologers, and diviners, and magi. Truly enough, these men were then in so great repute that they deservedly obscured the fame of Daniel, for they were indignant at a captive being preferred to native teachers, when they knew their own glory amongst all peoples depended upon the persuasion of their being the only wise men. As, therefore, they wished to retain their good opinion, as being God’s counselors, no wonder they despised this stranger. But this feeling cannot avail for a moment before God: for what can be urged in defense of the king’s impiety? His grandfather was a memorable instance of God’s vengeance, when rejected from the company of men, and compelled to dwell among the wildest beasts of the forest. This, truly, could not appear a matter of chance. God, then, had first admonished him by a dream, and next sent his own Prophet as the interpreter of the oracle and the vision. As I have said, the fame of this event ought to have been perpetual among the Chaldeans, yet the grandson of King Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his example, insulted the God of Israel, profaned the vessels of the temple, and triumphed with his idols! When God sets before him the sign of his judgment, he calls together the magi and the Chaldeans, and passes by Daniel. And what possible excuse can he have for this? We have seen, as I have said, how very prone men are to be deluded by Satan’s impostures, and the well-known proverb becomes true, — The world loves to be deceived!This, also, is worthy of notice, because in the present day, and in troublous times, many protect themselves behind the shield of their ignorance. But the explanation is at hand — they are willingly blind; they shut their eyes amidst the clearest light; for if God considered King Belshazzar without excuse when the Prophet was once

75

presented to him, what excuse can the ‘blind of these days allege? Oh! if I could determine what God’s will is for me, I would submit myself instantly to it, because God daily and openly calls to us and invites us, and shews us the way; but none answer him, none follow him, or at least how very few! Hence we must diligently consider the example of the King of Babylon when we see him full of anxiety, and yet not seeking God as he ought. And why so? He wanders about in great hesitation; he sees himself constrained, and yet he cannot fly from the judgment of God, but seeks consolation in magi, Chaldeans, and other impostors; for, as we have seen, they had been once or twice proved so, and this ought to have been sufficiently celebrated and notorious to all men. We see, then, how blind King Belshazzar was, since he closed his eyes to the light offered him. So in the present day almost all the world continues in blindness; it is not allowed to wander in darkness, but when light shines upon it, it closes its eyes, rejects God’s grace, and purposely desires to cast itself headlong. This conduct is far too common.Now the Prophet says, — The king promised the wise men a present of a chain of gold to whoever read the writing; and besides this, raiment of purple, and the third rank in the kingdom! This shews him not to have been sincerely touched by the fear of God. And this repugnance is worthy of observation in the wicked, who dread God’s judgments, and yet the pride of their hearts is not corrected and subdued, as we saw in the case of this king. For his knees smote one against the other, and the joints of his loins were loosened: he trembles throughout his entire frame, and becomes half dead with fear, because God’s terror seizes on all his senses. Meanwhile, we see a hidden pride lurking in his mind, which breaks forth in the promise, whoever shall interpret the writing, shall be the third in rank in the kingdom! God had already deprived him of his royal dignity; yet he still wishes to raise others on high in defiance of God! What, then, is the meaning of this? We see how often the wicked are terrified, and how deeply they cherish a hidden contumacy, so that God never subdues them. They shew, indeed, many signs of repentance; but if any one carefully weighs all their words and deeds, he will find the Prophet’s narration concerning King Belshazzar completely verified, because they rage against God, and are never teachable or obedient, but utterly stupefied. We saw this partly in former verse, and shall see it again more clearly at the end of the chapter. As to the latter clause of the verse, he shall rule as third in the kingdom, it is uncertain whether he promises the third portion or the third rank; for many think the queen, of whom mention will soon be made, was the wife of King Nebuchadnezzar, and grandmother of King Belshazzar. It follows: —

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. [And] the king spake, and said to the wise [men] of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and [have] a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.Ver. 7. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers.] Daniel seemeth not to have

76

been in any request in the days of this dissolute prince, Neither was there any courtier that would mention him, or mind the king of him till the old queen came in. Such combibones drinking buddies are unfit comforters; many of them likely were by this time bucked with wine, and then laid out to be sunned and scorned.Shall be clothed with scarlet, &c.] A troubled heart will give anything for release, as Cain, Spira, &c.And shall be the third ruler in the kingdom,] i.e., Next to myself and the queen-mother. Thus he promiseth to another a third place, who could not promise to himself any place. Spirat superbiam miser.POOLE, "To bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the sooth-sayers, to read the hand-writing, with promise of scarlet clothing, gold chains, and honours. This is the old trade, and the last refuge this poor heathen prince had, which yet failed him; for how can the devil help when God is against him? 1 Samuel 28:16, &c. Moreover, he had his father’s experience, Daniel 2:27 4:7. Twice he tried them, and they could do nothing, and yet he will go to the devil’s oracle. Men naturally leave God and go to refuges of lies, and God gives them up to strong delusions to believe their lies. PETT, "Verse 7‘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 will read this writing, and show me its interpretation, will be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” ’He too called in the wise men of Babylon who were in the besieged city, and offered gifts to those who could give him the meaning of the writing on the wall. To be clothed in purple was to be treated royally. It suggested that the person was to be made of exalted rank. The gold chain was a symbol of high office. It was probably such as could not be worn unless granted by the king. And this was confirmed by the fact that the person would be made third in rank after Nabonidus and Belshazzar.Such an honour might in fact have backfired, for someone so honoured might well have been a target for the invading forces. But no one dreamed that the city would be taken so quickly.It may be asked why Daniel did not enter with the wise men. The answer is probably that he had been replaced as master of the wise men, either when Nabonidus succeeded to the throne, or before. New favourites loyal to the new regime replaced old ones, and Daniel was probably not recognised by the ancient wise men as a genuine ‘Chaldean’. He had thus seemingly been honourably retired, or given a position of lesser authority.

PULPIT, "The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the 77

soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. The Septuagint here also differs from the Massoretic text, "And the king cried out with a great cry to call in the enchanters ( ἐπαοιδοὐς) and sorcerers ( φαρμακοὺς), and Chaldeans, and soothsayers, to announce to him the interpretation of the writing, and they came in for inspection ( ἐπὶ θεωρίαν), to see the writing,£ And they were not able to make known to the king the interpretation of the writing. Then the king made commandment, saying, Any man who shall show the interpretation of the writing, he shall put on him a purple robe, and shall put round his neck a golden chain, and authority shall be given him over a third part of the kingdom." Theodotion is an exact rendering of the Massoretic text in the sense represented by the English versions, save that it wholly omits the conjunctions between the various classes of wise men, so that χαλδαίους might be an adjective qualifying either μάγους or γαξαρηνούς, and the article is also omitted, which is represented in the Massoretic text by the status emphaticus. The Peshitta has four classes of wise men called in; as the Septuagint has, otherwise it agrees with the Massoretic text. It is a matter of some interest to observe that the position of the Chaldeans is somewhat precarious here, as in the second chapter. They disappear wholly from the list in the next verse, which really seems to be another version of this. It is a marginal gloss that has crept into the text. If we accept the reading of the Septuagint here, so far at least as .to assume the entrance of the wise men before the king's declaration of the reward, the succession of events becomes more natural. The king calls for the presence of these interpreters of omens, and then, when they fail to interpret the writing to him, he proclaims his offer of a reward to whoever can do so. It is to be noted that there is in the Septuagint no question of ability to read the writing, but simply to interpret it. It has been pointed out to me by a friend that if these words were written in cuneiform, the signs that would represent them might have a great variety of possible sounds, and with these differing sounds, differing meanings. Sometimes a sign was phonetic and a syllable, sometimes it was idiographic and might represent a whole word. There is this to be said for this view—the Assyrian was the writing expected in inscriptions. Still, from the fact that the Septuagint omits the demand that the inscription should be read, we may regard the matter as doubtful. Assuming that the wise men were required to read the inscription, some of the Jewish interpreters, as Jephet-ibn-Ali, think that the letters of the word were inverted; others have it that the letters were arranged in columns. Even, however, if the words were written correctly enough as Aramaic words, it would be a difficult matter to put any meaning in them as they stood, as we shall see when we consider Daniel's interpretation. The reward promised is of special interest. The word argvana, translated "scarlet," appears in Assyrian as argmamm; hamneeka, the word rendered "necklace," is of doubtful origin. We find in the Ninevite sculptures and on the cylinders from Babylon many instances of splendid robes; the rich necklace is also to be seen. The great difficulty has arisen over the rank given to Daniel, "the third ruler in the kingdom." The difficulty is that the ordinal here is not in its usual form, although Petermann gives taltu as one of the forms of the ordinal. There is, further, the unusual position of the numeral in relation to the verb, though the abnormality is less than Professor Bevan represents it, as the Peshitta follows word for word the arrangement of the Massoretic text.£ The truth seems to be that the word really was toolta, as in the Syriac, and the difficulty has risen in not recognizing

78

the transference from one dialect of Aramaic to another. It is used in the Peshitta (2 Corinthians 10:2) of the third heaven. Professor Bevan's interpretation, that it means "every third day,') may be dismissed as absurd. Ewald (in loc.) regards the title as one of a board of three—not an in,possible meaning, in the light of what we find in the following chapter. Yet his reasoning, that it cannot be third in rank, because the queen-mother could not be counted in, is inept now, when we learn that Belshazzar was colleague with his father, and so the third place was all he had to give. On this question Behrmann takes the view discarded as impossible by Ewald, and holds that Daniel was placed third because of the queen-mother. It is one of the commonplaces of the criticism of this book that the history ascribed to Daniel is borrowed from the history of Joseph: why was the position offered not made "second," as was that of Joseph? We have the reason in what we know of the history of Babylon at the time. The Septuagint and Josephus were unaware of the facts, and translated as they did.

8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant.

BARNES, "Then came in all the king’s wise men - The classes above referred to, Dan_5:7.

But they could not read the writing - The character was an unknown character to them. It may have been a character which was not found in any language, and which made the power of Daniel to read it the more remarkable, or it may have been, as suggested in the notes at Dan_5:7, a foreign character with which they had no acquaintance, though familiar to Daniel.

CLARKE, "They could not read the writing - Because it was in the pure Hebrew, not the Chaldean character. See below.

GILL, "Then came in all the king's wise men,.... The whole college of them, the persons before described; over whom, in Nebuchadnezzar's time, Daniel was the chief of the governors, Dan_2:48, these came in readily, in hope of getting both riches and

79

honour: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof; for if they could not do the former, it must be impossible to do the latter; of the reason of which, various are the conjectures (p): as that, though these words were written in Chaldee, yet in characters, as the Samaritan or Phoenician, they did not understand; or were written without points, and so they knew not which were the proper ones to put to them; or they were written according to the position of the letters of the alphabet, called "athbash", of which See Gill on Jer_25:26, or the words were placed so as to be read backward, or else downward, and not straightforward; or they were all in one word; or only the initial letters of words; but the true reason was, that it was so ordained by the Lord, that they should not be able to read and interpret them; this being reserved for another man, Daniel, that he might have the honour, and God the glory.

JAMISON, "The words were in such a character as to be illegible to the Chaldees, God reserving this honor to Daniel.CALVIN, "Here Daniel relates how deceived the king was in his opinion, in hoping for any interpretation of the writing from either the magi or the astrologers, the Chaldeans or the soothsayers; for none of them could read it. Hence he pays here the punishment of his ingratitude in passing over God’s Prophet, while he knew he had predicted truth to his grandfather just as it had happened, as well as Daniel’s general excellence in wisdom, Hence the proofs of his calling were sufficiently numerous and trustworthy. Since, then, he had so despised God’s unparalleled benefit, he is destitute of counsel:, and sees himself call in vain upon all the Chaldeans and astrologers. For Daniel says, There was no one who could read the writing or reveal its interpretation to the king Because this seems absurd, many Rabbis have hazarded various conjectures. Some think the letters were transposed; others guess that they were changed into their counterparts and equivalents; and others think the char-actors were changed. But we have elsewhere shewn how bold the Jews are in their conjectures, whenever they have no certain guide. We do not require their guesses, because, very probably, the writing was visible to the king and concealed from all the Chaldeans, or else they were so blind that they could see nothing; just as God denounced against the Jews a stupor of this kind. We see what he pronounces, by Isaiah, (Isaiah 29:0 : 11,) “Your law shall be like a. sealed book: If it shall be said to any one, ‘Read it,’ he shall say, ‘The book is sealed, I cannot:’ or the book may be opened and ye shall all become blind: even those who seem to be sharper than all others, shall say they are ignorant and unlettered men.” Whatever God threatened against the Jews we know was fulfilled, and is fulfilled to this day, since a veil is put before their eyes, as Paul says. (2 Corinthians 3:14.) Hence they were blind in the midst of the brightest light. What wonder then if the same thing happened to the Chaldeans, so flint they could not read the writing? There is no necessity to conjecture any transposition of letters, or any inversion of their, order, or any change of one into another; for the word תקל,tekel, went first, and afterwards

מנא, מנא Mena, Mena. These guesses then are frivolous; and thus much is certain, 80

God wished the king to be made aware of his approaching destruction; next, his soul was moved, not with repentance, but only enough to render his sloth without excuse; and hence, whether willingly or not, he was compelled to send for some remedy, since he knew himself to be dealing with God.

COKE, "Daniel 5:8. But they could not read the writing— Because, says Houbigant, it was written in the ancient Samaritan characters, and such as were used upon their coins; which were very unlike the Chaldean letters: for these three compendiums of three sentences, Mene, Tekel, Peres, were such as were commonly found on their coins.TRAPP, "Daniel 5:8 Then came in all the king’s wise [men]: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.Ver. 8. But they could not read the writing.] Utpote caecitate et stupore pervulsi; they could not so read it as to make any good sense of it. It may be the initial letters only were set down, or else without pricks, or in a strange character, the Samaritan, or some other. The honour of the work was reserved for a better man.POOLE 8-10, " The rabbies say it was not in the Chaldee character, though the words were Chaldee, but the old Hebrew, Canaanitish, Phoenician, and Samaritan letters; or else because only the initial letters, M. T. P., were written. But God reserved this honour for Daniel, and to him that He might have all the glory. Besides, this interpretation was figurative, about weighing in a balance.Verse 9The second time, because his hopes in his wise men made him ashamed, and God would give him so much grief as he had pleasure in his luxury.His lords were astonied: these were associates in sinning, and therefore must share in his consternation: so far were they from comforting him.Verse 10The women in those courts had always an apartment by themselves, and this being queen mother, and aged, did not mingle herself with the king’s wives and concubines, but withdrew herself from those pleasures in banqueting, yet brake rule in coming in now upon this solemn occasion and fright.PETT, "Verse 8-9‘Then all the king’s wise men came in. But they could not read the writing or make its interpretation clear to the king. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his face was changed on him, and his lords were perplexed.’None of the wise men of Babylon were able to read and decipher the writing.

81

Whether this means that the script was unintelligible, or just that its meaning was difficult, does not really matter, although the former is probable as they could at least have made a guess at the latter. The result was that the king, who had had time to recover himself, once again went into a blue funk, although not quite so badly as before. His lords also did not know what to think or say. All knew that it spelt something ominous.PULPIT, "Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. As we have already said, the Septuagint here repeats the list of wise men. and omits "the Chaldeans." If the word "Chaldean" had been in the text originally, the fact that astrologers were frequently called Chaldeans would render it unlikely that the word should be omitted. Whereas from this very ground it was a word specially apt to be added on the margin, and once on the margin it would easily drop into the text. Even in the case of the Massoretic text, there seems to be a repetition here. It is certainly more obvious in the Septuagint text. The verse according to the Septuagint is, "And there entered in the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the astrologers, and were not able to announce the interpretation of the writing." Theodotion agrees here with the received text; the Peshitta omits "all." The only way in which we can escape the idea of this being a repetition is by holding that the word "all" is emphatic. The omission of the word "all" from the Peshitta is against this. It is to be observed that in the Septuagint there is no reference to "reading the writing;" it is only to announce the interpretation.

9 So King Belshazzar became even more terrified and his face grew more pale. His nobles were baffled.

BARNES, "Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled - Not doubting that this was a Divine intimation of some fearful event, and yet unable to understand its meaning. We are quite as likely to be troubled by what is merely “mysterious” in regard to the future - by anything that gives us some undefined foreboding - as we are by what is really formidable when we know what it is. In the latter case, we know the worst; we can make

82

some preparation for it; we can feel assured that when that is past, all is past that we fear - but who can guard himself, or prepare himself, when what is dreaded is undefined as well as awful; when we know not how to meet it, or how long it may endure, or how terrific and wide may be the sweep of its desolation?And his countenance was changed in him - Margin, “brightnesses.” See the note at Dan_5:6.And his lords were astonied - Amazed. The Chaldee word means to perplex, disturb, trouble. They were doubtless as much perplexed and troubled as the king himself.

GILL, "Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled,.... A second time, and perhaps more than before; since he had conceived some hope that his wise men would have informed him what this writing was, and the meaning of it; but finding that they were nonplussed by it, it gave him still greater uneasiness: and his countenance was changed in him; again; very likely, upon the coming in of the wise men, he had a little recovered himself, and became more composed and serene; which appeared in his countenance; but, upon this disappointment, his countenance changed again, and he turned pale, and looked ghastly: and his lords were astonished; were in the utmost consternation and confusion, when they understood that the writing could neither be read nor interpreted; neither the dignity of their station, nor their numbers, nor their liquor, could keep up their spirits; so that the king had not one with him, to speak a comfortable word to him, or give him any advice in this his time of distress; they were all in the same condition with himself.

K&D, "By this not only was the astonishment of the king heightened, but the officers of state also were put into confusion. “In משתבשין lies not merely the idea of consternation, but of confusion, of great commotion in the assembly” (Hitzig). The whole company was thrown into confusion. The magnates spoke without intelligence, and were perplexed about the matter.

Not only was the tumult that arose from the loud confused talk of the king and the nobles heard by those who were there present, but the queen-mother, who was living in the palace, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, also heard it and went into the banqueting hall. As soon as she perceived the cause of the commotion, she directed the attention of her royal son to Daniel, who in the days of his father Nebuchadnezzar had already, as an interpreter of dreams and of mysteries, shown that the spirit of the holy gods dwelt in him (Dan_5:10-12).

CALVIN, "Now, with regard to the writing itself, God could not be a free agent unless he possessed the power of addressing one man at one time, and a number of men at another. He wished King Belshazzar to be conscious of this writing, while the magi were all as unable to read it as if they were blind. And then, with reference to the interpretation, their perplexity need not surprise us. For God spoke

83

enigmatically, when he said Mene, Mene, and then Tekel, that is weighed, and Peres, divided. If the magi could have read these words a hundred times over, they could never either conjecture or comprehend their true meaning. The prophecy was allegorical, until an interpreter was divinely ordained for it. So far as the mere letters are concerned, there is no reason why we should be surprised at the eyes of the magi being blinded, since God pleased it to be so, and wished to cite the king to his tribunal, as we have already said. The Prophet says, The king was frightened, his countenance was changed, and the princes also were disturbed The publicity of the event ought to have increased the sense of God’s judgment, for, as we shall afterwards see, King Belshazzar himself was slain that very night. Cyrus entered while the Babylonians were feasting, and enjoying their luxuries in security. So remarkable an example of God’s justice might have been instantly buried in that drunken revel, had it not been rendered conspicuous to many bystanders. Hence Daniel repeats, The king was disturbed, after he saw no prospect of either aid or advice from his magi and astrologers. He says also, his princes were astonished, because not only the king ought to be troubled but the whole Court, and the report ought to flow forth not only through the city, but to foreign nations, since there is no doubt that Cyrus was afterwards informed of this prophecy; for he would not have courted Daniel so much, nor honored him so remarkably, unless this occurrence had been made known to him. It afterwards follows: TRAPP, "Daniel 5:9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.Ver. 9. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled.] In the midst of his feast he was thus damped and cast into his dumps; according to that of Amos, [Amos 8:10] "I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation." Yet find we not in him any sign of true remorse. "Whoredom and wine and new wine had even taken away his heart," [Hosea 4:11] robbed him of himself, and laid a beast in the room.

PULPIT, "Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied. This verse presents signs also of being a repetition. The last clause appears to be the original form of the mysterious clause at the end of the sixth verse according to the Septuagint; the word mishtabsheen, which occurs here, seems to have been read mishtabhareen, from שבהר (shab'har), "to be glorious," in the ittaphel; this becomes "to boast one's self," as in the Targum of Proverbs 25:14, also the Peshitta of the same passage; also 2 Corinthians 12:1. And this is the word used by Paulus Tellensis to translate καυχῶνται. The Septuagint has a verse here that has no equivalent in the Massoretic text, "Then the king called the queen about the sign, and showed her how great it was, and that no one had been able to declare to the king the interpretation of the writing." This verse avoids the repetition we find in the Massoretic text, and explains the presence of the queen in a much more plausible way than the received text does. In the Massoretic text it is the noise and tumult that pierces the women's apartments, and

84

brings out the queen-mother; though not impossible, this is unlikely. The action of the king, as given in the Septuagint, is very probable. The wise men are baffled by this mysteriously appearing inscription. What is to be done? Belshazzar calls his mother, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, as she at least possibly was, to see if she knows anything in the past that might be a guide in such a matter. He not only shows her the sign, the inscription, but shows how great it was, by telling of the hand that had come out of the darkness, and had written it. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. While the repetition is obvious, it is also true that the failure of all the wise men in Babylon to read the writing, as the Massoretic text has it, would increase the trouble of the king, and this trouble would naturally spread to the courtiers.

10 The queen,[c] hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. “May the king live forever!” she said. “Don’t be alarmed! Don’t look so pale!

BARNES, "Now the queen - “Probably the queen-mother, the Nitocris of Herodotus, as the king’s wives were at the entertainment.” - Wintle. Compare Dan_5:2-3. So Prof. Stuart. The editor of the “Pictorial Bible” also supposes that this was the queen-mother, and thinks that this circumstance will explain her familiarity with the occurrences in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. He says, “We are informed above, that the ‘wives and concubines’ of the king were present at the banquet. It therefore seems probable that the ‘queen’ who now first appears was the queen-mother; and this probability is strengthened by the intimate acquaintance which she exhibits with the affairs of Nebuchadnezzars reign; at the latter end of which she, as the wife of Evil-Merodach, who was regent during his father’s alienation of mind, took an active part in the internal policy of the kingdom, and in the completion of the great works which Nebuchadnezzar had begun in Babylon. This she continued during the reigns of her husband and son, the present king Belshazzar. This famous queen, Nitocris, therefore, could not but be well acquainted with the character and services of Daniel.” On the place and influence of the queen-mother in the Oriental courts, see Taylor’s Fragments to Calmet’s Dictionary, No. 16. From the extracts which Taylor has collected, it would seem that she held an exalted place at court, and that it is every way probable that she would be called in or would come in, on such an occasion. See also Knolles’ “History of the Turks,” as quoted by Taylor, “Fragments,” No. 50.

85

By reason of the words of the king and his lords - Their words of amazement and astonishment. These would doubtless be conveyed to her, as there was so much alarm in the palace, and as there was a summons to bring in the wise men of Babylon. if her residence was in some part of the palace itself, nothing would be more natural than that she should be made acquainted with the unusual occurrence; or if her residence was, as Taylor supposes, detached from the palace, it is every way probable that she would be made acquainted with the consternation that prevailed, and that, recollecting the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and the forgotten services of Daniel, she would feel that the information which was sought respecting the mysterious writing could be obtained from him.And the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever - A common salutation in addressing a king, expressive of a desire of his happiness and prosperity.Let not thy thoughts trouble thee ... - That is, there is a way by which the mystery may be solved, and you need not, therefore, be alarmed.

CLARKE, "The queen - came - This is generally allowed to have been the widow of Nebuchadnezzar; if so, she was the queen Amiyt, daughter of Astyages, sister of Darius the Mede, and aunt of Cyrus, according to Polyhistor, cited by Cedrenus. See Calmet. Others think that Nitocris was the person who is said to be queen when Cyrus took the city; and is stated to have been a lady of eminent wisdom and discretion, and to have had the chief direction of the public affairs. She was the mother of Labynithus; and, if this be the same as Belshazzar, she must be the person here introduced.

GILL, "Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house,.... Not the wife of Belshazzar, as Porphyry would have it; but rather the queen mother, as Jacchiades, the widow of Evilmerodach his father, whose name was Nitocris; and is spoken of, by Herodotus (q), as a very prudent woman; and as this seems to be by her words and conduct: though Josephus (r) says it was his grandmother, she who had been the wife of Nebuchadnezzar; and of this opinion were some mentioned by Aben Ezra; whose name was Amyitis; and it appears, by what she says afterwards, that she was well acquainted with affairs in his time; and, being an ancient woman, might be the reason why she was not among the ladies at the feast in the banqueting house; but came into it, without being sent for, on hearing the consternation and distress the king and his lords were in, and the moanful despairing words they expressed on this occasion: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever; the usual salutation given to the kings of Babylon, and other eastern monarchs; see Dan_2:4, let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed; at this affair, as if it could never be understood, and the true meaning of it be given; but be of good: cheer, and put on a good countenance; there is hope yet that it may be cleared up to satisfaction.

HENRY 10-16, "86

Here is, I. The information given to the king, by the queen-mother, concerning Daniel, how fit he was to be consulted in this difficult case. It is supposed that this queen was the widow of Evil-Merodach, and was that famous Nitocris whom Herodotus mentions as a woman of extraordinary prudence. She was not present at the feast, as the king's wives and concubines were (Dan_5:2); it was not agreeable to her age and gravity to keep a merry night. But, tidings of the fright which the king and his lords were put into being brought to her apartment, she came herself to the banqueting-house, to recommend to the king a physician for his melancholy. She entreated him not to be discouraged by the insufficiency of his wise men to solve this riddle, for that there was a man in his kingdom that had more than once helped his grandfather at such a dead lift, and, no doubt, could help him, Dan_5:11, Dan_5:12. She could not undertake to read the writing herself, but directed him to one that could; let Daniel be called now, who should have been called first. Now observe, 1. The high character she gives of Daniel: He is a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, who has something in him more than human, not only the spirit of a man, which, in all, is the candle of the Lord, but a divine spirit. According to the language of her country and religion, she could not give a higher encomium of any man; she speaks honourably of him as a man that had, (1.) An admirably good head: Light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. Such an insight had he into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired; he had knowledge and understanding beyond all the other wise men for interpreting dreams, explaining enigmas or hard sentences, untying knots, and resolving doubts. Solomon had a wonderful sagacity of this kind; but it should seem that in these things Daniel had more of an immediate divine direction. Behold, a greater than Solomon himself is here. Yet what was the wisdom of them both compared with the treasures of wisdom hidden in Christ? (2.) He had an admirably good heart: An excellent spirit was found in him,which was a great ornament to his wisdom and knowledge, and qualified him to receive that gift; for God gives to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy. He was of a humble, holy, heavenly spirit, had a devout and gracious spirit, a spirit of zeal for the glory of God and the good of men. This was indeed an excellent spirit. 2. The account she gives of the respect that Nebuchadnezzar had for him; he was much in his favour, and was preferred by him: “The king thy father” (that is, thy grandfather, but even to many generations Nebuchadnezzar might well be called the father of that royal family, for he it was that raised it to such a pitch of grandeur), “the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the magicians.” Perhaps Belshazzar had sometimes, in his pride, spoken slightly of Nebuchadnezzar, and his politics, and the methods of his government, and the ministers he employed, and thought himself wiser than he; and therefore his mother harps upon that. “The king, I say, thy father, to whose good management all thou hast owing, he pronounced him chief of, and gave him dominion over, all the wise men of Babylon, and named him Belteshazzar, according to the name of his god, thinking thereby to put honour upon him;” but Daniel, by constantly making use of his Jewish name himself (which he resolved to keep, in token of his faithful adherence to his religion), had worn out that name; only the queen-dowager remembered it, otherwise he was generally called Daniel. Note, It is a very good office to revive the remembrance of the good services of worthy men, who are themselves modest, and willing that they should be forgotten. 3. The motion she makes concerning him: Let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. By this it appears that Daniel was now forgotten at court. Belshazzar was a stranger to him, knew not that he had such a jewel in his kingdom. With the new king there came in a new ministry, and 87

the old one was laid aside. Note, There are a great many valuable men, and such as might be made very useful, that lie long buried in obscurity, and some that have done eminent services that live to be overlooked and taken no notice of; but, whatever men are, God is not unrighteous to forget the services done to his kingdom. Daniel, being turned out of his place, lived privately, and sought not any opportunity to come into notice again; yet he lived near the court and within call, though Babylon was now besieged, that he might be ready, if there were occasion, to do any good office, by what interest he had among the great ones, for the children of his people. But Providence so ordered it that now, just at the fall of that monarchy, he should by the queen's means be brought to court again, that he might lie there ready for preferment in the ensuing government. Thus do the righteous shine forth out of obscurity, and before honour is humility.II. The introducing of Daniel to the king, and his request to him to read and expound the writing. Daniel was brought in before the king, Dan_5:13. He was now nearly ninety years of age, so that his years, and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king's presence; yet he was willing to be conducted in, as a stranger, by the master of the ceremonies. Note, 1. The king asks, with an air of haughtiness: Art thou that Daniel who art of the children of the captivity? Being a Jew, and a captive, he was loth to be beholden to him if he could help it. 2. He tells him what an encomium he had heard of him (Dan_5:14), that the spirit of the gods was in him;and he had sent for him to try whether he deserved so high a character or no. 3. He acknowledges that all the wise men of Babylon were baffled; they could not read this writing, nor show the interpretation, Dan_5:16. But, 4. He promises him the same rewards that he had promised them if he would do it, Dan_5:16. It was strange that the magicians, when now, and in Nebuchadnezzar's time, once and again, they were nonplussed, did not attempt something to save their credit; if they had with a good assurance said, “This is the meaning of such a dream, such a writing,” who could disprove them? But God so ordered it that they had nothing at all to say, as, when Christ was born, the heathen oracles were struck dumb.JAMISON, "queen — the queen mother, or grandmother, Nitocris, had not been

present till now. She was wife either of Nebuchadnezzar or of Evil merodach; hence her acquaintance with the services of Daniel. She completed the great works which the former had begun. Hence Herodotus attributes them to her alone. This accounts for the deference paid to her by Belshazzar. (See on Dan_4:36). Compare similar rank given to the queen mother among the Hebrews (1Ki_15:13).

K&D, "By מלכתא interpreters rightly understand the mother of the reigning king, the widow of his father Nebuchadnezzar, since according to Dan_5:2. The wives of the king were present at the festival, and the queen came before the king as only a mother could do. Among the Israelites also the mother of the reigning king was held in high respect; cf. 1Ki_15:13; 2Ki_24:12, 2Ki_24:15; Jer_13:18; Jer_29:2. מלין by reason of the ,לקבלwords, not: because of the affair, to which neither the plur. מלי nor the gen. הי רברבנagrees. Instead of the Kethiv עללת the Keri has עלת, the later form. The queen-mother begins in an assuring manner, since she can give an advice which is fitted to allay the embarrassment.

88

CALVIN, "Here Daniel relates the occasion of his being brought before the king, as the reader and interpreter of the writing. The queen, he says, did this. It is doubtful whether it was the wife of King Belshazzar, or his grandmother. She was probably an old woman, as she refers to events in the time of King Nebuchadnezzar This conjecture has no sufficient foundation, and hence it is better to suspend our judgment than to assert anything rashly; unless, as we before saw, his wife was at table with him. As far as we can gather the words of the Prophet with certainty, we must diligently notice them, and thus convict the king of ingratitude, because he did not admit Daniel among the magi, Chaldeans, and astrologers. The holy man had no wish to be reckoned in that company; he would have deserved to lose God’s prophetic spirit had he thus mingled with impostors; and he is clearly to be distinguished from them. King Nebuchadnezzar had set him over all the magi; he had no wish to exercise this honor, unless, as I have just said, he would deprive himself of the singular gift of prophecy; for we must always take care how far we can go. We know how very prone we are to be enticed by the blandishments of the world, especially when ambition blinds us and disturbs all our senses. No plague is worse than this, because when any one sees a prospect of the acquisition of either profit or honor, he does not regard either what he ought to do or what God permits, but is hurried on by a blind fury. This would have happened to Daniel, unless he had been restrained by a sense of true piety, and hence he repudiated the honor offered him by King Nebuchadnezzar. He never wished to be reckoned among soothsayers, and astrologers, and impostors of this kind, who deluded that nation with prodigies. Here the queen enters and mentions Daniel; but this does not render the king without excuse; for, as we have already said, Daniel had acquired a name of renown among men of all ages, and God wished to signalize him by a distinct mark, to fix the minds of all upon him, as if he were an angel from heaven. As King Belshazzar was ignorant of the existence of such a Prophet in his kingdom, this was the result of his gross and brutish indifference. God, therefore, wished King Belshazzar to be reproved by a woman, who said, Let not thy thoughts disturb thee! She calms him quietly, because she saw how frightened he was; but, meanwhile, she shews him the grossness of his error in wandering about in uncertainty, when the way was plain before him. God had put his torch in the Prophet’s hand for the very purpose of lighting the king, unless he willfully desired to wander in darkness, as all the wicked do. Hence, we may learn from the example of this king, the common fault of our nature; for no one runs out of the right way, unless he indulges in his own ignorance, and desires all light to be extinct within him. As to the language of the queen, The spirit of the holy gods is in Daniel! we have elsewhere explained its meaning. It is not surprising that the profane use this language, since they cannot discern between the one God and angels. Hence they promiscuously call anything divine and celestial, a god. Thus also the queen calls angels, holy gods, and places the true God among them. But it is our privilege to acknowledge the true God as shining forth alone, and the angels as all taking their own ranks without any excellence in heaven or earth to obscure the glory of the only God. The writing has this tendency — the exaltation of God in the highest degree, and the magnifying of his excellency and his majestic supremacy. We here see how needful it is for us to be

89

instructed in the essential unity of God, since from the very beginning of the world men have always been persuaded of the existence of some Supreme Deity; but after they became vain in their imaginations, this idea entirely escaped them, and they mingled God and angels in complete confusion. Whenever we perceive this, let us feel our need of Scripture as a guide and instructor which shines on our path, urging us to think of God as inviting us to himself and willingly revealing himself to us.COFFMAN, '"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.COKE, "Daniel 5:10. Now the queen, &c.— Now the queen, on account of the affair which had happened to the king and his lords, came, &c. The word for countenance at the end of the verse signifies splendour, or the serenity of the face. The king's wives and concubines sat with him at the feast, Daniel 5:2-3 so that the person here mentioned must have been the queen-mother, whom Herodotus calls Nitocris; a lady

90

of eminent wisdom, who had the chief direction of public affairs. See Prideaux, and Herod. lib. i, and cap. 185.TRAPP, "Daniel 5:10 [Now] the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: [and] the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:Ver. 10. Now the queen.] The queen mother, whom Herodotus calleth Nicochris, and greatly commendeth for her wisdom and ability of speech, which in a woman is a comely ornament: [Proverbs 31:26] (1.) She was not at this riotous feast, which is an argument of her temperance; (2.) She prudently insinuateth into the king by the ordinary salutation, "O king, live for ever"; (3.) She adviseth him to bear up, and not to be too troubled; (4.) She maketh honourable mention of Daniel, cuius virtutum sola est admiratrix, and persuaded the king to make use of him by her own experience, We use to say thus women’s wits are best at a pinch. Most sure it is that women have proven sometimes more prompt for counsel than men; [ 13:23] and some we may find who, beside their sex, have little of a woman in them. See 2 Samuel 20:16. Herodotus maketh this Nicochris as famous as Semiramis.

PETT, "Verses 10-12‘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 for ever. Do not 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 your father’s days, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. And the king Nebuchadnezzar your father, the king I say, your father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans and soothsayers, forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams and showing of dark sentences and dissolving of doubts (literally ‘of knots’) were found in that same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show you the interpretation.” ’‘The queen’ may be the wife of Nabonidus, and daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, but it is equally as likely that it means the mother of the queen, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. In many ancient countries the queen of a past monarch was held in high esteem and had considerable authority (compare 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 11:1-3; 2 Kings 24:12; Jeremiah 13:18; Jeremiah 29:2). She came in because someone had brought news to her of what the king and lords were saying. The fact that she could enter of her own accord into the presence of the king and his assembly demonstrates her high authority.She remembered that great man Daniel who had so helped Nebuchadnezzar. She was of an age to do so. And she was concerned for her son (grandson). So she told him about Daniel. She said that he was a man full of the spirit of the holy gods, and

91

that he had deep understanding and wisdom, and light where there was darkness for others. Indeed because of these things Nebuchadnezzar had made him master (Rab) of the wise men. He could interpret dreams, explain words which no one else could, and resolve puzzles and doubts (knotty problems). He was just the man to help Belshazzar. Let him be called for.

