Daniel Chapter 5

I. Daniel Chapter 5. Belshazzar’s Feast and the Fall of Babylon.

II. Study Text.

A. Outline.

5:1. Belshazzar’s feast. 5:5. The handwriting on the wall. 5:8. The king’s wise men unable to interpret the dream. 5:10. Daniel summoned, 5:17. he reproves the king, 5:23. and interprets the writing. 5:30. The kingdom is transferred to the Medes. 

B. Details.

5:2. “Nebuchadnezzar his father.” The term “father” can simply mean a predecessor on the throne, or in this case it may indicate that Belshazzar’s mother, the wife of Nabonidus, was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. 

5:4. Belshazzar was evidently trying to boost morale in the face of the Persian armies already outside the walls of Babylon.

5:7. “third ruler.” After Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

5:10. “The queen.” Belshazzar’s mother.

5:22-23. Daniel accused Belshazzar of pride, desecrating the vessels from God’s Temple, and idolatry.

5:25. The writing was not in an unknown language, though possibly in an unusual script, and perhaps also mixed up as an anagram. In any case, the meaning was unknown until Daniel interpreted it.

5:28. “PERES.” The singular of “PHARSIN” (vs 25; the “U” means “and”).

5:31. “Darius.” His identity is uncertain. He may have been “Gubaru,” a governor under Cyrus, the king of Persia; or Darius may be another name for Cyrus himself, or he may have been Cambyses, son of Cyrus, who served as ruler of Babylon.

C. Detailed Review.

5:1. Some older critical scholars claimed that Belshazzar was never a king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, modern discoveries have shown that Belshazzar acted as king during his father’s frequent and prolonged absences from Babylon. Belshazzar’s confidence in the security of his capital is evident in his banqueting and getting drunk while his enemy was at his door. His name, which means “Bel [also known as Marduk] has protected the king,” may have increased his sense of invulnerability. Herodotus also mentioned that a festival was underway in Babylon when the city fell.

5:2-4. Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s grandfather rather than his father, but the original language commonly used “father” in the sense of ancestor. Neither in Hebrew, nor in Chaldee, is there any word for ‘grandfather,’ ‘grandson.’ Forefathers are called ‘fathers’ or “fathers” ‘fathers.’ But a single grandfather, or forefather, is never called ‘father’s father’ but always ‘father’ only. Evidently the vessels taken from the Jerusalem temple had been stored as trophies of war and not used previously (cf. Dan 1:2). Their presence in the warehouses of Babylon was sufficient humiliation of Yahweh who, in the minds of the Babylonians, could not prevent their theft. However, using these vessels in praise of Babylon’s gods was even more sacrilegious than just possessing them. Again, as in chapters 3 and 4, a pagan king set himself up as superior to Yahweh. Perhaps Belshazzar did what he did to strengthen nationalistic pride among the Babylonians as well. The description of Babylon’s gods as gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone probably reflects the Hebrew perspective of the writer (cf. Dan 5:23). For the Israelites, the gods that Belshazzar honored were no gods at all.

5:5. Like Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar received an omen from God. In Nebuchadnezzar’s case it was two dreams (chs. 1; 4). In Belshazzar’s, it was handwriting on a wall. The night of revelry became a night of revelation.

5:6-7. The “conjurers” that Belshazzar called to help him were magicians. These “Chaldeans” were scholars who knew the lore of the Babylonians. The “diviners” were astrologers. These were only three of the many groups of wise men that the king summoned (Dan 5:8). Clothing someone in “purple” meant giving him royal authority (cf. Est 8:15). This “gold chain” (necklace) would have had symbolic as well as monetary value. Belshazzar evidently offered to promote anyone who could interpret the mysterious writing, to “third” ruler of the kingdom, because he himself was the second ruler under his father, Nabonidus. Thus this was the highest official reward he could offer.

5:8-9. The writing appears to have been in the Aramaic language. Therefore, it seems that the wise men’s difficulty in understanding it may have been due to its interpretation, rather than just the meaning of the words (cf. Dan 5:14-16, 25).

5:10. Normally we would identify the queen as Belshazzar’s wife. However, there are a number of reasons to prefer the view that she was really the “queen mother.” She could even have been the surviving wife of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar’s wives had been participating in this banquet (Dan 5:2), but this woman now entered it apparently for the first time. She also spoke to the king more as a mother than as a wife. Moreover, she spoke as one who had personal acquaintance with Daniel’s earlier interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream (cf. Dan 4:8-9, 18). Probably this woman was Belshazzar’s mother and the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. The queen mother was often a significant figure who exerted considerable influence in ancient courts (cf. Jer 13:18). This woman proceeded to do for Belshazzar what Arioch had done for Nebuchadnezzar, namely: to bring Daniel to the king’s attention (Cf. Dan 2:25).

