Daniel 5:1-7

CHAPTER FIVE
I. DEGENERATE DESPOT'S

DEMISEDaniel 5:1-31

a. TERROR

TEXT: Daniel 5:1-7

1

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2

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.

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 lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them.

4

They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone,

5

In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6

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.

7

The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. 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 purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

QUERIES

a.

Who is Belshazzar and what happened between his reign and that of Nebuchadnezzar?

b.

Why insist upon drinking wine from the vessels of the temple which was in Jerusalem?

c.

Where did the fingers of a man's hand come from?

PARAPHRASE

Belshazzar the king of the district of Babylon put on a great feast for a thousand of his army officers and they all got drunk. As Belshazzar was getting drunk, he ordered his servants to bring the gold and silver vessels which his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar, had carried off from the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem. When the servants arrived with these vessels he and his army officers, his wives and his concubines in insolent defiance of the god of the Jews drank toasts to their pagan gods of metal and wood. Suddenly, in the midst of their drunken revelry, they saw the fingers of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall opposite the lampstand. The king himself saw the fingers as they wrote. His face grew pale with terror, and such fear gripped him his hips began to tremble violently and his knees knocked together. He began screaming that the diviners, wise-men and astrologers be brought with haste. As they began coming into the banquet hall the king shouted loudly, Whoever reads that writing on the wall, and tells me what it means, I will dress in purple robes of royal honor and put a golden chain of regal authority around his neck, and I will place him in very high authority in my kingdom.

COMMENT

Daniel 5:1 BELSHAZZAR THE KING. Hostile critics of the Bible have seen their beautiful theories murdered by the brutal facts of history as it is now available in the case of Belshazzar. For a hundred years these critics attempted to use the absence of historical reference to Belshazzar as a weapon to destroy the historical trustworthiness of the record of Daniel. Recently, however, archeological and historical data has been discovered which thoroughly substantiates the historicity of Daniel's account concerning belshazzar.

Berosus lists the succession of kings of Babylon, beginning with Nabopolassar who came to the throne upon the overthrow of the Assyrian power, as follows:
625 B.C.Nabopolassar (died)
604 B.C.Nebuchadnezzar (died)
562 B.C.Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) (assassinated by Neriglissar)
560 B.C.Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissar) (diedthrone to infant Labashi-Marduk)
556 B.C.Labashi-Marduk (deposed by priestly partyreplaced by Nabonidus)
555 B.C.Nabunadi (Nabonidus) (exiled and pensioned by Persian conquerors)
538 B.C.Capture of Babylon by Cyrus (Belshazzar was killed)

Berosus has also been validated as a reliable historian by the archaeological data published for all the monuments and inscriptions amply confirm his sequence of the Babylonian kings, The critics, prior to the discovery of these amazing documents, argued from silence. At the same time the defenders of the Bible were forced to argue from silence. Now, however, every bit of evidence is on the side of those who accept the historical accuracy of the Bible and the critics, still arguing from silence, do so squarely in the face of empirical, scientific testimony!

We quote in full from Archaeology And Bible History, by Joseph P. Free, pages 231-235, pub. Scripture Press:

EVENTS IN BABYLON, c. 562-560 B.C.; ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIGHT ON JEHOIACHIN AND EVIL-MERODACH (2 Kings 25:27-30)

Nebuchadnezzar died about 562 B.C. He was succeeded by his son, Evil-merodach, who allowed Jehoiachin to come out of prison (2 Kings 25:27-30), and gave him an allowance of provisions (2 Kings 25:30). We have already noted the discovery of clay tablets at Babylon listing the payment of rations of oil, barley and other food to workmen and political prisoners. Among those listed as recipients of these provisions was Jehoiachin of Judah (See last part of Ch. 19, section on Archaeological Confirmation of Jehoiachin's Exile.).

Archaeological evidence of Evil-merodach (Amil-Marduk in Babylonian) was found on a vase at Susa in Persia, reported by the French archaeological expedition there. This vase bore an inscription which read, Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. The people of Persia (called Elam in ancient times) had apparently carried this vase from Babylonia to Persia at the time of one of their military invasions of the Mesopotamian area.

