Thanks to the Babylonian Chronicle, the date of Belshazzar’s feast can be determined with a high degree of precision. The Chronicle states that on the sixteenth day of the month Tishri in Nabonidus’s seventeenth year (Saturday, October 12, 539 B.C.) “the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle.”1 Herodotus notes that Babylon fell during a time of “festival” or celebration (Herodotus, Histories 1.191). This corresponds closely to Daniel’s description of the fall happening the night Nabonidus held a “great feast for a thousand of his lords” (Dan. 5:1).
The identification of Belshazzar as “king” (5:1) was thought by some past scholars to be a clear example of historical error since the final king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Herodotus never mentioned Belshazzar as a ruler in Babylon, identifying instead Labynetus (i.e., Nabonidus) as the king when the city fell to Cyrus (Herodotus, Histories 1.77). Josephus, reflecting the understanding of his day, tried to solve the apparent problem by identifying Nabonidus and Belshazzar as two names for the same individual. “And when he was dead, [the kingdom] came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus” (Josephus, Antiquities 10.11.2).
Archeological discoveries over the past century have helped clarify the alleged discrepancy and attest to the historicity, as well as the antiquity, of the book of Daniel. The discovery of the Babylonian Chronicle finally resolved the apparent problem. Nabonidus was an absent king who abandoned the city of Babylon and its religious festivals and left his son, Belshazzar, to rule in his place as crown prince. This continued for at least five years—from the seventh through eleventh years of Nabonidus’s reign—and probably longer.2 Texts have been uncovered that elevate Belshazzar to the functional role of king during the long absence of his father.
Belshazzar’s role of coregent with his father appears to have been forgotten by the time of Herodotus. But Daniel not only identified Belshazzar as the king ruling in Babylon, he also clearly implied his role as coregent when he noted that Belshazzar could only offer him the position as “third ruler in the kingdom” (5:16)—the position just below that occupied by Belshazzar himself! The story reflects a detailed knowledge of politics and history that points to someone writing during the time of the events themselves—someone like Daniel.
Before we proceed to the exposition of this chapter, it is worth noting that in the chiastic structure of Daniel 2–7, chapter 5 is parallel to chapter 4. God’s revelation to Babylon’s last king mirrors His revelation to Babylon’s first king. Nebuchadnezzar learned that “those who walk in pride [God] is able to humble” (4:37). Sadly, “you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this” (5:22). Following his time of humiliation Nebuchadnezzar “honored him who lives forever” (4:34). But as for Belshazzar, “the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored” (5:23).
5:1–4 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought in the golden vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.
In the interpretation of the image in chapter 2, Daniel had predicted to Nebuchadnezzar, “Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you” (Dan. 2:39). Now this prophecy was about to be fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliating experience in chapter 4 had been followed by his death in 562 B.C. During the approximately twenty-three years that elapsed between chapters 4 and 5, a number of monarchs had succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus eventually assumed the throne in 556 B.C. and reigned until 539 B.C. when his kingdom was conquered by the Medes. Nabonidus evidently married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to strengthen his claim to the throne.3 His eldest son from this union was Belshazzar. This explains why Belshazzar was said to be in the lineal descent from Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 18) and why he was honored as a coruler under Nabonidus. Although there are alternative explanations and some dates vary, this succession of kings and identification of characters has reasonable justification.
It was during this near quarter of a century between chapters 4 and 5 that the further revelations given to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 occurred. chapter 7 was revealed to Daniel “in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (Dan. 7:1) and the vision of the ram and he-goat in chapter 8 occurred “in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (Dan. 8:1). The information embodied in these two visions, insofar as Daniel understood it, was therefore known to Daniel before the events of chapter 5, which chronologically came after chapters 7 and 8. If Belshazzar began his reign in 553 B.C., when Nabonidus went to Teima, the visions of chapters 7 and 8 actually occurred fourteen and twelve years, respectively, before the events of chapter 5.