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:10-12Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet-house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever; 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 gods, was found in him; whom the King Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard 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. No one can fail to feel the presence of rhetoric here, especially in the last verse, which, we may remark, has no equivalent in the Septuagint. We see the rhetorical character of these verses more clearly when we consider the ineptitude of the special powers ascribed to Daniel to meet the present difficulty. Interpretation of dreams was a common attribute ascribed to wisdom in the East of old, as it is yet. But this was not a dream, and therefore the qualification was not to the purpose; still less to the purpose are the attributes that follow. Showing of hard sentences. Giving riddles that nobody could read was an evidence of wisdom all over the East (see Josephus, 8.5. 3; besides Talmudic stories of Solomon). This, however, is not a case of competition in riddles; above all, there is no opportunity of one giving riddles in return. "Dissolving of doubts" is the solving of these riddles. These qualities, which the queen-mother, according to the Massoretic text, ascribes to Daniel, might make him delightful as a boon companion, but were not at all to the purpose in the matter troubling the king. The version of the Septuagint is much briefer, and, it seems to us, much more satisfactory, "Then the queen reminded him concerning Daniel, who was of the captivity of Judaea, and said to the king, The man was understanding, wise, and excelling all the wise men of Babylon, and there is a holy spirit in him, and in the days of the king thy father, he showed difficult ( ὑπέρογκα) interpretations to Nebuchadnezzar thy father." This has every sign of having been translated; thus the phrase, ἐμνήσθη πρὸς αὐτὸν περὶ τοῦ δανιήλ, which we have rendered, "reminded him concerning Daniel." This use of πρὸς after μιμνήσκω is unknown in classic Greek. In Homer's 'Odyssey' it is accusative of person; in Plato, 'Laches,' 200 D, it is dative of person; in 'Legg.,' 3:688, it is accusative of person. It is, however, exactly parallel with Genesis 40:14, ΄νησθήσῃ περὶ ἐμοῦ πρὸς φαραὼ. πρὸς represents אל in the Hebrew; in the Targum of Onkelos and in the Peshitta this is translated by קדם; in Paulus Tellensis it is rendered by . לMoreover, according to the Massoretic text, Belshazzar asks Daniel if he is" that

92

Daniel which art of the captivity of the children of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?" The queen-mother had said nothing, according to the verses before us as given in the Massoretic recension, of Daniel being a Jew. According to the Septuagint, the queen-mother tells him whence Daniel is. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text, save that it inserts "watchfulness" instead of "light," and omits the repetition of "thy father." The Peshitta is also substantially at one with our received text. One of the great difficulties which commentators have found in this part of the incident is how Belshazzar could be ignorant of Daniel. Various means have been adopted to get over the difficulty. One is that Daniel was away from Babylon up to this time (Jephet-ibn-Ali). Archdeacon Rose is certain he must have known about him. The explanation of this is as recumbent on the opponents of the authenticity of Daniel as on its defenders, for they—the latter—declare it the work of one author, and it has had powerful effect on people: it must be artistically written if it is not a record of facts. No artist in fictitious narrative would present to his readers so obvious a difficulty. We learn now what was the probable reason of Belshazzar's ignorance of Daniel. Nabu-nahid, a usurper, was at variance with the whole clergy, as we may call them, of Babylon, and most likely Daniel acted with the others, and possibly, as far back as the revolution in which Evil-Merodach perished, had been away from the court. It is the height of unfairness of any one to press the name here given to Nebuchadnezzar, "my father." That title was very loosely used among the Babylonians and Assyrians. Jehu is called "the son of Omri," although he had swept the race of Omri off the face of the earth. So Dr. hugo Winckler, in his ' Untersuchungen zur Attorientalischen Geschichte,' p. 53, note, says, "This word 'son' after the name of a Chaldean prince, is only to be taken in the sense of belonging to the same dynasty." Had the phrase used been that "Nebuchadnezzar slept with his fathers, and Belshazzar his son reigned in his stead," something might have been said for the view maintained by all critics, that the author thought Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. How can the critics assert this, and yet, as does Professor Bevan, maintain this author intimate even with the minutest portions of Jeremiah, Kings, and Chronicles? If so, how is it that he did not know that both Kings and Jeremiah asserted Nebuchadnezzar to have been succeeded by Evil-Merodach? This information occupies too prominent a place in both books for him to have been ignorant of it. We can only understand his action in thus putting down Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar by assuming his acceptance of usage. The critics cannot explain it. Those who maintain the traditional view may do so by saying that Daniel, writing at the time, knowing the real state of matters, the claim of Belshazzar to be descended from Nebuchadnezzar, the fact that Evil-Merodach had been killed, simply relates facts. Had he been inventing history, and acquainted with the holy books, and all the information they conveyed to everybody, he would of necessity have spent some pains in explaining how his history came to differ so much from what one could draw from the Books of Kings and Jeremiah. The two accounts of Saul's meeting with David are not comparable with this, as we find the reason of the contradiction in the coalescence of two different accounts.

93

11 There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners.

BARNES, "There is a man in thy kingdom - To wit, Daniel. As the queen-mother had lived in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and recollected the important service which he had rendered in interpreting the dream of the king, it was natural that her mind should at once recur to him. It would seem, also, that though Daniel was no longer employed at court, yet that she still had an acquaintance with him, so far at least as to know that he was accessible, and might be called in on this occasion. It may be asked, perhaps, how it was Belshazzar was so ignorant of all this as to need this information? For it is clear from the question which the king asks in Dan_5:13, “Art thou that Daniel?” that he was ignorant of him personally, and probably even of his services as an officer in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. An ingenious and not improbable solution of this difficulty has been proposed as founded on a remark of Sir John Chardin: “As mentioned by the queen, Daniel had been made by Nebuchadnezzar ‘master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.’ Of this employment Chardin conjectures that he had been deprived on the death of that king, and obtains this conclusion from the fact that when a Persian king dies, both his astrologers and physicians are driven from court - the former for not having predicted, and the latter for not having prevented, his death. If such was the etiquette of the ancient Babylonian, as it is of the modern Persian court, we have certainly a most satisfactory solution of the present difficulty, as Daniel must then be supposed to have relinquished his public employments, and to have lived retired in private life during the eight years occupied by the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar.” - Harmer, as quoted by Rosenmuller (“Morgenland,” on Dan_5:13).

In whom is the spirit of the holy gods - This is language such as a pagan would be likely to use when speaking of one who had showed extraordinary knowledge of Divine things. See the note at Dan_4:9.And, in the days of thy father - Margin, “grandfather.” See the note at Dan_5:1-2.

94

Light, and understanding, and wisdom - Light is the emblem of knowledge, as it makes all things clear. The meaning here is, that he had showed extraordinary wisdom in interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.Like the wisdom of the gods - Such as the gods only could possess.Whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians ... - See Dan_2:48. This is repeated here, and dwelt on, in order to call the attention of the king to the fact that Daniel was worthy to be consulted. Though now living in obscurity, there was a propriety that one who had been placed at the very head of the wise men of Babylon by a prince so distinguished as Nebuchadnezzar, should be consulted on the present occasion.

CLARKE, "Nebuchadnezzar thy father - See the note on Dan_5:1 (note).

GILL, "There is a man in thy kingdom,.... She does not say in his court; very probably, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps in one of the former reigns, he was removed from his offices; for, had he been in one, very likely the queen would have described him by it; and this seems to receive confirmation by the question Belshazzar put to him upon his coming into his presence, art thou that Daniel, &c.; and only says that he had heard of him, Dan_5:13, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; something divine, something more than human; she uses the very words of Nebuchadnezzar; which seems to confirm that opinion, that she was his widow, Dan_4:8, and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; "light" in the knowledge of things obscure; understanding in the interpretation of dreams; and "wisdom" in things both human and divine, like that of an angel of God, as Jacchiades interprets "Elohim": of this instances were given in the days of his grandfather, for so Nebuchadnezzar was; nor is it unusual for a grandfather to be called a father, and even a more remote ancestor; which instances were, telling him his dream when he had forgot it, as well as the interpretation of it; and explaining his dream or vision of the tree cut down to its stump; of which see Daniel chapters two and four: whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers, Dan_2:48she seems tacitly to upbraid him with his neglect of such a man, or with turning him out of his office, when so great a prince as his grandfather was took so much notice of him, and so highly advanced him.

JAMISON, "spirit of the holy gods — She remembers and repeats Nebuchadnezzar’s language (Dan_4:8, Dan_4:9, Dan_4:18). As Daniel was probably, according to Oriental custom, deprived of the office to which Nebuchadnezzar had promoted him, as “master of the magicians” (Dan_4:9), at the king’s death, Belshazzar

95

might easily be ignorant of his services.the king ... thy father the king ... thy father — The repetition marks with emphatic gravity both the excellencies of Daniel, and the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, whom Belshazzar is bound to reverence as his father, had sought counsel from him in similar circumstances.

K&D, "Her judgment concerning Daniel is that of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4:5-6 (Dan_4:8, Dan_4:9); and that she states it in the same words leads to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was her husband. The מלכא אבו at the end of this verse may be an emphatic repetition of the foregoing אבו נב מלכא (Maur., Hitz.), but in that case מלכא would perhaps stand first. מלכא is better interpreted by Ros., v. Leng., Klief., and others as the vocative: thy father, O king, by which the words make a greater impression.

COKE, "Daniel 5:11. There is a man in thy kingdom, &c.— Belshazzar certainly could not have been well acquainted with Daniel, though Nebuchadnezzar had promoted him so considerably. This argues him to have been a weak and wicked prince, according to the character which the historians gave of him; leaving the care of public business to his mother.

TRAPP, "Daniel 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, astrologers, Chaldeans, [and] soothsayers;Ver. 11. There is a man in thy kingdom.] Once famous for his oracles, and highly promoted by thy grandfather Nebuchadnezzar. Thus this old queen speaketh of ancient things. She was not therefore Belshazzar’s wife, as Porphyry scoffingly objected, but his mother at least, if not his grandmother.In whom is the spirits.] See on Daniel 5:10.The king, I say, thy father.] This was a check to Belshazzar for neglecting so worthy a person as Daniel, whom his grandfather had so highly honoured.POOLE, "Verse 11A man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: this man was Daniel; but how came the king not to think of him? Daniel possibly was out of his place, by his own resignation, or his enemies’ malicious contrivance, and was willing to withdraw himself from the court, and from the company of the soothsayers, and would not be

96

reckoned one of them.

12 He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.”

BARNES, "Forasmuch as an excellent spirit - Not an excellent spirit in the sense in which that phrase is sometimes used now, as denoting a good and pious spirit, but a spirit or mind that excels; that is, that is “distinguished” for wisdom and knowledge.

Interpreting of dreams - Margin, “or, of an interpreter.” This was regarded as a great attainment, and was supposed to prove that one who could do it was inspired by the gods.And showing of hard sentences - The meaning of enigmatical or obscure sentences. To be able to do this was supposed to indicate great attainments, and was a knowledge that was much coveted. Compare Pro_1:6 : “To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.”And dissolving of doubts - Margin, “or, a dissolver of knots.” So the Chaldee. This language is still common in the East, to denote one who has skill in explaining difficult subjects. “In the copy of a patent given to Sir John Chardin in Persia, we find it is addressed ‘to the Lords of lords, who have the presence of a lion, the aspect of Deston; the princes who have the stature of Tahemtenten, who seem to be in the time of Ardevon, the regents who carry the majesty of Ferribours. The conquerors of kingdoms. Superintendents that unloose all manner of knots, and who are under the ascendant of Mercury,’” etc. - Taylor’s “Fragments to Calmet’s Dict.,” No. 174. The language used here would be applicable to the explanation of any difficult and perplexing subject.Whom the king named Belteshazzar - That is, the name was given to him by his authority (see the note at Joh_1:7), and it was by this name that he called him when he addressed him, Dan_4:9.

97

GILL, "Forasmuch as an excellent spirit,.... A superior spirit to all the wise men in Babylon for natural knowledge and political wisdom; and he had yet a more excellent spirit which she knew nothing of, and was no judge of; a spirit of real grace, and true piety and devotion: and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams; of which interpreting two of Nebuchadnezzar's was a proof: and showing hard sentences: or explaining enigmas and riddles, or proverbial, parabolical, and figurative phrases and expressions: and dissolving of doubts: or untying knots, solving problems, and answering knotty, intricate, and difficult questions: were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar; the prince of his eunuchs gave him that name, perhaps by the king's order; however, it was confirmed by him; he called him by it, and says it was according to the name of his god; see Dan_1:7, now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation; this she was confident of, from the knowledge she had of the above facts.

K&D, "The remarkable endowments of Daniel are again stated (according to Dan_5:11) to give weight to the advice that he should be called in. The words from מפשר[interpreting] to פטרין [doubts] are an explanatory parenthetical clause, after which the following verb, according to rule, joins itself to שכלתנו. In the parenthetical clause the nomen actonis אחויה [showing] is used instead of the participle, whereby the representation of the continued capability lying in the participle is transferred to that of each separate instance; literally, interpreting dreams, the explanation of mysteries and dissolving knots. The allusion of פטרין משרא to קטרי חר Dan_5:6, is only ,משתריןapparent, certainly is not aimed at, since the former of these expressions has an entirely different meaning. Knots stands figuratively for involved complicated problems. That Daniel did not at first appear along with the wise men, but was only called after the queen had advised it, is to be explained on this simple ground, that he was no longer president over the magicians, but on the occasion of a new king ascending the throne had lost that situation, and been put into another office (cf. Dan_8:27). The words of the queen do not prove that Belshazzar was not acquainted with Daniel, but only show that he had forgotten the service rendered by him to Nebuchadnezzar; for according to Dan_5:13 he was well acquainted with the personal circumstances of Daniel.

CALVIN, "The queen here assigns the reason why Daniel had obtained the honor of being esteemed the prince and master of all the wise men; because she said, An

98

excellent spirit was found in him, as he interpreted dreams, revealed secrets, and solved difficulties The three gifts in which Daniel excelled are here enumerated, and this proves him to have surpassed the other magi, since none of them could be compared with him. The magi boasted in their ability to interpret dreams, to solve all difficulties, and explain enigmas; but this boast of theirs was twice shewn to be vanity and folly. The queen therefore deservedly claims these three qualities for Daniel, while shewing his superiority to all others. Hence she reasons with authority when she says, A name was imposed upon him by the king. We have already spoken of this name, Belteshazzar; but the queen now refers to this name, to inform the king in what great esteem and honor he was held by his grandfather. The name of his father is here expressed, since Belshazzar might despise all strangers; yet reason would dictate the propriety of deferring to the judgment of his grandfather, whom every one knew to be a most remarkable character, whom God humbled for a time, as we saw, and as Daniel will now allude to it. Let us proceed, —TRAPP, "Daniel 5:12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.Ver. 12. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, &c.] Very excellent is the grace of the Spirit in godly hearts, [Colossians 1:29] neither can natural conscience do less than stoop and strike sail to the image of God in whomsoever.And dissolving of doubts.] Chald., Knots; that is, perplexed and obscure speeches and sentences.Now let Daniel be called.] Who will not obtrude himself, nor, like the marigold, open and shut with the sun; but, as the violet, which grows low and hangs the head downward, hiding itself also with its own leaves, so Daniel, were it not that the fragrant smell of his many virtues betrayed him to the world, would choose to live and die in his self-contenting secrecy.

13 So Daniel was brought before the king, and the king said to him, “Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah? 99

BARNES, "Then was Daniel brought in before the king - From this it is clear that he lived in Babylon, though in comparative obscurity. It would seem to be not improbable that he was still known to the queen-mother, who, perhaps, kept up an acquaintance with him on account of his former services.

Art thou that Daniel - This is a clear proof that Belshazzar was not acquainted personally with him. See the note at Dan_5:11.Which art of the children of the captivity of Judah - Belonging to those of Judah, or those Jews who were made captives, and who reside in Babylon. See the notes at Dan_1:3. He could not be ignorant that there were Jews in his kingdom, though he was not personally acquainted with Daniel.Whom the king my father - Margin, as in Dan_5:2, Dan_5:1, “grandfather.”Brought out of Jewry? - Out of Judea. See Dan_1:1-3.

GILL, "Then was Daniel brought in before the king,.... Proper officers being sent to seek and find him; and having fetched him from his house or apartment where he lived, which seems to have been in the city of Babylon, though not very probably at court as formerly, he was introduced in form into the king's presence; 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 brought out of Jewry? by which it appears he did not know him, at least had forgot him; not having admitted him to any familiarity with him, as his grandfather had done; and though the queen had given such great commendations of him, yet the king does not treat him with that respect as might have been expected, and as Nebuchadnezzar did, Dan_4:9, but seems to reproach him with his servile condition, being a captive whom his grandfather had brought out of Judea, as it were triumphing over him and his people; which shows the haughtiness of his heart, and that it was not brought down by this consternation and fright he was thrown into.

JAMISON, "the captivity of Judah — the captive Jews residing in Babylon.

K&D, "Daniel is summoned, reminds the king of his sin, and reads and interprets the writing.

The counsel of the queen was followed, and without delay Daniel was brought in. העל, cf. העלו Dan_5:15, is Hebr. Hophal of על Dan_4:33. The ,הוסף to go in, as ,עלל =question of the king: Art thou Daniel ... ? did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel. The address shows that Belshazzar was acquainted with Daniel's origin, of which the queen had said nothing, but that he had had no official intercourse with him. It shows also that Daniel was no longer the president of the magicians at the king's court (Dan_2:48.).

100

CALVIN, "Here the king does not acknowledge his own folly, but without any modesty he interrogates Daniel, and that, too, as a captive, — Art thou, that Daniel, of the captives of Judah, whom my father led away? He seems to speak contemptuously here, to keep Daniel in servile obedience; although we may read this sentence as if Belshazzar inquired, Are you that Daniel? In truth, I have heard of thee! He had heard before, and had said nothing; but now, when extreme necessity urges him, he pays the greatest respect to Daniel.I have heard, therefore, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, since thou canst unravel intricacies and reveal secrets With regard to the spirit of the gods, we have already mentioned how King Belshazzar, by the common custom of all nations, promiscuously mingled angels with God; because those miserable ones could not extol God as they ought, and treat angels as entirely under his feet. But this sentence shews men never were so brutal as not to ascribe all excellence to God, as we see in profane writers; whatever promotes human advantage, and is remarkable for superiority and dignity, they treat as benefits derived from the gods. Thus the Chaldeans called the gift of intelligence a spirit of the gods, being a rare and singular power of penetration; since men acknowledge they do not acquire and attain to the prophetic office by their own industry, but it is a heavenly gift. Hence men are compelled by God to assign to him his due praise; but because the true God was unknown to them, they speak implicitly, and, as I have said, they called angels gods, since in the darkness of their ignorance they could not discern which was the true God. Whatever be the meaning, Belshazzar here shews in what estimation he holds Daniel, saying, he depends on the reports received from others, and thus displaying his own slothfulness. He ought to have known the Prophet by personal experience; but from his being content with simple rumor, he proudly neglected the teacher offered to him, and neither reflected upon nor wished to confess his own disgrace. But thus God. often extracts a confession from the impious, by which they condemn themselves, even if they wish exceedingly to escape censure.

COFFMAN. ""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

101

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.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:13 Then 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, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?Ver. 13. Then was Daniel brought in.] Wise men are never found to be unnecessarily forthputting, or overly forward to express themselves. They know qui bene latuit bene vixit; et qui bene tacuit, bene dixit; and when they must speak, use as few words as may be, and as direct to the point.Art thou that Daniel.] Daniel had deserved of the Babylonian state to have been better known of Belshazzar, and better respected; but this is the world’s wages.Which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, &c.] What needed all this? he never learned it surely of his queen mother. She had spoken all good of Daniel, and inminded the king of another both office and name. He only takes notice of Daniel’s captive condition, and vaunts of his grandfather’s victory, moving this insolent and unseasonable question in tanta necessitate et consilii inopia, "Art thou Daniel?" &c

POOLE, " Though he was in high esteem for his skill in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, who had him in high honour, for the Spirit of God in him; yet he being dead, and other kings coming on that had never tried his abilities nor known his merits, (as it was in Joseph’s case, Exodus 1:8) hereby he came to be neglected and despised, as those words seem to import, Daniel 5:13,

102

Art thou that Daniel of the captivity of the children of Judah, & c.?

PETT, "Verses 13-16‘Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah? I have heard of you that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in you. And now the wise men and enchanters have been brought in before me, that they might read this writing and make its interpretation known to me. But they could not show the interpretation of the thing. But I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and resolve doubts. Now if you can read the writing, and make its interpretation known to me, you will be clothed with purple, and have a chain of old around your neck, and you shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” ’Note the first description of Daniel. ‘Of the children of the Captivity of Judah’. This was the description seemingly used when the intention was to be polite (compare Daniel 2:25 and contrast Daniel 3:12). It explained their presence in the land and that they were there at the king’s ‘invitation’. The use of his Hebrew name may have been because that was the name that Daniel asked to be announced, or it may be that that was the name by which he was referred to in the dossier probably handed to the king. That he had seen such a dossier is suggested by the fact that Belshazzar knew what he was.Note also the continual emphasis on Daniel’s qualities. All who read them knew that this was because God was with him. It was not glorifying Daniel but God, for God was the source of all his wisdom. And the same promise of high reward was given to him, if he could only solve the meaning of the writing.On the other hand Belshazzar himself is revealed as at least neutral towards the gods. He omits the adjective holy. This fits in with his treatment of the holy vessels. He treated them with some disdain. He was more aware of his own status. The ‘I’ in Daniel 5:16 is emphatic.

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:13-16Then 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, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men, the astrologers, 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; and I have heard of

103

thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts; 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. There is a great deal of rhetoric in this, and the attempt to restore the stately etiquette of the Babylonian court. The king is represented as repeating very much what his mother had told him. It is to be observed that, although the queen-mother—as the Massoretic text records her words—has not spoken a word of Daniel's origin, and implies that Belshazzar knew noticing of him, yet when he comes, Belshazzar addresses him as knowing who and whence he is. The suspicion that is engendered by the mere reading of the text as we have it is confirmed by a study of the Septuagint text, where these four verses shrink into very modest dimensions, "Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? and I will clothe thee with purple, and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom." The brevity of this, the utter want of rhetoric, not to speak of its dramatic verisimilitude to the speech of a man beside himself with terror, make it the more probable text. Condensation was rarely the work of a falsarius; he might omit statements that were antagonistic to some preconceived notion, or, if only a leaf or so remained of a parchment otherwise filled up, he might endeavour to utilize the space left him by putting down as much as he could of some work he valued. Then, in such a case, a copyist might really condense. But neither of these causes can explain the omission of the rhetorical passages here. We are compelled, then, to regard the text behind the Septuagint in this place as the true Daniel. Theodotion, while on the whole agreeing with the text of the Massoretes, is briefer in some respects. There is one addition, the insertion of "magicians" between "wise men and "astrologers. This shows the process of the evolution of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, though but little, if at all, later than Theodotion, is in yet closer agreement with the text of the Massoretes. Yet the Massoretic text shows certain peculiarities. The presence of , נ in the second personal pronoun, which was disappearing from Targumic, but is regularly found in Daniel, is to be observed. Further, there is אב with the suffix of the first person, which is not Targumic, but is found in the Sindschirli inscription. In the Targums it is אבא, not אבי, as in Genesis 29-9:1 :34, Onkelos. Eastern Aramaic retained it, as may be seen in the Peshitta Version of the passage before us, and of that to which we have referred. This is another of the many slight indications which all point to the Eastern origin of the Book or' Daniel. It may be observed that we have not here תלתי(tal'ti), but תלתא (tal'ta). This is regarded by Behrmann as status empbaticus. The king in his terror makes appeal to one who, perhaps, had been dismissed the court on suspicion of being opposed to the new dynasty. That dynasty had displaced and murdered Evil-Merodach, the son of Daniel's old master, and one who had shown himself specially favourable to the Jews. As the text of the Septuagint gives the narrative, we have the king eager to have his terrors laid, and, to lead this opponent, whom his father, if not also Neriglissatr, had displaced, and put in opposition to his rule, to look favourably on him, he mentions the reward he offers.

104

BI 13-17, "Then was Daniel brought in before the king.The Preacher’s OpportunityHow the prophet always clears a space for himself; how on great occasions men distribute themselves into proper classes. When the occasion is little, one man is as good as another; there is a general hum of conversation, and it is difficult to tell the great man from the small, the obscure man from the famous; but when the crisis comes, by some law hardly to be expressed in words, men fall into their right relations, and there stands up the man who has the keys of the Kingdom of God. Preachers of the Word, you will be wanted some day by Belshazzar; you were not at the beginning of the feast, but you will be there before the banqueting-hall is closed; the king will not ask you to drink wine, but he will ask you to tell the secret of his pain and heal the malady of his heart. Abide your time. You are nobody now. Who cares for preachers, teachers, seers, and men of insight, while the wine goes round, and the feast is unfolding its tempting luxuries? Midway down the programme to mention pulpit, or preacher, or Bible, would be to violate the harmony of the occasion. But the preacher, as we have often had occasion to say, will have his opportunity. They will send for him when all other friends have failed; may he then come fearlessly, independently, asking only to be made a medium through which Divine communications can be addressed to the listening trouble of the world. Daniel will take the scarlet and the chain by-and-by, but not as a bribe; he will take the poor baubles of this dying Babylon and will use them to the advantage of the world through actions that shall become historical, but he will not first fill his hands with bribes, and then read the king’s riddles. The prophet is self-sustained by being Divinely inspired. He needs no promise to enable him to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Indeed, he has nothing to say of himself. Every man, in proportion as he is a Daniel, has nothing to invent, nothing to conceive in his own intellect; he has no warrant or credential from the empty court of his own genius; he bears letters from Heaven; he expresses the claims of God. O Daniel, preacher, speaker, teacher, thunder out God’s word, if it be a case of judgment and doom; or whisper it, or rain in gracious tears, if it be a message of sympathy and love and welcome. (Joseph Parker, D.D.)

Daniel’s Speech to BelshazzarNever was there a finer example of fidelity than this address. There is nothing harsh, nothing violent, nothing designed merely to irritate. All is plain, direct, and pointed—like one speaking in God’s name, and who felt himself standing in God’s presence. Daniel reminds Belshazzar of what God had done to Nebuchadnezzar, both in the way of mercy and of judgment. The address proceeds on the assumption that Belshazzar ought to have considered, with devout attention, the dealings of God towards Nebuchadnezzar. From this we learn that it is our duty to regard the providential dealings of God, and that we cannot neglect this without sin. Daniel intimated that if Belshazzar had duly considered the Divine procedure towards Nebuchadnezzar, he might have arrived at the knowledge that Jehovah was the true God. Daniel condemned Belshazzar because he did not take warning from the punishment of Nebuchadnezzar. All the punishments which God has inflicted because of sin are warnings to fear God and hate evil. Belshazzar’s knowledge of those things which befel Nebuchadnezzar rendered him wholly inexcusable. (William White.)

105

14 I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom.

GILL, "I have even heard of thee,.... Very probably he had heard often of him, though he did not think fit to honour him, and use him with that familiarity his grandfather had; or however he had now just heard of him by the queen, whose encomiums of him he recites in her own words: that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee; which are the express words of his mother, Dan_5:11.K&D, "Dan_5:14

cf. Dan_5:11. It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with אלהין (of the gods).

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods [is] in thee, and [that] light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.Ver. 14. I have even heard of thee that the spirit, &c.] This silly and shallow prince hath nothing to say but what was put into his month by his wiser grandmother; only what she discreetly concealed, viz., that Daniel was one of the captives, &c., hoc unum commemorat gloriosus rex, that he blurts out, in a way of upbraiding. (a)

15 The wise men and enchanters were brought before me to read this writing and tell me what it 106

means, but they could not explain it.

GILL, "And now the wise men; the astrologers, have been brought in before me,.... For it seems they came not of themselves, or upon hearing his loud cry; but were sent for by him, and came by his orders, and were introduced into his presence by the proper officers: that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof; pointing to the writing upon the wall: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing; nor even read it; though it may be some of them might attempt to read it, and did read it in their way, as well as they could, or at least pretended to read; yet could make no manner of sense of it, which was the thing the king was intent upon.K&D, "Dan_5:15

The asyndeton אשפיא is in apposition to חכימיא as explanatory of it: the wise men, namely the conjurers, who are mentioned instar omnium. די with the imperf. following is not the relative particle, but the conjunction that before the clause expressive of design, and the infinitive clause dependent on the clause of design going before: that you may read the writing to make known to me the interpretation. מלתא is not the mysterious writing = word, discourse, but the writing with its wonderful origin; thus, the matter of which he wishes to know the meaning.CALVIN, "The following phrase has the same meaning: — All the wise men were brought before me, and the soothsayers or diviners, to read this writing to me, and to reveal its interpretation; and they could not do it, said he; for God punished him by shewing how profitless were all the Chaldeans and soothsayers, in whom he trusted at the moment of his extremity. While he was thus disappointed in his hopes, he acknowledges himself to have been deceived; and when he preferred the magi and soothsayers, he thought himself fortified by their counsel, as long as they were on his side. Meanwhile his rejection of the holy Prophet was deservedly intolerable to God. Belshazzar confesses this without intending to do so; hence I said his confession was not ingenuous or voluntary, but violently extorted by the secret instinct of God. He also promises Daniel what he had previously promised the magi, — Thou shalt be clothed in purple if thou canst read this writing, and wear a golden chain round thy neck, and thou shalt reign as the third person in the kingdom But the end of his reign was now close at hand, and yet in security he offers this dignity to Daniel. This shews how rapidly the terror which God had occasioned him had vanished away. He is agitated by the greatest uneasiness, just like madmen, for they having no certainty exult amidst their terror, and wish to leap

107

or fly towards heaven itself. Thus also this tyrant though he trembles at God’s judgment, yet retains a hidden obstinacy in his heart, and imagines his kingdom will permanently continue, while he promises wealth and honors to others. It now follows, —TRAPP, "Daniel 5:15 And now the wise [men], the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing:Ver. 15. But they could not show the interpretation of the thing.] They could not read nor interpret it. Such as seek to sorcerers are worthy to lose their labour, as a punishment of their folly. Suidas testifieth that the citizens of Alexandria in Egypt devised and decreed that astrologers should pay a certain tribute to the State out of their gettings, and that it should be called the fool’s tribute, because none but fools and light fellows would resort to such for direction.

16 Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.”

BARNES, "And I have heard of thee ... - Dan_5:11.Canst make interpretations - Margin, “interpret.” Chaldee, “interpret interpretations.” The meaning is, that he was skilled in interpreting or explaining dreams, omens, etc.And dissolve doubts - See the notes at Dan_5:12.Now, if thou canst read the writing ... thou shalt be clothed with scarlet ... - This was the reward which at the first he had promised to any one that was able to do it, and as all others had failed, he was willing that it should be offered to a Jew.

108

CLARKE, "Dissolve doubts - Untie knots - unbind what is bound. An expression used in the east to signify a judge of eminent wisdom and skill.

GILL, "And I have heard of thee,.... That is, by the queen, which he repeats for the sake of observing what she had said of him, and which gave him encouragement to send for him: that thou canst make interpretations; of dreams, and of things hard to be understood: and dissolve doubts; untie knots, solve difficulties, and answer hard and intricate questions: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof; that which is upon the wall before thee, and which the wise men of Babylon could not: thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom; the same reward he had proposed to the astrologers and soothsayers, Dan_5:7 but what was no temptation or motive to Daniel, as appears by what follows:K&D, "Dan_5:16-17

The Kethiv Dan_5:16, is the Hebr. Hophal, as Dan_2:10; the Keri ,תוכל תכול the formation usual in the Chaldee, found at Dan_3:29. Regarding the reward to Daniel, see under Dan_5:7. Daniel declines (Dan_5:17) the distinction and the place of honour promised for the interpretation, not because the former might be dangerous to him and the latter only temporary, as Hitzig supposes; for he had no reason for such a fear, when he spoke “as one conveying information who had just seen the writing, and had read it and understood its import,” for the interpretation, threatening ruin and death to the king, could bring no special danger to him either on the part of Belshazzar or on that of his successor. Much rather Daniel rejected the gift and the distinction promised, to avoid, as a divinely enlightened seer, every appearance of self-interest in the presence of such a king, and to show to the king ad his high officers of state that he was not determined by a regard to earthly advantage, and would unhesitatingly declare the truth, whether it might be pleasing or displeasing to the king. But before he read and interpreted the writing, he reminded the king of the punishment his father Nebuchadnezzar had brought upon himself on account of his haughty pride against God (Dan_5:18-21), and then showed him how he, the son, had done wickedly toward God, the Lord of his life (Dan_5:22, Dan_5:23), and finally explained to him that on this account this sign had been given by God (Dan_5:24).COKE, "Daniel 5:16. That thou canst make interpretations— That thou canst explain what is to be explained, or what stands in need of explanation. And dissolve

109

doubts is literally to untie knots; a manner of speaking used to this day in the letters of the kings of Persia, to denote an expert judge, or an intelligent governor. See Chardin's Voyage to Persia, p. 228 and the note on Daniel 5:29.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: 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.Ver. 16. And I have heard of thee.] As far off as he maketh it, Belshazzar could not be so ignorant of Daniel, as he would seem to be, since he understood punctually the dreams, honours, and troubles of his grandfather. [Daniel 5:22] But this he took for a piece of his silly glory, to make it very strange, as if he had never heard of Daniel till now.

17 Then Daniel answered the king, “You may keep your gifts for yourself and give your rewards to someone else. Nevertheless, I will read the writing for the king and tell him what it means.

BARNES, "Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself - That is, “I do not desire them; I do not act from a hope of reward.” Daniel means undoubtedly to intimate that what he would do would be done from a higher motive than a desire of office or honor. The answer is one that is eminently dignified. Yet he says he would read the writing, implying that he was ready to do anything that would be gratifying to the monarch. It may seem somewhat strange that Daniel, who here disclaimed all desire of office or reward, should so soon Dan_5:29 have submitted to be clothed in this manner, and to receive the insignia of office. But, it may be remarked, that when the offer was proposed to him he stated his wishes, and declared that he did not desire to be honored in that way; when he had performed the duty, however, of making known the writing, he could scarcely feel at liberty to resist a command of the king to be clothed in that manner, and to be regarded as an officer in the kingdom. His intention, in the verse before us, was modestly to decline the honors proposed, and to

110

intimate that he was not influenced by a desire of such honors in what he would do; yet to the king’s command afterward that he should be clothed in robes of office, he could not with propriety make resistance. There is no evidence that he took these honors voluntarily, or that he would not have continued to decline them if he could have done it with propriety.And give thy rewards to another - Margin, “or fee, as in Dan_2:6.” Gesenius

supposes that the word used here (נבזבה nebizbâh) is of Persian origin. It means a gift, and, if of Persian origin, is derived from a verb, meaning to lead with gifts and praises, as a prince does an ambassador. The sense here seems to be, that Daniel was not disposed to interfere with the will of the monarch if he chose to confer gifts and rewards on others, or to question the propriety of his doing so; but that, so far as he was concerned, he had no desire of them for himself, and could not be influenced by them in what he was about to do.

Yet I will read the writing ... - Expressing no doubt that he could do it without difficulty. Probably the language of the writing was familiar to him, and he at once saw that there was no difficulty, in the circumstances, in determining its meaning.

CLARKE, "Let thy gifts be to thyself - They could be of little use to any, as the city was in a few hours to be taken and pillaged.

