3. The Interpretation of the Dream (4:19–27 [4:16–24])

19Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him. So the king said, “Belteshazzar, do not let the dream or its meaning alarm you.”

Belteshazzar answered, “My lord, if only the dream applied to your enemies and its meaning to your adversaries! 20The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, 21with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the beasts of the field, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds of the air—22you, O king, are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth.

23“You, O king, saw a messenger, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Cut down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump, bound with iron and bronze, in the grass of the field, while its roots remain in the ground. Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven; let him live like the wild animals, until seven times pass by for him.’

24“This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: 25You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. 26The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules. 27Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”

COMMENTARY

19–27 Unlike the interpretation of the king’s earlier dream (ch. 2), there is apparently no significant interval of time between Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation. Previously Daniel had required time for prayer in order to seek the revelation of the matter from God (cf. 2:17–19). Here Daniel seems to have nearly immediate understanding of the meaning of the king’s dream of the great tree.

Daniel is visibly shaken by what he hears and understands about the king’s dream. He is “greatly perplexed” and “terrified” for a time, not because the meaning of the dream escapes him (v.19a); rather, his alarm stems from the implications of the meaning of the dream for the king, the Babylonian Empire, the fate of the Hebrews in captivity, and perhaps even his own fate as “chief of the magicians” for Nebuchadnezzar. The verb “greatly perplexed” (Aram. šmm) is better rendered “astounded” or “shocked” (cf. NASB’s “appalled”). Baldwin, 113, comments that Daniel is silent for a time because he is “dumbfounded and dismayed at the embarrassing message he had to give” to the king (cf. NEB).

Only the encouragement of the king prompts Daniel to reveal the meaning of the dream to his overlord (v.19b). Essentially the king’s conciliatory admonition mitigates Daniel’s responsibility for the content of his interpretation—even if the meaning of the dream bodes ill for the monarch. Baldwin, 113, senses the exchange suggests a warmth of relationship between the king and his Hebrew adviser.

Daniel interprets the two parts of the dream of the great tree in sequence. The first scene of the king’s dream is recounted (vv.20–21), and the interpretation is a hopeful one for Nebuchadnezzar. He is identified as the great tree, and the dominion of his kingdom spreads from the center to the ends of the earth (v.22). As Goldingay, 89, recognizes, Daniel’s interpretation of the dream presupposes Babylon’s position as the world power of the day—a fact established previously in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the gigantic statue (2:36–38).

The second scene of the king’s dream is faithfully recounted by his chief magician (v.23). Daniel’s explanation of the symbolism, however, is most disturbing because the interpretation comes as a decree from the Most High “against” King Nebuchadnezzar (v.24). This, no doubt, accounts for Daniel’s initial astonishment and fright at the revelation of the meaning of the dream (v.19a)—and the negative omen is something Nebuchadnezzar has probably anticipated, given his urging of Daniel to proceed with divulging the tidings come what may (v.19b).

Daniel identifies the king himself as the stump of the tree cut off according to the announcement of the heavenly messenger. The fact that the king is “driven away” from his people (v.25a) suggests that the ruler is ousted or deposed in some fashion by other members of the royal court as a result of his incompetence to govern (cf. Goldingay, 79: “you are going to be led away from human society”). The king will live among the “wild animals” (v.25b), although the phrase is better rendered more literally as “animals of the field” (cf. NASB, “beasts of the field”). The image then is one of a domesticated animal tethered and grazing in the open fields. The king’s food will consist of “grass” (v.25d), although Miller, 137, observes that the “royal diet” may have been more varied, since the term for grass (Aram. ʿaśab) includes herbs and vegetables. The expression “drenched with dew of heaven” (v.25c) means that the king will not come inside at night and sleep like a human being but will remain overnight in the open fields and thus be wet with dew in the mornings.