Verse 1 introduces the fact that Belshazzar had given a great feast for one thousand of his lords. That such a large feast should be held by a monarch like Belshazzar is not at all strange. Leupold cites the ancient historian Ktesias to the effect that Persian monarchs frequently were known to dine daily with 15,000 people.4 M. E. Mallowan mentions the great feast that Ashusnasirpal II gave to 69,574 guests when he dedicated his new capital city of Calah (Nimrud) in 879 B.C.5
Although the size of the banquet is not amazing, the situation was most unusual. King Nabonidus had returned to Babylon, which was now threatened by the Medes and the Persians. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the final days of Babylon were chaotic, with Nabonidus trying to put down a rebellion inside the city while simultaneously facing the Babylonian army outside:
In the month Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Guttium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there).6
On that final fateful night, the whole territory surrounding the city of Babylon and the related provinces had already been conquered. Only Babylon with its massive walls and fortifications remained intact. Nabonidus had been defeated in battle and fled, leaving Belshazzar in charge of the remaining forces in the city of Babylon.
Possibly to reassert their faith in their Babylonian gods and to bolster their own courage, this feast in the form of a festival had been ordered. The storehouses of Babylon were still abundant with food and wine, and there is evidence that there was plenty of both at this feast. The expression “drank wine in front of the thousand” indicates that Belshazzar was probably on a platform at a higher level than the guests and led them in drinking toasts to their deities. Under the stimulus of wine, the thought occurred to Belshazzar to bring in the gold and silver vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar almost seventy years before. The implication in the clause “when he tasted the wine” is that Belshazzar in his right mind probably would not have committed this sacrilegious act.
Drinking bouts like this that characterized Babylon were also common among other peoples, such as the Persians. Athenaeus quotes Heracleides of Cumae, the author of Persian History, in describing in detail the custom of drinking to excess after dinner.7 The luxury of both the drinking and the eating is also illustrated in Athenaeus in describing dinners among the Persians of high station as follows: “For one thousand animals are slaughtered daily for the king; these comprise horses, camels, oxen, asses, deer, and most of the smaller animals; many birds also are consumed, including Arabian ostriches—and the creature is large—geese, and cocks.”8
Much has been made of the reference to Belshazzar’s relationship to Nebuchadnezzar, who is described as “his father” in verse 2; even Keil is influenced by this to consider Belshazzar a literal son of Nebuchadnezzar.9 This is not entirely impossible, of course, for as Leupold shows,10 Nabonidus could have married a widow of Nebuchadnezzar who had a son by Nebuchadnezzar, which son could then be adopted by Nabonidus as a way of strengthening his own hold on the throne. Nabonidus assumed the throne in 556 B.C., only six years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was probably at least a teenager when Nebuchadnezzar died—if he was old enough to be coregent with Nabonidus in 553 B.C.—and thus it is at least possible that Belshazzar could have been a genuine son of Nebuchadnezzar and that his mother, after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, was married to Nabonidus. This, however, is conjecture, and it is more natural to consider Belshazzar a son of Nabonidus himself—though, as noted earlier, his mother could have been Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter.
Although the precise identity of Belshazzar may continue to be debated, available facts support Daniel’s designation of Belshazzar as king and a physical descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. The reference to father may be construed as “grandfather.” As Pusey states, “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.”11
The sacred vessels taken from Jerusalem had apparently been kept in storage without sacrilegious use from Nebuchadnezzar’s day until this feast. Now these holy vessels were distributed among the crowd for drinking their wine—everyone from the king and lords to his wives and concubines. This act of sacrilege was an intentioned religious gesture in praise of the gods of Babylon mentioned in descending order of importance as “the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.” That Belshazzar well knew the blasphemous character of his act is evident from Daniel 5:13, 22. He knew the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience with God’s chastening. The fact that the gods of gold and silver are separated by the conjunction “and,” which is not true of the other gods, may suggest two classes of deities.12
The revelers’ pride in their deities may have been bolstered by the magnificence of the city of Babylon itself, interpreted as an evidence of the power of their gods. Herodotus gives a glowing account of Babylon as a monument to the genius of Nebuchadnezzar and undoubtedly a source of much pride for all Babylonians. According to Herodotus, Babylon was about fourteen miles square, with great outer walls 87 feet thick and 350 feet high, with a hundred great bronze gates in the walls. A system of inner and outer walls with a water moat between them made the city very secure. So broad and strong were the walls that there was enough room “for a four-horse chariot to turn.” Herodotus pictures hundreds of towers at appropriate intervals reaching another 100 feet into the air above the top of the wall.13
Modern interpreters view these figures as greatly exaggerated, with the real dimensions only about one-fourth of what Herodotus claimed. The outer wall seems to have been only seventeen miles in circumference, instead of about fifty-six as Herodotus claimed, with many fewer towers and gates. Probably even the towers were not more than 100 feet tall. While the dimensions may be questioned, the magnificence of the city was not seriously exaggerated.14
The great Euphrates River flowed through the middle of the city in a general north-south direction and was bordered by walls on each side to protect the city from attack from the river. Within these walls were beautiful avenues, parks, and palaces. Many of the streets were lined with buildings three and four stories high. Among these buildings were the Temple of Bel, an eight-tiered ziggurat or tower, and the magnificent palace of the king, which was actually a complex of buildings. A great bridge spanned the Euphrates River, connecting the eastern section and the western or new section of the city. The famed “hanging gardens” were large enough to support trees.