GILL, "Then Daniel answered and said before the king,.... With great freedom, boldness, and intrepidity: let thy gifts be to thyself; remain with thee; I neither want them, nor desire them; nor will I receive them on condition of reading and interpreting the writing: and give thy rewards to another; which he had promised to those that could read and interpret the handwriting on the wall; even to be clothed with scarlet, have a golden chain, and be the third ruler in the kingdom. It may be rendered, "or give thy rewards to another" (s); either keep them thyself, or give them to whomsoever thou pleasest: should it be asked, why Daniel refused gifts now, when he received them from Nebuchadnezzar? it may be answered, he was then young, and wanted them, and could make use of them for the benefit of his countrymen, but now was old, and needed them not; besides, he knew then that the captivity would continue long, but that it was now just at an end, and the monarchy coming into other hands, when these gifts and rewards would be of little use; as also this king was a very wicked one, worse than his grandfather, and he did not choose to receive from him; and especially since the interpretation of the writing would be bad news to him; as well as to let him know that he did not do these things for fee and reward, but for the glory of God; and that as he had freely received such knowledge, he freely communicated it: and therefore adds, yet I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation; in reverence of him as a king, and in subjection to him, and to satisfy him in this matter; for he refused his gifts, not from pride and vanity, and a supercilious contempt of the king and his affairs; nor as being doubtful of success in reading and

111

interpreting the writing; which he well knew he was able to do, and therefore promises it. HENRY 17-19, "III. The interpretation which Daniel gave of these mystic characters,

which was so far from easing the king of his fears that we may suppose it increased them rather. Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar was young; and therefore he seems to take a greater liberty of dealing plainly and roundly with him than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. In reproving any man, especially great men, there is need of wisdom to consider all circumstances; for they are the reproofs of instructionthat are the way of life. In Daniel's discourse here,1. He undertakes to read the writing which gave them this alarm, and to show them the interpretation of it, Dan_5:17. He slights the offer he made him of rewards, is not pleased that it was mentioned, for he is not one of those that divine for money; what gratuities Nebuchadnezzar gave him afterwards he gladly accepted, but he scorned to bargain for them, or to read the writing to the king for and in consideration of such and such honours promised him. No: “Let thy gifts be to thyself, for they will not be long thine, and give thy fee to another, to any of the wise men whom thou wouldst have most wished to earn it; I value it not.” Daniel sees his kingdom now at its last gasp, and therefore looks with contempt upon his gifts and rewards. And thus should we despise all the gifts and rewards that this world can give did we see, as we may by faith, its final period hastening on. Let it give its perishing gifts to another; there are better gifts which we have our eyes and hearts upon; but let us do our duty in the world, do it all the real service we can, read God's writing to it in a profession of religion, and by an agreeable conversation make known the interpretation of it, and then trust God for his gifts, his rewards, in comparison with which all the world can give is mere trash and trifles.2. He largely recounts to the king God's dealings with his father Nebuchadnezzar, which were intended for instruction and warning to him, Dan_5:18, Dan_5:21. This is not intended for a flourish or an amusement, but is a necessary preliminary to the interpretation of the writing. Note, That we may understand aright what God is doing with us, it is of use to us to review what he has done with others.(1.) He describes the great dignity and power to which the divine Providence had advanced Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_5:18, Dan_5:19. He had a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour, for aught we know, above what any heathen prince ever had before him; he thought that he got his glory by his own extraordinary conduct and courage, and ascribed his successes to a projecting active genius of his own; but Daniel tells him who now enjoyed what he had laboured for that it was the most high God, the God of gods and Lord of kings (as Nebuchadnezzar himself had called him), that gave him that kingdom, that vast dominion, that majesty wherewith he presided in the affairs of it, and that glory and honour which by his prosperous management he acquired. Note, Whatever degree of outward prosperity any arrive at, they must own that it is of God's giving, not their own getting. Let it never be said, My might, and the power of my hand, have gotten me this wealth, this preferment; but let it always be remembered that it is God that gives men power to get wealth, and gives success to their endeavours. Now the power which God gave to Nebuchadnezzar is here described to be very great in respect both of ability and of authority. [1.] His ability was so strong that it was irresistible; such was the majesty that God gave him, so numerous were the forces he had at command, and such an admirable dexterity he had at commanding them, that, which way soever his sword turned, it prospered. He could captivate and subdue nations by threatening them, without striking a stroke, for all people trembled and feared before him, and would

112

compound with him for their lives upon any terms. See what force is, and what the fear of it does. It is that by which the brutal part of the world, even of the world of mankind, both governs and is governed. [2.] His authority was so absolute that it was uncontrollable. The power which was allowed him, which descended upon him, or which, at least, he assumed, was without contradiction, was absolute and despotic, none shared with him either in the legislative or in the executive part of it. In dispensing punishments he condemned or acquitted at pleasure: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he saved alive, though both were equally innocent or equally guilty. The jus vitae et necis - the power of life and death was entirely in his hand. In dispensing rewards he granted or denied preferment at pleasure: Whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down, merely for a humour, and without giving a reason so much as to himself; but it is all ex mero motu - of his own good pleasure, and stat pro ratione voluntas - his will stands for a reason. Such was the constitution of the eastern monarchies, such the manner of their kings.(2.) He sets before him the sins which Nebuchadnezzar had been guilty of, whereby he had provoked God against him. [1.] He behaved insultingly towards those that were under him, and grew tyrannical and oppressive. The description given of his power intimates his abuse of his power, and that he was directed in what he did by humour and passion, not by reason and equity; so that he often condemned the innocent and acquitted the guilty, both which are an abomination to the Lord. He deposed men of merit and preferred unworthy men, to the great detriment of the public, and for this he was accountable to the most high God, that gave him his power. Note, It is a very hard and rare thing for men to have an absolute arbitrary power, and not to make an ill use of it. Camden has a distich of Giraldus, wherein he speaks of it as a rare instance, concerning our king Henry II of England, that never any man had so much power and did so little hurt with it.

Glorior hoc uno, quod nunquam vidimus unum,Nec potuisse magis, nec nocuisse minus -

Of him I can say, exulting, that with the same powerto do harm no one was ever more inoffensive.

JAMISON, "Not inconsistent with Dan_5:29. For here he declares his interpretation of the words is not from the desire of reward. The honors in Dan_5:29 were doubtless urged on him, without his wish, in such a way that he could not with propriety refuse them. Had he refused them after announcing the doom of the kingdom, he might have been suspected of cowardice or treason.CALVIN, "First of all, Daniel here rejects the proffered gifts. We do not read of his doing so before; he rather seemed to delight in the honors conferred by King Nebuchadnezzar. We may inquire into the reason for this difference. It is not probable that the intention, feeling, or sentiments of the Prophet were different. What then could be his intention in allowing himself to be previously ennobled by Nebuchadnezzar, and by now rejecting the offered dignity? Another question also arises. At the end of this chapter we shall see how he was clothed in purple, and a

113

herald promulgated an edict, by which he became third in the kingdom. The Prophet seems either to have forgotten himself in receiving the purple which he had so magnanimously rejected, or we may ask the reason why he says so, when he did not refuse to be adorned in the royal apparel. With respect to the first question, I have no doubt of his desire to treat the impious and desperate Belshazzar with greater asperity, because in the case of King Nebuchadnezzar there still remained some feelings of honor, and hence he hoped well of him and treated him more mildly. But with regard to King Belshazzar, it was necessary to treat him more harshly, because he had now arrived at his last extremity. This, I have no doubt, was the cause of the difference, since the Prophet proceeded straight forward in his course, but his duty demanded of him to distinguish between different persons, and as there was greater pertinacity and obstinacy in King Belshazzar, he shews how much less he deferred to him than to his grandfather. Besides, the time of his subjection was soon to be finished, and with this end in view he had formerly honored the Chaldean empire.As to the contrast apparent between his reply and his actions, which we shall hereafter see, this ought not to seem absurd, if the Prophet had from the beginning borne his testimony against the king’s gifts, and that he utterly re-jeered them. Yet he does not strive very vehemently, lest he should be thought to be acting cunningly, for the purpose of escaping danger. In each case he wished to display unconquered greatness of mind; at the beginning he asserted the king’s gifts to be valueless to him, for he knew the end of the kingdom to be at hand, and afterwards he received the purple with other apparel. If he had entirely refused them, it would have been treated as a fault and as a sign of timidity, and would have incurred the suspicion of treason. The Prophet therefore shews how magnificently he despised all the dignities offered him by King Belshazzar, who was already half dead. At the same time he shews himself intrepid against all dangers; for the king’s death was at hand and the city was taken in a few hours — nay, in the very same hour! Daniel therefore did not reject this purple, she wing his resolution not to avoid death if necessary. He would have been safer in his obscurity, had he dwelt among the citizens at large, instead of in the palace; and if he had resided among the captives, he might have been free from all danger. As he did not hesitate to receive the purple, he displays his perfect freedom from all fear. Meanwhile he, doubtless, wished to lay prostrate the king’s foolish arrogance, by which he was puffed up, when he says, Let thy gifts remain with thee, and give thy presents to another! I care not for them. Because he so nobly despises the king’s liberality, there is no doubt of his desire to correct the pride by which he was puffed up, or at least to wound and arouse his mind to feel God’s judgment, of which Daniel will soon become both the herald and the witness. It now follows, — COFFMAN, ""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

114

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 ADMONITION 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]COKE, "Daniel 5:17. Let thy gifts be to thyself— This is a compliment. He afterwards accepts what he here declines through civility. He means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king commanded, without any respect to a recompense. See Calmet.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.Ver. 17. Let thy gifts be to thyself.] Honours, pleasures, riches,“ Haec tria pro trino numine mmadus habet. ”

115

But as Moses, by the force of his faith, overcame them all, [Hebrews 11:24-27] so did Daniel here, throwing off the offers of them, and answering the king’s proud speech with a grave invective, which he beginneth somewhat abruptly, not without indignation, as having to deal with a wicked and desperate man, rejected of God. Ministers must carry in them a retired majesty, saith one, toward the persons of wicked men. [2 Kings 3:14]

POOLE 17-19, "Verse 17Did not Daniel receive gifts and honour, from Nebuchadnezzar, on the like occasion?Answ. He was then young, and the captivity was to be long, and he by his place could be helpful to his poor brethren; but now the time of the captivity was near expired, and Babylon in distress by invasion and siege, and that night king, city, and kingdom lost; and there the time was different, and the case also. Moreover Daniel would not receive a reward for so sad a message.Verse 18This the prophet repeats, to put Belshazzar in mind how God dealt with his father; for it is good for kings to read over the story of their ancestors, and take warning, and take example. In the first they are seamarks, in the second landmarks.Verse 19He ruled arbitrarily, and had power of life and death, he did what he would, his will was a law. And this lifted up his heart in pride, and hardened it as Pharaoh’s, for which, being incorrigible,he was deposed from his kingly throne, as in the next verse.

PETT, "Verse 17‘Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be to yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him its interpretation.”Daniel politely states that he wishes for no reward. He is not here to benefit from what he is about to do. This probably impressed the king with the idea that such a man would speak only the truth. Besides such refusals were often seen as polite acceptances among orientals. But the reader is aware all the time that the promise is anyway an empty one, for by the morrow there will be no kingdom.

116

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:17-23Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet 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 a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, 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 set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, 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: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humblet thine 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 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, hast thou not glorified. We have gathered these verses together, as they all relate to one matter and come under one condemnation. Long ago yon Lengerke, and more recently Hitzig, have shown that such an insulting speech as Daniel addressed to Belshazzar would certainly be visited with punishment. The king had no guarantee that the promised interpretation of the writing on the wall would be true, especially when the interpreter had such an animus against him. Then the fact in the twenty-ninth verse, that Daniel received the gifts he had rejected, makes his conduct here all the more extraordinary. A writer of fiction, of even moderate skill, would not make the blunder here made. It could easily be made by a falsarius interpolating a speech he thought suitable to a Jewish prophet in the presence of a heathen king, who had dishonoured the sacred vessels by drinking wine in them himself, and his wives, and his concubines. It is to be noted that the princes are omitted from the enumeration here. In proof that our contention is correct, we find the mass of this entirely omitted from the Septuagint. There are signs of confusion, and coalescence of different readings in the text of the Septuagint, yet we have no hesitation in claiming that it represents a much earlier state of the text than we find in our Hebrew Bibles, "Then Daniel stood before the writing, and read, and thus answered the king: This is the writing: It hath been numbered; it was reckoned; it has been removed." The marginal reading which we find in the beginning of this chapter has, Mane, Phares, Thekel. The interpretation here follows a different succession, "And the hand which wrote stood"—a phrase that seems to be a mistaken rendering of the latter clause of the twenty-fourth verse as we find it in the Massoretic text. It seems difficult to imagine what Aramaic word has been translated ἔστη. Paulus Tel-lensis has (see Aramaic word) ( קמת, qemath), which may have been mistaken for sheliach, though it is not easy to see how. The clause is, at all events, misplaced. The following clause also is misplaced, and is a doublet of the first clause of the twenty-sixth verse. The

117

twenty-third verse seems to be the nucleus of the speech ascribed to Daniel, "O king, thou madest a feast to thy friends, and thou drankest wine, and the vessels of the house of the living God were brought, and ye drank in them, thou and thy nobles, and praised all the idols made with the bands of men, and the living God ye did not bless, and thy breath is in his hand, and he gave thee thy kingdom, and thou didst not bless him, neither praise him." The wives and concubines are not mentioned here. There is no word of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar. Although from the disturbed state of the text in the immediate neighbourhood one is inclined to suspect the authenticity of this twenty-third verse, given in the LXX ; yet there is nothing that contradicts the position created by the two early decrees of Nebuchadnezzar, which placed Jehovah the God of the Jews on a par with the great gods of Babylon to whom, though no worship was decreed, at all events no dishonour was to be done. Belshazzar is not so much blamed for praising the gods of wood and stone as for omitting to praise Jehovah. Belshazzar had dishonoured Jehovah, and therefore this ominous message had come forth. The first clause here seems the primitive text. What was more natural than that Daniel, coming into the presence of the king, should go and stand before the mysterious writing, and then, having read it himself, turn to the king and address him? The words of the Massoretic and of the text behind the Septuagint differ very considerably, but not so much but that the former may have grown out of the latter by expansion, and the insertion of paraphrastic additions. A peculiarity to be observed in the Massoretic text (verse 17) is להוין(lehayvyan), the third plural imperfect of היא, "to be." It is difficult to understand this form of the third person, save on the supposition that Daniel was written in a region where ל was the preformative. This preformative along with נwas used in Babylon so late as the period of the Babylonian Talmud. Theodotion and the Peshitta practically agree with the Massoretic text. Even when we omit all the insulting elements, we have Daniel's speech to Belshazzar as we find it in the Massoretic text; no reader can fail to notice the difference of Daniel's demeanour towards Belshazzar as narrated here, from that towards Nebuchadnezzar as narrated in the preceding chapter. When he learns the disaster that impends on the destroyer of his city and the conqueror of his nation, Daniel is astonied and silent, and bursts out from his silence, "The dream be upon thine enemies, and the interpretation thereof upon them that hate thee." He shows no sign of sorrow when he learns the fate impending on Belshazzar. We can understand this, if we regard Daniel's love for the splendid conqueror making him feel the blood of his murdered descendants, Evil-Merodach and Labasi-Marduk called for vengeance. So far as we can make out from external history, Belshazzar was a gallant young prince, who seemed to be able to maintain himself against Cyrus, while his father lived in retirement in Tema; but the judgment of God often falls on those who are not worse than their predecessors, only guilt has accumulated and ripened. Louis XVI. was not worse than, but really greatly superior to, his two immediate predecessors, yet on him, not on them, broke the vengeance of the French Revolution. There probably was, as said above under verse 2, a special defiance of Jehovah, which therefore merited special punishment.

118

18 “Your Majesty, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor.

BARNES, "O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom ... - This reference to Nebuchadnezzar is evidently designed to show to Belshazzar the wickedness of his own course, and the reason which he had to apprehend the Divine vengeance, because he had not learned to avoid the sins which brought so great calamities upon his predecessor. As he was acquainted with what had occurred to Nebuchadnezzar; as he had doubtless seen the proclamation which he had made on his recovery from the dreadful malady which God had brought upon him for his pride; and as he had not humbled himself, but had pursued the same course which Nebuchadnezzar did, he had the greater reason to apprehend the judgment of heaven. See Dan_5:22-23. Daniel here traces all the glory which Nebuchadnezzar had to “the most high God,” reminding the king that whatever honor and majesty he had he was equally indebted for it to the same source, and that he must expect a similar treatment from him.

CLARKE, "Nebuchadnezzar thy father - Or grandfather, as the margin reads, Dan_5:2. See the notes on Dan_5:1 (note).

GILL, "O thou king,.... "Hear" (t), O king; so Aben Ezra supplies it; what he was about to say first, in order to prepare him for the meaning of the handwriting, and the cause of it; or, "thou knowest", as Saadiah supplies it; namely, what follows: the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom: a very large one, which reached to the ends of the earth: this was not to be ascribed to his predecessor that left it to him; or to his victorious arms, which increased it; or to his idol gods, to whom he attributed it; but to the most high God, from whom promotion alone cometh; and who, being above all gods and kings, sets up, and pulls down, as he pleases; he gave him his large dominions: and majesty, and glory, and honour; greatness among men; glory and honour from them, on account of the majesty of his person and kingdom; the victories he obtained,

119

and the great things he did to make him famous while he lived, and to perpetuate his memory after death.

JAMISON, "God gave — It was not his own birth or talents which gave him the vast empire, as he thought. To make him unlearn his proud thought was the object of God’s visitation on him.

majesty — in the eyes of his subjects.glory — from his victories.honour — from the enlargement and decoration of the city.

K&D, "Dan_5:18-21The address, Thou, O king, is here an absolute clause, and is not resumed till Dan_5:22. By this address all that follows regarding Nebuchadnezzar is placed in definite relation to Belshazzar. The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar's power in Dan_5:18and Dan_5:19 has undeniably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that

he did not equal his father in power and majesty. Regarding וגו _see under Dan ,עממיא3:4, and with regard to the Kethiv with the Keri ,זאעין מחא .see under Dan_3:3 ,יעין is not from מחא, to strike (Theodot., Vulg.), but the Aphel of חיא (to live), the particip. of which is מחי in Deu_32:39, contracted from מחיא, here the part. מחא, in which the Jod is compensated by the lengthening of the vowel a4. Accordingly, there is no ground for giving the preference, with Buxt., Ges., Hitz., and others, to the variant מחא, which accommodates itself to the usual Targum. form. The last clause in Dan_5:19 reminds us of 1Sa_2:6-7. In Dan_5:20 and Dan_5:21 Daniel brings to the remembrance of Belshazzar the divine judgment that fell upon Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4). רם is not the passive part., but the perf. act. with an intransitive signification; cf. Winer, §22, 4. תקף, strong, to be and to become firm, here, as the Hebr. חזק, Exo_7:13, of obduracy. העדיו, 3rd pers. plur. imper., instead of the passive: they took away, for it was taken away, he lost it; see under Dan_3:4, and Winer, §49, 3. שוי is also to be thus interpreted, since in its impersonal use the singular is equivalent to the plur.; cf. Winer. There is no reason for changing (with v. Leng. and Hitz.) the form into shewiy, part. Piel. The change of construction depends on the rhetorical form of the address, which explains also the naming of the ערדין, wild asses, as untractable beasts, instead of ברא חיות (beasts of the field), Dan_4:20 (23). Regarding the Kethiv see under Dan_4:14; and for the ,עליהsubject, cf. Dan_4:22 (25), 29 (32).CALVIN, "Before Daniel recites the writing, and adds its interpretation, he explains to King Belshazzar the origin of this prodigy. He did not begin the reading at once, as he might conveniently have done, saying Mene, Mene! as we shall see at the end of the chapter, since the king could not have pro-fired by his abrupt speech. But here Daniel shews it to be by no means surprising, if God put forth his hand and shewed the figure of a hand describing the king’s destruction, since the king had too

120

obstinately provoked his anger. We see then why Daniel begins by this narrative, since King Nebuchadnezzar was a most powerful monarch, subduing the whole world to himself and causing all men to tremble at his word, and was afterwards hurled from the throne of his kingdom. Hence it more clearly appears that Belshazzar did not live in ignorance, for he had so signal and remarkable an example [hat he ought to have conducted himself with moderation. Since then that domestic admonition did not profit him, Daniel shews the time to be ripe for the denunciation of God’s wrath by a formidable and portentous sign. This is the sense of the passage. Passing on to the words themselves, he first says, To King Nebuchadnezzar God gave an empire, and magnificence, and loftiness, and splendor; as if he had said, he was magnificently adorned, as the greatest monarch in the world. We have stated elsewhere, and Daniel repeats it often, that empires are bestowed on men by divine power and not by chance, as Paul announces, There is no power but of God. (Romans 13:1.) God wishes his power to be specially visible in kingdoms. Although, therefore, he takes care of the whole world, and, in the government of the human family even the most miserable things are regulated by his hand, yet his singular providence shines forth in the empire of the world. But since we have often discussed this point at length, and shall have many opportunities of recurring to it, it is now sufficient just briefly to notice the principle, of the exaltation of earthly kings by the hand of God, and not by the chances of fortune.When Daniel confirms this doctrine, he adds, On account of the magnificence which God conferred upon him, all mortals trembled at the sight of him! By these words he shews how God’s glory is inscribed on kings, although he allows them to reign supreme. This indeed cannot be pointed out with the finger, but the fact is sufficiently clear; kings are divinely armed with authority, and thus retain under their hand and sway a great multitude of subjects. Every one desires the chief power over his fellow-creatures. Whence happens it, since ambition is natural to all men, that many thousands are subject to one, and suffer themselves to be ruled over and endure many oppressions? How could this be, unless God entrusted the sword of power to those whom he wishes to excel? This reason, then, must be diligently noticed, when the Prophet says, All men trembled at the sight of King Nebuchadnezzar, because God conferred upon him that majesty, and wished him to excel all the monarchs of the world. God has many reasons, and often hidden ones, why he raises one man and humbles another; yet this point ought to be uncontroverted by us. No kings can possess any authority unless God extends his hand to them and props them up. When he wishes to remove them from power, they fall of their own accord; not because there is any chance in the changes of the world, but because God, as it is said in the Book of Job, (Job 12:18,) deprives those of the sword whom he had formerly entrusted with it.It now follows, Whom he wished to slay he slew, and whom he wished to strike he struck Some think the abuse of kingly power is here described; but I had rather take it simply, for Nebuchadnezzar being able to east down some, and to raise others at his will, since it was in his power to give life to some and to slay others. I, therefore, do not refer these words to tyrannical lust, as if Nebuchadnezzar had put

121

many innocent persons to death, and poured forth human blood without any reason; or as if he had despoiled many of their fortunes, and enriched others and adorned them with honor and wealth. I do not take it so. I think it refers to his arbitrary power over life and death, and over the rise of some and the ruin of others. On the whole, Daniel seems to me to describe the greatness of that royal power which they may freely exercise over their subjects, not through its being lawful, but through the tacit consent of all men. Whatsoever pleases the king, all are compelled to approve of it, or at least no one dares to murmur at it. Since, therefore, the regal license is so great, Daniel here shews how King Nebuchadnezzar was not carried away by his own plans, or purposes, or good fortune, but was entrusted with supreme power and rendered formidable to all men, because God had designed him for his own glory. Meanwhile, kings usually despise what they are permitted to enjoy, and what God allows them. For powerful as they are, they must hereafter render an account to the Supreme King. We are not to gather from this, that kings are appointed by God without any law, or any self-restraint; but the Prophet, as I have said, speaks of the royal power in itself. Since kings, therefore, have power over their subjects for life and death, he says, the life of all men was in the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar. He now adds, When his heart was exalted, then he was cast down (or ejected) from the throne of his kingdom, and they deprived him of his majesty He follows up his own narrative, tie wishes to shew King Belshazzar how God bears with the insolence of those who forget him, when they have obtained the summit of power. Desiring to make this known, he says, King Nebuchadnezzar, thy grandfather, was a mighty monarch. He did not obtain this mightiness by himself, nor could he have retained it, except he had been supported by God’s hand. Now his change of circumstances was a remarkable proof that the pride of those who are ungrateful to God can never be endured unto the end, as they never acknowledge their sway to proceed from his benevolence. When, therefore, says he, his heart was raised up and his spirit strengthened in pride, a sudden change occurred. Hence you and all his posterity ought to be taught, lest pride still further deceive you, and ye profit not by the example of your father; as we shall afterwards relate. Hence this writing has been set before thee, for the purpose of making known the destruction of thy life and kingdom.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:Ver. 18. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebachadnezzar.] See here the necessary and profitable use of history, which hath its name, saith Plato, παρα το ισταναι τον ρουν, from stopping the flux and overflow of impiety in others;“ Exemplo alterius qui sapit, ille sapit. ”Domestic examples are most prevalent; as not to profit by them is a great provocation, and yet all too common. [Psalms 49:14] Lamech was nothing bettered by Cain’s punishment, but the contrary. Jude inveigheth against such as made no

122

use of Sodom’s ruin; this was a just presage and desert of their own.And kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour.] His offences were much increased by these many obligations.PETT, "Verse 18-19“O you who are king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your 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.”We are probably to see in this ‘you who are king’, followed by the description, both an indication of the pride that Belshazzar felt in his position, and a reminder to him that Nebuchadnezzar was far, far greater than he. For Nebuchadnezzar had ruled over all, and no Medan or Persian had dared to trespass on his empire. Furthermore there was even now a king greater than Belshazzar, his own father. He was ‘melek, not ‘sharru’. But there had been no one greater than Nebuchadnezzar. He truly was the supreme lord, in whose presence all the known world trembled. He had total control, the power of life and death over his whole empire, and the power to give honour or to remove honour which really counted for something. Daniel had cause to remember both.It was true that in a sense Belshazzar was like this. His word was law where he was and he had already shown that he could dispose of honours. But his power was not total. He had always to be aware that his father may step in and alter what he did. When his father had forbidden the annual akitu festivals from being held, Belshazzar had dared not interfere. He dared not take for himself the title ‘sharru’ (overall king). (Although Nabonidus and Belshazzar appear to have been on good terms. But it did not mean he could disregard his authority). There were limits to his power. And furthermore he would be very much aware that those ‘people, nations and languages’ were now mainly controlled by another, the great Cyrus, who would soon be knocking on the gates of Babylon. He may appoint a ‘third ruler’, but over what?Note also the repetition of phrases and ideas from earlier chapters, denoting the unity of the whole (compare Daniel 3:4; Daniel 3:7; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:1; Daniel 4:22; Daniel 4:34; Daniel 4:36).

123

19 Because of the high position he gave him, all the nations and peoples of every language dreaded and feared him. Those the king wanted to put to death, he put to death; those he wanted to spare, he spared; those he wanted to promote, he promoted; and those he wanted to humble, he humbled.

BARNES, "And, for the majesty that he gave him - That is, on account of his greatness, referring to the talents which God had conferred on him, and the power which he had put in his hands. It was so great that all people and nations trembled before him.

All people, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him - Stood in awe of him. On the extent of his empire, see the note at Dan_3:4; Dan_4:1, Dan_4:22.Whom he would he slew ... - That is, he was an arbitrary - an absolute sovereign. This is exactly descriptive of the power which Oriental despotic monarchs have.Whom he would he kept alive - Whether they had, or had not, been guilty of crime. He had the absolute power of life and death over them There was no such instrument as we call a “constitution” to control the sovereign as well as the people; there was no tribunal to which he was responsible, and no law by which he was bound; there were no judges to determine on the question of life and death in regard to those who were accused of crime, whom he did not appoint, and whom he might not remove, and whose judgments he might not set aside if he pleased; there were no “juries” of “peers” to determine on the question of fact whether an accused man was guilty or not. There were none of those safeguards which have been originated to protect the accused in modern times, and which enter so essentially into the notions of liberty now. In an absolute despotism all power is in the hands of one man, and this was in fact the case in Babylon.Whom he would he set up - That is, in places of trust, of office, of rank, etc.And whom he would he put down - No matter what their rank or office.

CLARKE, "Whom he would he slew - The genuine character of a despot, whose will is the only rule of his conduct.

124

GILL, "And for the majesty that he gave him,.... The greatness of his power, the largeness of his dominions, and the vast armies he had at his command: all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him; not only those that were subject to him, but those that had only heard of him: who dreaded his approach unto them, and their falling into his victorious hands, and being made vassals to him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; he ruled in an arbitrary and despotic manner, and kept the power of life and death in his own hands; whom he would he put to death, though ever so innocent; and whom he would he preserved from death, though ever so deserving of it; he had no regard to justice, but acted according to his own will and pleasure. Jacchiades renders the last clause, "whom he would he smote": but both the punctuation of the word, and the antithesis in the text, require the sense our version gives, and which is confirmed by Aben Ezra and Saadiah: and whom he would he set up: and whom he would he put down; according to his pleasure, he raised persons from a low estate to great dignity, and put them into high posts of honour and profit, as he did Daniel: and others he as much debased, turned them out of their places, and reduced them to the lowest degree of disgrace and poverty; and all according to his absolute and irresistible will, without giving any reason for what he did.

JAMISON, "A purely absolute monarchy (Jer_27:7).COKE, "Daniel 5:19. Whom he would he slew— We have here a strong picture of the absolute and independent power of these princes: they regarded their subjects only as their slaves. Xerxes, having assembled the great men of his kingdom, when he had determined to undertake the war against Greece, said to them, "I have assembled you, that I might not seem to act solely by my own counsel; but remember, that I expect obedience, not advice from you." See Calmet.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, 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 set up; and whom he would he put down.Ver. 19. Whom he would he slew.] De facto loquitur, non de iure. See the like 1 Samuel 8:10-17. {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:10"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:11"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:12"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:13"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:14"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:15"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:16"} {See Trapp on "1 Samuel 8:17"} Lactantius (a) telleth of a certain tyrant, qui lucem vivis, terram mortuis denegabat, who would never let his subjects rest alive or dead.

125

20 But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory.

BARNES, "But when his heart was lifted up - See Dan_4:30.And his mind hardened in pride - Margin, “to deal proudly.” The state of mind indicated here is that in which there is no sense of dependence, but where one feels that he has all resources in himself, and need only look to himself.He was deposed from his kingly throne - Margin, “made to come down.” That is, he was so deposed by the providence of God, not by the acts of his own subjects.

CLARKE, "He was deposed from his kingly throne - Became insane; and the reins of government were taken out of his hands.

GILL, "But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened it pride,.... When his heart was elated with his successes and victories, with the enlargement of his dominions, and with his grandeur and glory he had arrived unto; and his pride increased yet more, till he was strengthened and hardened in it: or, "to deal proudly" (u); and behave haughtily to God and man: or, "to do wickedly", as Jarchi interprets it; for pride and haughtiness of mind puts men, especially great men, kings and monarchs, on doing things extremely vile and wicked: he was deposed from his kingly throne; not by his nobles and subjects, but by the hand of God, which struck him with madness, and made him unfit for government; obliged him to quit the throne, and to range among the beasts of the field, as is afterwards observed: and they took his glory from him; the watchers, the angels, or the divine Persons that ordered the tree to be cut down to the roots, Dan_4:14, or it may be rendered impersonally, "and his glory was taken from him" (w); his glory as a man, being deprived of his reason, and acting like a brute beast; and his glory as a king, which departed from him for a season, while he was driven from men, from his royal palace and court, and lived among beasts, and fed as they did, as follows:

126

HENRY 20-21, "But that was not all. [2.] He behaved insolently towards the God above him, and grew proud and haughty (Dan_5:20): His heart was lifted up, and there his sin and ruin began; his mind was hardened in pride, hardened against the commands of God and his judgments; he was willful and obstinate, and neither the word of God nor his rod made any lasting impression upon him. Note, Pride is a sin that hardens the heart in all other sin and renders the means of repentance and reformation ineffectual.

(3.) He reminds him of the judgments of God that were brought upon him for his pride and obstinacy, how he was deprived of his reason, and so deposed from his kingly throne (Dan_5:20), driven from among men, to dwell with the wild asses, Dan_5:21. He that would not govern his subjects by rules of reason had not reason sufficient for the government himself. Note, Justly does God deprive men of their reason when they become unreasonable and will not use it, and of their power when they become oppressive and use it ill. He continued like a brute till he knew and embraced that first principle of religion, That the most high God rules. And it is rather by religion than reason that man is distinguished from, and dignified above, the beasts; and it is more his honour to be a subject to the supreme Creator than to be lord of the inferior creatures. Note, Kings must know, or shall be made to know, that the most high God rules in their kingdoms (that is an imperium in imperio - an empire within an empire, not to be excepted against), and that he appoints over them whomsoever he will. As he makes heirs, so he makes princes.JAMISON, "K&D, "TRAPP, "Daniel 5:20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:Ver. 20. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride.] Pride is of a hardening property, causeth men to commit sin with a high hand, as Pharaoh. The increase of the spleen is the decrease of the body; so is pride of the soul, and overturneth the whole man. Evagrius noteth it for a special commendation of Mauritius the Emperor, that he was not puffed up with his preferments.

PETT, "Verse 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 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 rules in the kingdom of men, and that he sets over it whoever he will.”In contrast with Nebuchadnezzar’s glory was his demeaning. Because he had too great an opinion of himself and his own importance, he lost both his throne and his

127

glory. Instead of his cosseted splendour he had matted hair and claws, instead of being surrounded by friends and admirers he was driven out of men’s company, instead of brilliance of mind he lost all rationality, instead of his palace his dwelling was with the wild asses, those untameable wild creatures that roam the open deserted places. Instead of sumptuous food, he ate grass. Instead of heated and splendid accommodation he was covered with dew. Then only did he learn that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and hands it over wherever it pleases Him.

21 He was driven away from people and given the mind of an animal; he lived with the wild donkeys and ate grass like the ox; and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven, until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and sets over them anyone he wishes.

BARNES, "And he was driven ... - See this fully explained in Dan_4:25-33.

GILL, "And he was driven from the sons of men,.... From their company, and from conversation with them; his madness was of that kind, that he chose rather to be with beasts than men; it drove him from men, and made him more desirous of being with beasts; or it was so intolerable, that his family, friends, and courtiers, were obliged to remove him from them, from his palace and court, and from all conversation with men, which he was incapable of through his frenzy and madness: and his heart was made like the beasts; to have the same affections and desires as they have; to crave the same things they did, and like what they liked, and live as they lived: or, "he put his heart with the beasts" (x); either Nebuchadnezzar himself chose to be with them, and delighted in a beastly life; or God did it; he put such a heart into him, or so disposed it, that it became brutish; though to read the words impersonally, as before, seems best:

128

and his dwelling was with the wild asses; in a wilderness or field; or rather in some enclosed place, in one of his parks, where such creatures were kept for hunting; among these he dwelt, as being like them, having lost the use of his reason, and so was become stupid and sottish as they: and they fed him with grass like oxen; as they are fed, and which he chose above any other food: and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; being without clothes, and lying naked in some open place all night: till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will: till he came to his senses, and was brought to see and own the sovereign dominion of the one, true, and living God, over all the kingdoms of the earth, and that they are at his dispose; Dan_4:32.

JAMISON, "heart was made like ... beasts — literally, “he made his heart like the beasts,” that is, he desired to dwell with them.CALVIN, "First, with respect to the text; verbally, it is “he put,” and thus some translate, “he placed his own heart among the brutes,” which makes a tolerable sense; but others rather refer this to God, who placed his heart among beasts, and we know how often the noun substantive is defective in Hebrew and Chaldee; hence we may translate it verbally, Nebuchadnezzar himself placed his own heart, that is, assimilated his own senses to the brutes, so as to differ in no respect from them. It may also mean, God placed his heart among the brutes, that is, infatuated him so, as to render him like them. Others take the word שוי, shevi, absolutely; but it ought rather to be explained actively. Again, some translate the next clause, “Made him taste the grass, like a brute;” and others, that the grass supported him. The number is changed, but there is no doubt about the sense; for if we read, “The herb of the field supported him,” the expression will be indefinite, similar to many others previously noticed; but if any one prefers using the plural number, the sense will be equally suitable; for “the herbs of the field gave him nourishment.”This verse does not need any long explanation, since Daniel only repeats what he had formerly written: His grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, although not changed into a wild beast, was driven from the common society of men, and his whole body was deformed, whilst he abhorred the habits of men and preferred to dwell with the brutes. This was a horrible prodigy, especially in so great a monarch; and it was an example worthy of being handed down by posterity even to a thousand generations, had the monarchy endured so long. But his grandson quickly forgot this event, and thus he is deservedly convicted of the basest slothfulness. This is the reason why Daniel repeats the history again, He was driven, says he, from the children of men; his heart was placed among the beasts, meaning he was deprived of reason and judgment. We know this to be the principal difference between men and brutes —men understand and reason, but brutes are carried away by their senses. God,

129

therefore, set forth a memorable example in despoiling this king of his reason and intelligence, His dwelling, says he, was with the wild asses; formerly he had dwelt in a palace, conspicuous throughout the world at large, from whom all the people of the East sought their laws. Since he was habitually worshipped as a god, this was a horrible judgment, since he afterwards dwelt among wild beasts, and like a bull received his sustenance from the grass of the field, when he had previously reveled in every delicacy, and was accustomed to luxurious habits, and to the whole wealth of a kingdom; especially, when we know how luxuriously the Orientals indulged themselves. Babylon was the mother of all indulgences, and when the king’s condition was thus changed, no one could be ignorant of its cause — not mere chance or accident:, but the rare and singular judgment of God!He afterwards adds what he had formerly said, His body was moistened by the dews of heaven, until he acknowledged God to reign supreme in the kingdom of men Here again the end of the punishment is expressed — that Nebuchadnezzar might feel himself to have been created king by divine power, and to shew how earthly kings could not stand unless God propped them up by his hand and influence. They think themselves placed beyond the changes of fortune, and although they verbally boast of reigning by the grace of God, yet they despise every deity and transfer the glory of the divinity to themselves! We gather from these words that this is the folly of all kings. For if Nebuchadnezzar had been persuaded of God’s appointment of kings, of their dependence upon his will, and of their fall or stability according to his decree, he had not needed this punishment, as these words clearly imply, tie excluded God, then, from the government of the world; but this is common with all earthly kings, as I have lately stated. All indeed will profess something, but the Holy Spirit does not regard those false protestations, as they are called. Hence in the character of King Nebuchadnezzar we have set before us, as in a glass, the drunken confidence of all kings, in supposing themselves to stand by their own power, and to free themselves from the authority of God, as if he were not seated as a judge in heaven, Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, ought to be humbled, until he acknowledged God’s reign upon earth, since the common opinion fixed him up in heaven, as if contented with his own ease, and careless of the affairs of the human race. At length it is added, and whom he wills, he exalts, or sets up. What has been said obscurely is better expressed, since Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged, by being severely punished and subdued, the reign of God on the earth. For when earthly kings see themselves surrounded by guards, powerful in riches, and able to collect mighty armies by their nod; when they see they inspire universal terror, they think God deprived of his rights, and are unable to conceive any change; as it is said in the Psalms of all the proud, (Psalms 10:4,) and as Isaiah says to the same purport, Even should a blast pass by, or a deluge overwhelm the whole earth, yet evil shall not touch us. (Isaiah 28:15.) As if they had said, although God should thunder from heaven, yet we shall be safe from all disaster and disturbance. Kings persuade themselves of this. Hence they begin to acknowledge God as king of the earth, when they feel themselves in his hand and at his disposal, to east down those whom he has raised up, and to exalt the lowly and abject, as we have already seen. This clause of the verse, then, is an explanation of the former sentence. It now follows:

130

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:21 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: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.Ver. 21. And he was driven.] See on Daniel 4:22. Lege historiam, ne fias historia.

22 “But you, Belshazzar, his son,[d] have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this.

BARNES, "And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart ... - As thou shouldst have done in remembrance of these events. The idea is, that we ought to derive valuable lessons from what has taken place in past times; that, from the events which have occurred in history, we should learn what God approves and what he disapproves; that we should avoid the course which has subjected others to his displeasure, and which has brought his judgments upon them. The course, however, which Belshazzar pursued has been that of kings and princes commonly in the world, and indeed of mankind at large. How little do men profit by the record of the calamities which have come upon others for their crimes! How little are the intemperate of one generation admonished by the calamities which have come upon those of another; how little are the devotees of pleasure; how little are those in places of power!