Nebuchadnezzar’s delusion that he was an animal like an ox or a bull is a form of mental illness (cf. v.16, “let his mind be changed”), and the condition is known medically as lycanthropy or more precisely boanthropy. The king will remain in this condition for “seven times”—perhaps seven seasons or even seven years (see Notes on v.25). Daniel does offer the king the assurance that he will be restored to power, the meaning of the remaining “stump of the tree with its roots” (v.26a). Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration to the throne of Babylonia, however, is contingent on his confession that God alone is sovereign (v.26b). Only acknowledging the reality that “Heaven rules” (v.26c) will release the king from his disease.

Daniel’s interpretation of the dream of the great tree ends with instructions to the king to renounce his sin by engaging in works of mercy and social justice (v.27; see the discussion of “righteousness” [Aram. ṣidqâ] in Lucas, 113; Collins, Daniel, 230). Earlier the king gave instructions to Daniel at the end of his dream recital (v.18); now the roles are reversed. Daniel’s bold summons to the king to repent from his sin is reminiscent of the ministry of the OT prophets, who challenged Hebrew kings and people alike (often upon threat of their very lives) to repent from their sin and instead practice righteousness (e.g., 2Sa 12:7–14; 2Ki 17:13; Isa 1:16–18; cf. Wallace, 81–82). The verb “renounce” (Aram. prq; GK 10596) literally means to “break off” (cf. NASB’s “break away now from your sins”), and the imagery is that of breaking a yoke from the neck (Miller, 138, n. 38; cf. Anderson, 46–47, who takes issue with Hartman’s and Di Lella’s, 170, translation, “atone for your sins by good deeds,” as a misunderstanding of the Jewish doctrine of salvation).

Daniel’s admonition to do right and show kindness to the poor contrasts starkly with the carefree, indulgent lifestyle of the king portrayed at the beginning of the narrative (v.4). Apparently, Daniel understands that the king’s obedience to God’s word is a tangible way to confess that “Heaven rules” (v.26). According to Miller, 139, Daniel’s call to repentance “held out to the king the genuine possibility of foregoing this judgment, demonstrating God’s willingness to forgive” (but cf. Towner, 63, who sees only a “faint glimmer of hope” being offered to the king).

NOTES

25 The cryptic “seven times” (vv.16, 25; cf. v.34) specified as the duration of King Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (some form of monomania) refers to “seven periods of time” (NASB) of unknown length (whether days, weeks, months, change of seasons, or years). The LXX, along with other ancient Jewish sources (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 10.10.6), interpret the “seven times” as “seven years” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 231; Miller, 134–35; BBCOT, 736). The seven periods of time may simply be a symbolic cipher rather than an indicator of any specific length of time (see Longman, 120, n. 13).

26 The Aram. expression (šemayyāʾ, “Heaven rules”) is the only instance in the OT of the word “heaven” used as a periphrasis for God. Collins (Daniel, 229–30) notes that this usage is common in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including in intertestamental Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Macc 3:18–19; 4:10), rabbinic literature (e.g., m. ʾAbot 1:3, 11), and the NT (e.g., Lk 15:18, 21).

4. The Fulfillment of the Dream (4:28–33 [4:25–30])

28All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”

31The words were still on his lips when a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

33Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.

COMMENTARY

28–33 Regrettably for the king, Daniel’s instructions went unheeded. (Whether Nebuchadnezzar was frightened into temporary compliance or continued arrogantly in his sinful ways is unclear [cf. Longman, 121].) The final section of the narrative recounts the fulfillment of the dream in the life of Nebuchadnezzar (vv.28–33). The opening verse of the section (v.28) reports the realization of the dream summarily—as a matter of fact. In a way the statement is anticlimactic to the plot of the story, for the emphasis implicitly has shifted from the pathetic madness of the boastful Babylonian king to the Most High, who is faithful to his word—attested by the “voice from heaven” (v.31; cf. Redditt, 83).