In many respects, Babylon was the most fabulous city of the ancient world both for the beauty of its architecture and for the safety of its huge walls and fortifications. It was hard for the Babylonians to believe that even the Medes and the Persians who had surrounded their beloved city could possibly breach the fortifications or exhaust their supplies that were intended to be ample for a siege of many years. Their confidence in their gods was bolstered by their confidence in their city.
5:5–9 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king called loudly to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king declared to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.
While the feast was in progress with its drinking and shouting of praises to the gods of Babylon, the fingers of a man’s hand suddenly appeared and wrote on the plastered wall of the palace. With only the fingers of the hand visible, the spectacle immediately attracted attention.
In the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace archeologists have uncovered a large throne room 56 feet wide and 173 feet long that probably was the scene of this banquet. Midway in the long wall opposite the entrance there was a niche in front of which the king may well have been seated. The walls were washed over with white gypsum and covered in one place with a façade of ornamental bricks.15
A reconstruction of the throne room in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon.
It is probable that the banquet that night was illuminated by torches, which not only produced smoke but fitful light that would only partially light the great hall. As the writing appeared on “the plaster of the wall … opposite the lampstand” (v. 5), it may have appeared in an area of greater illumination than the rest of the room and thus also have attracted more attention.
The effect upon Belshazzar was immediate. According to Daniel, his face drained of color and his knees began to knock. His thin courage, bolstered by wine drunk from vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had plundered and were seemingly a symbol of the power of Babylon’s gods, deserted him. He hardly had the strength to stand. Probably before the babble of conversation in the banquet room had subsided, Belshazzar began to call out loudly to summon his wise men. Only three classes are mentioned, but it is doubtful that any class was intentionally omitted.
The enchanters corresponded more closely to the modern concept of astrologers, although they may have also practiced sorcery. The Chaldeans were a broad class of scholars and learned men in the lore of the Babylonians, and the astrologers were actually magicians. Daniel had used all three terms before (see 1:20 and 2:27). It is possible that in the decline of the Babylonian Empire that there were far fewer wise men at this point than there were under Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel may have been absent that night because he was not invited to the banquet.
As soon as a suitable number of wise men had assembled, Belshazzar announced that anyone who could interpret the writing would be “clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck” (v. 7). These were special tokens of the king’s favor and certainly would have been coveted by any of the wise men. What’s more, Belshazzar promised to make this person “the third ruler in the kingdom” (v. 7). This was the highest position next to his own, since King Nabonidus was still alive and was officially first. As a result, Belshazzar was only the second highest ruler. Belshazzar was evidently terrified and desperately desired to know the meaning of the writing.
The large reward that was offered, however, was to no avail, for the wise men who assembled could not read or interpret the writing. This implies a twofold difficulty. Some have claimed that the text does not plainly indicate the language. Charles, for instance, suggests that the writing was in unfamiliar ideograms.16 This, however, is mere conjecture. The probability is that the writing was in Aramaic and therefore not entirely unknown to the wise men. Goldingay offers a simple suggestion. “It is not specified what made the words unreadable as well as unintelligible (v. 8)…. But most straightforwardly the story envisages them written as unpointed consonants: being able to read out unpointed text is partly dependent on actually understanding it, and Daniel later reads the words out one way and interprets them another.”17
In any case Daniel read the writing as Aramaic, and the suggestion of puns in the language (see later discussion) depends upon the Aramaic. The difficulty of the wise men in reading the writing may have been that it was written in Aramaic script without the vowels being supplied; but if written in cuneiform, the vowels would have been included. Daniel did not explain the difficulty in reading the writing on the wall, but apparently the language was in a form of Aramaic that the wise men could neither read nor understand—nor, of course, could they interpret its significance. (For further discussion, see exposition of vv. 24–28.)