CLARKE, "Hast not humbled thine heart - These judgments and mercies have had no good effect upon thee.

GILL, "And thou his son, O Belshazzar,.... His grandson; See Gill on Dan_5:1, hast not humbled thine heart; so as to acknowledge the most high God, and his

131

dependence on him; to own him as his Sovereign, by whom he held his crown and kingdom, and to whom he was accountable; but, on the contrary, lifted up his heart in pride and haughtiness against him: though thou knewest all this; either by the relation of others, his father and mother, and others; or being an eyewitness of it himself; wherefore his sin was the more aggravated, since he had had an example before him of pride being humbled in a very awful manner, and yet took no warning by it.

HENRY 22-23, "3. In God's name, he exhibits articles of impeachment against Belshazzar. Before he reads him his doom, from the hand-writing on the wall, he shows him his crime, that God may be justified when he speaks, and clear when he judges.Now that which he lays to his charge is, (1.) That he had not taken warning by the judgments of God upon his father (Dan_5:22): Thou his son, O Belshazzar! hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this. Note, It is a great offence to God if our hearts be not humbled before him to comply both with his precepts and with his providences, humbled by repentance, obedience, and patience; nay, he expects from the greatest of men that their hearts should be humbled before him, by an acknowledgment that, great as they are, to him they are accountable. And it is a great aggravation of the unhumbledness of our hearts when we know enough to humble them but do not consider and improve it, particularly when we know how others have been broken that would not bend, how others have fallen that would not stoop, and yet we continue stiff and inflexible. It makes the sin of children the more heinous if they tread in the steps of their parents' wickedness, though they have seen how dearly it has cost them, and how pernicious the consequences of it have been. Do we know this, do we know all this, and yet are we not humbled? (2.) That he had affronted God more impudently than Nebuchadnezzar himself had done, witness the revels of this very night, in the midst of which he was seized with this horror (Dan_5:23): “Thou hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven, hast swelled with rage against him, and taken up arms against his crown and dignity, in this particular instance, that thou hast profaned the vessels of his house, and made the utensils of his sanctuary instruments of thy iniquity, and, in an actual designed contempt of him, hast praised the gods of silver and gold, which see not, nor hear, nor know anything, as if they were to be preferred before the God that sees, and hears, and knows every thing.” Sinners that are resolved to go on in sin are well enough pleased with gods that neither see, nor hear, nor know, for then they may sin securely; but they will find, to their confusion, that though those are the gods they choose those are not the gods they must be judged by, but one to whom all things are naked and open. (3.) That he had not answered the end of his creation and maintenance: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. This is a general charge, which stands good against us all; let us consider how we shall answer it. Observe, [1.] Our dependence upon God as our creator, preserver, benefactor, owner, and ruler; not only from his hand our breath was at first, but in his hand our breath is still; it is he that holds our souls in life, and, if he take away our breath, we die. Our times being in his hand, so is our breath, by which our times are measured. In him we live, and move, and have our being; we live by him, live upon him, and cannot live without him. The way of man is not in himself, not at his own command, at his own disposal, but his are all our ways; for our hearts are in his hand, and so are the hearts of all men, even of kings, who seem to act most as free-agents. [2.] Our duty to God, in consideration of this dependence; we ought to glorify him, to devote ourselves to

132

his honour and employ ourselves in his service, to make it our care to please him and our business to praise him. [3.] Our default in this duty, notwithstanding that dependence; we have not done it; for we have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God. This is the indictment against Belshazzar; there needs no proof, it is made good by the notorious evidence of the fact, and his own conscience cannot but plead guilty to it. And therefore,JAMISON, "Thou hast erred not through ignorance, but through deliberate

contempt of God, notwithstanding that thou hadst before thine eyes the striking warning given in thy grandfather’s case.

K&D, "Dan_5:22-24Daniel now turns to Belshazzar. The words: forasmuch as thou, i.e., since thou truly knowest all this, 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 at that time have been so old as that the forgetfulness of that divine

judgment could have been charged against him as a sin. In the די קבל just because ,כלthou knowest it, there is implied that, notwithstanding his knowledge of the matter, he did not avoid that which heightened his culpability. In Dan_5:23 Daniel tells him how he had sinned against the God of heaven, viz., by desecrating (see Dan_5:2 and Dan_5:3) the vessels of the temple of the God of Israel. And to show the greatness of this sin, he points to the great contrast that there is between the gods formed of dead material and the living God, on whom depend the life and fortune of men. The former Belshazzar praised, the latter he had not honoured - a Litotes for had dishonoured. The description of the gods is dependent on Deu_4:28, cf. with the fuller account Psa_115:5., Psa_135:15., and reminds us of the description of the government of the true God in Job_12:10; Num_16:22, and Jer_10:23. ארחת, ways, i.e., The destinies. - To punish Belshazzar for this wickedness, God had sent the hand which wrote the mysterious words (Dan_5:24 cf. with Dan_5:5).CALVIN, "Daniel here shews why he, related what we have hitherto heard concerning King Nebuchadnezzar ’s punishment; for Belshazzar ought to have been so affected by that domestic example, as to submit himself to God. We may believe, indeed, that his father Evil-Merodach had forgotten his punishments, since he would not have conducted himself so petulantly against God, nor trampled on true and sincere piety; for God spared the wretched tyrant who restrained himself within the bounds of moderation. But as to his grandfather Belshazzar, he was altogether intolerable; hence God stretched forth his hand. The Prophet now teaches this. Thou art his son, says he. This circumstance urges upon him with greater force the duty of not seeking an example in foreign nations, since he acknowledged himself to have sufficient at home of what was both necessary and useful. He enlarges upon his crime in another way, by saying, Yet thou didst know this Men are accustomed to shield themselves under their ignorance with the view of extenuating the guilt of their crimes, but those who sin knowingly and willfully are without the slightest excuse. The Prophet therefore convinces the king of manifest obstinacy; as if he had

133

said, You have provoked God’s anger on purpose; since he ought to have been aware of the horrible judgment awaiting all the proud, when he had such a remarkable and singular proof of it in his grandfather, which he ought to have kept constantly before his eyes. It follows, —

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;Ver. 22. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart.] It was no small aggravation of his sins not to be warned, and now he shall hear of it on both ears. The putting out of the French king’s eyes, which promised before with his eyes to see one of God’s true servants burned, who seeth not to be the stroke of God’s hand? Then his son Francis, not regarding his father’s stripe, would needs yet proceed in burning the same man. And did not the same God give him such a blow on the ear that it cost him his life? (a)

POOLE 22-24, "Verse 22Sins against knowledge, experience, and example have the highest aggravation. Thy father was punished for his pride most dreadfully, and thou knewest it, and behold thou art worse than he. God punisheth others for example and warning to us, that we may hear and fear, and do no more wickedly; but thou, O king Belshazzar, art more wicked than thy father; he was restored, but thou art utterly destroyed. And now he goes on to tell for what.Verse 23He instanceth in three or four things.1. They have brought the vessels of his house before thee to drink wine in them, to profane them in your idolatrous feast, and ye have all polluted them with your filthy, blasphemous mouths, concubines and all.2. Ye have praised the idol gods of metal, wood, and stone, which cannot hear, nor see, nor know.3. And hast not glorified the true God, in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy ways. Yea, thou hast highly dishonoured, and affronted, and reproached him.Verse 24It is calledpart of the hand, because the hand appeared parted from the rest of the body.

134

SIMEON, "IMPENITENCE REPROVEDDaniel 5:22. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.AMONGST the endowments of a pious minister, two of the most important are, disinterestedness and fidelity. A man who is “looking to his own gain,” or is afraid to “declare the whole counsel of God,” is unworthy of the sacred office: nor can he hope to be either profitable to man, or accepted of God. The example of the Prophet Daniel is worthy of universal imitation. He, having been sent for by king Belshazzar to interpret a writing which God had caused to be inscribed upon the walls of the room where the impious monarch was feasting, declined with scorn all the proffered rewards; and reproved, to his very face, the sovereign, whom no other person in the empire would have dared to offend: “Thy gifts be to thyself,” says he; “and give thy rewards to another.” ‘God has here written thy doom, because of thine impiety. He has borne with thee long, and given thee singular advantages for repentance, if thou hadst had a heart to improve them: he has made known to thee all his dispensations towards thy father, Nebuchadnezzar:’ “but thou, his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.”The reproof here given to Belshazzar is not a whit less applicable to ourselves. Permit me, then, to stand to you in the place of Daniel, and to shew you,I. What advantages we have enjoyed for the humiliation of our souls—It was certainly a great advantage to Belshazzar, that he had seen God’s dealings with his father, (his grandfather,) both in the judgments inflicted on him, and in the mercies vouchsafed unto him. God had in these dispensations clearly marked his indignation against sin, and his readiness to shew mercy to returning penitents. The judgment inflicted on Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest monarch in the universe, was the depriving him of his reason; and causing him, for the space of seven years, to resemble a beast, and to be treated as a beast; being turned out to eat grass like an ox, and to be exposed, like any common beast, to all the changes and inclemencies of the weather, without shelter, and without a friend to compassionate his forlorn condition. Having, however, by this humiliating dispensation, effected his gracious purpose towards him, God restored him to soundness of mind again, and to the exercise of his regal functions; yea, and brought him, also, to the possession of real piety, and ultimately to the enjoyment of a far nobler kingdom.And has he not given to us the same advantage? Yes, and one far greater: for he has made known to us,1. His indignation against sin; not in one instance only, but in all ages—[We may go back to the very first introduction of sin into the world; and there we shall see the indignation of God against it, written in the most tremendous colours.

135

Not only was our first parent banished from Paradise; but a sentence of death was pronounced against him; and the whole earth, and all his posterity, were cursed for his sake. Hell, indeed, had been previously created, as a receptacle for the fallen angels: but it was henceforth to be peopled with millions of the human race, who, having received from Adam a corrupt nature, would follow his bad example, and perish in their sins.As we descend further in the history of the world, we see again the displeasure of God against sin, as manifested at the Deluge; by which judgment every creature upon the face of the whole earth perished, except the few which were admitted into Noah’s ark.Nor was his abhorrence of sin less strongly marked by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, and all the cities of the plain, by fire from heaven. In this terrible judgment were involved the infant and the suckling, no less than the most daring offender in the land. Surely, after contemplating such events as these, we cannot doubt but that sin must, in the Divine mind, be an object of the deepest abhorrence.But we need not go back to distant ages. We need only look around us, and within us, and we shall behold the same awful truth exhibited to our view on every side. Whence is it that storms and tempests desolate the earth, and plagues of every kind are inflicted on the human race? Whence is it that pains, and sorrows, and death assault, not the aged sinner only, but the new-born innocent? Whence is it that there is not a man upon earth, the godly alone excepted, that possesses peace in his soul, in the prospect of death and judgment? How comes it that all are “like the troubled sea, which cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt?” There may, it is true, be found, in sad abundance, men as thoughtless as the beasts: but, of any thing like solid peace, in the contemplation of eternity, there is not to be found one atom upon the face of the globe, except in those whose iniquities have been purged in the blood of our Incarnate God. We need only consult our own experience, and we must bear testimony to this distressing fact. And what does all this declare? It declares that sin, in whomsoever it exists, is an object of God’s abhorrence, and has already stamped upon it the most unquestionable tokens of his displeasure.]2. His mercy to repenting sinners—[Here also we may go back to the period, when, unsolicited and unsought, God revealed a Saviour to offending man, and promised that “the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.” What a demonstration was this of mercy struggling, as it were, for vent in the Divine bosom; and exulting, I had almost said, in the discovery of an object needing it, and of means whereby it might be exercised towards him! See the myriads to whom this Saviour was revealed in types and shadows, previous to his arrival. See the work of redemption, as carried on, to its completion, throughout the whole process of the Saviour’s incarnation, life and death, and resurrection and ascension; and his full investiture with all power, to accomplish in us what he had already in his own person prepared for us. See the

136

out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost; whereby thousands, as far from God as ever Nebuchadnezzar was, were brought to God, and made partakers of God’s kingdom and glory. Do not all these things speak to us as loudly as Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion spoke to his son Belshazzar?But of this, also, we have strong intimations, in what we see around us, and in what we feel within our own bosoms. We rind, even amongst the most savage barbarians, one general sentiment—that the Being to whom they are responsible will shew mercy to those who, in a becoming manner, implore it at his hands. Amongst ourselves, there is universally prevalent a hope, that, on the repentance of a sinner, God will have mercy on him. But for this thought, the most careless sinner would give himself up to utter despair. In what way mercy shall be exercised towards him, he knows not: but of the readiness of God to shew mercy, he has no doubt. And of this persuasion all of us are conscious: yea, so strongly is it impressed on all our minds, that it is the one source of all the comfort we enjoy.If, then, we admit, as we must, that Belshazzar’s advantages were great, much more are those with which we have been favoured.]But we have reason to be ashamed, when we reflect,II. How little improvement we have made of them—What effect Belshazzar’s knowledge ought to have produced upon him is here plainly declared. It should have led him to humble his soul before God. But it had been unproductive of any good: “he had not humbled his heart, though he knew all this.” The revels, in which he was indulging at this moment, shewed that he was as much under the influence of pride, dissipation, and impiety, as if no such warning had been ever given him. And what, I would ask, is the state of our hearts before God?Are we not addicted to the same evils as he?[There may not be in us the same bold defiance of God as in him; but there is practically the same pride of heart which exalts itself against God, the same surrender of ourselves to the cares and pleasures of life, and the same actual preference of created confidences before Him who is the Creator of heaven and earth. The Psalmist’s description of the wicked too justly represents our state: “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts: his ways are always grievous: thy judgments are far above, out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them [Note: Psalms 10:4-5.].” Here is the same principle of pride as that by which Belshazzar was actuated. Here is God altogether banished from our thoughts, as much as from his; and utter contempt poured upon his authority and on his every word, whether of judgment or of mercy. Look around, and see if this be not the state of all around us. If the luxurious feasting of Belshazzar be unattainable by us, still it is that which is regarded as the

137

very summit of happiness; and which is mimicked by persons, according to their ability, in every rank of life. From what we know of God’s displeasure against such carnal proceedings, it might be supposed that they should long since have been banished from the world: but the world is as full of them as ever, and the heart of sinful man as much addicted to them as ever.]Have we “humbled our hearts,” any more than he?[One might expect, from all that we have read of God’s dealings with the world, that we should all be like the Ninevites, humbling ourselves before God in sackcloth and ashes. But where do we see any thing of humiliation and contrition? Where do we hear persons bewailing their past iniquities, and crying mightily unto God for mercy? Say, is this common? Say, is it not uncommon? Is it not very rare? If you hear of two or three awakened to a sense of their undone condition, you are ready to congratulate the minister and the Church of God on an event so truly wonderful, and so replete with mercy; a sure proof, that the instances are very few, and that the knowledge of the generality is awfully unproductive.]Is not our sin then, in this point of view, greatly aggravated?[Daniel spoke of Belshazzar’s knowledge as an aggravation of his guilt: “Thou hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.” And is not our knowledge also a fearful aggravation of our guilt? Our blessed Lord said of the Jews, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin [Note: John 15:22.].” And, in like manner, I may say to you, that had you been less instructed in the mind of God, you would have had less to answer for, on account of your departures from it. This is placed in a very striking point of view by the Prophet Jeremiah. He speaks of the ten tribes of Israel as having abandoned themselves to idolatry, and as having been discarded of God on account of their wickedness: yet, when the other two tribes saw this, so far from improving it for their own spiritual good, they “turned not to the Lord with their whole heart, but feignedly.” Upon which, the Lord himself said concerning them, “The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah [Note: Jeremiah 3:6-11.]:” that is, great as Israel’s guilt is, it is not equal to that of Judah; because Judah has had an advantage not possessed by Israel: Judah has seen the judgments inflicted upon Israel, and yet has gone on impenitent: and therefore his guilt is great in proportion to the advantages which he has neglected to improve. And to the same effect our blessed Lord also has told us, that “the servant who knew not his lord’s will, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant who knew his lord’s will, and yet violated it, shall be beaten with many stripes [Note: Luke 12:47-48.].”]That I may still adhere to the character of my text, let me address you, finally, in a few words,1. Of warning—

138

[I would not unduly magnify any advantages which have been enjoyed by you: but I may with truth say, that, according to the ability which God has given me, I have “ministered unto you faithfully the Gospel of Christ,” “not keeping back any one thing that would have been profitable unto you.” You therefore have much to answer for. And the words which have been spoken to you, “if they be not unto you a savour of life unto life, will be unto you a savour of death unto death.” Yes, much as I have desired to save your souls, I shall be “a swift witness against you in the day of judgment,” if you do not truly turn to God, and devote yourselves unfeignedly to his service. I pray you let not our meeting at the judgment-seat of Christ be so fraught with sorrow to our souls; but now make a suitable improvement of what ye hear, that I may have you as “my joy, and crown of rejoicing, in that day.”]2. Of advice—[Let the dealings of God with mankind be treasured up in your minds. They are designed to teach you what you yourselves may expect at his hands. You may see in his judgments, what the impenitent shall endure; and you may see in his mercies what the penitent shall enjoy. Belshazzar himself may be a lesson to you, if you will not attend to other and more encouraging instructions. He was a powerful monarch; yet his greatness could not screen him from the wrath of an avenging God. “That very night was king Belshazzar slain.” Had he humbled himself at that moment, who can tell but that he, like his father, might have been spared to be a monument of God’s saving grace to all eternity? Delay not ye, my beloved Brethren, to obey the heavenly calling; lest death arrest you also, and it be too late. “To-day, whilst it is called to-day, harden not your hearts; but now that ye know all this, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and seek for mercy through him, as the propitiation for your sins.” “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin [Note: James 4:17.].” But, “if ye know these things, then happy are ye, and happy shall ye be, if ye do them [Note: John 13:17.].”

PETT, "Verse 22-23“And you his descendant, O Belshazzar, you have not humbled your heart; though you knew all this. But you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven, and they have brought the vessels of his house before you, and you, and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine in them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor know. And the God in whose hand your breath is, and whose are all your ways, you have not glorified.”With brave and powerful words Daniel stood before the distressed monarch with words that at any other time would have ensured his own death, and pointed out that he had done things even worse than those done by Nebuchadnezzar.

139

He was without excuse. He knew what had happened to his grandfather. And yet he had not learned his lesson. Instead of being humble before the God of heaven he had deliberately blasphemed His name, he had arrogantly and deliberately appropriated what was His in order to insult Him, and had not only allowed his inebriated courtiers, wives and concubines to drink wine from them, but had used them for the worship of mindless, blind, deaf images made of earthly metals by man.The implication is that these gods were thus in contrast to the Lord of heaven, He Who was the living God, Who was the source of men’s breath, He Who heard and saw all things. And He with His all seeing eye and all hearing ear had seen and heard what Belshazzar had done. His crime was greater far than Nebuchadnezzar’s. And yet what folly. It had all been against the One Who held his life in His hands, the One Who had given him breath and could just as easily take it away, and he had done it in order to worship those who could do neither. What then could he expect this message to mean?We must see these words as intended to make him repent, even at this late moment, otherwise why torment him with them? Perhaps he had a special feeling for this wayward son of his great friend. And they were also meant for his lords, and for the wives and concubines. All would soon stare death in the eyes, and all needed to seek the mercy of the God of heaven. Although they did not know it, for many of them this was to be their last chance.And this also all applies to us who read these words, who constantly forget that we are faced with the living God, and that the things of this world and the things we often worship are as nothing. For us too one day there will be the writing on the wall, and for some, sooner than we might think.BI, "Hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.The Prophet’s IndictmentIt included three counts.

1. The teaching of God had been disregarded. The sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar had been from God. That dependence had been forgotten, and so pride had been chastened by insanity.2. God had been insulted. A poor worm had dared to exalt itself against him. In the midst of a scene of which many a heathen would have been ashamed, the consecrated vessels of His house had been used to drink to other gods, “which see not, nor hear, nor know.”3. The glory of God had not been sought. It was not in Belshazzar’s power, indeed, to add anything to the essential glory of God, but it was for him to reflect that glory. He could add nothing to God’s ineffable brightness, but he could catch light from Heaven, and diffuse it. He could be such a man, and live such a life, that others might have their ideas of God exalted, and be constrained to confess that “He whose name is Jehovah is the Most High over all the earth.” (H. T. RobJohns, B.A.)

140

23 Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways.

BARNES, "But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven - The God who had so signally rebuked and humbled Nebuchadnezzar. The monarch had done this, it would seem, during the whole of his reign, and now by a crowning act of impiety he had evinced special disregard of him, and contempt for him, by profaning the sacred vessels of his temple.

And they have brought the vessels of his house before thee ... - See the note at Dan_5:2.And the God in whose hand thy breath is - Under whose power, and at whose disposal, is thy life. While you have been celebrating the praises of idol gods, who can do you neither good nor evil, you have been showing special contempt for that great Being who keeps you in existence, and who has power to take away your life at any moment. What is here said of Belshazzar is true of all men - high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, princes and people. It is a deeply affecting consideration, that the breath, on which our life depends, and which is itself so frail a thing, is in the “hand” of a Being who is invisible to us, over whom we can have no control; who can arrest it when he pleases; who has given us no intimation when he will do it, and who often does it so suddenly as to defy all previous calculation and hope. Nothing is more absolute than the power which God holds over the breath of men, yet there is nothing which is less recognized than that power, and nothing which men are less disposed to acknowledge than their

141

dependence on him for it.And whose are all thy ways - That is, he has power to control thee in all thy ways. You can go nowhere without his permission; you can never, when abroad, return to your home without the direction of his providence. What is here said, also, is as true of all others as it was of the Chaldean prince. “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” “A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.” None of us can take a step without his permission; none can go forth on a journey to a distant land without his constant superintending care; none can return without his favor. And yet how little is this recognized! How few feel it when they go out and come in; when they go forth to their daily employments; when they start on a voyage or journey; when they propose to return to their homes!Hast thou not glorified - That is, thou hast not honored him by a suitable acknowledgment of dependence on him.

CLARKE, "But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord - And the highest evidence of this rebellion was, the profaning the sacred vessels of the Lord’s house.

GILL, "But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven,.... Who made it, and dwells in it; from whence he beholds all the actions of the children of men, and will bring them to an account for them; and yet, though so high and great, such was the insolence of this king, that he dared to lift up himself against him, as if he was above him, and greater than he; and indeed so it may be rendered, "above the Lord of heaven" (x); which showed his great pride and vanity, his want of knowledge, both of himself, and of the true God. This name of God is the same with Beelsamen (y); by which the Phoenicians used to call him: and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee; that is, his servants by his orders had brought the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, which Nebuchadnezzar had took from thence, and set them upon his table for him and his company to drink out of; which is an instance of the pride of his heart, and of his daring boldness and impiety; see Dan_5:2, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drank wine in them; even that very day or night: this Daniel had knowledge of by some means or another; and his intelligence was so good that he could with great certainty affirm it: and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone; see Dan_5:4, which see not, nor hear, nor know; no more, than the various metals and materials of which they are made; and therefore it must be great madness and folly to praise such as gods that are below men, and even brutes; have neither the sense of animals, nor the knowledge of men; see Psa_115:4, and the God in whose hand thy breath is; who gave it to him at first, and as yet continued it in him, and could take it away when he pleased: and whose are all thy ways;

142

counsels and designs, works and actions; under whose direction and control they all are; the events, issue, and success of which all depend upon him; see Jer_10:23, him hast thou not glorified; by owning him as the only true God; ascribing all he was and had unto him, and giving due worship, adoration, and honour to him; but, on the contrary, setting up his idol gods above him, and treating him, and everything belonging to him, with ignominy and contempt. CALVIN, "The Prophet continues his own sentence, and confirms what I have said, namely, King Belshazzar was intractable and willfully blind to God’s judgment. For thou hast raised thyself, says he, against the Lord of heaven. If he had raised himself thus insolently against men, his sin would be worthy of punishment; but when he had provoked God on purpose, this arrogance neither could nor ought to be borne. Again, therefore, the Prophet increases the guilt of the king’s pride by saying, he raised himself against the King of heaven He also expresses the manner of his doing so, by commanding the vessels of the temple to be brought to sight; he drank from them This profanation was an indecent sacrilege, but Belshazzar was not content with that indignity; he used these vessels for luxury and foul debauchery, abusing them in the company of concubines and abandoned women; and added a yet greater reproach against God, in praising his gods of silver and gold, brass and iron, wood and stone, which cannot feel. This had not been said previously; but since Daniel here sustains the character of a teacher, he does not relate the events so shortly as at first. When he said at the beginning of this chapter, Belshazzar celebrated that impure banquet, he spoke historically; but he now executes, as I have said, the office of a teacher. Thou, says he, hast praised the gods made of corruptible material, who neither see, nor hear, nor understand; but thou hast defrauded the living God of his honor, in whose hand is thy life, on which thou dependest, and whence all in which thou boastest proceeds. Because thou hast so despised the living God, who had been so gracious unto thee, this ingratitude was both base and shameful. We see, therefore, how severely the Prophet reproves the impious tyrant of sacrilege, and mad rashness, and foul ingratitude towards God. I pass over these things lightly, since they have been treated elsewhere. It now follows, —

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:23 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 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, hast thou not glorified:Ver. 23. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven.] As did also Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Herod, [Acts 12:21-23] whose acts were set forth with false and flattering praises by Nicholas Damascenus, as Josephus (a) complaineth; but so are not Belshazzar’s by holy Daniel, who yet is almost his only historiographer.

143

And whose are all thy ways.] Chald., Thy whole journey.

SIMEON, "BELSHAZZAR’S IMPIETY AND OURS COMPAREDDaniel 5:23. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.WHEN we look around us, and see what iniquity prevails in the earth, we are ready to imagine that God does not notice the affairs of men, or take any interest in their conduct. But, when we open the inspired volume, we find that, on many occasions, the sins of men have been so strongly marked in their punishment, as to bear ample testimony to a superintending Providence, and to constrain us to say, “Verily, there is a God that judgeth in the earth [Note: Psalms 58:11.].” The judgment inflicted on Nebuchadnezzar so exactly accorded with the prediction which had been uttered respecting it, that no doubt can be entertained of the hand from whence it came. Nor was the hand of God less visible in the punishment of the impious Belshazzar. In the midst of his drunken revels, “there came forth, as it were, the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote on the plaister of the wall where the king was sitting.” The words he could not understand: nor could any of his astrologers or soothsayers interpret them. But, on his application to Daniel, the import of them was declared unto him. The prophet first set before him, and reproved, his impiety: and then denounced the impending destruction of himself and his whole empire; which accordingly took place that very night.The charge which is here exhibited against Belshazzar is more or less applicable to all the children of men, even to ourselves, as well as others; and will give me occasion to shew,I. How far our conduct has resembled his—Belshazzar was as dependent upon God as any of his subjects could be—[He received his breath from God; by whom also “his sold was upheld in life [Note: Psalms 66:9.].” His times were altogether in God’s hands [Note: Psalms 31:15.],” who could prolong or cut them short, as he saw fit. Nor was Belshazzar ignorant of this. He could not but feel his dependence on a Superior Being: and he had an evidence, in the dispensations with which his father (his grandfather) had been visited, that this Being was God.]Yet had he not glorified God, in any part of his conduct—[He had not acknowledged his supremacy, or regarded his authority, or rendered thanks to him for his mercies, or dreaded his displeasure. On the contrary, he had, with daring impiety, profaned the vessels of God’s sanctuary, “drinking out of them, together with his wives and concubines; and praising his gods of gold and silver, of

144

brass and iron, of wood and stone [Note: ver. 3, 4.]” and thus provoking the Most High to jealousy, and setting him at defiance. In this, he not only “had not glorified God,” but had greatly and impiously dishonoured him.]And we, too, like Belshazzar, are dependent on God—[“In him we live and move and have our being [Note: Acts 17:28.].” “In his hand,” says Job, “is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind [Note: Job 12:10.]:” and, “if he take away our breath, we die, and return again to our dust [Note: Psalms 104:29.]. So jealous of his own honour is God, in this respect, that he characterizes himself as much by the preservation of all things, as by their first creation: “Thus saith the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein [Note: Isaiah 42:6.].” “He sees our ways, and counts all our steps [Note: Job 31:4.]” Nor does he leave man to walk at large without controul: “I know, O Lord,” saith the prophet, “that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps [Note: Jeremiah 10:23.]” In a word, it is as true of us, as it was of Belshazzar, that “our breath is in God’s hands;” and “his, even under his governance, are all our ways.”]Yet, like him, have we also forgotten to “glorify our God”—[Though “we have known God, yet have we not glorified him as God [Note: Romans 1:21.]” We have not a “given him glory by repentance” — — — though that would have honoured him in a very especial manner [Note: Joshua 7:19. Jeremiah 13:15-16.]. Nor have we honoured him by the exercise of faith — — — though that also would have greatly redounded to his glory [Note: Romans 4:20.]. Nor have we endeavoured to honour him in a way of holy obedience — — — though our blessed Lord has so expressly told us, that by our fruitfulness in good works “his Father would be glorified [Note: John 15:8.]” Had we acted, in any respect, as we ought to have done, we should have laboured that “the name of our Lord Jesus Christ might be glorified in us [Note: John 17:10. 2 Thessalonians 1:12.].” But, in having altogether neglected this, we are obnoxious to the very same charge as the impious Belshazzar.]But as our opportunities of instruction have greatly surpassed any that that unhappy monarch ever possessed, I shall go on to shew,II. How far our guilt has exceeded his—“To whomsoever God has committed much, of him will much be required:” and our demerits are aggravated in proportion to the advantages which we have enjoyed. As a heavier condemnation was denounced against the cities of Bethsaida and Capernaum, because of the special mercies which they had abused, so will God regard us as more guilty than Belshazzar himself; because,

145

1. Our knowledge of him has been more clear—[It was but little that Belshazzar knew of God. He did know that Jehovah was above all gods, and that he was able either to save or to destroy, He had seen this, in the degradation to which his grandfather had been reduced, and in the mercy that had been vouchsafed unto him [Note: ver. 20–22.]: and he knew it, from the testimony which that restored monarch had borne to the honour of Jehovah [Note: Daniel 4:34-37.]. But we have a revelation from God himself; a revelation, wherein he has made known to us his nature and perfections, his works and purposes. There is not any thing respecting him which we are concerned to know, which he has not clearly revealed unto us: so that it is not an unknown God that we are called to serve, but one “with whom we may acquaint ourselves, and be at peace [Note: Job 22:21.].” The precise nature of Ins will, too, he has declared unto us; so that we are informed respecting every thing which he would wish us either to forbear or do. We cannot plead ignorance in any respect: and therefore “knowing, as we have done, our Master’s will,” we have contracted greater guilt by our disobedience; and deserved a heavier punishment than he ever did, who knew it not [Note: Luke 12:47-48.].”]2. Our obligations to him are more abundant—[Belshazzar was indebted to God for all the blessings both of creation and providence: but we are made partakers of the infinitely higher blessings of redemption. O! what tongue can declare the obligations we owe him for the gift of his only dear Son to die for us, and to redeem us to God by his blood? — — — This as far exceeds all other mercies, as the radiance of the noon-day sun exceeds the glimmering of a twinkling star. By the consideration of this, we should have been impelled to the most strenuous efforts in his service. The surrender of our whole selves to him, in body, soul, and spirit, has been our reasonable service. Yet have we not given to him the glory due unto his name; but have “set up idols in our hearts;” and in the whole course of our lives have “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is God over all, blessed for evermore [Note: Romans 1:25.].” What then do not we deserve at his hands? we, who “have trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and done despite to the Spirit of Grace?” If by this we have incurred a far sorer punishment than they did who “despised the law of Moses [Note: Hebrews 10:28-29.]” much more must our guilt and punishment exceed that of the impious Belshazzar.]3. Our responsibility to him is more manifest—[Of a resurrection from the dead, and a future judgment, that unhappy monarch must have had a very indistinct notion. But we are as assured of these things as if they were at this moment exhibited before our eyes. We know that God has appointed a day “wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom he has ordained,” even by the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has raised from the dead. We know that he will then call, not our overt acts only, but “every secret

146

thing, into judgment;” and recompense us “according to what we have done, whether it be good or evil.” Hence we have been concerned to take especial care to our ways; and so to order them before him, that we may find acceptance with him in that day. What guilt, then, must attach to us, for our neglect of him, and for our numberless violations of his holy laws! What excuse shall we have, when we stand at his judgment-seat? Belshazzar, though he can never excuse, may palliate, his guilt, by saying, ‘Lord, I knew not what a judgment would await me:’ but we must stand self-condemned, as having set at nought our God and Judge, and, in defiance of his justice, have “treasured up for ourselves wrath against the day of wrath [Note: Romans 2:5.].]Address—1. Those who are insensible of all the guilt they have contracted—[The greater part of mankind, though they live altogether as without God in the world, are as unconcerned about their state as if there were no God to call them into judgment — — — But, Brethren, this is a most awful infatuation. You do not wonder that King Belshazzar trembled, so that “the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another, when he saw the hand-writing upon the wall: but do you not wonder at your own insensibility, when ten thousand heavier judgments are written against you in this book? And what is written against you, there is no need of a prophet to interpret: it is expressed in terms plain and intelligible to the meanest capacity. Take but that one sentence: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the people that forget God [Note: Psalms 9:17.].” Will you not tremble at such a word as this? Know ye assuredly. that, whether you will believe it or not, it shall be fulfilled in its season; and that, if it ever be executed upon you, it would have been “better for you that you had never been born.” You may possibly be distinguished amongst men for rank; and learning: but, if you were as great as ever Belshazzar was, yet should you find no protection from your greatness: for God’s declaration is, that “though hand join in hand,” and there were a confederacy of the whole world to protect you, “the wicked shall not pass unpunished.”]2. Those who are trembling for fear of the Divine judgments—[Others may pity you because of the terror that has seized your mind: but I will congratulate you from my inmost soul. Not that terror constitutes repentance: for, in truth, it is no part of true repentance; but it is often introductory to it: and the man that is “pricked to the heart,” and led to cry out, “What shall I do?” is “not far from the kingdom of heaven.” Only let your sorrow for sin become more ingenuous, so as to feel like those of old: “We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us; for we have sinned against the Lord our God [Note: Jeremiah 3:25.];” and you need not fear but that “the handwriting that is against you shall be blotted out [Note: Colossians 2:14.],” and “your iniquities also be blotted out as a morning cloud [Note: Isaiah 44:22.].” Hear what God himself has spoken for your

147

encouragement: “To this man will I look, even to him that is of a broken and contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word [Note: Isaiah 66:2.].” Yes, God himself will look upon you with complacency, and “all the angels around his throne rejoice in your behalf.” Be of good comfort, then: and look to that Saviour “whose blood will cleanse you from all sin:” and fear not, but that in Him you shall be justified from all the iniquities that you have ever committed [Note: Acts 13:39.].]

24 Therefore he sent the hand that wrote the inscription.

BARNES, "Then was the part of the hand sent from him - To wit, the fingers. See Dan_5:5. The sense is, that when it was fully perceived that Belshazzar was not disposed to learn that there was a God in heaven; when he refused to profit by the solemn dispensations which had occurred in respect to his predecessor; when his own heart was lifted up with pride, and when he had gone even farther than his predecessors had done by the sacrilegious use of the vessels of the temple, thus showing special contempt for the God of heaven, then appeared the mysterious handwriting on the wall. It was then an appropriate time for the Most High God, who had been thus contemned and insulted, to come forth and rebuke the proud and impious monarch.

CLARKE, "Then was the part of the hand sent - This was the filling up of the cup of thy iniquity; this last act made thee ripe for destruction.

GILL, "Then was the part of the hand sent from him,.... That is, from God: being thus reproached and blasphemed, at that very instant, and for that reason, because the vessels of his sanctuary were profaned, and idol gods were praised, and he despised; he caused part of a hand, the writing fingers of it, to appear on the wall of the king's palace: and this writing was written; which was then upon the wall, and he points to it.

HENRY 24-28, "4. He now proceeds to read the sentence, as he found it written 148

upon the wall: “Then” (says Daniel) “when thou hast come to such a height of impiety as thus to trample upon the most sacred things, then when thou wast in the midst of thy sacrilegious idolatrous feast, then was the part of the hand, the writing fingers, sent from him, from that God whom thou didst so daringly affront, and who had borne so long with thee, but would bear no longer; he sent them, and this writing, thou now seest, was written, Dan_5:24. It is he that now writes bitter things against thee, and makes thee to possess thy iniquities,” Job_13:26. Note, As the sin of sinners is written in the book of God's omniscience, so the doom of sinners is written in the book of God's law; and the day is coming when those books shall be opened, and they shall be judged by them. Now the writing was, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, Dan_5:25. It is well that we have an authentic exposition of these words annexed, else we could make little of them, so concise are they; the signification of them is, He has numbered, he has weighed, and they divide. The Chaldean wise men, because they knew not that there is but one God only, could not understand who this He should be, and for that reason (some think) the writing puzzled them. (1.) Mene; that is repeated, for the thing is certain - Mene, mene;that signifies, both in Hebrew and Chaldee, He has numbered and finished, which Daniel explains thus (Dan_5:26): “God has numbered thy kingdom, the years and days of the continuance of it; these were numbered in the counsel of God, and now they are finished; the term has expired for and during which thou wast to hold it, and now it must be surrendered. Here is an end of thy kingdom.” (2.) Tekel; that signifies, in Chaldee, Thou art weighed, and, in Hebrew, Thou art too light. So Dr. Lightfoot. For this king and his actions are weighed in the just and unerring balances of divine equity. God does as perfectly know his true character as the goldsmith knows the weight of that which he has weighed in the nicest scales. God does not give judgment against him till he has first pondered his actions, and considered the merits of his case. “But thou art found wanting, unworthy to have such a trust lodged in thee, a vain, light, empty man, a man of no weight or consideration.” (3.) Upharsin, which should be rendered, and Pharsin,or Peres. Parsin, in Hebrew, signifies the Persians; Paresin, in Chaldee, signifies dividing;Daniel puts both together (Dan_5:28): “Thy kingdom is divided, is rent from thee, and given to the Medes and Persians, as a prey to be divided among them.” Now this may, without any force, be applied to the doom of sinners. Mene, Tekel, Peres, may easily be made to signify death, judgment, and hell. At death, the sinner's days are numbered and finished; after death the judgment, when he will be weighed in the balance and found wanting; and after judgment the sinner will be cut asunder, and given as a prey to the devil and his angels. Daniel does not here give Belshazzar such advice and encouragement to repent as he had given Nebuchadnezzar, because he saw the decree had gone forth and he would not be allowed any space to repent.