The lapse of an entire year between the dream and its fulfillment is testimony to the patient, longsuffering nature of God (v.29). Redditt, 83, comments, “God granted Nebuchadnezzar that much time to repent and change his behavior toward both God and Israel.” Nonetheless, the horrible and humiliating predictions of Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s dream are realized. The narrative is careful to report that Nebuchadnezzar brings disaster on himself since “a great outburst of pride on the part of the Babylonian monarch became the catalyst for the dream’s fulfillment” (Miller, 139). Three times the king uses the first-person pronoun in his boastful musings over his architectural achievements in Babylon (v.30; see Miller, 139–41, on Nebuchadnezzar’s record as a prolific builder). Beyond this, Nebuchadnezzar applies the words “mighty power . . . glory . . . majesty” to his own rule (v.30). Typically these terms are reserved for the God of Israel—the Most High—and he bestows them on human rulers as he wills (2:37; cf. Ex 15:6–7; Isa 35:2; 48:11).

A mysterious voice from heaven pronounces divine judgment on Nebuchadnezzar by repeating the last portion of the announcement made by the heavenly messenger in the king’s dream (v.31; cf. vv.13–16). It is unclear whether this voice from heaven speaking to Nebuchadnezzar is God or one of the heavenly messengers (vv.13, 17). What is clear is that Nebuchadnezzar’s “royal authority” (or “sovereignty,” NASB; Aram. malkû) has been forfeited until such time as he testifies that the Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms (v.32; cf. v.25). Sovereignty in the realm of human kingdoms is the prerogative of the Sovereign God, who enthrones and deposes human rulers—the lesson of the king’s statue dream (2:21). In contrast to the year-long window of opportunity for repentance, the fulfillment of the dream is immediate (while “the words were still on his lips,” v.31a). The divine punishment inflicted on Nebuchadnezzar serves as an ominous reminder that God’s judgment is certain and sometimes swift (cf. Dt 28:20; Pr 6:15; Isa 47:11; Na 1:3; although for Gowan, 78–79, the sudden reversal of fortune is simply a literary device typical of the so-called “hybris-texts” in the OT).

The narrative reports that Nebuchadnezzar’s hair grew like “the feathers of an eagle” and that his nails were like “the claws of a bird” (v.33b). Archer, 66, explains that the king’s hair became “matted and coarse” from lack of care and came to look like feathers (although the picture could be one simply of long hair that looked like the tail feathers of a bird). Naturally, uncut fingernails and toenails will eventually grow hooked, much like a bird’s claws. As Goldingay, 90, notes, however, the point of the story is theological, not medical. The real issue is the temporary transformation of the greatest king of that day into a subhuman creature as a result of divine judgment for the sin of pride (cf. Miller, 142). Baldwin, 115, summarizes that “the pathetic condition of the erstwhile king, disheveled and unkempt among the animals, brings to an end the account in the third person.” Yet Nebuchadnezzar’s story illustrates the wisdom of the book of Proverbs at two important points: first, the wise person listens to advice and accepts instruction (Pr 12:15; 19:20); second, pride often leads to disgrace and even destruction (Pr 11:2; 16:18; 29:23; cf. Jas 4:6).

NOTE

30 Collins (Daniel, 230) points out that the boastful title “Babylon the great” (so NASB; cf. NIV’s “the great Babylon”) occurs as a negative symbol for Rome in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 18:2.

5. Conclusion and Doxology (4:34–37 [4:31–34])

34At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.

His dominion is an eternal dominion;

his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

35All the peoples of the earth

are regarded as nothing.

He does as he pleases

with the powers of heaven

and the peoples of the earth.

No one can hold back his hand

or say to him: “What have you done?”

36At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. 37Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

COMMENTARY

34–37 The conclusion of the fourth court story returns to first-person narrative, as King Nebuchadnezzar resumes his personal testimony of events associated with his dream of the great tree. The story not only recycles back to its beginning by way of the narrator’s voice, but also to its theme as the king recapitulates his doxology lauding the Most High God and published in the form of a royal letter (vv.34c–35; cf. vv.2–3). Porteous, 73, comments that Nebuchadnezzar’s praise “of Daniel’s God is more generous than what he had to say of the God of the three confessors [ch. 3]. This time he had not only witnessed the power of God, he had felt it in his own person.” Critics of the historicity of Daniel remind us that “extant Babylonian records say nothing of Nebuchadnezzar’s losing control of or vacating his throne for a significant period of time” (Redditt, 85; cf. Gowan, 84). But the argument from silence is just that—inconclusive for want of evidence.