LAST EVENTS IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE, c. 560-539 B.C.; NABONIDUS AND BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5).

Evil-merodach ruled for only two or three years (c. 562-560 B.C.) and was then assassinated by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (Nergalsharezer), who is identical with the Nergalshaerezer of Jeremiah 39:3. After a rather successful administration of four years (c. 560-556 B.C.), Neriglissar died, leaving the throne to his infant son, Labashi-Marduk, who was deposed by the priestly party in nine months, and replaced by Nabonidus (Nabuna-'id), a Babylonian of the priestly group.

Nabonidus (556-539 B.C.) tells us in his inscriptions that he had been a trusted general in the army of his predecessors. As king, Nabonidus maintained the stability of the empire, and spent much time in directing the building and strengthening of the fortifications on the Euphrates River. One of his great joys came in the rebuilding of temples which lay in ruins. His record telling of the rebuilding of the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and the finding of the foundation record of Naram-Sin has already been cited (See this book, Ch. 19, section on The Finding of the book of the Law.).

Whereas the secular sources indicated Nabonidus as the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Bible indicates Belshazzar as the last ruler (Daniel 5). This apparent contradiction and difficulty has been resolved by the archaeological discoveries of recent years. It will be dealt with in the following section.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFIRMATION CONCERNING NABONIDUS AND BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5)

The author of this book received the following letter from a college sudent:
I am a history major at the university. This semester I am taking a course in Ancient History.

As my religious beliefs are orthodox and some Dr.'S are not, there are naturally quite a few points where we do not agree. The particular point which she and I are discussing at the present time concerns the book of Daniel. Dr.believes that Daniel errs in his book when he speaks of Belshazzar as king of the Chaldeans in Daniel 5:1. She says that Nabonidus was king of Babylon at the time of its fall and not Belshazzar. She takes the position that Belshazzar was never king, and, from the way she has spoken, I believe she even doubts his actual existence. She also has taught that Daniel errs when he says that Babylon was taken by siege. According to other accounts there was not a siege of Babylon. It was just handed over to Cyrus.

I feel as though I should have proof for my beliefs whenever it is possible to obtain it. I am writing to you to ask you if you would be willing to give me your point of view on the matter or refer me to some source which, in your opinion, states the facts correctly.
The author of this book replied to the above letter as follows:

The Biblical statements concerning Belshazzar have been used for a long time by liberals to demonstrate that the Bible is not accurate. It is quite true that up to one hundred years ago our historical sources (outside of the Bible) showed that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and was not killed when the city was taken by the Persians, but was given a pension by his conquerors. Ancient historians such as Berossus (c. 250 B.C.) and Alexander Polyhistor give us this information that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. On the other hand, the Bible indicates that Belshazzar was the last ruler of Babylon and that he was killed when the city was taken (Daniel 5:30). Modern liberal commentators, such as Hitzig, have taken the view that the name Belshazzar was a pure invention on the part of the writer of Daniel.

Archaeological discoveries, however, show that the Bible is accurate in regard to its indications concerning Belshazzar. About the middle of the nineteenth century a great number of clay tablets were excavated in the region which was ancient Babylonia, and were sent to the British Museum. During the last half of the nineteenth century many of these tablets were examined by Dr. Theophilus G. Pinches, prominent Assyriologist of London. One of these clay tablets contained the name Belshazzar, which showed that such a man actually existed. Another tablet was found to bear the names of Belshazzar and Nabonidus, showing that there was some connection between these two people, and another tablet referred to Belshazzar as the king's son. Another tablet was examined which proved to be a contract, containing an oath taken in the name of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. In ancient Babylonia oaths were taken in the name of the reigning king. This tablet, then, gave indication that Belshazzar was actually co-ruler with his father, Nabonidus.