The wise men’s failure to decipher the writing only increased Belshazzar’s concern. Perhaps the full force of his wickedness in using the vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem had begun to dawn upon him, or the fears suppressed concerning the armies surrounding Babylon may have emerged. His concern was shared by the entire assembly.
Belshazzar’s predicament is another illustration of the insecurity and powerlessness of the rulers of this world when confronted by the power and wisdom of God. God holds in derision the rulers of the world who take counsel against Him (Ps. 2:1–4). Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Belshazzar was soon to experience divine judgment, but without the happy ending.
5:10–12 The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall, and the queen declared, “O king, live forever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change. There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.”
The crisis produced by the wise men’s inability to interpret the handwriting on the wall is met by the entrance of one described as “the queen.” Since the wives of the lords and the king himself were said to be already at the banquet (v. 3), the queen would most probably be Belshazzar’s mother, who had not attended the banquet. This would be understandable if she were older and not physically up to, or interested in, a night of drunken revelry.
Hearing the unusual clamor at the banquet and learning of the distress of her son, because of her position the queen was able to enter the banquet hall freely and speak to the king. Her address was courteous, but to the point. Like a mother, she told her son in effect to pull himself together because there must be some solution to his problem. Since one holding her position was highly regarded and treated with respect, she could speak out in a way that no other could. Honoring of parents was characteristic of the Israelites (Exod. 20:12; 1 Kings 2:13–20; 2 Kings 24:12–15). The same was true in the Gentile world, and the queen was able to enter the banquet hall without an invitation.
The solution the queen suggested was to invite Daniel the prophet, who had served as a man of wisdom under Nebuchadnezzar, to interpret the writing. The queen used the very words that presumably she had heard Nebuchadnezzar express (Dan. 4:8–9, 18): Daniel, she said, had “the spirit of the holy gods.” So great was Daniel’s genius that Nebuchadnezzar had made him “chief” of his wise men, which in itself was a remarkable position for one who was not a Chaldean. This honor placed upon him testified to Nebuchadnezzar’s confidence in Daniel’s abilities. The reference to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, as previously noted, probably indicates grandfather, since the same term was used for both designations. It does imply, however, that Belshazzar was a physical descendent of Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel’s excellent qualities manifested themselves in unusual knowledge and understanding, and the ability to “interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems” (v. 12). Daniel had not been assembled with the other wise men because he probably was in semiretirement and was no longer chief of the wise men. The queen urged, however, that he now be brought in to solve the present problem.
5:13–16 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. I have heard of you that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
It seems clear that Belshazzar knew something of Daniel, for his form of address in verse 13 goes beyond the information supplied by his mother. He knew for instance that Daniel was of the captivity of Judah and that he was one of the captives that Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem. It may well be that because of awareness of his ancestry and religious convictions that Daniel had been demoted by Belshazzar himself. Now Belshazzar was all too eager to have the gifts of this man exercised to interpret the writing. Belshazzar goes on in verse 14 to repeat what his mother had said concerning Daniel’s wisdom.
Belshazzar informs Daniel of the inability of all the wise men either to read or to interpret the writing. Belshazzar then offers Daniel the same promise he made to the others of being clothed with purple and having a chain of gold and the privilege of being “the third ruler in the kingdom.” As in the previous instances in Daniel 2 and 4, the wisdom of the world is demonstrated to be totally unable to solve its major problems and to understand either the present or the future. Daniel as the prophet of God is the channel through whom divine revelation would come, and Belshazzar in his predicament was willing to listen.
Too often the world, like Belshazzar, is not willing to seek the wisdom of God until its own bankruptcy becomes evident. Then help is sought too late, as in the case of Belshazzar, and the cumulative sin and unbelief that precipitated the crisis in the first place becomes the occasion of downfall.
The situation before Belshazzar had all the elements of a great drama. Here was Daniel, an Old man well in his eighties, with the marks of godly living evident in his bearing—in sharp contrast to the wine-flushed faces of the crowd. In the midst of this atmosphere of consternation, apprehension, and fear, Daniel’s countenance alone reflected the deep peace of God founded on confidence in Him and His divine revelation.
5:17–23 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him. He was driven from among the children of mankind, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. He was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will. And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this, but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored.”
Daniel’s reply to the king is properly called a sermon, and as King says, “What a great sermon it is!”18 Daniel began by disavowing any interest in the gifts or rewards that the king offered. This was not prompted by disrespect or by the evident fact that they would be short-lived. Daniel was simply saying that he would give an unprejudiced interpretation with no attempt to seek favor from Belshazzar. Daniel promised both to read and to make known the interpretation.