The phrase “at the end of that time” (v.34a) simply refers cryptically to the period of “seven times” stipulated for the duration of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (cf. vv.16, 25). The king’s “sanity” or “reason” (NASB) was restored, but not automatically. The expression “I . . . raised my eyes toward heaven” suggests seeking God’s aid (so Goldingay, 90), even a simple act of repentance (cf. Seow, 72; Russell, 82). The restoration of Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity (and subsequently his honor and splendor; v.36) is testimony to God’s grace (cf. Miller, 143) and a reminder that the book of Daniel teaches that such “transformation is possible” (Smith-Christopher, 77). The king’s experience has taught him that the Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms (vv.17, 25), thus demonstrating “the point which animates the narrative” (Towner, 64; cf. Russell, 82).

Nebuchadnezzar’s doxological confession is the longest of such testimonials in the book of Daniel. Smith-Christopher, 76, has isolated three important themes in the king’s confession: (1) the perpetual or eternal sovereignty of God as his kingdom or dominion endures from generation to generation (v.34c; cf. 3b); (2) God’s rule extends to all the earth; and (3) no one has the power or ability to question the work of God. Nebuchadnezzar’s declarations about God are in keeping with OT teaching about the nature and character Yahweh of Israel (e.g., Pss 115:3; 145:13; Isa 14:27; 40:17; cf. Baldwin, 115).

The full restoration of King Nebuchadnezzar both to physical health and his position of royal authority on the throne of Babylonia (being accorded even greater honor and splendor than before; v.36) is a reminder that God honors those who honor him (1Sa 2:30; 1Ch 29:12). The king’s reference to his “advisers and nobles,” who seek him out, speaks to his formal reinstallation as king of Babylonia (v.36b). The king’s praise of God as the “King of heaven” (v.37) is a unique epithet for God in the OT, and the repetition of the term “heaven” echoes what Baldwin, 116, has observed as a “catch-word” in ch. 4 (vv.13, 20, 26, 34, 37). Ironically, Nebuchadnezzar confesses that God does what is right and that his ways are just (v.37)—essentially the instructions Daniel gave the king in his summons to repentance (v.27).

Goldingay (97) summarizes ch. 4 by citing King Nebuchadnezzar as an example—“a warning of how not to be led astray by power and achievement, a model of how to respond to chastisement and humiliation . . . [and] a promise that earthly authorities are in the hand of God, not merely for their judgment, but for his glory.” And though Nebuchadnezzar’s formal acknowledgment of God’s power and justice may fall short of penitence and true faith (so Baldwin, 116; cf. Gowan, 83, “Nebuchadnezzar is not ‘converted’”), the king is also an example of another important biblical principle, namely, that “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (Jas 4:6; 1Pe 5:5; cf. Pr 3:34). Nebuchadnezzar has learned the lesson of humility tragically but confessed the truth of the proverb with conviction given the aftermath of his personal experience (v.37c). In fact, his confession encapsulates the basic message of the Bible: assume a posture of humility before the Most High God (cf. Isa 57:15; Mic 6:8; Mt 18:4; 23:12; Php 2:8).

E. Belshazzar’s Feast and the Writing on the Wall (5:1–31 [5:1–6:1])

OVERVIEW

The fifth chapter of Daniel continues the “court stories” section of the book (chs. 1–6). For a discussion of this larger literary context within Daniel, see comments on 2:1–13 and 3:1–7.

The literary form of this story is “straightforward narrative” (Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 67) and the subgenre is generally recognized as that of “court tale of contest” (ibid.; Towner, 68). Lucas, 123, reminds us that the classic elements of the tale of court contest include a king’s being confronted with an unresolved problem, the king’s resident advisers failing to resolve the problem, the hero figure being called and succeeding in resolving the problem, and his elevation (or restoration) to a high position.