JAMISON, "Then — When thou liftedst up thyself against the Lord.the part of the hand — the fore part, the fingers.was ... sent from him — that is, from God.

CALVIN, "Some stress must be laid upon the adverb באדין,badin, “at that time,”because God’s wrath, or at least its denunciation, was now ripe. Daniel, therefore, shews how very patiently God had borne with King Belshazzar in not instantly talking up arms and inflicting punishment; but he now begins to come forth as a

149

judge, and to ascend his judgment seat; for the haughtiness was now desperate, and the impiety no longer tolerable. We observe with what emphasis the word then is used; as if he had said, Thou canst not complain of the swiftness of the penalty, as if God had exacted it before the time. Thou canst not here complain of God’s swiftness in punishing thee; for think and consider in how many ways, and for how long a time, thou hast provoked his anger. And with ‘regard to thy last crime, thou certainly hadst arrived at the height of impiety, when that hand appeared to thee. God, therefore, now drags thee to punishment in proper time, since he has hitherto borne with thee and thy sins. After this forbearance, what remains to prevent his destroying thee, because thou hast so proudly insulted him, and art utterly hardened, without the slightest hope of amendment.He says also, from himself; for Belshazzar need not inquire whence the hand proceeded, it came from the presence of God; that is, This hand is a witness to the wrath of heaven; do not consider it as a specter which will vanish away, but see in this appearance a proof of God’s displeasure at thy wickedness; and because thou hast arrived at thy last extremity, thy punishment is also ready for thee. And this writing, says he, has been marked; as if he had said, The eyes of King Belshazzar were not deceived, since this was really God’s hand, being sent from his sight as a certain testimony of his wrath. He afterwards adds, —

PETT, "Verses 24-28“Then was the part of the hand sent from before him, and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed, MENEMENETEKELUPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing:· MENE - God has numbered your kingdom and brought it to an end.· TEKEL - you are weighed in the balances and are found wanting.· PERES - your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.‘Then’ indicates that the hand came because of the treatment of the holy vessels. The hand is clearly stated as having come from ‘before the Most High’. What it wrote would be all in one sequence as above, for there were no spaces between words. We do not know whether it was actually in Aramaic or not (if it was why could the Chaldeans not at least read it?). It is therefore pointless to consider any alternatives other than the interpretation given. Indeed transliterated it would be M’N’M’N’TKLUPRSN.However these interpretations do depend to some extent on word play so that we can assume that in whatever language the words were given in the word play was possible. This could come about in Aramaic because only the consonants would be written and thus different readings could be obtained by using different vowels on

150

the same consonants.M’N’ comes from the root to ‘count’ or ‘number’, thus meaning ‘It is numbered’. Daniel interprets it as ‘God has numbered your kingdom and brought it to an end’, that is He has determined the days of its length and has thus brought it to a conclusion. The repetition of Mene confirms that the fulfilment is certain and sure. Thus Belshazzar learned that his kingdom was finished.TKL comes from the root to ‘weigh’. Thus ‘It is weighed’. Daniel interprets it as meaning ‘you have been weighed in the balances and have been found wanting’ (compare for such weighing Job 31:6; Psalms 62:9; Proverbs 16:2). Thus Belshazzar learned that God had passed judgment on him and that he had failed the test. He was found wanting. This was why his kingdom was finished, because morally and religiously he had proved unworthy.PRSN comes from two possible roots, ‘peres’ meaning ‘it is divided’ (‘parsin’ is the dual or the plural), and ‘paras’ which means Persians. Daniel therefore interprets ‘your kingdom is divided (peres) and given to the Medes and the Persians (paras).’ The idea of ‘divided’ is not that the kingdom will be divided into two, but that the whole of what is in it will be split up among the invaders, and the empire would be dissolved. It is important to note that the writing according to Daniel only speaks of the Persians (PRSN - n is often redundant). Thus by ‘the Medes and the Persians’ Daniel means the Persian empire. There is no room here for the idea of two separate empires. The writing speaks of one Persian empire under Cyrus, made up of the Medes and the Persians, that will divide up among its men the spoils of Babylon, and dissolve the universality of the Babylonian empire.This demonstrates the ancient nature of the account. At this stage it is still ‘Medes and Persians’ (compare Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12), but not for long. By the time of Esther it would be ‘Persians and Medes’ (Esther 1:19. See also Daniel 5:3; Daniel 5:14; Daniel 5:18).

PULPIT, "Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. As we have seen, the real equivalent of this verse in the Septuagint is a clause in Daniel 5:17, "And the hand which had written ( γράφασα) stood." If we take this to mean that the band now "ceased to write," then the original text might be פסאק ידא כתבא, the verb being written fleaum, in Mandaean manner. Then it would easily happen that ק (in the older script, see words) was resolved into ד (in the older script, see words). In support of this, it may be observed that while in the fifth verse the older construction of construct state and status emphalicus is used to exhibit the genitival connection, in the present case the relative די is used as a sign of the genitive. Starting with this, it is easy to see how the Massoretic text arose; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to see the sense of the reading of the Septuagint, unless this fiery hand is to be imagined as tracing and retracing the characters on the wall of the palace, and that the hand only ceased when Daniel stood before the

151

inscription to read. Thec-dotion differs very little from the Massoretic text, and the Peshitta coincides with it. The word for "writing," רשים (resheem), is really "engraving," and therefore peculiarly descriptive of the Assyrian mode of impressing on clay tablets or incising in stone the thing to be preserved.

BI 24-28, "And this writing was written.Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar’s FeastI. THE SCENE IN WHICH IT OCCURRED. An eastern palace.

1. It was a scene of drunkenness and revelling. The narrative makes their drinking wine a very prominent feature in this feast. The king and all around him are gay and jovial. Deluded wretches! Little did they suspect the awful doom which awaited them. Is this a scene from which to rush into the presence of God? Are these practices in which you would choose that the Judge of Heaven and earth should find you when He comes to call you to His bar?2. It was a scene of impiety and profanity. They insulted the God of Heaven and earth. They profaned the implements of His worship. They celebrated the gods of their own hands. Scenes of drunkenness are seldom complete till God and religion have come in for a share of contempt. Little did these wretched blasphemers think how soon the God whom they despised would humble them, and avenge Himself upon them.

II. THE EFFECT IT PRODUCED. In the midst of the scene described above, there “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.” He cannot decipher one character in which it is written. Then why tremble and turn pale? It was something supernatural and therefore alarming. But why should he fear what was supernatural? If the prodigy was produced by the God of Israel, was not this the God whom he was openly defying as contemptible? And if by his own gods, was he not praising them? Then what has he to fear from either? Oh, vain attempt to resist the eternal God! What is the mightiest, the proudest boaster, when a single arrow from the Almighty smites him, when the guilt of his conscience is awakened? Guilt will speak when aroused from its slumbers by the voice of an offended God. It is too strong to be subdued, and produces effects too powerful to be concealed. It was a part of the punishment of Belshazzar to expose his own dismay to the very persons whom he had led on to sin. Thus shame was united with terror. He proclaims his own defeat at the moment when he had inspired others with the idea of victory. “His lords were astonished.” And thus shall all the enemies of God and Christ be ashamed. Observe also the cowardice which Belshazzar manifests. He turns pale, he trembles, he cries aloud. It was not his accustomed tone of arbitrary authority, but the hurried cry of trembling timidity. The boldest in vice are often most destitute of courage when danger comes. Mark the scoffer in affliction. Where is his courage then? And who now can afford relief to the wretched king of Babylon? In vain does he look, in vain does he cry to those around him, and to those who are under his control. How forlorn is his condition! Alas, where is the man, whom an angry God has abandoned to his fate, to look for help? Who can deliver out of His hand? Oh, what can your companions in guilt do for you when your doom overtakes you? Most of them will unfeelingly abandon you to your fate. 152

Others will flee from you as an object of dread. And if any can be found who will still cleave to you, wretched comforters will you find them. What smile of friendship or affection can cheer while God frowns? What words of human kindness can convey peace, while the thunder of Divine wrath assails the ear?III. THE TRUTHS IT CONVEYED. As yet the writing was neither read nor interpreted. In what character it was written does not appear. The Chaldeans understood it not. The most probable conjecture is that it was written in the form of a cypher or monogram, a mode common in eastern nations for conveying secrets. In this extremity the queen rushes into the banquet house and informs the king of Daniel. By her advice he is ordered in. He enters. And now what a scene presents itself! Alas, what unwelcome truths have good men to tell the wicked in times of trouble. How many will not be persuaded of their, danger in health and prosperity, who cry to the righteous for comfort in time of trouble. However disappointed the king, the queen, the lords may be at the language of Daniel, faithfulness to his God required him to use it. And so it is still. You, and those around you, may find the language of a man of God very different from what you expect and wish. You must be reminded of your sins and of their just desert. And now, having finished his address to the king, Daniel turns to the mysterious and terrific inscription. He first puts it into Chaldea words, and then interprets them. The event so immediately and exactly answering the prediction shows that both the reading and the interpretation were from God. “This is the interpretation of the thing.” “Mene.” The word literally means to number, or be numbered. But who has numbered? The interpretation says “God hath numbered.” But what has He numbered? “thy kingdom,” thy glory, thy life, “and finished it.” Oh, sinner, this will soon be your case. Your days are numbered in the decrees of Heaven, and with them your pleasures and the sources of your gratification and pride. “Tekel.” To weigh, or be weighed. The interpretation, “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” The law of God is the test of human actions. “Peres.” To divide, or be divided. “Pharsin” is the plural of Pares, and U, a conjunction prefixed, making “Upharsin.” The interpretation, “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” Oh mortifying sentence! He is stript of his honours, and to aggravate his loss they are bestowed on his enemies. Thus shall the wicked be bereft of all their worldly honours, of those things in which they most delight. Death will divide them from the world, and the world from them. Their possessions shall be given to whom God pleases. (J. Carter.)

The Handwriting on the WallMore than forty years have passed since the erection of the golden image in the plain of Dura and the subjection of the three heroic confessors to the fiery furnace.

1. This invisible hand, tracing with its pen-fingers these characters upon the wall, is but the infinite Hand that follows us, tracing day by day, though upon a page unseen by us, the record of our lives. It had followed Belshazzar from the period of his first elevation to power until now. It had traced in indelible characters the history of his idolatries, his debaucheries, and his crimes. These characters were all the darker because of the light against which Belshazzar had sinned. As Daniel reminded him of the visitation of Heaven that had fallen upon Nebuchadnezzar when “his heart was lifted up and his mind hardened with pride,” and when, by the Divine decree, “he was driven from the sons of men.” “And thou, his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this, but hast lifted up thyself against 153

the Lord of heaven.” They told of a wanton disregard of God’s authority and contempt of His former judgments. That jealous God, who will not give His glory to another, had not forgotten all this reckless defiance of His authority. And so with each one of us; an invisible eye marks and an invisible hand records all the sins and shortcomings of our life. In God’s book of remembrance they are written with ink that shall never fade.2. The day is coming when the hand that now writes in invisible Characters shall trace in letters of fire over against the candlestick upon the wall of God’s great judgment-hall the characters that shall settle our eternal doom. The pallor that overspread the countenances of the king and his nobles on that awful night in Babylon was as nothing compared with the abject terror of that still more awful day when the sun shall be turned into blackness and the moon into blood. The cry that rang from the festal hall that night for the astrologers and soothsayers shall find its terrible counterpart in the cry of that great day for the mountains and the rocks to fail upon men and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. And the silence of the soothsayers in the presence of the invisible hand is but a prefiguration of that awful silence when “every mouth shall be stopped, and all the world shall become guilty before God.”3. In those three words, “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” as interpreted by Daniel, we have foreshadowed the three elements in the sinner’s final doom.

(1) The end of probation: Mene, numbered. Belshazzar’s kingdom had been a stewardship. The years of his stewardship are now numbered. The day of his probation is now ended. The eternal hand comes out of its obscurity to announce the fact that the day of opportunity is ever and the day of reckoning has come. And so to you and me, my dear reader, shall that day suddenly come. Death’s bony fingers shall write over against us the word Mene, numbered. It may come as suddenly and as awfully in the midst of your worldliness and gaiety as it did to Belshazzar amidst the impious revelries of his midnight feast.(2) The sentence of condemnation: Tekel, weighed and found wanting. Little as Belshazzar dreamed of it, his life had been placed in the balance of eternal and unerring justice. It had been impartially weighed. Your best righteousnesses would be but as the “small dust of the balance.” As over agninst the weighty demands of God’s perfect law they would be lighter than vanity.(3) The doom of disinheritance: Perez (Upharsin—U, and, and Pharsin, the plural form of Perez), divided. Belshazzar’s kingdom was taken from him and divided between the Medea and Persians. But what was the kingdom of Belshazzar compared with that kingdom forfeited by the soul which at last shall be weighed and found wanting? Oh that kingdom in the skies, that kingdom that cannot be moved, that kingdom whose capital city is one that “lieth foursquare” like Babylon, but the side of whose square, instead of being, like Babylon’s, fourteen miles, is, as measured by the angel of the Apocalypse, twelve thousand furlongs, and the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal!

4. The day of the sinner’s undoing shall be the day of the saint’s coronation. Amidst that scene of terror in Belshazzar’s festal hall there was one figure that stood unappalled. No terror blanched the cheek of Daniel. No sudden weakness “loosed the joints of his loins.” No dismay made his knees “smite one against another.” It was his Father’s hand that was writing; why should he fear? There was no guilty conscience 154

in his breast responding with its Tekel to that upon the wall. What a grand character he appears, erect and self-possessed amidst the cowering throng, the light of a serene peace illuminating his face as he reads the writing that carries terror to all around! Even so shall it be in that great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, when the books shall be opened, and the dead shall be judged out of the things that are written in the books. The judgment-day shall have no terrors for those who have been the servants of Christ. Not only shall they be exempted and honoured of God, but they shall on that day receive at the hand of an ungodly world the just meed of honour and praise which has been so long withheld. So the servants of God in that final coronation-day shall receive, even from the most depraved, that tardy recognition denied them here upon the earth.5. Repentance, long deferred, may come too late. Had Belshazzar sought the counsel of Daniel before the handwriting appeared on the wall, had he signalised his entrance upon the responsibilities of regal power by restoring the prophet to the post of influence and authority he had once so happily filled under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar—he might have escaped the impending ruin. Alas! it is now too late! Divine patience has been exhausted. Doom is sealed. And so must it be with those who wilfully postpone the great interests of the soul. (T. D. Witherspoon, D.D.)

The Hour of DoomThe events recorded in this chapter occurred in the fifty-first year of the captivity of the Jews. Let me ask you to consider the extreme minuteness of the prophecies with regard to Babylon, made one hundred and fifty years before they were accomplished. It was predicted Isa_45:1) that Cyrus, the king of Persia, should be its conqueror;and this was fulfilled, for it was the Persian troops, commanded by Cyrus, who captured the city. It was predicted (Isa_44:27) that the river Euphrates should be dried up before the city was taken; and this was fulfilled when the soldiers of Cyrus, with incredible labour, diverted it from its course, and thus “laid a snare for Babylon.” It was predicted (Isa_45:1) that, when the city was taken, its “gates should not be shut”; and this was fulfilled, for the historian records that had the gates leading from the river to the city been shut, the Persians would have been inclosed in a net, from which they could never have escaped. It was predicted (Jer_1:24) that on the night of the capture the Babylonians would be given up to intemperance: “I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware thou art found and also caught” Jer_51:57)—“And I will make drunk her princes and her wise men, her captains and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake”; and this was fulfilled, for Cyrus selected the occasion of a great festival for entering the city; and Herodotus (as quoted by Dr. Keith) relates that the inhabitants were given up to revelling and dancing—that the guards were drinking before the palace when the Persians rushed upon and slew them, and that the monarch and the princes and the captains were slain at a feast.I. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE POWER OF CONSCIENCE. “In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand,” etc.

1. The cause of his alarm. It was the mysterious handwriting, upon the wall. We read that he made a great feast; for what purpose we are not informed, but as it seems to have been anticipated by Cyrus, it was probably some national festival. Such is the 155

love of the human heart for self-indulgence that it will not resign the pursuit of pleasure, however great the risk that is incurred. Now, I submit that unless he had been conscious of doing a wrong act, there was nothing in such a spectacle to have produced the terror which is here described. For anything be could tell, that handwriting, whether supernatural in its origin or not, might have boded good not evil. What was there, apart from a guilty conscience, in a few letters written upon the wall, to terrify a monarch surrounded by his courtiers? Here, then, we have an illustration of the power of conscience—that mysterious monitor which God has placed within us. I ask for nostronger evidence of the universality of conscience than men’s superstitious fears, and the remorse which follows the commission of crime. The most abject terror has been displayed by those who have indulged in sin, and derided religion as the device of priestcraft, proving beyond all dispute that whatever may be the hardihood of vice, it cannot anticipate the future without alarm. And this alarm is often excited by the most trifling circumstance. Belshazzar starts not at a phantom—not at some awful manifestation of Divine power—not at the clash of swords and shrieks of the wounded, which proclaim that the Persian army is at hand, but at some unintelligible characters traced on the wall. See how easily God can terrify the sinner. Happy they whose consciences are pacified by the blood of Christ, and who, having nothing to fear because reconciled to God, are anxious to avoid whatever is evil, and walk all day in the light of God’s countenance.2. The mental distress which BelShazzar suffered. His troubled thoughts are evident by his changed countenance and trembling limbs. And this is the more remarkable, because there was everything in the circumstances in which he was placed to dissipate his alarm. He was not alone. It was not in the silence and solitude of night, it was not in the near approach of death. He was seated at the head of a sumptuous board—the princes and nobles of his empire were around him, the wine sparkled—the jest and song dispelled all thought and care. So for a season men of the world may have no anxiety with regard to the future. There are many expedients to which they can resort to prevent reflection, but conscience awakes at an unexpected moment, and they are full of anguish. It is a solemn hour when conscience awakes from its lethargy; and the longer it has slept, and the more a man has sinned against light and knowledge, the more terrible is its awakening. Why, even the heathen could compare it to a vulture gnawing the heart, and speak of the furies who pursue the wicked with their burning torch and whip of scorpions.3. The miserable expedients to which he resorted. “The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers” (v. 7). And was this his only resort? Has he no better device than this? Had he forgotten their inability to explain to Nebuchadnezzar his dream? I do not think he had forgotten either. The probability is, that he was ashamed or afraid to send for Daniel when those golden vessels of the temple of his God were before him, and that he clung to the hope that the astrologers might, in this instance, afford him the information he desired. And you have here a type of the wretched expedients to which men often resort to appease their conscience. Some summon to their aid new forms of worldly pleasure; some resort to intemperance; others embrace infidelity. The astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers could do nothing for Belshazzar, and worldly pleasure or sceptical doubts can never extract the sting of an accusing conscience. If you once feel that you are estranged from God, and that instead of enjoying His favour you have reason to dread His anger, you will never be happy again until you have found refuge in Christ. You may try many other things. It is probable that you will do so. You may say, I am

156

out of health, the subject of morbid fancies, and perhaps seek a physician; but there is no medicine that can cure a wounded conscience.II. AN ILLUSTRATION OF DANIEL’S FIDELITY.

1. He charges Belshazzar with neglecting providential warnings. He reminds him of the pride and punishment of Nebuchadnezzar. Now, the measure of our responsibility is always proportioned to the degree of our knowledge. Perhaps there are few families who have not received from God some solemn warnings; there are few to whom He has not spoken by His providential dispensations. But there are many who give no heed to this. There was a moment’s impression, but it soon subsided.2. He charges him with rebellion against God. “The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.” This verse contains a very affecting representation of our entire dependence on God. He is the God in whose hand our breath is. He it was who breathed into our nostrils the breath of life, and He it is in whom we live, and move, and have our being. There is nothing more mysterious than that principle which puts in motion all the beautiful complicated mechanism of the body. What is it? None can tell. It is not electricity, it is not galvanism, it is not the subtle ether. The pride of science is humbled before this great mystery, the mystery of life. “In God’s hand is the soul of every living thing.” But this is not all. It is added, “And whose are all thy ways.” So complete is God’s control over us, that we can do nothing apart from Him. He it is who watches over us by night and day—who keeps us in our going out and coming in—who saves us from pestilence and death. Nothing, then, can be more obvious than the duty of glorifying God. If His works praise Him, should not His creatures? Does it not become those whom He thus sustains and blesses to honour and serve Him? What is idolatry but giving to another the glory that belongs to God? And what is sacrilege but applying to an unholy purpose the gifts of God? Then how many are there against whom this charge may be brought? Of how many a man engaged in the business of life, may it be said, as he goes to his daily occupation, and never gives one thought to God—“The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, thou hast not glorified.” What glory does He receive from those families who never call upon His name?

III. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRUTINY TO WHICH MEN’S CHARACTER AND ACTIONS SUBJECTED BY THE OMNISCIENT EYE OF GOD. Belshazzar had forgotten and dishonoured God, but God had not forgotten him. He had been the subject of a strict and impartial scrutiny. “And this is the writing that was written—MENE, MENE TEKEL, UPHARSIN!” Conjecture has been busy as to the language in which these words were written. But this is a question of little interest, and can never be decided. The words, as given by Daniel, are in the Chaldean language, and are so enigmatical that had the astrologers been able to read, they could not have interpreted them. But I have said that this narrative teaches us that we are under the inspection of God. We may succeed in baffling the search into our character and motive, of the most curious and observant of our fellowmen; but there is one glance whose scrutiny we cannot elude. Men may mistake—they often do mistake; they may fail to discover those secrets that are folded in the silence and secrecy of our hearts; but God’s eye is ever upon us. Nor can others form a correct estimate of us. They can look only upon the outward appearance. What do they know of our hearts? But how comes it to pass that we, who are so sensitive as to what is said and thought of us by our fellow-men, are so indifferent to the scrutiny of God? He is never mistaken. The result of this 157

scrutiny reveals much that is defective in every character. We can be at no loss to understand what it was that rendered Belshazzar’s character so defective. It was his pride, he wanted humility; it was his ingratitude, he wanted a thankful spirit; it was his neglect of providential warnings, he wanted a more attentive consideration of God’s dealings with him: it was his idolatry, he wanted reverence for the authority and commands of God. Now, the balances in which God weighs our characters can be nothing less than His requirements and our capabilities. It is by that pure and perfect law which He has given that He judges us. Let there be no misconception; you have to deal with God, and not with man; and it is in God’s balances that your actions are weighed. Will you place in them the virtues of social life? He admits their excellence and worth, but He asks you what relation they sustain to Him? I ask you to be honest with yourselves. You can gain nothing, you will lose everything, by self-deception. The address of Daniel to Belshazzar was the last to which the monarch ever listened, and he seems to have disregarded the solemn warning. (H. J. Gamble.)

25 “This is the inscription that was written:mene, mene, tekel, parsin

BARNES, "And this is the writing that was written - The Babylonians, it would seem, were unacquainted with the “characters” that were used, and of course unable to understand the meaning. See Dan_5:8. The first thing, therefore, for Daniel to do was to read the writing, and this he was able to do without difficulty, probably, as already remarked, because it was in the ancient Hebrew character - a character quite familiar to him, though not known to the Babylonians, whom Belshazzar consulted. It is every way probable that that character “would” be used on an occasion like this, for

(a) it is manifest that it was intended that the true God, the God of the Hebrews, should be made known, and this was the character in which his communications had been made to men;(b) it was clearly the design to honor his own religion, and it is morally certain that there would be something which would show the connection between this occurrence and his own agency, and nothing would do this better than to make use of such a character; and(c) it was the Divine intention to put honor on Daniel, and this would be well done by making use of a character which he understood.There have been, indeed, many conjectures respecting the characters which were employed on this occasion, and the reasons of the difficulty of interpreting the words used, but it is most probable that the above is the true statement, and this will relieve all

158

the difficulties in regard to the account. Prideaux supposes that the characters employed were the ancient Phoenician characters, that were used by the Hebrews, and that are found now in the Samaritan Pentateuch; and that, as above suggested, these might be unknown to the Babylonians, though familiar to Daniel. Others have supposed that the characters were those in common use in Babylon, and that the reason why the Babylonians could not read them was, that they were smitten with a sudden blindness, like the inhabitants of Sodom, Gen_19:11. The Talmudists suppose that the words were written in a cabalistic manner, in which certain letters were used to stand for other letters, on the principle referred to by Buxtorf (“Lex. Chal. Rabb. et Talm.” p. 248), and known as אתבש 'âthebbash - that is, where the alphabet is reversed, and the Hebrew letter א (A) is used for the Hebrew letter ת (T), and the Hebrew letter ב (B) for the Hebrew letter ש (S), etc., and that on account of this cabalistic transmutation the Babylonians could not read it, though Daniel might have been familiar with that mode of writing. rabbi Jochanan supposed that there was a change of the order in which the letters of the words were written; other rabbis, that there was a change merely in the order of the first and second letters; others, that the words were written backward; others that the words were written, not in the usual horizontal manner, but perpendicularly; and others, that the words were not written in full, but that only the first letters of each were written. See Bertholdt, pp. 349, 350. All these are mere conjectures, and most of them are childish and improbable suppositions. There is no real difficulty in the case if we suppose that the words were written in a character familiar to Daniel, but not familiar to the Babylonians. Or, if this is not admitted, then we may suppose that some mere marks were employed whose signification was made known to Daniel in a miraculous manner.

CLARKE, "And this is the writing - Had the words been written in the Chaldean character, every wise man there, every one that could read the alphabet of his own language, could have read and interpreted them. Let it be observed, -

1. That the character which we now call Hebrew is the Chaldean character.2. That the true Hebrew character is that which we call the Samaritan.3. Daniel could easily read this, for it was the character used by the Jews previously to the Babylonish captivity.4. It appears that it was simply on account of the strangeness of the character that the Chaldeans could not read it.I shall set down the words in both characters, by which the least learned reader may see that it was quite possible that one might be well known, while the other might be unintelligible.In ancient times, no doubt, these letters differed more from each other than they appear to do now; for we know that the Samaritan on ancient coins, though radically the same, differs very much from that now used in printing.It should be observed, that each word stands for a short sentence; מנא mene signifies

Numeration; תקל tekel, Weighing; and פרש peres, Division. And so the Arabic translates them mokeeson, measured; mewzonon, weighed; mokesoomon, divided. All the

159

ancient Versions, except the Syriac, read the words simply Mene, Tekel, Phares, as they are explained in the following verses; without the repetition of Mene, and without the conjunction ו vau and plural termination, ין in, in Peres.

GILL, "And this is the writing that was written,.... They are such and such letters, and so to be read, as follows: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN; which are Chaldee words, and may be literally rendered, "he hath numbered, he hath numbered"; that is, God hath certainly, perfectly, and exactly numbered; "he hath weighed", God hath weighed thee, Belshazzar; "and they divide the kingdom"; that is, the Medes and Persians, as appears from the following interpretation:

JAMISON, "And this is the writing that was written,.... They are such and such letters, and so to be read, as follows: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN; which are Chaldee words, and may be literally rendered, "he hath numbered, he hath numbered"; that is, God hath certainly, perfectly, and exactly numbered; "he hath weighed", God hath weighed thee, Belshazzar; "and they divide the kingdom"; that is, the Medes and Persians, as appears from the following interpretation:K&D, "Dan_5:25-28

Daniel now read the writing (Dan_5:25), and gave its interpretation (Dan_5:26-28). The writing bears the mysterious character of the oracle. מנא ,תקל ,פרס (Dan_5:28) are partic. Piel, and the forms תקל and פרס, instead of תקיל and פריס, are chosen on account of their symphony with פרסין .מנא is generally regarded as partic. plur., but that would be פרסין; it much rather appears to be a noun form, and plur. of פרס = Hebr. פרס (cf. פרסיהן, Zec_11:16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments, for פרס signifies to divide, to break in pieces, not only in the Hebr. (cf. Lev_11:4; Isa_58:7; Psa_69:32), but also in the Chald., 2Ki_4:39 (Targ.), although in the Targg. The meaning to spread out prevails. In all the three words there lies a double sense, which is brought out in the interpretation. מנא, for the sake of the impression, or perhaps only of the parallelism, is twice given, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two words. In the numbering lies the determination and the completion, or the conclusion of a manner, a space of time. Daniel accordingly interprets מנא thus: God has numbered מנה) for מנא, perf. act.) thy kingdom, i.e., its duration or its days, והשלמה, and has finished it, i.e., its duration is so counted out that it is full, that it now comes to an end. In תקל there lies the double sense that the word תקל, to weigh, accords with the Niphal of קלל, to be light, to be found light (cf. תקל, Gen_16:4). The interpretation presents this double meaning: Thou art weighed in the balances and art found too light (תקלתא) (like the .a perf ,תקלתא .wanting in necessary weight, i.e., deficient in moral worth ,חסיר .(תקל

160

formed from the partic. Piel; cf. Winer, §13, 2. As to the figure of the balance, cf. Job_31:6; Psa_62:10 (9).For פרסין (Dan_5:25) Daniel uses in the interpretation the sing. פרס, which, after the

analogy of תקל, may be regarded as partic. Piel, and he interprets it accordingly, so that he brings out, along with the meaning lying in the word, also the allusion to פרס, Persian: thy kingdom is divided, or broken into pieces, and given to the Medes and Persians. The meaning is not that the kingdom was to be divided into two equal parts, and the one part given to the Medes and the other to the Persians; but פרס is to divide into pieces, to destroy, to dissolve the kingdom. This shall be effected by the Medes and Persians, and was so brought about when the Persian Cyrus with the united power of the Medes and Persians destroyed Babylon, and thus put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, whereby the kingdom was transferred first to the Median Darius (Daniel 6:1 [Dan_5:31]), and after him to the Persian Cyrus. In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies, as already remarked in the Introduction, a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative, and with it of the whole book; 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.

CALVIN, "Daniel here explains these four verses which were written upon the wall. The king could not read them, either through stupor, or because God blunted all his senses, and blinded his eyes, as was formerly said. The same thing must be said of the magi and the soothsayers, for they could have read, had they not been rendered blind. First of all, Daniel recites the four words, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsn, and then adds their interpretation. He repeats the word Mene twice. Some conjecture this to apply to the numbering of the years of the king’s life, and also to the time of his reign; but the guess seems to be without any foundation. I think the word is used twice for the sake of confirmation; as if the Prophet meant the number to be completed, since men usually allow calculations to be liable to error. To impress upon Belshazzar that his ‘life and kingdom were at stake, God affirms the number to be complete, meaning, not a moment of time can be added to the boundary already determined. So also Daniel himself interprets it: God, says he, has numbered thy kingdom; implying, God has appointed and prescribed a fixed end to thy kingdom; hence it must necessarily come to an end, since its period is fulfilled.Although God here addresses but one king by the writing set before his eyes, we may still gather this general instruction — God has prescribed a certain time for all kingdoms. (Job 14:5.) The Scripture bears the same witness concerning the life of each of us. If God has prescribed to each of us the length of his life, surely this applies more forcibly to public empires, of so much greater importance. Hence we may know how not only kings live and die according to God’s pleasure, but even empires are changed, as we have formerly said. He fixes alike their origin and their destiny. Hence we may seek consolation, when we see tyrants rushing on so impetuously, and indulging their lust and cruelty without moderation. When, therefore, they rush on, as if they would mingle heaven and earth, let us remember

161

this instruction, Their years are numbered! God knows how long they are to rage; He is not deceived; He knows whether it is useful to the Church and his elect, for tyrants to prevail for a time. By and bye he will surely restrain them, but since he determined the number of their days from the beginning, the time of his vengeance is not yet quite at hand, while he allows them a little longer to abuse without restraint the power and the sway which he had divinely granted them. COFFMAN, ""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 INTERPRETATION OF THE HANDWRITINGIn 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 of PERES 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 Daniel 6:8,12,15."[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: NUMBERED; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED, or NUMBERED; WEIGHED; AND SMASHED.[32] Culver preferred, COUNTED; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED.[33]"Daniel 5:28 proves conclusively that the author of Daniel believed that the successor to Babylon was a dual kingdom, including two national elements; he was

162

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!

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:25 And this [is] the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.Ver. 25. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.] These words signify, He hath perfectly numbered, he hath weighed, and it falleth in pieces. They were the Samaritan characters, saith one, (a) therefore the Babylonians could not read them, nor could the Jews understand them, though they knew the characters, because they understood not the Chaldee tongue as Daniel did. See on Daniel 5:8.

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:25-28And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. The Septuagint has two versions of this passage, one m the text, the other in the portion at the beginning, which we think is really composed of marginal readings. In the text the Aramaic is not given at all. As we have already seen, the verse which corresponds to Daniel 5:25 here is really the latter part of Daniel 5:17 of the Septuagint, "This is the writing: It hath been numbered; it is reckoned; it has been carried away." In the verses which are appended to the beginning of the chapter, we have the Aramaic words, but given in a different order, and without the repetition of the first word: "MANE, PHARES, THEKEL. MANE, It has been numbered; PHARES, It is carried away; THEKEL, It has been set up." Here not only is the order different, but the meaning assigned to phares is singular. פרס means in Syriac, "spread out." It would seem that ἐξαίρω meant "stretched out" as well as "carried away." It is still more difficult to understand how thekel can mean "set up," unless the words, ἐν ζυγῷ, "on the balance," are understood. The Septuagint of the best version is briefer than the Massoretic, though less so than it is in some of the other passages, "Numbered is the time of thy kingdom; ceases thy kingdom; cut short and ended has been thy kingdom; to the Modes and the Persians has it been given." The word interpreted is not repeated as in the Massoretic text, and תקל is derived from which in some of the conjugations means "destroyed," whereas in Daniel 5:17 ,קלל it is rendered κατελογίσθη, "it is reckoned," a rendering of תקל which makes it mean "weigh." The Septuagint rendering of the first clause is an evident attempt at explaining the numbering implied. The Massoretic reading involves a pun in both the last words; there is a play between תקל (teqel), "to weigh," and קלל (qelal), "to be light," although the introduction of שכח rather conceals this. In the last the play is between פרס, "to divide," and פדס, "a Persian." Theodotion avoids the repetition of the first word, otherwise he is in somewhat close agreement with the Massoretic text,

163

"MANE, God hath measured thy kingdom; THEKEL, It is set on the balance, and found wanting; PHARES, Thy kingdom is cut asunder, and given to the Medes and the Persians." The Peshitta is in close agreement with the Massoretic text. The actual meaning of the words, taking them as they appear in the Massoretictext, as Aramaic words, is, to give English equivalents, "a pound, a pound, an ounce, and quarters;" hence the impossibility of interpreting the words. We find all these words, mena, teqel (shekel), pares, in the Ninevite inscriptions. As the words are interpreted, we cannot fail to be impressed with the peremptory style of the inscription, as Hitzig has it. Zöckler refers to the sculpturesque style (lapidarstil). This brevity rendered it difficult for the soothsayers to put any meaning into the words at all. In all the versions the fact that the kingdom is to be given to the Medes and Persians is emphasized, but, moreover, the play on words in the last clause implies the Persians as the prominent assailants of the Babylonian power, but really that the two powers were united. It seems extraordinary that any one, in the face of this, should maintain that the author of Daniel separated the two powers, and thought the Median power succeeded the Babylonian, and then that the Persian succeeded the Median. We know now that Herodotus's representation of the history of Media and Persia is utterly false and misleading.

26 “Here is what these words mean:Mene[e]: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

BARNES, "This is the interpretation of the thing - It may seem not to have been difficult to interpret the meaning of the communication, when one was able to read the words, or when the sense of the words was understood. But, if the words are placed together, and considered in their abstract form, the whole communication would be so enigmatical that the interpretation would not be likely to occur to anyone without a Divine guidance. This will appear more clearly by arranging the words together, as has been done by Hales:

MENE, number, MENE, number, TEKEL, weight, (PERES) (division) UPHARSIN, division.Or, as it is explained more accurately by Berholdt and Gesenius:

164

Mene, Numbered, Mene, Numbered, Tekel, Weighted, Upharsin. Divided.From this arrangement it will be at once seen that the interpretation proposed by Daniel was not one that would have been likely to have occurred to anyone.Mene - menâh מנה menê'. This word is a passive participle from מנא - “to number, to

review.” - Gesenius, “Lex.” The verb is also written מנא menâ' - Buxtorf, “Lex.” It would be literally translated “numbered,” and would apply to that of which an estimate was taken by counting. We use now an expression which would convey a similar idea, when we say of one that “his days are numbered;” that is, he has not long to live, or is about to die. The idea seems to be taken from the fact, that the duration of a man’s life cannot usually be known, and in the general uncertainty we can form no correct estimate of it, but when he is old, or when he is dangerously sick, we feel that we can with some degree of probability number his days, since he cannot now live long. Such is the idea here, as explained by Daniel. All uncertainty about the duration of the kingdom was now removed, for, since the evil had come, an exact estimate of its whole duration - of the number of the years of its continuance - could be made. In the Greek of Theodotion there is no attempt to translate this word, and it is retained in Greek letters - Μανὴ Manē. So also in the Codex Chisianus and in the Latin Vulgate.