Daniel did not address the king as he did, for instance, in connection with Darius (Dan. 6:21). No doubt Daniel held Belshazzar in contempt for his desecration of the sacred vessels. However, the narration here must be considered a condensed account, and probably Daniel addressed the king in a formal way. Parallels are found in Daniel 2:27 and 4:19, where Daniel addressed Nebuchadnezzar without a formal greeting. This was hardly a time in any case for Daniel to greet Belshazzar as he did Darius, “O king, live forever!” when as a matter of fact, Belshazzar’s hours were numbered. Instead, Daniel recognized Belshazzar as king but then immediately delivered his prophetic message of condemnation.
In 5:17 Daniel announced he would read and interpret the writing for the king. However, he did not begin doing so until 5:24. Between these verses Daniel shared a history lesson from the life of Babylon’s first great king. It is the Most High God who sets up, and takes down, human rulers, and those human rulers need to acknowledge that the Most High God “rules the kingdom of mankind.”
Daniel first reminded Belshazzar that God gave Nebuchadnezzar his great kingdom and the honor that went with it. In verse 19, Daniel described graphically how Nebuchadnezzar was feared and had absolute authority of life and death over his people and, accordingly, was an absolute sovereign. As Young points out, however, the very character of this absolute authority delegated to Nebuchadnezzar by God also made Nebuchadnezzar accountable.19
This is demonstrated and supported by Nebuchadnezzar’s experience of insanity when, as Daniel expressed it, “he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him” (v. 20). Daniel then itemized in detail the characteristics of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity—how he lived with the wild animals, ate grass like the ox, and was wet with dew. All of this proved that God was greater than Nebuchadnezzar and held him responsible for his authority. Only when Nebuchadnezzar was properly humbled did God restore him to his glory and kingdom.
These facts were pertinent to Belshazzar’s situation because the king knew all of this. The difference was that he had not humbled himself the way Nebuchadnezzar had done. The contrast between the supreme power of Nebuchadnezzar and the very limited power of Belshazzar is also evident. Belshazzar was not even the first ruler in the kingdom, and was humiliated by the fact that Babylon was besieged and had already lost its power over the provinces surrounding the city.
Belshazzar’s situation and his knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s humbling made all the more blasphemous his taking of the vessels captured in Jerusalem and using them to drink wine in praising the gods of Babylon. With eloquent scorn Daniel described the gods of Babylon “which do not see or hear or know.” But the true God “in whose hand is your breath” Belshazzar had not “honored” (v. 23).20
Although the Scriptures do not say expressly, it is probable that Daniel’s message to the king was heard by the entire company. It would have been quite improper for the entire company to keep on talking, especially in these dramatic circumstances, when Daniel was reporting to the king. They would naturally want to hear what he had to say. One can well imagine the tense moments as these ringing words reached every ear in the vast hall in the deathly silence that greeted Daniel’s prophetic utterance. Here was a man who did not fear man, but feared only God. Daniel condemned in measured tones that which was blasphemous in the sight of the holy God. There was, however, nothing insolent or discourteous in Daniel’s address to Belshazzar, and the charges were stated in a factual and objective way. Besides, the king was in no position to dispute with Daniel, even though Daniel’s words brought even greater fear and apprehension to his heart.
5:24–28 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”
Having shared the most important message Belshazzar needed to hear, Daniel then turned to read the writing on the wall. There has been almost endless critical discussion of the inscription’s meaning, and the interpretation is complicated by a number of factors.21 In the book of Daniel the words are given in Aramaic, but some have questioned this.22 If it was written in Aramaic script, however, only the consonants may have appeared. If in cuneiform, the vowels would be included. While in ordinary discourse the lack of vowels could normally be supplied rather easily, in a cryptic statement such as this the addition of vowels is a problem. The inscription on the wall may have appeared like this, “MN’ MN’ TQL PRSN.” The order of the letters in the Aramaic would be the reverse of this—that is, from right to left.
Young suggests, following some of the rabbis, that the characters may have been written vertically,23 and in that case in the Aramaic order they would have appeared as follows:
If, in addition to the complications of Aramaic script, some unfamiliar form of their characters was used, it would indeed have required divine revelation to give a suitable explanation and interpretation, and may account for the difficulty in reading the writing. Daniel’s explanation, however, is reasonable and cogent, and does not give any indication that the words mean other than he indicates.