5:11-12  As before, Daniel had not accompanied the other wise men whom the king had summoned (cf. Dan 4:8-8). The reason for this is unclear, but the effect in the event and in the narrative is that it sets Daniel off as unique. Clearly Belshazzar did not know Daniel personally. Perhaps Daniel had left public service by this time.

5:13-16. The king had heard of Daniel by reputation, even though he had not met him before (Dan 5:13). He recognized him as a person whose extraordinary ability came from some divine source (cf. Dan 4:8, 18). Perhaps it was because Daniel was a Jew that Belshazzar did not know him. However now, the king was quite willing to give even this Jewish exile all the honors that he had formerly promised his wise men. Here was a worshipper of the God, that Belshazzar had been dishonoring in his banquet, but who, ironically on this night of all nights, might prove superior to the Chaldeans. The king’s willingness to reward a Jewish exile shows how desperately Belshazzar wanted to learn the meaning of the enigmatic message on the wall.

5:17. Daniel’s reply to the king was in every sense a sermon, and a powerful one at that. The prophet began by declining the offered gifts. This had the effect, whatever Daniel’s reason for doing so may have been, of helping Belshazzar realize that these gifts did not influence his interpretation of the writing.

5:18-23. Daniel reminded Belshazzar, and undoubtedly everyone else in the room, of the lesson in humility that God had taught the king’s forefather, Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4). The Most High God had given his grandfather his authority, and had taught him that he was under His greater sovereignty. Nebuchadnezzar’s pride had led him to behave arrogantly, as Belshazzar was doing by drinking from the sacred vessels of Yahweh, the Most High God. Even though Belshazzar knew all about this, he had not humbled his heart before the Lord of heaven and glorified Him. Therefore the God who held Belshazzar’s life and his ways in His hand, had sent the hand to write the inscription on the wall. Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah used the title “the God of heaven” to describe Yahweh because this was the title of the chief Syrian god and a title that other people in the Persian Empire gave to their chief god (Cf. Ezra 1:2; Neh 2:4; Dan 2:34). This title implies God’s transcendence over all.

5:24. Nebuchadnezzar had heard a voice from heaven while he was outdoors (Dan 4:31), but Belshazzar saw a hand from heaven indoors. Both forms of revelation have been extremely rare throughout history, but these occasions in the Book of Daniel involved leaders of the greatest nation on earth.

5:25-28. Scholars have wearied themselves trying to figure out how Daniel got his interpretation from these three apparently Aramaic words. They have been as unsuccessful as Belshazzar’s original wise men were. It seems best to simply take Daniel’s interpretation at face value, even though we may not be able to understand completely how he arrived at it. It has been said that Daniel could interpret these words because he recognized his Father’s handwriting.

5:29. Belshazzar kept his promise (Dan 5:16), though Daniel’s honors only lasted a few hours at most, typical of the honors of this world. The king’s response is surprising. We might have expected him to execute Daniel for confronting him publicly. Perhaps his response indicates that he was drunk or that he repented. If he repented, his repentance was too late to prevent judgment from falling.

5:30. Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus, the Babylonian Chronicles, and Cyrus (on the Cyrus Cylinder) all described the fall of Babylon in writings that have remained to the present day. Isaiah and Jeremiah had predicted Babylon’s fall (Isa 13:17-22; Jer 51:33-58). The Persians diverted the water from the Euphrates River that flowed south through Babylon into an ancient lake located to the north. This allowed them to walk into the city on the riverbed and scale the undefended walls that flanked the river. The record of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel is the story of an overbearing king who experienced temporary judgment, but the story of Belshazzar is one of a sacrilegious king who suffered permanent judgment. Belshazzar’s death occurred during a night of revelry that had become a night of revelation, now turned into a night of retribution.

5:31. Belshazzar suffered execution that very night, and Darius the Mede became the ruler of Babylonia (cf. Dan 2:21). The writer introduced Darius in Dan 5:31, which is the first verse of chapter 6 in the Hebrew Bible, and he is the prominent king in chapter 6. This chapter illustrates the involvement of king and kingdom in one destiny. Belshazzar’s blatant disrespect for the Most High God was all of a piece with the national character, indeed with our human condition. Though human days are numbered (Dan 5:10), few number them for themselves and ‘get a heart of wisdom’ (Dan 5:12). Belshazzar in this chapter presents a vivid picture of the fool, the practicing atheist, who at the end can only brazen it out with the help of alcohol which blots out the stark reality.”