God hath numbered thy kingdom - The word which is used here, and rendered “numbered” - menâh מנה - is the verb of which the previous word is the participle. Daniel applies it to the “kingdom” or “reign” of the monarch, as being a thing of more importance than the life of the king himself. It is evident, if, according to the common interpretation of Dan_5:30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, it “might” have been applied to the king himself, meaning that his days were numbered, and that he was about to die. But this interpretation (see Notes) is not absolutely certain, and perhaps the fact that Daniel did not so apply the word may be properly regarded as one circumstance showing that such an interpretation is not necessary, though probably it is the correct one.

And finished it - This is not the meaning of the word “Mene,” but is the explanation by Daniel of the thing intended. The word in its interpretation fairly implied that; or that might be understood from it. The fact that the “kingdom” in its duration was “numbered,” properly expressed the idea that it was now to come to an end. It did actually then come to an end by being merged in that of the Medes and Persians.

GILL, "This is the interpretation of the thing,.... Or, "word" (z); for they might all seem as one word; or this is the sense of the whole: MENE; as for this word, it signifies, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; God had fixed the number of years, how long that monarchy should last, which he was now at the head of, and which was foretold, Jer_25:1, and also the number of years that he should reign over it; and both these numbers were now completed; for that very night Belshazzar was slain, and the kingdom translated to another people: and a dreadful thing it is to be numbered to the sword, famine, and pestilence, or any sore judgment of God for sin, as sometimes

165

men are; so more especially to be appointed to everlasting wrath, and to be numbered among transgressors, among the devils and damned in hell. JAMISON, "God hath fixed the number of years of thine empire, and that number is now complete.TRAPP, "Daniel 5:26 This [is] the interpretation of the thing: MENE God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.Ver. 26. MENE God hath numbered thy kingdom.] He hath cast up thy reckonings, taken account of thy maladministration, and calleth for satisfaction. So he dealt with Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Cum duplicarentur lateres, venit Moses, when the tale of bricks was doubled, then came Moses; and when the four hundred, or the four hundred and thirty, years of their captivity in Egypt were exactly expired, the same night were the firstborn slain. So the tyranny of the Roman emperors was numbered at the end of three hundred years after Christ, when they, sounding the triumph before the victory, had foolishly engraven upon pillars of marble these bubbles of words, Nomine Christianorum deleto qui Remp, evertebant, we have utterly rooted out the name of Christians, those traitors to the commonwealth. So, lastly, God hath numbered the Pope’s kingdom, and well-nigh finished it. Let him look to the year 1666. It is plain Satan shall be tied up a thousand years; 666 is the number of the beast; Antichrist shaft so long reign; these two together make the just number. (a)

POOLE 26-28, "Verse 26Mene, Mene; He hath numbered, or, It is numbered, it is numbered. These words are doubled for the greater confirmation, to note that the number of his sins and of his days, both of life and reign, are full. It relates to the number of the seventy years’ captivity now completed, or to the seventy years for the overthrow of the Babylonish empire, or the translation of it to the Medes and Persians, foretold Isa 13$ Isa 14$ Jer 1$, and in the dream, Daniel 2:32.Verse 27Thou art weighed in a hanging balance, alluding to the weighing of goods exactly in scales; and God is said to weigh the mountains in scales: it shows his just proceeding; God is not hasty in punishing, but will give just allowance in weighing, he will hold the scales, he will do it fairly before all the world.Art found wanting; thou dost not hold weight, but comest short vastly. There is no weight nor worth in thee. Thou hast made light of God in his honour, people, vessels; and the Lord makes light of thee, thou art reprobate silver, false coin; thou art of no value.Verse 28

166

Separated, divided, broken.Peres signifies two things,broken off, andPersian; noting, first, That this kingdom was broken from Belshazzar, and his line and family. Secondly, That it was given from the Chaldeans to the Persians. Then it was divided between the Medes and Persians; for Cyrus took Babylon, he was a Persian; after that he gave part of it to Darius his son-in-law, and he was a Mede; and so they were as it were partners. So this vast empire, that was one sole, entire thing under Belshazzar, becomes now as it were two, divided betwixt the Medes and Persians, which thing is curious to observe, from this wordPhars, Pharsin, Peres, which signifies not only dividing, butPersian, as Pliny testifies. With the Chaldeans, the Persians, in Scripture, are called Elamites.

27 Tekel[f]: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

BARNES, "Tekel - This word (תקל teqēl) is also, according to Gesenius, a passive participle (from תקל teqal - “to poise, to weigh”), and means “weighed.” It would be used with reference to anything placed in a balance to ascertain its weight; and hence, like the word “measure,” would denote that the extent, dimensions, true worth, or character of anything was ascertained. As by the use of scales the weight of anything is known, so the word is applied to any estimate of character or of actions, and a balance becomes the emblem of justice. Thus God, in his judgments of men, is represented as “weighing” their actions. 1Sa_2:3, “the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” Compare Job_6:2 :

“O that my grief were thoroughly weighed,And my calamity laid in the balances together.”Job_31:6 :

167

“Let me be weighed in an even balance,That God may know mine integrity.”The balance thus used to denote judgment in this life became also the emblem of judgment in the future state, when the conduct of men will be accurately estimated, and justice dealt out to them according to the strict rules of equity. To illustrate this, I will insert a copy of an Egyptian “Death Judgment,” with the remarks of the editor of the “Pictorial Bible” in regard to it: “The Egyptians entertained the belief that the actions of the dead were solemnly weighed in balances before Osiris, and that the condition of the departed was determined according to the preponderance of good or evil. Such judgment scenes are very frequently represented in the paintings and papyri of ancient Egypt, and one of them we have copied as a suitable illustration of the present subject. One of these scenes, as represented on the walls of a small temple at Dayr-el-Medeeneh, has been so well explained by Mr. Wilkinson, that we shall avail ourselves of his description, for although that to which it refers is somewhat different from the one which we have engraved, his account affords an adequate elucidation of all that ours contains. ‘Osiris, seated on his throne, awaits the arrival of those souls that are ushered into Amenti. The four genii stand before him on a lotus-blossom (ours has the lotus without the genii), the female Cerberus sits behind them, and Harpocrates on the crook of Osiris. Thoth, the god of letters, arrives in the presence of Osiris, bearing in his hand a tablet, on which the actions of the deceased are noted down, while Horus and Arceris are employed in weighing the good deeds of the judged against the ostrich feather, the symbol of truth and justice. A cynocephalus, the emblem of truth, is seated on the top of the balance. At length arrives the deceased, who appears between two figures of the goddess, and bears in his hand the symbol of truth, indicating his meritorious actions, and his fitness for admission to the presence of Osiris.’“If the Babylonians entertained a similar notion, the declaration of the prophet, ‘Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting!’ must have appeared exceedingly awful to them. But again, there are allusions in this declaration to some such custom of literally weighing the royal person, as is described in the following passage in the account of Sir Thomas Roe’s embassy to the great Mogul: ‘The first of September (which was the late Mogul’s birthday), he, retaining an ancient yearly custom, was, in the presence of his chief grandees, weighed in a balance: the ceremony was performed within his house, or tent, in a fair spacious room, whereinto none were admitted but by special leave. The scales in which he was thus weighed were plated with gold: and so was the beam, on which they hung by great chains, made likewise of that most precious metal. The king, sitting in one of them, was weighed first against silver coin, which immediately afterward was distributed among the poor; then was he weighed against gold; after that against jewels (as they say), but I observed (being there present with my ambassador) that he was weighed against three several things, laid in silken bags in the contrary scale. When I saw him in the balance, I thought on Belshazzar, who was found too light. By his weight (of which his physicians yearly keep an exact account), they presume to guess of the present state of his body, of which they speak flatteringly, however they think it to be. ‘“Thou art weighed in the balances - That is, this, in the circumstances, is the proper interpretation of this word. It would apply to anything whose value was ascertained by weighing it; but as the reference here was to the king of Babylon, and as the whole representation was designed for him, Daniel distinctly applies it to him: “thou

168

art weighed.” On the use and application of this language, see 1Sa_2:3 : “The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” Compare also Job_31:6; Pro_16:2, Pro_16:11.And art found wanting - This is added, like the previous phrase, as an explanation. Even if the word could have been read by the Chaldeans, yet its meaning could not have been understood without a Divine communication, for though it were supposed to be applicable to the monarch, it would still be a question what the result of the weighing or trial would be. That could have been known to Daniel only by a communication from on high.

GILL, "Tekel - This word (תקל teqēl) is also, according to Gesenius, a passive participle (from תקל teqal - “to poise, to weigh”), and means “weighed.” It would be used with reference to anything placed in a balance to ascertain its weight; and hence, like the word “measure,” would denote that the extent, dimensions, true worth, or character of anything was ascertained. As by the use of scales the weight of anything is known, so the word is applied to any estimate of character or of actions, and a balance becomes the emblem of justice. Thus God, in his judgments of men, is represented as “weighing” their actions. 1Sa_2:3, “the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” Compare Job_6:2 :

“O that my grief were thoroughly weighed,And my calamity laid in the balances together.”Job_31:6 :

“Let me be weighed in an even balance,That God may know mine integrity.”The balance thus used to denote judgment in this life became also the emblem of judgment in the future state, when the conduct of men will be accurately estimated, and justice dealt out to them according to the strict rules of equity. To illustrate this, I will insert a copy of an Egyptian “Death Judgment,” with the remarks of the editor of the “Pictorial Bible” in regard to it: “The Egyptians entertained the belief that the actions of the dead were solemnly weighed in balances before Osiris, and that the condition of the departed was determined according to the preponderance of good or evil. Such judgment scenes are very frequently represented in the paintings and papyri of ancient Egypt, and one of them we have copied as a suitable illustration of the present subject. One of these scenes, as represented on the walls of a small temple at Dayr-el-Medeeneh, has been so well explained by Mr. Wilkinson, that we shall avail ourselves of his description, for although that to which it refers is somewhat different from the one which we have engraved, his account affords an adequate elucidation of all that ours contains. ‘Osiris, seated on his throne, awaits the arrival of those souls that are ushered into Amenti. The four genii stand before him on a lotus-blossom (ours has the lotus without the genii), the female Cerberus sits behind them, and Harpocrates on the crook of Osiris. Thoth, the god of letters, arrives in the presence of Osiris, bearing in his hand a tablet, on which the actions of the deceased are noted down, while Horus and Arceris are employed in weighing the good deeds of the judged against the ostrich feather, the

169

symbol of truth and justice. A cynocephalus, the emblem of truth, is seated on the top of the balance. At length arrives the deceased, who appears between two figures of the goddess, and bears in his hand the symbol of truth, indicating his meritorious actions, and his fitness for admission to the presence of Osiris.’“If the Babylonians entertained a similar notion, the declaration of the prophet, ‘Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting!’ must have appeared exceedingly awful to them. But again, there are allusions in this declaration to some such custom of literally weighing the royal person, as is described in the following passage in the account of Sir Thomas Roe’s embassy to the great Mogul: ‘The first of September (which was the late Mogul’s birthday), he, retaining an ancient yearly custom, was, in the presence of his chief grandees, weighed in a balance: the ceremony was performed within his house, or tent, in a fair spacious room, whereinto none were admitted but by special leave. The scales in which he was thus weighed were plated with gold: and so was the beam, on which they hung by great chains, made likewise of that most precious metal. The king, sitting in one of them, was weighed first against silver coin, which immediately afterward was distributed among the poor; then was he weighed against gold; after that against jewels (as they say), but I observed (being there present with my ambassador) that he was weighed against three several things, laid in silken bags in the contrary scale. When I saw him in the balance, I thought on Belshazzar, who was found too light. By his weight (of which his physicians yearly keep an exact account), they presume to guess of the present state of his body, of which they speak flatteringly, however they think it to be. ‘“Thou art weighed in the balances - That is, this, in the circumstances, is the proper interpretation of this word. It would apply to anything whose value was ascertained by weighing it; but as the reference here was to the king of Babylon, and as the whole representation was designed for him, Daniel distinctly applies it to him: “thou art weighed.” On the use and application of this language, see 1Sa_2:3 : “The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” Compare also Job_31:6; Pro_16:2, Pro_16:11.And art found wanting - This is added, like the previous phrase, as an explanation. Even if the word could have been read by the Chaldeans, yet its meaning could not have been understood without a Divine communication, for though it were supposed to be applicable to the monarch, it would still be a question what the result of the weighing or trial would be. That could have been known to Daniel only by a communication from on high.

JAMISON, "weighed in the balances — The Egyptians thought that Osiris weighed the actions of the dead in a literal balance. The Babylonians may have had the same notion, which would give a peculiar appropriateness to the image here used.

found wanting — too light before God, the weigher of actions (1Sa_2:3; Psa_62:9). Like spurious gold or silver (Jer_6:30).CALVIN, "The exposition of the word Tekel, to weigh, now follows: — Since thou hast been weighed in the balance, or scale, and found wanting Here Daniel shews God so moderating his judgments, as if he was carrying a balance in his hand. The emblem is taken from the custom of mankind; for men know the use of the balance

170

for accurate measurement. So also God is said to treat all things by weight and measure, since he does nothing with confusion, but uses moderation; and, according to ordinary language, nothing is more or less than it should be. (Wisdom of Solomon 11:21.) For this reason, Daniel says God weighed Belshazzar in a balance, since he did not make haste to inflict punishment, but exacted it with justice according to his own uniform rule of government. Since he was found deficient, that is, was found light and without weight. As if he had said, Thou thinkest thy dignity must be spared, since all men revere thee; thou thinkest thyself worthy of honor; thou art deceived says he, for God judges otherwise; God does not use a common scale, but holds his own, and there art found deficient; that is, thou art found a man of no consequence, in any way. From these words there is no doubt that the tyrant was greatly exasperated, but as his last end was approaching, he ought to hear the voice of the herald. And God, without doubt, restrained his fierceness, that he should not rise up against Daniel. TRAPP, "Daniel 5:27 TEKEL Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.Ver. 27. TEKEL thou art weighed in the balances, (a) and art found wanting.] As the former was a term taken from creditors, so this from light coin; deprehensus es minus habere, thou art not current. Others may think thee weighty enough and worthy, but God pondereth the hearts, [Proverbs 22:2] and thinketh thee fit to be refused, ut nummus reprobus so money rejected.

SIMEON, "SCRIPTURE BALANCESDaniel 5:27. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.THE words before us were uttered in reference to a single individual, Belshazzar, king of Babylon, whose open acts most fully attested the truth of the allegation contained in them. But God discerns the heart, and weighs every man in his unerring balance; and, though he do not now declare the result of his examination, as he then did, by a written testimony that shall be seen of men, he records it in the book of his remembrance, and will make it known, concerning every one of us, in the last day. Now, as upon this testimony our eternal happiness will depend, it becomes us to ascertain beforehand what the state of our souls really is. And this we may do, if we weigh ourselves in the balances to which we have access. Let me then shew you,I. In what balances we should weigh ourselves—Certainly we must not take the scales by which the world forms its estimate of men and things. They are so deceitful, that we can never by them attain any just knowledge of ourselves. They are so constructed, that sin, unless it be of a very enormous character, scarcely affects them at all: and virtue, of however low a

171

character it be, produces a vast preponderance in the scale of merit. Those which I would recommend for your use, are,1. The balance of God’s perfect law—[The law of God requires that we love God with all our heart, and all our mind, and all our soul, and all our strength; and that we love our neighbour, even every child of man, altogether as ourselves. It admits of no departure from this; no, not so much as in thought. Any thing short of the obedience of Christ himself is a violation of it, and renders us obnoxious to its curse.Now, if we try ourselves by this standard, who amongst us will not be found wanting? or rather I should say, who amongst us has ever, for one single moment, come up to it? The light of a glow-worm actually approaches nearer to the splendour of the sun in the firmament, than our obedience has done to that which is required of us. To say that “we are found wanting,” is to say nothing. Verily, if weighed in this balance, the best man upon the face of the whole earth will be found “lighter than vanity itself.” To us it may appear, that in this respect there is at least a great difference between the states of different men: but, if viewed aright, the goodness of any natural man would really be found to weigh as little before God as the dust upon the balance; so grievously wanting are we all, insomuch that “every mouth must be alike stopped, and all the world become guilty before God [Note: Romans 3:19.].”]2. The balance of his blessed Gospel—[Persons greatly mistake respecting the nature of the Gospel: they suppose it to be a kind of remedial law, lowered to the standard of human infirmity. But this is a fatal error. The Gospel does not dispense with any one duty that was enjoined by the Law, or lower it in any respect. To suppose that it did, would be to imagine that God at first required more of us than was necessary, or that now he requires less than is necessary; or that some change has taken place in the relation that subsists between him and his creatures; so that that which was necessary in the first instance, is now no longer necessary. The Gospel makes no change whatever in the law: but it prescribes duties, of which the law gave no intimation, and could take no cognizance. It prescribes repentance. For this the law made no provision t but the Gospel commands “all men everywhere to repent:” its language is, “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into heaviness: humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he will lift you up [Note: James 4:9-10.].” In addition to this, it enjoins faith; even faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the appointed Saviour of the world. Of this the law spake nothing: it knew not of a Saviour for fallen man: it simply said, “Do this, and live.” But the Gospel reveals a Saviour, who is “able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him;” and preaches through him the forgiveness of sins, assuring us, that “all who believe shall be justified from all things [Note: Acts 13:39.].” Once more, the Gospel calls us to obedience; even to such an obedience as a poor fallen sinner, when aided

172

by the Holy Spirit, is able to render. Such obedience as this the law could not accept: hut the Gospel declares, that it shall be accepted of God through Jesus Christ [Note: 1 Peter 2:5.] If only we serve God with a willing mind, he will “not be extreme to mark what is done amiss;” but will be “well pleased with our sacrifices,” notwithstanding the imperfection of them, and will vouchsafe to confer upon us a recompence of reward [Note: Hebrews 13:15-16.].Now, then, let us inquire how far we comply with the gracious terms of the Gospel. What know we of repentance, even of “that broken and contrite heart which God will not despise?” Have we not still found “a heart of stone” within us, even whilst we have desired “an heart of flesh?” — — — And how have we exercised faith? Have our souls gone forth to the Saviour, to lay hold on him, and trust in him, and glory in him? Have we not found a most astonishing backwardness towards this holy exercise, insomuch that we seem to have accounted the Gospel a cunningly-devised fable, rather than a divine reality? — — — Then, as to the surrender of ourselves to God, how has it been with us? Has there been that entire devotion of our souls to him, which his love and mercy have so justly demanded? Have we not rather been amazed at our own insensibility and ingratitude, so far exceeding all that we could ever have conceived?If, then, we weigh ourselves in this balance, what shall we find, but sad occasion for grief and shame? — — —]3. The balance even of our own conscience—[This, I must confess, is a very inadequate mode of estimating our real character. Conscience is blind. Its views of duty are very imperfect: its observation of our conduct also is extremely partial; and its judgment very erroneous. Yet even in this balance, unduly favourable as it is, we shall be found sadly wanting. We all know that God ought to be loved and served: that the Lord Jesus Christ also ought to be precious to our souls. We know that sin should be mortified; and that holiness of heart and life should be cultivated. We know, that, as immortal beings, we should rise superior to the things of time and sense, and seek chiefly the happiness and glory of eternity. Now, then, how far have we corresponded even with our own standard of duty? Are we not sensible that the interests of the soul, and the concerns of eternity, have not been of such paramount value in our estimation, as their real importance has required? Defective as our own standard of duty has been, have we not fallen greatly and shamefully below it? — — —]Let me. then, proceed to shew you,II. What lessons we should learn from our defects—There is no reason for us to despond: on the contrary, the more sensible we are of our defects, the more hopeful is our state before God. Let us then search out our defects to the uttermost; and then learn from them,

173

1. To be thankful for the Gospel—[O! what glad tidings does the Gospel proclaim! Salvation! Salvation for sinners, even the chief! Salvation for those who have broken the law! yes, and have despised the Gospel also! and have lived hitherto only for themselves!—What thanks can we render to God, that we are permitted to hear this joyful sound, ere the curses of the broken law come down upon us, and we are shut up in that place of torment, where the voice of mercy never sounds, nor one ray of hope can ever enter! Verily, Brethren, if you will not now bless your God, “the very stones will cry out against you.” What, if king Belshazzar could have a proclamation of mercy to his soul, what feelings would it excite in him? But it is observable, that no call to repentance was given to him; for his day of grace was past. This, however, is not your state: to you the Saviour says, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth!” “Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden! and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Rejoice then, and leap for joy; for in Christ you have your every defect cancelled, and your every want supplied.]2. To walk humbly before God—[Be it so, that your iniquities are pardoned, and your sins are covered:” still, how can you do otherwise than lothe and abhor yourselves, when you contemplate your daily walk before God? What might not be expected of one who has been redeemed from death by the blood of God’s only dear Son? What admiration, and love, and gratitude would you suppose must fill the soul of one who has been bought with such a price, and, from a child of Satan, been made a child of God, from an heir of wrath, an heir of everlasting glory? You would naturally suppose that he would not have so much as a thought but how to praise and glorify his Benefactor. But, alas! not even the wonders of redeeming love can produce upon us all the effect that might be wished. We still are in a great measure carnal, looking too much to the things which are visible and temporal, and too little to the things which are invisible and eternal. In truth, our very best services furnish us with but too just occasion for penitence; our very tears needing to be washed in the blood of Christ, and our repentances to be repented of. Let this lesson then be learned; To walk softly before God, in the remembrance of your sins; and, when you have done all that is commanded, still to say, “We are unprofitable servants; we have done that only which it was our duty to do.”]3. To be preparing daily for the scrutiny that awaits you at the last-day—[God will come shortly to judge the world; and will call every secret thing into judgment, whether it be good or evil. Then will innumerable defects, which here you overlooked, be brought to light; and every counsel of the heart, whether good or evil, be made manifest. Should you not, then, be preparing for that day? Should you not get every evil of your heart mortified, and every good thing matured within you? Belshazzar, when he received his warning, had but a few hours to live: for that

174

very night was his soul required of him. And may it not be so with you also? And if it should, in what a pitiable state will you be, as unprepared for your great account! Yet, go you must, and be weighed also in the balance of God’s sanctuary; and, if found wanting, like light or reprobate silver, be cast away. Think, I pray you, of the representations given of that period by our blessed Lord: some, as wheat, will be treasured up in the granary of heaven; but others, as chaff, be cast into the fire of hell, even the fire that never shall be quenched. “The net, at present, drags to land both good fish and refuse: but then the good will be gathered into vessels, and the bad be cast away.” Well, thanks be to God! there is yet time to prepare for that day; and time to have every defect of your souls supplied. The Lord Jesus Christ is both able and willing to accomplish in you his good work: and if you truly and unfeignedly commit yourselves to him, he will “perfect in you the work he has begun,” and “preserve you blameless unto his heavenly kingdom.”]

28 Peres[g]: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

BARNES, "Peres - In Dan_5:25 this is “Upharsin.” These are but different forms of the same word - the word in Dan_5:25 being in the plural, and here in the singular. The verb (פרס peras) means, to “divide;” and in this form, as in the previous cases, it is, according to Gesenius, participle meaning “divided.” As it stands here, it would be applicable to anything that was “divided” or “sundered” - whether a kingdom, a palace, a house, territory, etc. “What” was divided could be known only by Divine revelation. If the “word” had been understood by Belshazzar, undoubtedly it would have suggested the idea that there was to be some sort of division or sundering, but what that was to be would not be indicated by the mere use of the word. Perhaps to an affrighted imagination there might have been conveyed the idea that there would be a revolt in some of the provinces of the empire, and that a part would be rent away, but it would not have occurred that it would be so rent that the whole would pass under the dominion of a foreign power. Josephus (“Ant.” b. x. ch. xi. Section 3) says, that the word “Phares in the Greek tongue means a “fragment,” κλασμα klasma - God will, therefore, break thy kingdom in pieces, and divide it among the Medes and Persians.”

Thy kingdom is divided - That is, the proper interpretation of this communication is, that the kingdom is about to be rent asunder, or broken into fragments. It is to be separated or torn from the dynasty that has ruled over it, and to be given to another.175

And given to the Medes and Persians - On this united kingdom, see the notes at Isa_13:17. It was “given” to the Medes and Persians when it was taken by Cyrus, and when the kingdom of Babylon became extinct, and thenceforward became a part of the Medo-Persian empire. See the notes at Isa_13:17, Isa_13:19.

GILL, "PERES,.... The singular of "Pharsin", Dan_5:25. The sense of this word is, thy kingdom is divided: which, though it consisted of various provinces, united under Belshazzar, now should be broken and separated from him: and given to the Medes and Persians; to Darius the Mede, and to Cyrus the Persian, who was a partner for a while with his uncle Darius in the government of the empire: there is an elegant play on words in the words "Peres" and "Persians"; and a grievous thing it is to sinners, not only to have body and soul divided at death, but to be divided and separated from God to all eternity; and to hear that sentence, "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels".

JAMISON, "Peres — the explanation of “dividers” (Dan_5:25), the active participle plural there being used for the passive participle singular, “dividers” for “divided.” The word “Peres” alludes to the similar word “Persia.”

divided — namely, among the Medes and Persians [Maurer]; or, “severed” from thee [Grotius].CALVIN, "The word פרס, Pheres, is added, for the word Phersin, meaning his kingdom was divided among the Medes and Persians. I have no doubt that by this word God signified the dispersion of the Monarchy which was at hand. When, therefore, he says Upharsin, and they shall divide, it signifies the instability of the Monarchy, since he wished to destroy or utterly abolish it. But the Prophet alludes very appositely to the division made between the Medes and Persians; and thus his disgrace was increased by the Babylonians being compelled to serve many masters. This is indeed a grave and serious disgrace, when a people has obtained a wide and extensive empire, to be afterwards conquered and subjected to the yoke of a single master; but when it suffers under two masters, then the indignity is greatly increased. So Daniel here shews how God’s wrath was complicated in the destruction of the monarch of Babylon, since it added to the severity of their punishment, to be subdued by both Medes and Persians. The city, indeed, was truly taken by the valor and industry of Cyrus; but since Cyrus admitted his father-in-law to the great honor of allowing him to partake of the royal authority, hence the Medes and Persians are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was properly no division of the kingdom. Cyrus afterwards engaged in other expeditions, as he was led away by his insatiable avarice and ambition. But Darius, as we shall afterwards see, died at the age of sixty years, dwelt quietly at home, and it is very well known that he was a Mede; and if we may believe the majority of historians, his sister, the mother of Cyrus, had been banished to Persia, in consequence of the oracle concerning the fortune and greatness of Cyrus. Since his

176

grandfather had exposed him, he afterwards avenged the injury, yet, not so cruelly as to take his life,-for he desired him to retain some dignity, and hence appointed him a satrap. But his son afterwards reigned over the Medes, with the full permission of Cyrus, who next married his daughter; and thus, on account of this relationship, and through the influence of this new alliance, he wished to have him as a partner in the empire. In this sense, then, Daniel narrates the division of the Monarchy to be at hand, since the Medes and the Persians should divide it among them. It follows, —COKE, "Daniel 5:28. The Medes and Persians— The kingdom of the Medes seems to have been but of short duration: it probably had its name of Media from מדיMadi, the third son of Japhet; but its first establishment into a kingdom is dated about 150 years before the reign of Cyrus. Sir Isaac Newton reckons up only five kings. Herodotus (lib. 1:) tells us, the first was Dejoces, a man of great prudence, and who reigned a long time. Phraortes his son succeeded him, whom Calmet judges to have been the Arphaxad of the book of Judith, but Prideaux is of a different opinion: see Conn. p. 1: b. 1. This monarch was followed by Cyaxares, a prince who widely extended the empire over Asia, and left it to his son Astyages, the father, according to Xenophon, of Cyaxares the second, or Darius Medus. Pliny, in his Nat. Hist. p. 100., settles the geography of Media in this manner: it had the Caspians and the Parthians on the east, the Lower Assyria, called Sitacene, Susiana, and Persis, on the south; on the west Adiabene or the middle parts of Assyria, that is to say, Diarbek; and Armenia on the north. Virgil, in his 2nd Georg. calls it "ditissima terra," a most fertile country, and celebrates it for the production of the Malum Medicum or the Citron. Polybius also, lib. 5:, takes notice of its great abundance in corn and cattle, and of a multitude of cities and towns in the plains amid the mountains which divide it from east to west. Its capital Ecbatane was a very spacious and opulent city, which the Persian kings used for a summer-residence; and is said to have been fifteen miles in circumference, to have had walls seventy cubits high, and fifty broad. Judith, chap. Daniel 1:2. This place is also much noticed in the book of Tobit, as where his son Tobias was married, to which he retired from Nineveh, and ended his days in it.Persia, whose capital is Persepolis, situated on the south of Media, gives name to the gulph below, which receives the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. It consisted of three parts, Persis, Elymais, from whence the Elamites of Scripture, and Susiana, unless the latter should be considered as a distinct region, having had Susa for its capital. But Susiana was added to Persia by Cyaxares the first. This whole tract, together with Media and Assyria or Babylon, as also Lydia and other countries, were all united under Cyrus, who was the first monarch of this Persian empire, as Darius Codomannus was the fourteenth and last.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:28 PERES Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

177

Ver. 28. PERES thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes.] This had been long before prophesied, Isaiah 13:17; yea, Genesis 9:25; and now Ham’s posterity felt his father’s curse. Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, came of Ham, Madai or the Medes were of Japhet, and Elam or the Persians of Shem. God’s forbearances are no acquittances. Let all wicked ones look to it. What is Mene but death? Tekel but judgment? Peres but hell or utter separation from God? and all to be passed through by their poor souls if timely course be not taken. Hear this, all ye drunkards, who glory in drinking the three outs &c.

29 Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

BARNES, "Then commanded Belshazzar - In compliance with his promise, Dan_5:16. Though the interpretation had been so fearful in its import, and though Daniel had been so plain and faithful with him, yet he did not hesitate to fulfill his promise. It is a remarkable instance of the result of fidelity, that a proud monarch should have received such a reproof, and such a prediction in this manner, and it is an encouragement to us to do our duty, and to state the truth plainly to wicked men. Their own consciences testify to them that it is the truth, and they will see the truth so clearly that they cannot deny it.

And they clothed Daniel with scarlet ... - All this, it would seem, was transacted in a single night, and it has been made an objection, as above remarked, to the authenticity of the book, that such events are said to have occurred in so short a space of time, and that Daniel should have been so soon clothed with the robes of office. On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I. II. In respect to the latter part of the objection, it may be here further remarked, that it was not necessary to “fit” him with a suit of clothes made expressly for the occasion, for the loose, flowing robes of the Orientals were as well adapted to one person as another, and in the palaces of kings such garments were always on hand. See Harmer’s “Observations on the East,” vol. ii. 392, following. Compare Rosenmuller, “Morgenland, in loc.”That he should be the third ruler ... - See the notes at Dan_5:7.

178

CLARKE, "Clothed Daniel with scarlet - argevana, more probably with ארגונאpurple. The gold chain about the neck was an emblem of magisterial authority. It is often thus mentioned in Scripture.

GILL, "Then commanded Belshazzar,.... As soon as he had heard the writing read and interpreted; instead of being full of wrath, as might have been expected, he orders the reward promised to be given, to show he had a regard to his word and honour, as a king; and to secure his credit with his nobles and people; and perhaps he might not understand, by Daniel's interpretation, that the destruction of him and his kingdom was so near at hand as it was; or he might put this evil day far from him, and hope it might be prevented: and they clothed Daniel with scarlet; the king's servants by his orders: or, that they should clothe Daniel with scarlet (a); these were his orders; but whether executed is not certain; probably not, since the king was slain the same night; and so the rest of the clauses may be read, and should put a chain of gold about his neck, and should make proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom; all which was the reward promised to him that should read and interpret the writing, Dan_5:7, but that this was done, the king's death being so sudden, does not appear; and therefore it is needless to inquire the reasons of Daniel's acceptance after his refusal. HENRY, "One would have thought that Belshazzar would be exasperated against Daniel, and, seeing his own case desperate, would be in a rage against him. But he was so far convicted by his own conscience of the reasonableness of all he said that he objected nothing against it; but, on the contrary, gave Daniel the reward he promised him, put on him the scarlet gown and the gold chain, and proclaimed him the third ruler in the kingdom (Dan_5:29), because he would be as good as his word, and because it was not Daniel's fault if the exposition of the hand-writing was not such as he desired. Note, Many show great respect to God's prophets who yet have no regard to his word. Daniel did not value these titles and ensigns of honour, yet would not refuse them, because they were tokens of his prince's good-will: but we have reason to think that he received them with a smile, foreseeing how soon they would all wither with him that bestowed them. They were like Jonah's gourd, which came up in a night and perished in a night, and therefore it was folly for him to be exceedingly glad of them.JAMISON, "

K&D, "Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing.Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading

and interpreting the writing. והלבשו is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe, - this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. Dan_2:49), - but: and they clothed him. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the

179

kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to Dan_5:30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar's successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel's interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel's elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by Dan_6:2 (1).Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.

(Note: ”Non mirum, si Baltasar audiens tristia, solverit praemium quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura quae dixerat, aut dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.” - Jerome.)The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (Dan_5:17), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.

CALVIN, "This order of the king may excite surprise, since he had been so sharply reproved by the Prophet. He next seemed to have lost all spirit, for he had grown pale a hundred times, and would have devoted the holy Prophet of God to a thousand deaths! How happens it, then, that he ordered him to be adorned with royal apparel, and next to be proclaimed by his own herald the third person in the kingdom? Some think this was done because the laws of kings were sacred among

180

the Babylonians; nay, their very words were held as binding, and whatever they proclaimed, they desired it to be esteemed firm and inviolable. They suppose King Belshazzar to have acted thus through ambition, that he might keep his promises. My opinion is, that he was at first utterly astonished, and through listening to the Prophet he became like a stock or a stone! I think he did so to consult his own ease and safety; otherwise he would have been contemptible to his nobles. To shew himself unmoved, he commands Daniel to be clothed in these robes, as if his threat had been perfectly harmless. He did not despise what the Prophet had said, but he wished to persuade his nobles and all his guests of his perfect indifference to God’s threats, as if he did not utter them for the purpose of executing them, but only of terrifying them all. Thus kings, when greatly terrified, are always exceedingly careful not to shew any sign of their timidity, since they think their authority would become materially weakened. To continue, therefore, his reverence among his subjects, he is desirous of appearing exceedingly careless and undisturbed; and I do not hesitate to pronounce this to have been the tyrant’s intention in ordering Daniel to be clad in purple and in royal magnificence.

COFFMAN, ""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 REWARDEDAccording 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.

COKE, "Daniel 5:29. They clothed Daniel— The clothing of Daniel with scarlet was an honour of a different kind from that mentioned, chap. Daniel 2:46. We have no custom of this kind. Persons receive favours of various sorts from princes; but the coming out from their presence in a different dress, is not an honour in use among us, though it is still practised in the East. Some doubt, however, may be made

181

concerning the precise intention of thus clothing him; whether it was the investing him with the dignity of the third ruler of the kingdom, by putting on him the dress belonging to that office; or whether it was a distinct honour; the modern customs of the East not determining this point, because caffetans, or robes, are at this day put on people with both views. Thus Norden, speaking of one of the Arab princes of Upper Egypt, says, that he had received at Girge the caffetan of the bey, which was the only mark of respect they paid there at that time to the Turkish government, force deciding between the competitors who should have the dignity, and he that was sent to Girge being absolutely to be vested with the caffetan by the bey. But then we find too, that these caffetans are given merely as an honour, and not as an ensign of office. La Roque tells us, that he himself received it at Sidon, and three other attendants on the French consul, along with the consul himself, who, upon a particular occasion, waited on Ishmael the basha of that place. Agreeable to which, Thevenot tells us, that he saw an ambassador from the Great Mogul come out from an audience that he had of the Grand Signior with a vest of cloth of gold upon his back, a caffetan of which sort of stuff thirty of his retinue also had: and elsewhere he observes, that he saw one hundred and eight of the retinue of an Egyptian bey thus honoured along with their master, by a bashaw of that country. But if it should be indeterminate whether this scarlet vestment was merely the dress belonging to the office with which Daniel was dignified, or a distinct honour, it is by no means uncertain whether it was put upon him or not, since these caffetans are always in readiness in the East, and are wont immediately to be put on: contrary to the sentiments of Lowth, who supposes in his commentary on the place, that though the king thought himself bound to perform the promise of the 16th verse, yet that it was likely it could not take effect at that unseasonable time of the night, and therefore that the words might have been better translated, "Then commanded Belshazzar, that they should clothe Daniel with scarlet." This is certainly an unnecessary refinement. See Observation, p. 278.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and [put] a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.Ver. 29. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel.] No nay, but they would do it; and he at length admitted it, partly that he might not seem to slight the king’s courtesy and to be disaffected, and partly that thereby he might be the better known to the Persians for the comfort of God’s poor people.And put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation, &c.] All this the king commanded to be done, out of an admiration of Daniel’s divine wisdom, and that he might be dicti sui dominus, as good as his word; but not a word hear we of his repentance, such was his stupidity; nor doth Daniel exhort him to it, because he saw him to be past feeling, and knew that the decree was gone forth.