The words, in Aramaic, are cognates of several Hebrew words that were measures of weight or currency.
Mene is related to the Hebrew word mina. A mina was equal to fifty shekels. The word can also be translated “to count” or “to number.” The word is repeated twice, perhaps for emphasis. Daniel interpreted it to mean “God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end” (v. 26).
Tekel is related to the Hebrew word shekel. A shekel was a unit of weight, but the word can be translated “to weigh” or “to be found light or wanting.” Daniel interpreted it to mean “you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting” (v. 27).
Parsin is related to the Hebrew word peres, which was a unit of weight (a half-shekel). The word also can be translated “divided,” and as a play on words it could also refer to the Persians. Daniel interpreted it to mean “your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (v. 28).
Through the handwriting, Belshazzar was made to understand that Babylon would fall to the enemies that were besieging the city at that very moment. Even while Daniel was interpreting the writing, the prophecy was being fulfilled as the Medes and the Persians poured into the city.
5:29–31 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put around his neck, and a proclamation was made about him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
The drama of the writing on the wall and its interpretation was brought to its fulfillment as Belshazzar kept his promise and made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. It was a short-lived honor, however, as Daniel well knew, and typical of the honors of this world. In its rise to power the Babylonian Empire had conquered Jerusalem, taken its inhabitants into captivity, looted its beautiful temple, and destroyed the city. Yet this empire was to have as its last official act the honoring of one of these Hebrew captives who by divine revelation predicted not only the downfall of Babylon, but the course of the times of the Gentiles until the Son of Man comes from heaven. Man may have the first word, but God will have the last word.
Herodotus gives an interesting account of the circumstances surrounding the capture of Babylon:
Cyrus … then advanced against Babylon. But the Babylonians, having taken the field, awaited his coming; and when he had advanced near the city, the Babylonians gave battle, and, being defeated, were shut up in the city. But as they had been long aware of the restless spirit of Cyrus, and saw that he attacked all nations alike, they had laid up provisions for many years, and therefore were under no apprehensions about a siege. On the other hand, Cyrus found himself in difficulty, since much time had elapsed, and his affairs were not at all advanced. Whether, therefore, someone else made the suggestion to him in his perplexity, or whether he himself devised the plan, he had recourse to the following stratagem. Having stationed the bulk of his army near the passage of the river where it enters Babylon, and again having stationed another division beyond the city, where the river makes its exit, he gave order to his forces to enter the city as soon as they should see the stream fordable. Having stationed his forces and given these directions, he himself marched away with the ineffective part of his army; and having come to the lake, Cyrus did the same with respect to the river and the lake as the queen of the Babylonians had done; for having diverted the river, by means of a canal, into the lake, which was before a swamp, he made the ancient channel fordable by the sinking of the river. When this took place, the Persians who were appointed to that purpose close to the stream of the river, which had now subsided to about the middle of a man’s thigh, entered Babylon by this passage. If, however, the Babylonians had been aware of it beforehand, or had known what Cyrus was about, they would not have suffered the Persians to enter the city, but would have utterly destroyed them; for, having shut all the little gates that lead to the river, and mounting the walls that extend along the banks of the river, they would have caught them as in a net; whereas the Persians came upon them by surprise. It is related by the people who inhabited this city, that, by reason of its great extent, when they who were at the extremities were taken, those of the Babylonians who inhabited the centre knew nothing of the capture (for it happened to be a festival); but they were dancing at the time, and enjoying themselves, till they received certain information of the truth. And thus Babylon was taken for the first time.24
Keil discusses at length both Herodotus’s account and that of Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, which is similar, and summarizes the arguments of Kranichfeld discounting these records. Discoveries since Keil tend to support Herodotus and Xenophon, although Darius the Mede is not accounted for. The battle probably took place much as Herodotus records it.25
Prophecy anticipating the fall of Babylon is found in both Isaiah and Jeremiah, written many years before. Both prophets had said that Babylon would fall to the Medes on just such a night of revelry as Daniel records (Isa. 13:17–22; 21:1–10; Jer. 51:33–58). Some of these prophecies may have their ultimate fulfillment in the future (Rev. 17–18). More specifically, Isaiah writes of the invasion of the Medes, “Go up, O Elam; lay siege, O Media” (Isa. 21:2), and speaks of his own shock at the horrors of war and judgment: “My heart staggers; horror has appalled me; the twilight I longed for has been turned for me into trembling. They prepare the table, they spread the rugs, they eat, they drink. Arise, O princes; oil the shield!” (Isa. 21:4–5).