Not surprisingly, Goldingay, 102–3, considers ch. 5 a “prophetic legend,” a blending of court-contest tale, legend, and midrash (cf. Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 67–68, who identifies similar subordinate literary forms in ch. 5, including legend, indictment speech, and pesher). A “legend” is a narrative “concerned with the wonderful and aimed at edification” (ibid., 111). In this case “the marvelous” is the handwriting on the wall (v.5). A “midrash” is a stylized rabbinic interpretation emphasizing the application or relevance of a biblical text for a later generation. (Goldingay, 103, identifies two examples of midrash—the attack on idolatry and the scorning of the Babylonian sages.) A “pesher” is an allegorical understanding of a mysterious form of revelation, such as a dream, vision, or (in this case) the cryptic writing on the wall. An “indictment speech” is a formal speech-act, “which both formulates an accusation and declares a sentence [of judgment]” (Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 111).

The rubric of “court-contest tale” may prove helpful as a literary category for classifying the genres of biblical literature, but it tends to be pejorative with respect to the historicity of the biblical narrative. While this study appreciates the contribution of form criticism to biblical studies, it rejects the prejudgment of biblical texts as “ahistorical” on the basis of genre classification. On the genres of Daniel, see “Literary Form” in the introduction.

The story of Belshazzar’s feast begins abruptly, introducing a new character to the book and offering no chronological notice or transitional introduction. Despite the sudden shift in the narrative from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar, Redditt, 87, rightly notes that the bridge between chs. 4 and 5 is the theme of the doxology concluding ch. 4: “and those who walk in pride, he is able to humble” (4:37).

The story itself features two main characters, King Belshazzar and Daniel, and is dominated by three speeches (of the queen, vv.10–12; Belshazzar, vv.13–16; and Daniel, vv.17–28). The setting of the story is the royal palace in Babylon and a bacchanal feast prepared by Belshazzar for his nobles (vv.1–4). A significant event in the orgiastic revelry is the profaning of Hebrew drinking vessels plundered from Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (vv.2–4). The plot of the story hinges on the interpretation of an inscription written by a detached human hand that suddenly appears on the wall of King Belshazzar’s banquet hall (vv.5–6). The king’s royal advisers (once again) prove incompetent and are unable to decipher the meaning of the encoded message (vv.7–9).

A key pivotal point in the story is the speech of the “queen” (vv.10–12), who introduces, or better reintroduces, Daniel, since he is apparently a forgotten figure in the royal court (v.11). The king heeds the queen’s advice and summons Daniel, requests an explanation of the writing, and promises him wealth and position upon success (vv.13–16). Daniel interprets the cryptic Aramaic writing on the wall and in so doing pronounces the doom of Belshazzar and the end of the Babylonian Empire (vv.17–28). Belshazzar keeps his word and promotes Daniel to “third” in the kingdom (v.29). Later that same night, Belshazzar is assassinated by the Median/Persian invaders—and the kingdom of Babylonia passes to “Darius the Mede” (vv.30–31).

Apart from the three speeches, there are few internal markers suggesting literary structure. The following outline reflects the standard approach to this chapter: Belshazzar’s great banquet (vv.1–9), the queen’s speech (vv.10–12), Belshazzar’s speech (vv.13–16), Daniel’s speech (17–28), and the conclusion (vv.29–31). The first unit, the banquet scene, may be subdivided into two pericopes: the report of the feast (vv.1–4) and the report of the writing on the wall (vv.5–9). Both Lucas, 124, and D. Dorsey (The Literary Structure of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 261) offer differing (and somewhat forced) chiastically structured outlines of ch. 5.

The story of Belshazzar’s feast is set within the context of the fall of the Babylonian Empire in 539 BC, more than two decades after the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 562 BC. According to the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon, the Persians dug a trench around the city of Babylon and temporarily diverted the Euphrates River. The Persian army entered under the walls of the city by means of the riverbed, swiftly moved to the palace, and killed the drunken guards and the (unnamed) king (cf. Seow, 76).