182

POOLE 29-31, "Verse 29Though it were a sad unwelcome message to him, yet he would be as good as his word, and performed his promise; for his princes were witnesses to it, and the word of those kings was counted sacred; besides, it was a great thing that Daniel had unfolded, all were convinced of it as well as the king.Quest. But how comes Daniel to accept that now, which he seemed to refuse before, Daniel 5:17?Answ. He refused before lest he should seem to prophesy for reward, which was dishonourable; now it is as it were forced upon him, for the king commanded it, and there is as much danger and crime with some in refusing a favour as boldness in begging.Verse 30Which the heathen histories do also confirm. This shows the severity of God’s judgment against the highest offenders, Psa 2$ Psa 90$ Psa 149$ Hosea 10:7. It also confirms the truth of God’s threatenings, and of the hand-writing, as Daniel interpreted. Some are sad instances of God’s veracity.Verse 31There were two of this name, one called the Mede, another Darius called Persian. This in the text was he that with Cyrus besieged and took Babylon; he gave himself the name Darius, being before called Nabonnedus. He was chief in the siege, and first in the quarrel against the Chaldees.PETT, "Verse 29‘Then Belshazzar commanded and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler of the kingdom.’Belshazzar was faithful to his oath. He gave Daniel all the honours that he had promised, and his status was proclaimed within the banqueting hall where were gathered the leading lords of the realm, together with the wise men called earlier. He probably did not realise quite how soon the prophecy would be fulfilled, for while Belshazzar and his lords sang on, celebrating Daniel’s appointment as men will, Cyrus’ general Ugbaru was unknown to them diverting the river Euphrates that ran through Babylon into an ancient lake, so that his soldiers could enter the city along the partly dried up river bed. The city was taken almost without a fight. The Persians were in fact probably welcomed by the priests of Marduk who were sick and tired of their god being largely ignored, and the people woke up to find them in charge of the city.

183

PULPIT, "Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. The Septuagint runs thus: "Then Baltasar the king clothed Daniel in purple, and put on him a golden necklace, and gave authority to him over a third part of his kingdom." The only difference here is that there is no word of a proclamation. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. We have תלתא here instead of תלתי. The presence of the haphel form instead of the aphel, is to be noted. No reader whose attention is directed to it can fail to be struck with the magnanimity of Belshazzar; he had promised that whoever would interpret the inscription should be clothed in purple and gold, and be made third ruler of the kingdom. Had he been a mean man, he might have higgled about the matter; he might have declared an uncertainty as to whether Daniel did not, out of his spite against the murderers of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, invent the evil interpretation. The treatment Ahab meted out to Micaiah the son of Imlah sows the way a tyrannical monarch may a-t towards one who has uttered unpalatable prophecies against him. He might, according to the Persian story, have proclaimed Daniel exalted to all the promised honors, and then instantly had him executed. But, no; in noble simplicity he fulfils his promise to the last letter, without any apparent after-thought of vengeance. If Belshazzar is intended to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, certainly the portrait is singularly unlike anything we know of that monarch. Cruel and. treacherous, he was very unlikely to keep such a promise to one who had made such a prophecy concerning him. Even if lie could have done so, no Jew, with blood boiling from the indignities and cruelties heaped upon the Jewish race, could have pictured him doing this. Even the natural instinct that makes us think that specially terrible misfortune must be the result of specially unbroken wickedness, would certainly have led the writer of Daniel, if drawing on his imagination, to make Belshazzar meanly refuse his rewards, or, having given them, to threaten the receiver with death. It is no answer to say, with Ewald and Jephet-ibn-Ali. that the reward once promised was irrevocable, for the accuracy of the reading of the writing might have been contested, and the correctness of the interpretation denied. Further, as has been pointed out by Keil, there is no evidence that Epiphanes ever desecrated the sacred vessels at a banquet; he was regardless enough to have done so, but his financial necessities were too pressing for delaying the coining of these golden treasures. Moreover, in Antiochus such desecration would be without purpose, whereas, as we have seen, there might be a purpose in the action of Belshazzar. The idea maintained by commentators of the critical school, that there in any reference in the description given here of the feast of Belshazzar and its results to the feast which Antiochus gave to the peel,In of Antioch, as described by Polybius, 26; is mere nonsense. The ponts of contrast are vastly more prominent than the points of resemblance. Belshazzar's feast is over in one night; Antiochus's feast lasted several days. Belshazzar's feast was given in his palace, to "a thousand of his lords;" Antiochus invited the whole populace of Antioch to revel in the grove of Daphne. While, as we have seen, there is blasphemy against Jehovah and defiance of him in Belshazzar's feast, there in no kind of debauchery. In regard to the feast of Antiochus, on the other hand, while there is maddest excess of every kind, a very orgy of lust and drunkenness, there is no word,

184

either in Polybius or in the Books of the Maccabees, of any special act of defiance to Jehovah, or blasphemy of his Name. The only point of identity is that both the banquet of Belshazzar and the orgy of Antiochus have been called "feasts." Altogether, the idea that Belshazzar represents Antiochus Epiphanes is nearly as absurd as that Nebuchadnezzar does. Did the orthodox interpretation involve such an identification, what boundless scorn would be poured on the unfortunate maintainers of such a view?

30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians,[h] was slain,

BARNES, "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain -On the taking of Babylon, and the consequences, see the notes at Isa_13:17-22; Isa_45:1-2. The account which Xenophon (“Cyrop.” vii. s.) gives of the taking of Babylon. and of the death of the king - though without mentioning his name, agrees so well with the statement here, that it may be regarded as a strong confirmation of its correctness. After describing the preparation made to take the city by draining off the waters of the Euphrates, so as to leave the channel dry beneath the walls for the amy of Cyrus, and after recording the charge which Cyrus gave to his generals Gadatas and Gobryas, he adds, “And indeed those who were with Gobryas said that it would not be wonderful if the gates of the palace should be found open, “as the whole city that night seemed to be given up to revelry” ὥς ἐν κώμῳ γὰρ δοκεῖ ἡ πόλις πᾶσα εἶναι τῇδε τῇ νυκτί hōs enkōmō gar dokei hē polis pasa einai tēde tē nukti.

He then says that as they passed on, after entering the city, “of those whom they encountered, part being smitten died, part fled again back, and part raised a clamor. But those who were with Gobryas also raised a clamor as if they also joined in the revelry, and going as fast as they could, they came soon to the palace of the king. But those who were with Gobryas and Gadatas being arrayed, found the gates of the palace closed, but those who were appointed to go against the guard of the palace fell upon them when drinking before a great light, and were quickly engaged with them in hostile combat. Then a cry arose, and they who were within having asked the cause of the tumult, the king commanded them to see what the affair was, and some of them rushing out opened the gates. As they who were with Gadatas saw the gates open, they rushed in, and pursuing those who attempted to return, and smiting them, they came to the king, and 185

they found him standing with a drawn sabre - ἀκινάκην akinakēn And those who were with Gadatas and Gobryas overpowered him, ἐχειροῦντο echeirounto - and those who were with him were slain - one opposing, and one fleeing, and one seeking his safety in the best way he could. And Cyrus sent certain of his horsemen away, and commanded that they should put to death those whom they found out of their dwellings, but that those who were in their houses, and could speak the Syriac language, should be suffered to remain, but that whosoever should be found without should be put to death.

“These things they did. But Gadatas and Gobryas came up; and first they rendered thanks to the gods because they had taken vengeance on the impious king - ὅτι τετιμωρημένοι ἦσαν τὸν ἀνόσιον βασιλέα hoti tetimōrēmenoi ēsan ton anosion basilea. Then they kissed the hands and feet of Cyrus, weeping with joy and rejoicing. When it was day, and they who had the watch over the towers learned that the city was taken, and “that the king was dead” - τὸν βασιλέα τεθνηκότα ton basilea tethnēkota - they also surrendered the towers.” These extracts from Xenophon abundantly confirm what is here said in Daniel respecting the death of the king, and will more than neutralize what is said by Berosus. See Intro. to the chapter, Section II.

CLARKE, "In that night was Belshazzar - slain - Xenophon says, he was dispatched by two lords, Gadatas and Gobrias, who went over to Cyrus, to avenge themselves of certain wrongs which Belshazzar had done them. We have already seen that Cyrus entered the city by the bed of the Euphrates, which he had emptied, by cutting a channel for the waters, and directing them into the marshy country.

GILL, "In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain. Not by a servant of his own, as Jacchiades; or by an eunuch, one of his guards, as Saadiah and Joseph ben Gorion (b); but by Gadales and Gobryas, who led Cyrus's army up the river Euphrates into the city of Babylon, its course being turned; the inhabitants of which being revelling and rioting, and the gates open, these men went up to the king's palace; the doors of which being opened by the king's orders to know what was the matter, they rushed in, and finding him standing up with his sword drawn in his own defence, they fell upon him, and slew him, and all about him, as Xenophon (c) relates; and this was the same night the feast was, and the handwriting was seen, read, and interpreted. This was after a reign of seventeen years; for so Josephus says (d), that Baltasar or Belshazzar, in whose reign Babylon was taken, reigned seventeen years; and so many years are assigned to him in Ptolemy's canon; though the Jewish chronicle (e) allows him but three years, very wrongly, no more of his reign being mentioned in Scripture: see Dan_7:1. His death, according to Bishop Usher (f), Mr. Whiston (g), and Mr. Bedford (h), was in the year of the world 3466 A.M., and 538 B.C. Dean Prideaux (i) places it in 539 B.C. HENRY, "30-31, "Here is, 1. The death of the king. Reason enough he had to tremble, for he was just falling into the hands of the king of terrors, Dan_5:30. In that night,when his heart was merry with wine, the besiegers broke into the city, aimed at the palace; there they found the king, and gave him his death's wound. He could not find any place so secret as to conceal him, or so strong as to protect him. Heathen writers speak

186

of Cyrus's taking Babylon by surprise, with the assistance of two deserters that showed him the best way into the city. And it was foretold what a consternation it would be to the court, Jer_51:11, Jer_51:39. Note, Death comes as a snare upon those whose hearts are overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. 2. The transferring of the kingdom into other hands. From the head of gold we now descend to the breast and arms of silver. Darius the Mede took the kingdom in partnership with, and by the consent of, Cyrus, who had conquered it, Dan_5:31. They were partners in war and conquest, and so they were in dominion, Dan_6:28. Notice is taken of his age, that he was now sixty-two years old, for which reason Cyrus, who was his nephew, gave him the precedency. Some observe that being now sixty-two years old, in the last year of the captivity, he was born in the eighth year of it, and that was the year when Jeconiah was carried captive and all the nobles, etc. See 2Ki_24:13-15. Just at that time when the most fatal stroke was given was a prince born that in process of time should avenge Jerusalem upon Babylon, and heal the wound that was now given. Thus deep are the counsels of God concerning his people, thus kind are his designs towards them.JAMISON, "Herodotus and Xenophon confirm Daniel as to the suddenness of the

event. Cyrus diverted the Euphrates into a new channel and, guided by two deserters, marched by the dry bed into the city, while the Babylonians were carousing at an annual feast to the gods. See also Isa_21:5; Isa_44:27; Jer_50:38, Jer_50:39; Jer_51:36. As to Belshazzar’s being slain, compare Isa_14:18-20; Isa_21:2-9; Jer_50:29-35; Jer_51:57

CALVIN, "Here Daniel shortly relates how his prophecy was fulfilled that very night. As we have before explained it, a customary feast-day had occurred which the Babylonians celebrated annually, and on this occasion the city was betrayed by two satraps, whom Xenophon calls Gobryas and Gadatas. On this passage the Rabbis display both their impudence and ignorance; as, according to their usual habit, they babble with audacity about what they do not understand. They say the king was stabbed, because one of his guards heard the Prophet’s voice, and wished to execute that heavenly judgment; as if the sentence of God depended upon the will of a single heathen! We must pass by these puerile trifles and cling to the truth of history; for Belshazzar was seized in his own banqueting-room, when he was grossly intoxicated, with his nobles and concubines. Meanwhile, we must observe God’s wonderful kindness towards the Prophet. He was not in the slightest danger, as the rest were. He was clad in purple, and scarcely an hour had passed when the Medes and Persians entered the city. He could scarcely have escaped in the tumult, unless God had covered him with the shadow of his hand. We see, then, how God takes care of his own, and snatches us from the greatest dangers, as if he were bringing us from the tomb. There is no doubt that the holy Prophet was much agitated amidst the tumult, for he was not without sensibility. (278) But he ought to be thus exercised to cause him to acknowledge God as the faithful guardian of his life, and to apply himself more diligently to his worship, since he saw nothing preferable to casting all his cares upon him! COFFMAN, ""In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old."

187

THE PROPHECY FULFILLEDDarius 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!

COKE, "Daniel 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar—slain— He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revels. Xenophon relates the history thus: Two deserters, Gadatas and Gobrias, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards and seize upon the palace, entered the room where the king was, whom they found in a posture of defence; but they soon dispatched him and his attendants. See Xenoph. Cyropaed. lib. 7: and Bishop Chandler's Vindication, p. 17, 18 where the Bishop observes, that the ancient historians agree with Daniel as to the main of his history, and one or other of them confirm every part of it.The punishment of Nebuchadnezzar, the death of Belshazzar, and the expiration of the kingdom, may serve to remind us of that fine passage of the wise son of Sirach, which I shall transcribe from the tenth chapter of the book of Ecclesiasticus. "The beginning of pride is, when one departeth from God, and his heart is turned away from his Maker. For pride is the beginning of sin, and he that hath it shall pour out abomination. The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead. The Lord hath plucked up the roots of the proud nations, and planted the lowly in their places. The Lord overthrew countries of the heathen, and hath made their memorial to cease from the earth. Pride was not made for men, nor furious anger for them that are born of a woman."

188

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.Ver. 30. In that night was Belshazzar … slain.] By Gaddatha and Gobrya, two of Cyrus’s commanders, who had been wronged by Belshazzar (as Xenophon (a) also testifieth), and now took revenge on him, after that they had betrayed the city, and brought in Cyrus’s army. So fell that famous Babylon: fuit Ilium et inyen, gloria Teucrorum.

SIMEON, "BELSHAZZAR’S DEATHDaniel 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.“KNOWN unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” We speak of things as fortuitous and contingent, because we see not the hand by which they are directed; but, in reality, there is nothing contingent, not even the falling of a sparrow: “the very hairs of our head are all numbered.” Sometimes it has pleased God to make known, beforehand, events, which depended entirely upon the free will of man; while at the same time they were as infallibly foreseen by him as if man had been a mere machine, without the smallest exercise of choice or inclination. Such were the events which facilitated or attended the destruction of the Babylonish empire. It was optional with Belshazzar whether he would make a feast for his lords, and drink to excess: and it was optional with Cyrus what moment he should seize for making his attack upon the city: but all was foretold by God, with a minuteness and precision which proclaim at once the omniscience of the Deity, and the dependence of all things upon his sovereign will [Note: Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:39; Jeremiah 51:57.]. The event before us had long before been proclaimed by the voice of inspiration: and it will be profitable for us to consider,I. The time of Belshazzar’s death—In the words, “that night,” there is an emphasis which must not be overlooked. It was the night,1. Of his feasting—[He had “made a feast for a thousand of his lords.” We mean not to condemn all feasts: for our blessed Lord himself repeatedly vouchsafed to be present at a feast. But the generality of “banquetings,” and “revellings, and such like” are among those works of the flesh, “which they who do, shall not inherit the kingdom of God [Note: Galatians 5:21.].” Of this kind was Belshazzar’s feast; at which he gave himself up to mirth, and banished all thoughts of death from his mind.What an awful thing to be taken at such a moment! Yet how many are there, who, if not slain like him, yet are called away from the midst of the cares or pleasures of this life as unprepared as he! It was so at the time of the Deluge: it will be so at the

189

end of the world: and it is so yet daily and hourly [Note: Matthew 24:37-39.]. “The foolish virgins” greatly out-number those who are wise; and have their oil to seek when the Bridegroom’s arrival is announced. “They are saying, Peace, peace; till sudden destruction cometh upon them as a thief in the night, or as travail on a woman with child [Note: 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.].” The Lord grant it may never be so with us!]2. Of his impiety—[Feasting and impiety are not unfrequently associated. The generality of men seem to think that they cannot enjoy any comfort in social converse, unless they give way to excess, and banish decency and religion from their presence. Belshazzar could not be content with the pleasure which this feast afforded, but he must openly pour contempt on God, and set him at defiance. Accordingly, he ordered the sacred vessels, which his grandfather had taken from the temple at Jerusalem, to be brought forth for the use of himself and his wives and concubines; and then celebrated his gods as superior to Jehovah, over whom (as it should seem) they had triumphed. This completed the measure of his iniquities, and drew down upon him “the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple [Note: Notea.]” Perhaps we may think the crime and the punishment uncommon: but neither the one nor the other is at all uncommon. What are the songs that are usually sung at feasts, but songs in honour of Bacchus and Venus, the heathen patrons of riot and debauchery? What are the toasts or sentiments, in commendation of which the wine is poured out and drunk? what, but a tissue of lewdness and profaneness? And how often do they who engage in such scenes, come to an untimely end! One falls from his horse; another is overturned in a carriage; another run over by a cart; another is drowned; another is killed in an affray. We call these things accidents: but if an inspired prophet were sent to declare the truth, we should find them “the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple.”And may not we look back to some day, or some night, when God might have cut us off as it were, to advantage, if not in a state of riot and intoxication, yet in some other state equally displeasing to him? O let us call to mind those seasons; and adore his name, that “in that night” we were not summoned, with all our iniquities upon us, to give account of ourselves at his judgment-seat!]3. Of his warning—[While Belshazzar was indulging in his impious revels, he saw a hand writing upon the wall of the room wherein he sat. Terrified beyond measure at so strange a sight, he called for all his magicians and astrologers to read and explain the words. None of them being able to explain the writing, Daniel was sent for: and he, by Divine inspiration, declared the sentence which God had thus visibly proclaimed. On any other occa-sion, if we may judge from the neglect into which Daniel had fallen, Belshazzar would have fiercely resented the faithfulness with which this prophet of the Lord had denounced his doom: but his terror had softened him for a moment;

190

yet not so softened him as to produce any genuine repentance in his heart. He ordered the promised reward to be given to Daniel; but we do not find that he humbled himself before God, or uttered one prayer for mercy. Scarcely was the warning explained to him, but it was executed on him, and on all his dissolute companions. Yes; “in that night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain.” As his royalty did not save him, so neither did his terror obtain for him one moment’s respite. He heard, he trembled, he died. He had seen (as Daniel told him) the judgments that had been executed on Nebuchadnezzar, his grandfather; and yet had not profited by that warning, or humbled himself before the God of heaven: now therefore the warning and the judgment came together: nor was any further space given him for repentance.How differently has God acted hitherto towards us! Many are the warnings which we have slighted; and yet, behold, we live! — — — But how soon his patience may come to an end, and a termination be put to our day of grace, who can tell? — — —]Such was the season when this unhappy monarch was called into the presence of his Judge. Let us next consider,II. The instruction to he gathered from it—Surely we may learn from this,1. Not to provoke the Lord to jealousy—[It matters not whether, with Belshazzar, we “praise gods of wood and stone,” or whether we “set up idols in our hearts:” in either case, God is dethroned; and “other lords besides him have dominion over us.” And shall we think lightly of our guilt, while in such a state as this? or shall we imagine that God regards it with indifference? No: “he is a jealous God: his very name is Jealous [Note: Exodus 34:14.]:” and “his glory will he not give,” or allow to be given “to another.” Look then within your own bosoms, ye who are so addicted to the pursuits of this life as scarcely to have any time or inclination for reading the Scriptures and for secret prayer; ye whose feelings are quickly roused when your honour or your interest are at stake, and yet are unconcerned about the honour of God or the interests of your souls; look, I say, within, and see whether God has not reason to be jealous of you; and whether he might not justly destroy you instantly with fire, as he did Nadab and Abihu; or cause the earth to swallow you up quick, as he did to Korah and his rebellious associates? Do not imagine that you are innocent, because you do not follow the practices of Belshazzar: see whether you be not living in his spirit; and whether you are not despising God in your heart, as much as he did in his actions; and idolizing the world in your heart, as much as he did his fictitious deities in his drunken carousals? And know, that though your idolatry is less gross than his, it involves you in deeper guilt, in proportion as the meridian light of the Gospel transcends the darkness of Heathen superstition.]

191

2. Not to despise the warnings you receive—[You have not a hand-writing visibly on the wall: but have you not other warnings, equally legible, on every side? How many are cut off around you, some old, some young, and some in the prime of life! How many sudden deaths take place, or, if not sudden in respect of time, yet unexpected by the persons themselves [Note: If this be preached as a New-Year’s Discourse, the last year may be represented as dead, or as cut off from our short span of life, which therefore is proportionably contracted.]! Are the disorders which you see or feel, no warnings? But you have a hand-writing, yea, the hand-writing of God himself; you may see it in the Scriptures of truth: there you may see written, as with a sun-beam, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin:” to you it speaks: your days are numbered, and nearly finished: you are weighed in a balance, and found wanting: and all hope of enjoying the kingdom of heaven will be quickly taken from you, if you do not turn unto God with your whole hearts. God says to you, “My son, give me thine heart:” any thing short of this will be to no purpose. O that you would now “open unto Him that knocketh at the door of your hearts;” and that “the long-suffering of God might now at last lead you to repentance!”]3. Not to delay the great work you have to do—[Whilst you are living at your ease, and putting the thoughts of death far from you, God may be saying, “Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee.” And O, how terrible would this be to the generality! To some indeed sudden death would be sudden glory: but to others how different! Herod made a feast; and, in compliance with his daughter’s request, gave her John Baptist’s head in a charger: yes, that night was John the Baptist slain. But how different was that night to John the Baptist and Belshazzar! The one went from a prison to a crown; the other from a palace to a lake of fire. Inquire, I pray you, how death would find you, if it should come this night: and if you are unprepared to meet it, O delay not one hour; give not sleep to your eyes, or slumber to your eye-lids, till you have obtained peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. “Converted you must be; or you can never enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Your “conscience must be sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus,” or your sins will infallibly plunge you into everlasting perdition. Seize then the fleeting hour. Adore your God that you have not been taken away, as thousands of your fellow-creatures have been, with all your sins upon you: and “to-day, while it is called to-day, harden not your heart;” lest like them you perish in impenitence and unbelief.]PETT, "Verse 30-31‘In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty two years old.’The king was probably slain in what fighting there was, along with many of his lords, but in general the Persians followed an enlightened principle of mercy in their

192

dealings with captured peoples and encouraged them in the worship of their own gods, thanks to Cyrus himself, which was why in all probability they were welcomed by the priests of Marduk.‘Darius the Mede’. There is no suggestion here that he was king of a separate Medan empire at the same time as Cyrus. It simply tells us that he was a Mede (and in Daniel 9:1 even more emphatically ‘of the seed of the Medes’). The so-called ‘Medan empire’ of Daniel is an invention of scholars out to prove a theory. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it has to be reached by ignoring the clear meaning of certain other passages.No Darius has been found in inscriptions connected with the new dawn of Babylon, but it is quite possible that he was known under another name and that Darius was a throne name. In meaning it is probably connected with the New Persian word Dara, meaning "king." Herodotus says that it means in Greek, Erxeies, coercitor, "restrainer," "compeller," "commander." We should note that the implication here is that this Darius succeeded to Belshazzar’s position as ‘melek of the Chaldeans’, and thus an under-king (compare Daniel 9:1). Belshazzar was not the sharru. Nabonidus was still alive.Various suggestions have been made. One is that it was a name taken on by Cyrus when he defeated the Medes, or by his son Cambyses, to cement his position over the Medes (but the latter was certainly not sixty two years old). Another is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), one of Cyrus’ generals, who was later appointed by Cyrus to rule Babylon. (Darius may not have ‘received the kingdom’ immediately). It has been suggested that Gubaru is possibly a translation of Darius. The same radical letters in Arabic mean "king," "compeller," "restrainer." This was a different man from Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium and Persian commander who led the assault against Babylon and died shortly afterwards, but we do not know how old Gubaru was.A connection with Cyrus could be supported by the fact that Cyrus was related to the Medes, was about sixty two years old when he conquered Babylon, and by the reading ‘in the reign of Darius, that is in the reign of Cyrus the Persian’ (Daniel 6:28). This latter could, however, also support the suggestion that it was Gubaru, revealing him as under-king to Cyrus. We should note in contrast that Darius II is called ‘Darius the Persian’ (Nehemiah 12:22) which may suggest that a ‘Darius the Mede’ was known historically to Nehemiah.Another explanation has been that Darius is another name for Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, who according to the Greek writer Xenophon was Cyrus’ uncle and father-in-law, and whom Cyrus might have retained temporarily as a figurehead king and have appointed over Babylon to please the Medes. It was captured by a Medan general.But there may well be here a figure we as yet no nothing about from inscriptions.

193

Daniel only refers to his first year (Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1) and then does not refer to him again for dating. He turns instead to reference to Cyrus (Daniel 10:1). This suggests that Darius may not have held the position for very long and would therefore be unlikely to be mentioned in inscriptions. His only claim to fame was his connection with Daniel.Interestingly in the Harran stele of Nabonidus mention is made of the ‘king of the Medes’ in 546 BC, four years after Cyrus became king of the Medo-Persian empire.

PULPIT, "Daniel 5:30In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain. The version of the LXX. is here very different, "And the interpretation came upon Belshazzar the king, and the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans, and given to the Medes and the Persians. There seems no possibility of connecting these two readings so that either should be shown to have come from the other. The Massoretic text, which is here supported by Theodotion and the Peshitta, is the shorter; but in this instance, as neither can have sprung from the other, Brevity has less probative force. If we look at the probability of the situation, we are compelled to accept the Septuagint reading. If the Massoretic reading had been the original, the dramatic completeness of the disaster, following with such rapidity on the back of the prophecy, would certainly have been preserved in every translation. Whereas the desire for this dramatic completeness might lead to the Massoretic verse being fabricated. Further, when we look at the events of the night, it seems impossible to place all of them in the short interval of one night. The feast had begun after sundown, for the lamps were lighted. It had already gone on some time ere Belshazzar thought of the vessels of the house of God. Then, in contempt of Jehovah, the guests sang praises to the gods of Babylon. it is after all this that the writing appears. There is next the calling of the wise men, who were in the vicinity of the palace. On their failure to explain the writing, the other wise men are summoned by proclamation; they assemble, essay the reading, and fail. The queen-mother comps—either is called, or, hearing the tumult, comes in herself—and tells Belshazzar of Daniel. Daniel is summoned, and reads the writing. Even if we maintain—although it does not seem the natural reading of the passage—that the proclamation of a reward to him who could read the writing followed immediately on the order to call in the astrologers and other wise men, still, it is difficult to imagine all the events, especially the summoning of all the wise men in Babylon by proclamation, and the finding out of Daniel and bringing him to the court, taking place in one night, and that in that very night was Belshazzar slain. On the other hand, the Septuagint makes no such demand on our belief. According to it, the prophecy was not so closely connected with its fulfilment. The feast recorded here may have taken place six, eight, or ten )ears before the actual fall of Babylon. We know that from his seventh year till some time between his eleventh and seventeenth year Nahunahid was in Tema. This feast might be the inauguration of Belshazzar's viceroyalty; in that case it would be nearly ten years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If that is so, the supposed contradiction

194

between this verse and Daniel 8:1 vanishes. We need only look at the various theories of who Belshazzar was. Niebuhr assumes it as a second name for Evil-Merodach—a view for which Keil has some sympathy. Niebuhr ingeniously combines the statement from Berosus, that his reign was ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς. This, however, might mean a favour for the Jews, shown by the special honour given to Jehoiachin—a thing which would be readily regarded by the Babylonians as "lawless and outrageous." lie maintains that the change of dynasty implied in Babylon was the assumption of the supremacy by Astyages the Mede, who, according to Niebuhr, is Darius the Mede. After one year's personal reign, he placed Neriglissar on the throne. This view is definitely contradicted by the contract tables, which have no reference to a reign between Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar. The other theory is that he is Labasi-Marduk. This view is maintained by Delitzsch and Ebrard. All of them assume the murder of the king the very night of the feast—a thing which is in the teeth of probability, and not supported by the Septuagint reading.BI, "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.The Last Night of BabylonI. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT HAD BEEN LONG THREATENED. Upwards of one hundred and sixty years before this, the taking of Babylon by Cyrus had been predicted. Ages before the deliverer was born, his very name is given and his work described (Isa_45:1-7). Up to the very hour the probability seemed against such an occurrence. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speodily,” sinners infer that it will never come. Come it must; the march of justice may be slow but her steps are resistless, and her movements punctual to the moment.II. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT WAS NOT AT ALL EXPECTED. This night began with a grand festival—a royal banquet. Perhaps, amidst the riot of the talk and jestings of that season, many a contemptuous joke was passed as to the futilities of all invading projects. They were the great nation, their city the great city, their armies the great armies—none like them; yet at this very hour, Cyrus, the officer of eternal justice, was at their door. Thus it was then, as it often has been, that, at the moment men cry peace and safety, that moment destruction arrives.III. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT ROUSED THE CONSCIENCE OF THE MONARCH TO AGONY ON ITS FIRST TOKEN. “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand,” etc. (v. 5, 6).IV. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT HAD TERRORS NO MORTAL COULD ALLAY.

1. He tried the wise men.2. He tried Daniel. Daniel gave him the meaning of the writing, but the meaning could afford him no consolation.

V. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS NIGHT SETTLED FOR EVER THE FATE OF ITS VICTIMS.1. The fate of Belshazzar was settled. He was slain.

195

2. The fate of the nation was settled. The empire of Babylon received its death blow. The Medo-Persian dynasty rose on its ruins. (Homilist.)

On PrideHuman historians, in the narration of events, are generally disposed to rest their narratives upon second causes. The scheme of a politician, the success of a battle, or the external resources of a people, appear to them sufficient to account for all the great revolutions by which this globe has been affected. The sacred historians express themselves in a more decided manner. Scripture makes the important discovery that moral causes are the ultimate ones, into which all others may be finally resolved. It appears to be the capital design of this singular book to convince mankind that there is a certain, though frequently an invisible connection between vice and misfortune. In recording the revolutions which happen in this world, they set down God for a principal part; and represent these revolutions as the necessary effects of His government. Placed at the head of the system, they uniformly represent Him as we would suppose a moral governor to be employed, distributing rewards, and inflicting punishments, according to their deserts, on men and nations. In discoursing, therefore, upon this subject, I shall begin with observing the causes, as they are related by the historian, which led this great king to his fall; I shall then make some observations upon the justice of his fate; and, lastly, shall consider at some length the nature of the vices themselves with which he is charged. The history of the royal house of Babylon is concise and affecting. It is a memorable instance of the danger of prosperity, and the instability of human greatness. The vices of Belshazzar were the vices of his family. The empire of the Chaldeans was brilliant, but of short duration. Like the plant of a kindly sun, it rose swiftly to its height, and as suddenly decayed. Had they but known how to use their greatness, it might have been prolonged. Power is like riches, and must be maintained by the same prudent management by which it was acquired. The Chaldean sovereign, at his entrance into public life, drew the attention of all mankind. Fired with the ambition of conquest, he passed from province to province, and extended his empire and his fame with a rapidity which had not been excelled. The Assyrian empire, ancient and extensive, first yielded to his force; and the Pharaohs of Egypt, as ancient and as powerful, who had marched, through numerous nations, to seek him on the banks of his own Euphrates, were repulsed and subdued. But he was then vigilant and active, and his people were laborious. There is something in the climates of the East which relaxes the mind, or renders it extravagant. Their air and situation produce the same effects on them as the power of an active imagination is supposed to do on other people. Hence it is that moderation is unknown in every situation, that adversity dejects their minds, and prosperity raises them far above their level. In proportion to these effects, more vigilance is requisite.Nebuchadnezzar had reached the summit of ambition, but what he gained in fame and power he seemed to lose in understanding. He forgot his first maxims of diligence and prudence, and became vain in his imagination. Such impiety and folly, though Heaven had not interposed, must have led him to destruction. The effect proceeded naturally from the cause, and has taken place without a miracle. But Heaven did interpose, in a manner so signal and terrible as might have left an impression upon remote posterity. This proud king was humbled, and reduced to moderation. He was driven raving to the forest, exposed to the rigours of Heaven, and mingled with the beasts whom he