In subsequent years, the work of Raymond P. Dougherty, late professor of Assyriology at Yale University, furnished further illumination on the situation concerning Belshazzar. Dougherty showed that during the later part of his reign Nabonidus spent a great deal of his time in Arabia, probably for the purpose of consolidating that part of his empire, although some scholars have suggested that he was doing what we would call archaeological work, and others have suggested that he stayed in Arabia because he liked the climate. In any event the clay tablets show us the reason for the raising of Belshazzar to the position of ruling monarchnamely, because of the absence of his father from Babylon. The English scholar, Sidney Smith, has published an inscription which evidently refers to Nabonidus and which says, He entrusted the kingship to him, indicating the bestowal of royal authority upon Belshazzar.[2] [3]

[2] R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929) (DNB)

[3] Ibid., p. 108.

There is no first-rate liberal today, as far as the writer knows, who urges this old objection concerning Belshazzar. An example of the way in which liberals recognize the facts in the case may be taken from the book, What Mean These Stones, by Millar Burrows, where he points out that the solution of this apparent discrepancy was apparent when evidence was found that during the last part of his reign Nabunaid (Nabonidus) lived in Arabia and left the administration of the government to his son Belshazzar.

The detailed facts are that Nabonidus, in one sense the last king of Babylon, was not killed by the invading Persians, but was given a pension by his conquerors. On the other hand, Belshazzar, elevated to the position of ruler of Babylon by his father, was killed when the city of Babylon was taken, as indicated in Daniel 5:30. The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.

For more detail on this data see Boutflower (IABD, pgs. 114-141). There is no doubt now that Belshazzar was a historical personage. That Daniel calls him king in no way implies that Daniel understood him to be emperor of all the Babylonian empire. The Hebrew and Aramaic languages do not have a word for emperor who is over kings. One word, king, covers all such and similar relationships. Belshazzar was the king of the city of Babylon and its districtand perhaps a few adjoining districts.

Since the question of the relationship of Nabonidus and Belshazzar to Nebuchadnezzar comes here first it may be well to bring in the subject of the queen in Daniel 5:10. Some have supposed her to be the queen-mother of Belshazzar. Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar and came to the throne by means other than royal family succession. However, since only seven years had elapsed between Nebuchadnezzar's death and the accession of Nabonidus to the throne, it could have easily been possible that a young widowed wife of Nebuchadnezzar was available for Nabonidus to marry. Such a marriage would give the usurper Nabonidus social or royal standing (Herod the Great had this in mind, no doubt, when he married the Hasmonean princess, Mariamne). Thus the queen would be the queen-mother to Belshazzar. There is also the possibility that Belshazzar, might have been a real son of Nebuchadnezzar and not Nabonidus, living at the same time Nabonidus was living. When Nabonidus married the widowed queen he may have adopted the son, Belshazzar, and thus secured an heir for himself, a scion of the illustrious family of Nebuchadnezzar.

Robert Dick Wilson in (SBD, pg. 117ff) has shown among the Arabs and the Babylonians the word son lent itself to no less than twelve separate uses, including grandson and adopted son; and the word for father has seven separate and distinct uses.

Daniel 5:2-4 BELSHAZZAR, WHILE HE TASTED THE WINE, COMMANDED TO BRING THE GOLDEN AND SILVER VESSELS. THEY DRANK WINE AND PRAISED THE GODS OF GOLD. Leupold remarks that the Oriental. king and his most renowned men of state sat on an elevated dias in the banquet hall. The drinking of wine followed after the meal had been eaten; it signifies the procedure that might be termed a -drinking bout.-'

When the wine was beginning to have its inebriating effect, supplying that pseudo-boldness and courage which is characteristic of its intoxicating ingredients, this debauched monarch commanded the holy vessels of the Jewish Temple be brought that they might be used in their revelry. This was plainly an act of open defiance, calculated to insult the God whose Temple stood in Jerusalem. Using the vessels of the Jewish Temple, Belshazzar and his drunken court drank toasts to their idols. Leupold points out that this is a deed unparalleled in the records of antiquity. The heathen were noted for destroying and ransacking the temples of their victims but they always erected new temples for the deities of the conquered nations or placed their sacred things in their own pantheons. The gods of all peoples were venerated; a man respected his own gods as well as the gods of others.