Porteous, 77, admits that the book of Daniel may contain genuine reminiscences of historical fact and authentic information about Mesopotamian customs, but he concludes, “this is not history but story-telling for the communication of religious truth.” Redditt, 2–3, notes several historical problems in ch. 5, such as the report of the “marvelous” handwriting on the wall (v.5), the identity of the “queen” (v.10), the discrepancy as to whether the kingdom passes on to the Medes and Persians or the Medes (vv.28, 30–31), and the identity of “Darius the Mede” (v.31).

Conservative scholars committed to the historicity of the book of Daniel are quick to enumerate the thirty-seven archival texts dating to the first fourteen years of the reign of Nabonidus attesting Belshazzar’s coregency (e.g., Miller, 147–48). Beyond this, since Belshazzar was virtually forgotten to history within a few decades after Babylon’s fall (e.g., Herodotus knows nothing of Belshazzar), Baldwin, 23, asserts “there is important evidence here for a contemporary witness” (see her discussion of “King Belshazzar,” 21–23). The “apologetic jousting” between conservative scholars and their critical or mainline counterparts on the “historical problems” of ch. 5 are addressed in the pertinent sections of the commentary and notes below. See also “Literary Form” and “Special Problems” in the Introduction.

1. Belshazzar’s Great Banquet (5:1–9)

1King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. 2While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. 3So 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. 4As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

5Suddenly 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. 6His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his knees knocked together and his legs gave way.

7The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers and diviners to be brought and 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 neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.”

8Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant. 9So King Belshazzar became even more terrified and his face grew more pale. His nobles were baffled.

COMMENTARY

1–4 The setting of the story is a great banquet hosted by King Belshazzar of Babylon for a thousand of his nobles (v.1). Belshazzar, whose name means “O Bel, protect the king” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 243), was known only from scriptural references until archaeological discoveries of the nineteenth century verified the biblical record. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle and other Neo-Babylonian archival documents, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus (cf. Baldwin, 21–23; Miller, 147–48). He was the “grandson” or third-generation descendant of Nebuchadnezzar only loosely understood, since Nabonidus was a contemporary of Neriglissar but not a direct descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. He usurped the throne from Labashi-Marduk, Neriglissar’s son (cf. ABD, 4:973; Goldingay, 108). Nabonidus ruled the Babylonian Empire from 556 BC until the fall of the empire to Cyrus and the Persians in 539 BC. Belshazzar was a coregent or deputy ruling in Babylon for more than half of Nabonidus’s seventeen-year reign, given the latter’s ten-year hiatus in Tema in northwestern Arabia (cf. Seow, 76). According to K. Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 73–74), “without actually having the title of king in official usage, Belshazzar enjoyed the powers . . . his father had in practice.”

The opening scene is “one of ostentatious opulence” (Seow, 78). Belshazzars’s banquet is similar to the feast hosted by the Persian king Xerxes described in the book of Esther (Est 1:2–5). Such royal revelry is widely attested in Persian times, and Porteous, 78, comments, “it is not unlikely that Babylonian practices were similar.” Whether or not the feast was orgiastic and cultic is open to question, but Towner, 72, is correct when he states that the scene portrayed “is intended to be a revolting picture.”

The occasion of the extravagant banquet is also uncertain. Miller, 151–52, has aptly summarized the various proposals: a morale building in the light of the incursion of the Medes and Persians into Babylonian territory; the coronation of Belshazzar as king of Babylon, given the news of the recent defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus at Sippar some fifty miles to the north; or some association with one of the Babylonian annual religious festivals, perhaps the Akitu festival observed each fall season (cf. Redditt, 89–90). The story of Belshazzar’s feast records the downfall of the Babylonian Empire, so the implied date of the banquet (cf. vv.30–31) “was the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the seventeenth year of the reign of King Nabonidus, that is, the night before the Persians entered Babylon in October 539.”

King Belshazzar is drinking wine “with” (NIV) his nobles, or better, “in the presence of the thousand” (NASB). The preposition “with” (Aram. qābēl) normally means “before,” and Miller, 151, suggests that is significant here since customarily the king was hidden from the view of his guests at such state banquets. Seow, 78, understands this to mean that the king “is showing off” and that the presence of the harem women at the banquet “suggests debauchery” (cf. Kraemer, 340–41). The expression “while . . . drinking his wine” is generally taken to mean that the king acts under the influence of alcohol and that his action is “flagrantly sacrilegious” (Collins, Daniel, 245; cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 187; Miller, 152).