Finally, the tidings come, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the carved images of her gods he has shattered to the ground” (Isa. 21:9). Jeremiah is explicit: “I will make drunk her officials and her wise men, her governors, her commanders, and her warriors; they shall sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake, declares the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts. Thus says the LORD of hosts: The broad wall of Babylon shall be leveled to the ground, and her high gates shall be burned with fire” (Jer. 51:57–58).
The account of Cyrus himself of the fall of Babylon was found in an inscription on a clay barrel:
Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people/worshipers, beheld with pleasure his (i.e., Cyrus’) good deeds and his upright mind (lit.: heart) (and therefore) ordered him to march against his city Babylon…. He made him set out on the road to Babylon … going at his side like a real friend. His widespread troops—their number, like that of the water of a river, could not be established—strolled along, their weapons packed away. Without any battle, he made him enter his town Babylon, … sparing Babylon … any calamity. He delivered into his (i.e., Cyrus’) hands Nabonidus, the king who did not worship him (i.e., Marduk).26
Daniel himself recorded with simplicity the fulfillment of his prophecy: “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed” (v. 30). The concluding verse of the chapter records how Darius the Mede became ruler of Babylon at the age of sixty-two.
The long chapter devoted to this incident that brought the Babylonian Empire to its close is undoubtedly recorded in the Word of God for several reasons. First, there is the historic fulfillment of the prophecies relative to the Babylonian Empire. Second, this chapter is also an illustration of divine dealing with a wicked world. The downfall of Babylon is in type the downfall of the unbelieving world. In many respects, modern civilization is much like ancient Babylon, resplendent with its monuments of architectural triumph, as secure as human hands and ingenuity can make it, and yet defenseless against the judgment of God at the proper hour.
Contemporary civilization is also similar to ancient Babylon in that it has much to foster human pride, but little to provide human security. Much as Babylon fell on that sixteenth day of Tishri (October 12) 539 B.C., as indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle,27 so the world will be overtaken by disaster when the day of the Lord comes (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Babylon’s disaster, however, did not overtake the servant of God. Daniel survived the purge and emerged triumphant as one of the presidents of the new kingdom.
1 A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 109–10.
2 Ibid., 106–8.
3 Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 69.
4 Montgomery mentions a marriage feast of Alexander with 10,000 guests. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 250.
5 M. E. L. Mallowan, “Nimrud,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, D. Winton Thomas, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 62.
6 James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 306.
7 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae IV, in Athenaeus, Charles Burton Gulick, trans., Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann, 1927–41), 145.
8 Ibid., 165.
9 Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 174–75.
10 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 211.
11 Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 346. See also Leupold, Daniel, 216–17, who discusses this quotation from Pusey.
12 Keil, Daniel, 181.
13 Herodotus, History of the Persian Wars 1:178–83.
14 Cf. Merrill F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R. K. Harrison, ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988), 135; T. G. Pinches, “Babel, Babylon,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, James Orr, ed. (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930), 350. For a map of Babylon in sixth century B.C., see D. J. Wiseman, “Babylon,” in The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 117–20. For pictures and further details, see R. K. Harrison, “Babylon,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 89–93.
15 Robert Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon, Agnes S. Johns, trans. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, 1914), 103–4.
16 Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 57–59; cf. Keil, Daniel, 184–85.
17 John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 148.
18 Geoffrey R. King, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 148.
19 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 124.
20 There is a remarkably close parallel to the language of 5:23 in the Prayer of Nabonidus found in Qumran Cave 4: See J. T. Milik, “‘Priere de Nabonide’ et autres ecrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” Revue Biblique 63 (July 1956), 407–15.
21 In the end, even the critics accept either the interpretation of Daniel (mene, “numbered”; tekel, “weighed”; peres, “divided”), or the reading, “a maneh, a maneh, a shekel, and a half-maneh.” Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 262–64.
22 Charles, Daniel, 57–59; Keil, Daniel, 126.
23 Young, Daniel, 125–26.
24 Herodotus, Histories 1:190–91.
25 Keil, Daniel, 171–72.
26 Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 315–16.
27 John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 73.