As is plainly shown in Daniel 5:22 ff., Belshazzar sad ample opportunity to know better than this. His action then was plainly one of insolence brought on by drunken debauchery. His predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar, was guilty of pride. Belshazzar was guilty of insolence. There has been a marked degeneracy in the moral and rational fibre of the Babylonian leadership.

The Handwriting On the Wall

Belshazzar is the typical profligate and frivolous monarch of paganism. The presence of the king's wives and concubines was usually not tolerated at banquets. It was, however, permitted when debauchery began to run rampant. added insult to the holy God of heaven.
How many people were at this banquet? Royal feasts in antiquity were often huge. Athenaeus relates that the Persian king daily fed 15,000 men from his table. One marriage festival given by Alexander the Great was attended by 10,000 guests.
All the data we have thus far gathered on Belshazzar indicates that he occupied a position of co-regency with Nabonidus; yet while Belshazzar occupied a position, technically, subordinate to that of Nabonidus, actually, he seems to have had nearly all the prerogatives of a monarch. He was actually entrusted with the kingship over Babylon, and he managed it like a king. Now it is important to remember the book of Daniel is not an official document of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It was written for the Jews, the people of God, who had to deal with the man who ruled in Babylon. This man was Belshazzarnot Nabonidus. The man whose royal word could affect the Jews was Belshazzar. Very properly, therefore, he is called king and king of Babylon.

Daniel 5:5-7. CAME FORTH THE FINGERS OF A MAN'S HAND, AND WROTE. UPON THE PLASTER. Just as the feast began to swing, a human hand appeared and with the fingers began to inscribe some words upon the white plaster of the king's banquet hall. The royal table sat on the dais and close to a back wall. That portion of the great hall (about 50-' x 160-') was lit with a great candelabrum, the light of which reflected on the plastered wall behind the royal seat. Another interesting testimony of archaeology is that the walls of the palace at Babylon were covered with white plaster. This mention of white plaster is interesting because the Aramaic word translated plaster literally means chalk.

The sight of this hand was clearly seen by the king, It had a rapid, sobering effect on the king! Seeing only a hand, the king's imagination would have free reign to think of all manner of terrible beings who might be the owner of that hand. The color drained from his face leaving it ghostly white and he began to shake violently so that his hips seemed to go clear out of their sockets and his knees knocked together so the knocking could be heard by those standing near him! The arrogant, insolent king of a few moments ago, defying the Almighty, now stands transfixed with terror!
Unable to sit down because of his shaking, hardly able to stand because of his overpowering fear, the king screams (literally, with excessive loudness), to hide his trembling voice, Summon my wise-men immediately! His thoughts troubled him. may indicate that his conscience began to bother him. We have commented earlier on the categories of seers in the Babylonian court.
Belshazzar hastily promises anyone of them elevation to a place of preeminence in the kingdom if one of them can decipher the writing on the wall for him. Just what the position third in the kingdom means is debated by the commentators. Young thinks it means a thirdling or triumvir, -one of three-'. The Triumvirate would then include, in order of authority, Nabonidus, Belshazzer, and whoever deciphered the writing (as the sequence of events shows would be Daniel). Leupold maintains it reads literally talti which is not the ordinal numeral third, which would have to be telithi. It therefore probably means adjutant or officer. It no doubt involves a very high dignity, but no man is able to determine exactly what dignity.

QUIZ

1.

Prove that Belshazzar was a real, historic personage.

2.

How may Nebuchadnezzar be designated the father of Belshazzar?

3.

Who was the queen?

4.

How many people might be in attendance at this banquet?

5.

What was Belshazzar's purpose in drinking wine from the temple vessels?

6.

Describe Belshazzar's condition upon seeing the hand writing on the wall.

7.

Should Belshazzar have known better than to act this way with the Jews sacred vessels? Why?