196

resembled. Where was now great Babylon, which he had builded, for the house of his kingdom, by the might of his power, and for the honour of his majesty? One would be ready to conclude that so signal an event must have left an impression, not on himself alone, but his successors. It did leave an impression, but not on Belshazzar. The reason frequently why one man is not warned by the misfortunes of another is that he considers these misfortunes as proceeding from natural causes, and not as the effects of the Divine displeasure. We consider not that there is a necessary connection, even in this world, between certain vices and sufferings. This connection is in harmony with God, and forms part of His government of the world. Yet did not his successor profit by the admonition. Elated with his rise into royal life, his heart was distended with the same pride, and he even exceeded his predecessor. In this chapter we have a memorable instance of his impiety and extravagance. While the enemy lay ready to break in at his gates, he was feasting his lords, and wasted that time, and detained those hands, which were precious to their country, in debauchery and disorder. As an insult to the God of Heaven, he commanded to bring the vessels of His temple, and employed them in his carousals. Infatuated man! thou seest not the dangers with which thou art this moment surrounded. Yes, Heaven itself, to convince thee, frantic king! that there is a power superior to thine, and to let thee know from what quarter thy destruction cometh, sends a dreadful forerunner. In the middle of the stately banquet, when all is mirth and song—dreadful apparition!—a hand appears, visible, writing on the wall the doom of Babylon and itsunhappy monarch. Then their joy is damped, fear chills their blood, the king loses his courage at this dreadful sight, and his knees smote one against another. O vain terror! the decree is gone forth, and past recalling. The reverses of this world teach us a fatal truth, that repentance itself may arrive too late to save us. The minister of God, whom he had not thought of till the hour of danger, whom he had probably left to languish in obscurity and penury, is now sent for. But to what purpose? Unhappy monarch! not the minister of God, nor the winged ministers from Heaven themselves, can retard thy fate one moment. The prophet can but declare the will of Heaven, and retire in mourning. Yet like a drowning man, he collects his strength, and struggles against the torrent. He orders purple to be brought, and ornaments of gold, and vainly thinks that he may appease God by heaping honours upon his servant. Ah, Belshazzar! how unhappy is the man who cannot be taught but by his own misfortunes? Thy unhappy house, which would never be admonished, must at last fall. Experience, the great teacher, proceeds to his last experiment: “In that night was Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain.” After this history of the house of Babylon, and the fate of Belshazzar, the last of that line of princes, we proceed now to mark the wise lessons which these suggest; and we will do this by making some observations upon the justice of his fate, and then considering the nature of the vices he is charged with. I know not how it happens, but we feel it to be true, that the misfortunes of the great and happy affect and interest us more than the misfortunes of those who are placed in a humble station, and even sometimes than our own. Whether it be that the fall is greater, or that we imagine their feelings to be more exquisite, or whatever may be the cause, the effect is certain. I believe we entertain a mistaken notion of the happiness of the great. A crown is subject to many cares, and requires infinite circumspection. Kings have much to lose, and much to answer for. They are subject to great reverses, and their temptations to neglect, or desert their duty, are neither few nor easily resisted. Yet the happiness of thousands depends upon their conduct; and, when they fall, they involve nations in their ruin. But the fate of Belshazzar is not to be considered merely as the consequence of his own sincerity. It must be regarded chiefly as a punishment: from Heaven. “In that night,” the 197

night which he had rendered signal by his riot and impiety, “was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain.” With respect to the justice of his fate, I believe there is no man, if he consider the life of this unhappy king, who will not allow his punishment to be necessary. His daring impiety, his unbounded riot, were inconsistent with the serious cares of government, and marked a spirit which was past correction. Some of the vices which disgraced this monarch are hardly consistent with the humility of our situation; but the source from which they proceeded is common to us all. It was pride which overthrew him; a vice which is inspired by prosperity, and is found chiefly in weak minds, who are incapable of much reflection. From this proceeded in a train, security, debauchery, tyranny, and impiety; the most ruinous and disgraceful habits of the human mind, and the most offensive to the Supreme Being. It is no new observation that any man may bear adversity; but it is not every man, nor, indeed, many men, who can bear prosperity. It tends strongly to make men forget themselves, and become vain in their imaginations. What is history but a continued narrative of the vices of the prosperous? I would content myself here with only inferring, in general, that prosperity corrupts weak minds.” Unable to reason deeply, they ascribe their success to something in themselves; and, incapable of much foresight, they apprehend no reverse, and imagine it must last for ever. They are too vain to admit advice, and, at the same time, too weak to resist temptation. It shows, therefore, the wisdom and care of Providence, in the first place, that so few are necessarily in that situation; and, secondly, that, by a necessary train of events, these few are perpetually changed, and give place to others. Last of all, the afflictions of life themselves are an instance of the same care; because, however grievous they may be, they are well calculated to abase the pride of man, and recall him to a proper sense of himself, and of his own dependence. I proceed, then to consider the vice of pride, that vice which vitiates equally sovereigns and subjects. I shall begin by describing it, and obviating some apologies which have been made for it. All vice may, in general, be defined to be the excess or abuse of some passion, or of some natural sentiment. To animate us to well doing, various premiums are held out to us. One of those is the approbation of our own minds. When we act a proper part, we are satisfied with ourselves. It is for the same reason that we are pleased with praise from others. The applause of our own minds, whether it arises immediately from our own actions, or from the praise of others, is the result of virtue, and constitutes a very pleasing part of its reward. But this sentiment, like all the other sentiments and affections of our nature, may be vitiated. The pleasure we feel from well doing incites us to do well. The pleasure we receive from praise leads us to do things worthy of praise. Perhaps we may say that, in a state like this, even a small portion of conceit is necessary to keep us in good humour with ourselves. Hence it is that every man, generally speaking, even the meanest, values himself upon something or other. It is when our self-value, or self-complacence, becomes enormous or wrong directed, when it is either utterly disproportioned to its object, or founded upon improper objects, that it is vicious. It then becomes pride, and exhibits immediately the native characters of vice—folly and malignity. The transition from the virtue to the vice, in this case, as in all others, is easy. The complacence which we feel from our actions is first converted into a conceited opinion of ourselves as we are with what we have done, we begin to think there is some remarkable merit in it. We conceive, consequently, highly of ourselves, and think there must be something extraordinary about us. From this point, the folly becomes apparent. The passion we have conceived for ourselves, like all other passions which depend on fancy, multiplies itself fast, and is fed by everything it meets with. Having departed from the original sentiment, it comes at last no longer to resemble it. We bring materials from 198

all quarters to build our tower with. Accustomed to contemplate our own importance, we are at no loss for fancies to support it. Riches are one very common source of pride, and yet we may be vain of poverty. Titles are another, and yet we may despise titles. Praise is a third, and yet we may think ourselves above praise. We may even be vain of our humility. We may in short, be vain of anything, or of nothing. When we once take a fancy to ourselves, there is no defining it. The vice of pride is founded on weakness of intellect. It arises obviously from the want of knowing ourselves and our own state. Ignorance produces it, and want of capacity renders it incurable. A proper degree of knowledge moderates our ideas of all things, and of ourselves among the rest. If we cannot receive this knowledge, our folly is incurable. The weakest people, therefore, and the least informed, are always the most subject to this vice. A good deal also may be ascribed to education. Foolish parents make foolish children. There is something in this vice very astonishing. That a person should conceive highly of something without him is natural. But that a creature should take a fancy to itself is very extraordinary. What is without us we may be forgiven for not knowing perfectly; but one would think, if we knew anything, that we might know ourselves, at least, so far as to see that we have no great reason to be vain of ourselves. A distinction has been attempted, by way of apology for it, between pride and vanity. It alleged that vanity, as distinguished from pride, is marked by two characters. It consists in that self-importance which arises from the opinion or behaviour of others, and it is generally founded upon trifling circumstances. Pride is satisfied with itself. It is founded upon its own opinion of its own merit, and this merit arises, it is supposed, from great accomplishments. It has no relation to the opinions of others. Hence it is ready to treat them with contempt when they differ from its own, and with neglect when they agree to them. Vanity, on the other hand, is always elated with applause, and mortified when it is withheld. This distinction is merely plausible, and can give no protection to its votaries. First of all, it will not follow, though these vices were different, that they are not both vices; nor will it follow that they may not even be united in the same person. But, in the next place, it is a distinction without a difference, for there is really no difference. The sentiment itself is, in all cases, the same. It is the same opinion of our own consequence, whatever we derive it from, whether from the praises of others or from our own reflections. With respect to the one being founded upon great, and the other upon little accomplishments, that depends upon whom we make the judge. If we take his own word, every man of this character thinks his own accomplishments great, and that his pride is proper. Greatness of mind is that disposition which leads a man to great actions and sublime sentiments. Pride is that disposition which leads a man to contemplate his own actions and sentiments, whatever they are, with self-consequence. A great mind never reflects upon its own merit. A proud, or vain one, rejects upon nothing else. The former conceives noble sentiments, and expresses them in his actions, without thinking of the abilities which produced them. The latter can conceive no sentiments or actions without attending principally to this circumstance. When a greet man performs a worthy action, he does not think that he has done anything extraordinary. A proud man is wholly engrossed with this. What a difference is there between these dispositions! How mean is the one when compared with the other! A great mind is superior to a proud one, as far as a generous temper is superior to a selfish one. What a pity it is that a man should sully an action, which may in itself be laudable, with this ridiculous ingredient? What occasion is there for pride in any case? Or where is the advantage of it? May not a man act in the best manner without having his mind perpetually engrossed with his own actions? Or is acting well such a stranger to his nature that he cannot do it, in any instance, without giving himself credit for it? Must 199

he be perpetually thinking of himself and his own consequence? I will even go farther, and venture to affirm that pride, admitting the distinction which it assumes to itself, is both more dangerous and more contemptible than vanity. Vanity can, at any time, be checked. As it is founded upon the good opinion of others, the withdrawing of this is all that is necessary to humble it. Pride is founded upn itself, and cannot be humbled but by its own destruction. It is also more contemptible. The vain man has this to say for himself, that, if he thinks wrong, he thinks but what others think. The proud man is lifted up with his own opinion. The folly of the other is pure, and admits no apology. And if pride, in its best state, be so little a sentiment, how contemptible must it be when it is founded upon little objects—such as, we may observe, the common possessions of this world may in general be said to be? This sentiment, absurd in itself, will appear to greater advantage still if we consider the effects of it. Here the vice begins to appear, and to manifest itself. We shall treat these effects under three heads; as they respect God; as they respect our fellow-creatures; and as they respect ourselves. Considered in itself, it appears rather a folly; but, observed in its operation, we immediately discern the virulence, working, as usual, with dreadful symptoms; vitiating the subject, and producing the most shocking scenes of misery among the species.I. PRIDE IS AN ENEMY TO THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT. It affects, in the moat material manner, the most important of our connections, our connection with the Almighty. It leads us to forget, and finally to throw off our dependence upon Him. It has a manifest tendency to obstruct the intercourse, and destroy the relations, which subsist between God and created natures. It is opposite to those habits of submission and acknowledgment which result from our situation, and by which alone we can maintain an intercourse with the Great Parent of the world. Pride is the natural enemy of subordination. It destroys the habits of respect, and leads us to hate, or to avoid, the presence of superior beings. It is remarkable that this is the vice which is ascribed to the angels who kept not their first estate. If there be a God, we ought to reverence Him. This consequence follows forcibly and directly. It is a proposition which stands upon its own basis, and does not even depend upon revelation. There is an undoubted relation between God and His creation. If existence is bestowed by the one, duty becomes the other. If the one afford protection, the other is bound to gratitude. If Deity be a perfect being, He is the object of respect and homage. If men be imperfect creatures, humility is proper to them. If we live under a supreme, superintending government, we owe submission and attachment to it. These are the instincts of nature, as well as the first dictates of reason How monstrous is the mind which wants these affections? I believe it would not be difficult to show that pride is connected with atheism. The mind which is self-sufficient must be uneasy at the thought of an obligation. To what impious conclusions will not this disposition lead a man, especially if he possess high passions, or any portion of ingenuity? It led Belshazzar to acts of the most frantic impiety. I make no doubt that this insolent monarch, when he ordered the sacred vessels to be produced, and applied to common purposes, meant an insult to the Deity. I believe there are few here who are in danger of proceeding to such excess as Belshazzar. But, in general, we may affirm that, of all the vices, pride is the most inconsistent with the religious temper. If it steps short of absolute impiety, it leads at least to forgetfulness of God, and of our dependence upon Him. The mind of the vain man is, first of all, engrossed with the objects of his vanity. He has neither room, therefore, nor inclination for religious objects. The weakness of mind also, out of which this vice arises, is inimical to religion. The mind which is conceited of lithe objects can have no capacity for large ones. The sentiments, in the next place, cannot consist together. The religious temper is founded in

200

meekness, and in humility. In general, it will be sufficient to show us that this quality must, in its own nature, be inconsistent with the religious character, to reflect that the attention of a proud, or vain man, is wholly engrossed with second causes. This is, indeed, one natural and immediate issue of the vice. Whatever success may attend him, the man’s vanity continually leads him to refer it entirely to the exertions or causes immediately producing it (that is to himself), and he looks no farther. We may conclude, then, upon certain principles, that pride leads us away from God, and from the regards we owe Him. It has the effect, in the very first instance, to turn our minds from Him, and to leave Him out of our calculations. For how, indeed, in common good sense, can it be otherwise? Will a man, whose thoughts are wholly engrossed with himself, ever think of his Maker? Will a man, who is intoxicated with his own sufficiency, be sensible, as he ought to be, of the need which he has of the Divine protection? A proud man possesses not the qualities which constitute the religious character. Of all the tempers of the mind, the religious is at the greatest distance from self-sufficiency. The great duty of the present state is to improve our nature. But to this pride is inimical. A man, who supposes himself perfect enough already, will not think of improving himself.II. The vice of pride is not only inconsistent with the religious principle. IT IS REPUGNANT TO THAT SYSTEM OF LIBERAL AND EQUAL POLICY WHICH IS THE GLORY OF OUR SPECIES, AND UNDER WHICH ALONE OUR NATURE CAN RECEIVE ITS PROPER CULTIVATION. It is calculated for a state of slaves and masters, and is subversive of the liberal connections of an equal and free society. We may regard this vice under two views, as it affects the manners and as it affects the conduct Throughout both these it preserves the same character, and exhibits the same offensive effects. It divests men equally of the manners and the qualities of their most improved state. A vain man considers himself as far exalted above others. He regards the rest of mankind as a species of inferior creatures His attentions are centred in himself, and he considers others as either below his notice or as born for his convenience. He is, therefore, obviously a selfish and a repulsive character. The natural expression of pride is insolence. A proud or vain man deserves not the regards of others. He does not interest himself in them. He has no real attachment but to himself. If a man of this description mixes with other men, he would have it regarded as a piece of prodigious goodness, and often labours to be agreeable for no other reason but that he may value himself, and hear others value him, upon his affability. What a monstrous perversion is this of the human character! It is this again which converts life into affectation, and fills the world with insincerity. But this vice appears in its full deformity when it is connected with power. This gives it the means of displaying itself; and, in this case, it usually displays itself in acts of mischief. We may observe that pride may exist in any state, but it is more usually the effect of prosperity. We may observe also, under this head, that a man of this character is incapable of gratitude. He possesses not the sentiments which are proper to his situation. He is not formed for a state where we all depend upon one another. You cannot oblige a proud man. He considers every benefit which can be conferred upon him as his due. The proud man is the natural enemy of society. Pride cannot consist with the virtues of the improved life. It breaks the natural connections of the species. In their manners, it makes men insolent, or, if not insolent, deceitful—in their conduct and deeds, oppressive. It is also opposite to the liberal policy of the species. In general, we may observe that pride is the natural quality of the barbarian, not of the cultivated citizen. Being the result of ignorance, the more enlightened the society is the less vanity will be found in it. It is the native plant of an unenlightened society, and of a violent government. The vice of pride goes to establish a

201

system of oppression, and to place men universally in a state of hostility to one another.III. Pride not only destroys our connections with the Supreme Being, and with one another; it not only leads us to neglect God, and abuse men; BUT IT LEADS US TO NEGLECT, VITIATE, AND FINALLY RUIN OURSELVES. First of all, this vice, like all other vices, vitiates us. We have already observed that it destroys the two great classes of our affections, the affections which we ought to have for God and for our species. So far it vitiates. But it has a more extensive effect. It acts against the whole man, and vitiates him on all sides. Pride takes many directions, but I will speak of those which are most natural to it. Boastfulness is a property of the vice. The proud are, first, boastful. They have, consequently, a continual tendency to depart from truth. “They speak,” as the apostle expresses it, great “swelling words of vanity.” The evil here operates in two directions. The same disposition which leads them to magnify themselves, leads them to diminish others. They depart from truth in both cases; till, at last, by repeated deviations, they lose the sense, and cease to perceive the value of it. Malice is a property of this vice. The proud are malicious. They view those above them with envy, and those below them with satisfaction. Their equals they are never lucky enough to meet with. What a source of malignity here opens to us! For the same reason they are pleased with the disappointments of people, and bear nothing so ill as to see a man rise and prosper in the world. This is one certain mark of folly. They are for keeping every man down that they can possibly. The proud are revengeful. Important in their own minds, if you touch their folly, or offend their consequence, they are implacable. The proud are hard-hearted. The proud are hypocrites. It is not often convenient for them to discover all the bad passions which actuate them. The proud make God and men their enemies. They act, therefore, continually in the midst of a multitude who are interested to defeat them. Such is their situation that there are always numbers of people to whom their fall would be agreeable, and who watch the opportunities of procuring it. But, in this unstable state, where every situation totters, these opportunities are frequent; and hence it happens that the proud man, when he least expects it, generally receives an impulse, from some quarter or other, which oversets him. This is the more likely to happen from another cause, that pride has the effect generally to inspire a presumptuous security and contempt of danger, which at once relax our vigilance and our exertions, and expose us to misfortunes. But, besides the external shocks to which it is liable, pride contains a source of ruin within itself. We have already observed, as one of its natural properties, that it is boastful and ostentatious. The waste and show which the proud are first led into from vanity, they soon conceive a passion for on their own account; and this becomes finally so strong that it either renders them blind to what is before them or infatuates them to that degree that they are unable to relinquish it even when they see the consequences, and when ruin stares them in the face. The same process leads them to sensuality. Indulging at first from vanity, they soon come to indulge for the sake of indulging, and acquire gross, vile habits. Arrived at this point, the motion becomes rapid; and, as it draws near the end, is accelerated. We observed that pride is naturally presuming and self-sufficient. This leads to other effects. Confidence in our own abilities, or situation, leads us naturally to security. Security, besides exposing to external shocks, gives habits of indolence; and these again have a double issue. They operate both against the virtue and the natural faculties. They act against the virtue. Idleness is the natural soil where all the rank vices gather. They act against the natural faculties. The mind becomes incapable of application from the want of applying, and it becomes weak from the want of being exercised. The vices which it collects hasten the effect. They relax the mind and body, and render both feeble. There never was a juster

202

maxim than the maxim of Solomon, “before honour is humility, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Independent of the morality of the dispositions themselves, the one has a necessary tendency to relieve our affairs, and the other to distress them. Humility renders us watchful and active; while pride relaxes our exertions, and leads us back to ruin. I shall now conclude this subject with an improvement of it; and this I shall make by collecting, and stating shortly, some of the chief conclusions which arise from it. It is remarkable that the vice of pride is represented everywhere in the Scriptures as peculiarly offensive to God. He observes the humble with complacence. He marks those who set themselves above their kind. Let me, then, first of all, warn you against this vice, from the consideration of the displeasure of God—that displeasure which brings down the lofty looks of man, and lays the pride of empires low. To conclude, seeing that the histories of Scripture were recorded for our sakes, suffer them to produce their just effect. I have selected one memorable instance from these precious monuments for your information. The more dangerous any situation is, we ought to guard ourselves the more against it. Let the history of Belshazzar teach us not to presume upon prosperity, nor to let the season of youth and of exertion pass unimproved. Which of us can read his fate, and not tremble for his own? (J. Mackenzie, D.D.).

31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.

BARNES, "And Darius the Median took the kingdom - The city and kingdom were actually taken by Cyrus, though acting in the name and by the authority of Darius, or Cyaxares, who was his uncle. For a full explanation of the conquests of Cyrus, and of the reason why the city is said to have been taken by Darius, see the notes at Isa_41:2. In regard to the question who Darius the Median was, see the Introduction to Daniel 6, section II. The name Darius - dâreyâvêsh, is the name under which the three דריושMedo-Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament. There is some difference of opinion as to its meaning. Herodotus (vi. 98) says, that it is equivalent to ἑρξίης herxiēs, “one who restrains,” but Hesychius says that it is the same as φρόνιμος phronimos -“prudent.” Grotefend, who has found it in the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Darheush, or Darjeush (“Heeren’s Ideen,” i. 2, p. 350), makes it to be a compound word, the first part being an abbreviation of Dara, “Lord,” and the latter portion coming from kshah, “king.” Martin reads the name Dareiousch Vyschtasponea on the Persepolitan inscriptions; that is, Darius, son of Vishtaspo. Lassen, however, gives Darhawus Vistaspaha,

203

the latter word being equivalent to the Gustasp of the modern Persian, and meaning “one whose employment is about horses.” See Anthon’s “Class. Dict.,” and Kitto’s “Cyclo.,” art. “Darius.” Compare Niehbuhr, “Reisebeschr.,” Part II. Tab. 24, G. and B. Gesenius, “Lex.” This Darius is supposed to be Cyaxares II. (Introduction to Dan. 6 Section II.), the son and successor of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, who held the empire of Media between Astyages and Cyrus, 569-536 b.c.

Being - Margin, “He as son of.” The marginal reading is in accordance with the Chaldee - kebar. It is not unusual in the language of the Orientals to denote the age כברof anyone by saying that he is the son of so many years.

About - Margin, “or, now.” The word, both in the text and the margin, is designed to express the supposed sense of his “being the son of sixty years.” The language of the original would, however, be accurately expressed by saying that he was then sixty years old. Though Cyrus was the active agent in taking Babylon, yet it was done in the name and by the authority of Cyaxares or Darius; and as he was the actual sovereign, the name of his general - Cyrus - is not mentioned here, though he was in fact the most important agent in taking the city, and became ultimately much more celebrated than Darius was.This portion of history, the closing scene in the reign of a mighty monarch, and the closing scene in the independent existence of one of the most powerful kingdoms that has ever existed on the earth, is full of instructive lessons; and in view of the chapter as thus explained, we may make the following remarks.

Remarks(1) We have here an impressive illustration of the sin of sacrilege Dan_5:2-3. In all ages, and among all people, this has been regarded as a sin of peculiar enormity, and it is quite evident that God in this solemn scene meant to confirm the general judgment of mankind on the subject. Among all people, where any kind of religion has prevailed, there are places and objects which are regarded as set apart to sacred use, and which are not to be employed for common and profane purposes. Though in themselves - in the gold and silver, the wood and stone of which they are made - there is no essential holiness, yet they derive a sacredness from being set apart to Divine purposes, and it has always been held to be a high crime to treat them with indignity or contempt - to rob altars, or to desecrate holy places. This general impression of mankind it was clearly the design of God to confirm in the case before us, when the sacred vessels of the temple -vessels consecrated in the most solemn manner to the worship of Jehovah - were profanely employed for the purposes of carousal. God had borne it patiently when those vessels had been removed from the temple at Jerusalem, and when they had been laid up among the spoils of victory in the temples of Babylon; but when they were profaned for purposes of revelry - when they were brought forth to grace a pagan festival, and to be employed in the midst of scenes of riot and dissipation, it was time for him to interpose, and to show to these profane revellers that there is a God in heaven.(2) We may see the peril of such festivals as that celebrated by Belshazzar and his lords, Dan_5:1 following. It is by no means probable that when the feast was contemplated and arranged, anything was designed like what occurred in the progress of the affair. It was not a matter of set purpose to introduce the females of the harem to this scene of carousal, and still less to make use of the sacred vessels dedicated to the worship of Jehovah, to grace the midnight revelry. It is not improbable that they would have been at first shocked at such an outrage on what was regarded as propriety, or what would have been deemed sacred by all people. It was only when the king had “tasted the

204

wine” that these things were proposed; and none who attend on such a banquet as this, none who come together for purposes of drinking and feasting, can foretell what they may be led to do under the influence of wine and strong drink. No man is certain of not doing foolish and wicked things who gives himself up to such indulgences; no man knows what he may do that may be the cause of bitter regret and painful mortification in the recollection.(3) God has the means of access to the consciences of men Dan_5:5. In this case it was by writing on the wall with his own fingers certain mysterious words which none could interpret, but which no one doubted were of fearful import. No one present, it would appear, had any doubt that somehow what was written was connected with some awful judgment, and the fearfulness of what they dreaded arose manifestly from the consciousness of their own guilt. It is not often that God comes forth in this way to alarm the guilty; but he has a thousand methods of doing it, and no one can be sure that in an instant he will not summon all the sins of his past life to remembrance. He “could” write our guilt in letters of light before us - in the chamber where we sleep; in the hall where we engage in revelry; on the face of the sky at night; or he can make it as plain to our minds “as if” it were thus written out. To Belshazzar, in his palace, surrounded by his lords, he showed this; to us in society or solitude he can do the same thing. No sinner can have any security that he may not in a moment be overwhelmed with the conviction of his own depravity, and with dreadful apprehension of the wrath to come.(4) We have in this chapter Dan_5:6 a striking illustration of the effects of a sudden alarm to the guilty. The countenance of the monarch was changed; his thoughts troubled him; the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote together. Such effects are not uncommon when a sinner is made to feel that he is in the presence of God, and when his thoughts are led along to the future world. The human frame is so made that these changes occur as indicative of the troubles which the mind experiences, and the fact that it is thus agitated shows the power which God has over us. No guilty man can be secure that he will “not” thus be alarmed when he comes to contemplate the possibility that he may soon be called before his Maker, and the fact that he “may” thus be alarmed should be one of the considerations bearing on his mind to lead him to a course of virtue and religion. Such terror is proof of conscious guilt, for the innocent have nothing to dread; and if a man is sure that he is prepared to appear before God, he is “not” alarmed at the prospect. They who live in sin; they who indulge in revelry; they who are profane and sacrilegious; they who abuse the mercies of God, and live to deride sacred things, can never be certain that in a moment, by the revelation of their guilt to their own souls, and by a sudden message from the eternal world, they may not be overwhelmed with the deepest consternation. Their countenances may become deadly pale, their joints may be loosed, and their limbs tremble. It is only the righteous who can look calmly at the judgment.(5) We may see from this chapter one of the effects of the terror of a guilty conscience. It is not said, indeed, that the mysterious fingers on the wall recorded the “guilt” of the monarch. But they recorded “something;” they were making some record that manifestly pertained to him. How natural was it to suppose that it was a record of his guilt! And who is there that could bear a record made in that manner of his own thoughts and purposes; of his desires and feelings; of what he is conscious is passing within the chambers of his own soul? There is no one who would not turn pale if he saw a mysterious hand writing all his thoughts and purposes - all the deeds of his past life - on the wall of his chamber at night, and bringing at once all his concealed thoughts and all his forgotten deeds before his mind. And if this is so, how will the sinner bear the

205

disclosures that will be made at the day of judgment?

CLARKE, "Darius the Median took the kingdom - This is supposed to be the same as Cyaxares, son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus, to whom he gave the throne of Babylon, after himself had had the honor of taking the city.

Daniel speaks nothing of the war that raged between the Babylonians and the Medes; but Isaiah speaks particularly of it, chap. 13, 14, 45, Isa_46:1-13, Isa_47:1-15.; and so does Jeremiah, chap. 50, 51. I need not add, that it is largely spoken of by profane authors. The Medes and Persians were confederates in the war; the former under Darius, the latter under Cyrus. Both princes are supposed to have been present at the taking of this city. Mandane, daughter of Astyages, was mother of Cyrus, and sister to Cyaxares.

GILL, "And Darius the Median took the kingdom,.... This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, Ezr_4:5, the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years; and not alone, but Cyrus with him, though he is only mentioned. Xenophon (k) says, that Cyrus, after he took Babylon, set out for Persia, and took Media on his way; and, saluting Cyaxares or Darius, said that there was a choice house and court for him in Babylon, where he might go and live as in his own: being about threescore and two years old; and so was born in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year in which Jechoniah was carried captive, 2Ki_24:12, thus God in his counsels and providence took care that a deliverer of his people should be raised up and provided against the appointed time. Darius was older than Cyrus, as appears by several passages in Xenophon; in one place (l) Cyaxares or Darius says, "since I am present, and am "elder" than Cyrus, it is fit that I should speak first;'' and in another place (m), Cyrus, writing to him, says, "I give thee counsel, though I am the younger'' and by comparing this account of the age of Darius with a passage in Cicero, which gives the age of Cyrus, we learn how much older than he Darius was; for, out of the books of Dionysius the Persian, he relates (n), that Cyrus dreaming he saw the sun at his feet, which he three times endeavoured to catch and lay hold upon, but in vain, it sliding from him; this, the Magi said, portended that he should reign thirty years, and so he did; for he lived to be seventy years of age, and began to reign when he was forty; which, if reckoned from his reigning with his uncle, then he must be twenty two years younger; or if from the time of his being sole monarch, then the difference of age between them must be twenty four years; though it should be observed that those that make him to reign thirty years begin his reign from the time of his being appointed commander-in-chief of the Medes and Persians by Cyaxares (o), which was twenty three years before he reigned alone, which was but seven years (p); and this account makes but very little difference in their age; and indeed some (q) have taken them to be one and the same, their descent,

206

age, and succession in the Babylonian empire, agreeing.

JAMISON, "Darius the Median — that is, Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, 569-536 b.c. Though Koresh, or Cyrus, was leader of the assault, yet all was done in the name of Darius; therefore, he alone is mentioned here; but Dan_6:28 shows Daniel was not ignorant of Cyrus’ share in the capture of Babylon. Isa_13:17; Isa_21:2, confirm Daniel in making the Medes the leading nation in destroying Babylon. So also Jer_51:11, Jer_51:28. Herodotus, on the other hand, omits mentioning Darius, as that king, being weak and sensual, gave up all the authority to his energetic nephew, Cyrus [Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 1.5; 8.7].

threescore and two years old — This agrees with Xenophon [Cyropaedia, 8.5, 19], as to Cyaxares II.

CALVIN, "Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and thus held in the highest honor and estimation, it is not surprising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus was content with his own power and with the praise and fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Astyages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers had informed him how an offspring should be born of her who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them undecided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he was unmarried at the capture of Babylon; for his uncle, and perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he reigned over the Chaldeans. It now follows, —

COKE, "Daniel 5:31. And Darius the Median took the kingdom— And Darius the Mede accepted the kingdom; so the Syriac and Arabic versions. This Darius, in the ninth chapter, is said to be of the seed of the Medes, and is supposed by the most judicious chronologers to have been the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages. Cyrus made him king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mother's side; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased.

207

REFLECTIONS.—1st, Belshazzar, the subject of this chapter, was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 27:7 whose monarchy, according to the term fixed in the prophetic word, was now hasting to ruin. We have here,1. An account of his impiety and profaneness. Unaffected with the danger of his situation, though a victorious army was at the gates of Babylon; on some returning solemnity in honour of his gods, or to celebrate his birth-day, he invites all the great men of his court, and chief officers of his army, to partake of a grand entertainment that he had provided, and makes one himself at the festal board, and drank wine before them. In the midst of mirth and jollity, the sacred vessels of the temple occurred to him; and in a frolic, or to express his contempt of Israel's God, and to do honour to his own, he commands them to be brought, and all present drank out of them, and praised their idol gods, who had given them these spoils of their enemies: probably the report of the deliverance of Israel from Babylon might now be propagated, the seventy years being just at an end; some say that very night they expired; and this might be done in defiance of Israel's God, and in ridicule of the prophetic word. Note; (1.) Drunkenness is the door to every abomination. (2.) They are hastening apace to ruin, who can make a jest of things sacred. (3.) The joyous sinner in the midst of his carousals is a most pitiable object, dancing and singing on the brink of the gulph, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.2. A sudden event terribly interrupts their impious joys. In the midst of their carousals, a hand appears over against the candlestick, and writes upon the plaister of the wall. Struck with terror at the sight, Belshazzar's countenance changed; his pallid cheeks, his quivering lips, his trembling knees, his tottering frame, bespoke the horrors of his soul; and conscious guilt awakened dire forebodings of the dreadful doom hereby portended. In haste he calls aloud to bring the wisest of his Chaldean sages, and promises the highest rewards to the man who can read and interpret the writing, but in vain; for though the words were Chaldee, the manner or form of writing was such as entirely baffled their skill; or by a divine judgment, to make the skill of Daniel more illustrious, God confounded their understandings; and this increased the more the anxiety of the monarch, and filled his lords with consternation and astonishment. Note; (1.) God can reach the most daring sinners; one touch of his hand, yea, their own thoughts let loose upon them, are enough to make them a terror to themselves. (2.) Shall an unknown writing thus trouble the conscience of Belshazzar, and shall not all the curses so plainly written in the book of God affect the careless and impenitent?2nd, In this state of dismay and confusion we have,1. The advice of the queen; who had not been present at the feast; but, on hearing what had passed, had come to the banqueting house. She is supposed to be not the wife of Belshazzar, but of his father Evil-merodach, called by Herodotus Nitocris, and greatly famed for her prudence: though others think her to be Amytis, the grandmother of the king, and wife of Nebuchadnezzar. It appears that she was well acquainted with the transactions of former times, and knew the abilities of Daniel;

208

and therefore is bold to say, though the wise men of Babylon were at a stand, that the king need not fear but an interpreter could be found. Probably Daniel's interest had long since declined at court: so likely often, in a new reign, are the best and most faithful of the ancient counsellors to be neglected. But the high character that the queen gives of this now forgotten sage could not but excite a desire to have him called. She speaks of him as something more than human, possessed of wisdom approaching omniscience, and penetration so deep, that no secrets or difficulties whatever puzzled him; and by experience the king Nebuchadnezzar had proved him to be possessed of a spirit far excelling all the magicians and astrologers of his kingdom. In consequence of which, he had advanced him to be master of all the sages, and named him Belteshazzar, in honour of his god. The queen desires, therefore, that he may be sent for, and doubts not but he will give the king full satisfaction.2. Daniel is instantly summoned, and appears before the king, unknown to him by person, as appears by Belshazzar's question, Daniel 5:13. But having heard such high encomiums of his wisdom, he is desirous to try whether he can read and interpret the writing, of which the magicians confess their ignorance; and promises him the same rewards as he had offered to them, if he could clearly explain the matter: even that he should be arrayed in the richest robes of honour, and promoted to the third place for dignity in his kingdom.3. Daniel undertakes to read and interpret the writing; but prefaces his discourse with some striking remarks and admonitions.(1.) The proffered gifts he nobly disdains, as the reward of his interpretation; he neither wanted nor sought them. At his age, advancement would be but a burden; and when the whole government was so quickly to be overturned, such honours were not worth acceptance. Yet he will freely satisfy the king, if that can be called satisfaction, which, instead of relieving his fears, must increase his distress. Note; A sense of the near approaching end of all things should make us sit loose to the trifles of this changing and perishing world.(2.) He recounts God's dispensations towards the king's father, or rather his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar; it being not unusual in scripture to term a more remote ancestor father. By the providence and gift of the most high God, from whom all good things come, and to whose blessing all our prosperity ought ever to be ascribed, Nebuchadnezzar had acquired such dominion, honour, and authority, as perhaps no prince before had ever attained to; so irresistible his power, that none dared to contend with him; and, trembling at his feet, all nations bowed before him. His government despotic, his authority absolute; the liberty and property, the life or death of all his subjects hung on his breath; his will was law, his orders obeyed without remonstrance or hesitation: a dangerous power to be vested in the bosom of a fallen creature, a curse upon the land where such arbitrary monarchs rule. Abusing his authority, Nebuchadnezzar had acted with that tyranny and oppression which lawless power, directed by caprice, naturally produced; and, hardened in

209

pride, he not only behaved unjustly to man, but insolently towards the most High, ascribing to his own prowess his successes, and affecting independence of every superior. For these things the God of heaven hurled him from his throne, and degraded him not merely to the lowest state of human meanness, but to a level with the brute creation, to be the companion of wild asses, justly depriving him of the reason that he had abused, and for his savageness and oppression sending him to dwell with the beasts that he chose to imitate; till, humbled in the dust, he was brought to acknowledge the government of the most High, and own himself the subject of his pleasure.(3.) He arraigns Belshazzar for his crimes, aggravated by the neglect of all the warnings which God had given him in his father's case. He knew all that had passed, yet nevertheless,[1.] He had not humbled his heart, but continued impenitent in the same pride and rebellion against God. Note; It is an aggravation of children's sins, if, instead of being admonished by their father's miseries, they persist to follow their destructive ways.[2.] He had exceeded in impiety his ungodly fire. Thou hast lifted up thyself against, or above the Lord of heaven, with more daring blasphemy, defying his power and dishonouring his name, as if he was his superior; and shew-ing the contempt in which he held him, by his horrid profanation of the vessels of the temple, while he praised his idol gods, senseless as the vessels from which he poured out the libation to them.[3.] The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified; a charge, before which who need not tremble! Our breath is from him; it is momentarily preserved by him, our ways under his controul, every event at his disposal. To glorify him is the great end of our being, our duty, and should be our delight; but we have failed and gone astray every one in his own way, casting off his government, and negligent of his glory. The Lord humble us for this, that we may not meet Belshazzar's doom.4. Having thus proved his crimes, Daniel pronounces his doom, according to the tenor of the writing on the wall, the explication of which he had demanded. Then when his iniquity was at the height, at this impious feast, came this hand from God, and wrote these words—MENE MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. The words are Chaldee, and signify, He hath numbered, he hath numbered, he hath weighed, and they divide; the several particulars of which he explains:MENE, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; the term of the monarchy is expiring, its ruin is near, and the word is repeated to shew its certainty.TEKEL, Thou art weighed in the balances, and found wanting; God, who weighs in the balances of exact justice the actions and characters of men, pronounces him

210

worthless and reprobate.PERES, the singular of Pharsin, (U being the copulative,) Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians; such is the irreversible decree of the Almighty; and Belshazzar, convinced in his conscience that Daniel had spoken the truth, though so fearful the sentence, immediately confers on him the promised reward. Withering honours! the pageantry of an hour! and all this world's honours, viewed in their true light, are no better.The sinner and the hypocrites doom is like Belshazzar's. At death their days are numbered; in judgment they will be weighed in the balance of God's holy law, and found wanting; and then be given up to the devil and his angels, to be tormented to eternity.3rdly, The writing is scarcely sooner interpreted than verified. That very night the city was taken, and Belshazzar slain: taking advantage of this debauch of the king, as history informs us, Cyrus entered the city by the bed of the river, the waters of which he had cut off; and the guards being fast asleep, and overcome with wine, made no resistance; so that all the gates being opened, Gadatas and Gobryas, two great men, who, being ill used by Belshazzar, had revolted to Cyrus, went directly to the palace, and slew the king with all his attendants. Thus ended the Babylonish empire; and Darius the Mede, called also Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus, ascended the throne; the first king of the second monarchy. He was sixty-two years old, and consequently was born in the year that Jeconiah was carried captive: God so ordering, that at the very time his people were sent into Babylon, their deliverer should be provided. Cyrus reigned in conjunction with his uncle; though, being the younger, he is not mentioned; and after two years succeeded him in the sole government of the empire, concerning whom so many prophesies had gone before, all which, we find, he most exactly fulfilled. Thus, though God visit his people and the nations for their sins, there is still hope for returning penitents even in the darkest day of affliction.

TRAPP, "Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.Ver. 31. And Darius.] Called by Ctesias, Dαριαιος, which comes near to Dariaves, as the Chaldee here calleth him. He is thought to be the same with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, and uncle to Cyrus.Being about threescore and two years old.] Born the same year, say the Rabbis, (a) wherein Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it. So Augustine was born the same day in Africa that Pelagius was in Wales, say chronologers, by a wise and watchful providence of God for the good of his Church.

211

PULPIT, "And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about three score and two years old. It is probable that the Massoretic division of the chapters here is to be preferred. According to it, this verse is assigned to the begining of the next chapter, but most of the more ancient versions, Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, agree with our English arrangement. The Septuagint, like the Massoretic text, assigns this verse to the sixth chapter. Its rendering manifests several striking peculiarities, "And Artaxerxes of the Medes received ( παρέλαβε) the kingdom, and Darius was full of days, and reverend ( ἔνδοξος) in old age." This is the product of doublets ארטחששת, Artaxerxes, being suggested by some scribe as in his opinion a more probable name than Darius. So the one name begins the first clause, and the other the second. The last clause is evidently due to כבר (kebar), "about" ("as the son of"), being read כבר (kaber), "great," "multiplied"—a meaning this word has in Syriac, but not in Chahlee (Genesis 35:11). Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The uncertainty as to the name has to be noted. We shall reserve for fuller discussion the question of Darius the Mede, only we would say that the name not improbably was modified from a less-known name to one somewhat like it but well known. We know that "Go-baru," or "Oybaru"—"Gobryas," in Greek—was appointed governor by Cyrus when he conquered Babylon, and that, in the script of the Sindschirli monuments, Gobryas, see Sindschirli words. is not unlike Darius, see Sindschirli word. One point to be noted is the fact that the verb used is wrongly translated "took." קבל really means "received." When this is said, we naturally expect some one, either God or man, from whom he has received this honour. If this purported to be a history of Babylonia, then it might be reasoned that the implied source from whom the kingdom was received was God; in such a case קבל would be used of one who succeeded to the kingdom by inheritance; this cannot be the meaning here. In this passage it is merely incidentally mentioned in order to explain the events that immediately follow. The more natural interpretation is that he was put on the throne by another person, his superior. The instance quoted by Professor Bevan, in which this verb is used of the accession of Julian the Apostate, tells really against his contention. Julian expected to have to conquer the empire: but, by the death of his cousin, he received it as an inheritance. Nothing could be more unlike what occurred in Babylon, according to his theory of what the author of Daniel meant. He maintains that the author of Daniel thought Darius conquered Babylon, and so ascended the throne. The example he brings does not show that קבל could be used in that sense.

212