In any case, the king’s revelry results in his reckless gesture to lead his guests in (what the Hebrew would deem) the blasphemy of drinking from the gold and silver goblets looted from the Jerusalem temple sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. Baldwin, 120, assumes that the king is intoxicated, for “superstition alone would normally guard a man from putting sacred vessels to a common use.” Lucas, 138, speculates that in calling for the temple vessels from Jerusalem “Belshazzar may have been deliberately ‘going one better’ than his ‘father.’” Porteous, 78, sums up that whether the occasion is sacred or secular, “there was the invoking of the idol gods, and so the sacrilege of drinking from sacred vessels was increased by associating them with heathen worship.” Thus the power and sovereignty of the God of Israel and the Hebrew exiles are “blatantly called into question” (Seow, 78). The stage is set for God’s dramatic response to Belshazzar’s rash impiety.

5–9 The raucous crowd does not have to wait long for God to “crash the party,” as the narrator indicates an act of divine intervention occurs “suddenly” at the height of Belshazzar’s blasphemy (v.5). Collins (Daniel, 246) regards the immediacy of the response as evidence of the folkloric genre of the tale. Sudden judgment is not out of character in God’s dealings with humanity (cf. Zep 1:18), but the righteous need not fear the sudden disaster that overtakes the wicked (Pr 3:25). The king’s impious revelry (v.4) is interrupted by the apparition of a disembodied hand writing a message on the plastered wall of the banquet hall (v.5a).

Lacocque, 95, interprets the event as a “sign, not a marvel,” since natural laws are not violated and the king’s vision “may be explained by his drunkenness or his having become delirious” (cf. Baldwin, 124, on the “natural means” by which God produces divine messages). Montgomery, 264, rightly counters, “the phenomenon of the writing Hand is of course meant as a miracle.” The expression “the king watched the hand as it wrote” (v.5b) refers more literally to “the palm of the hand” (perhaps “the back of the hand” from the wrist to the fingertips [so Seow, 79; Goldingay, 101, n. 6b; cf. NASB]; or the palm of the “severed hand” itself, assuming the king sees the writing from a frontal view; cf. Collins, Daniel, 246; Hartman and Di Lella, 184; Miller, 155).

The mysterious writing appears on the wall “near the lampstand” (or “opposite the lampstand,” NASB). The narrative suggests this is the only source of light for the large banquet hall, but Baldwin, 121, notes that the word “lampstand” (Aram. nebraštāʾ) may have been unusual, for the word is otherwise unknown (cf. BBCOT, 738). Seow, 78–79, contends that the reference to the lampstand does more than merely locate the scene. Either the hand is seen “because of the lampstand” since the light of the lamp illuminates the writing hand, or (and for Seow more likely), the hand appears “before the lampstand,” thus casting a shadow against the wall on which the king sees an unattached hand writing a message.

The text implies that only the king sees the writing hand (“the king watched”; v.5b), but also that the inscription on the wall is later visible to others (cf. Seow, 79, though Anderson, 54, and Lucas, 129, disagree). Given the analogy of Nebuchadnezzar’s singular experience of viewing the four figures in the blazing furnace (3:25), it seems likely that only Belshazzar sees the writing hand (since the message is directed to him as king). On the archaeology of the royal palaces in ancient Babyon, see Baldwin, 120–21; Miller, 155.

The king’s terror at the eerie sight cannot be internalized. His face turns pale (lit., “the king’s splendor [of face] changed”; v.6a; cf. Miller, 156). He is frightened (v.6b) or “his thoughts alarmed him” (NASB), meaning the king is bewildered. Beyond the emotional and psychological distress he experiences, the king’s body also reels from the shock of seeing the disembodied writing hand. First, “his hip joints went slack” (NASB; v.6c), and then his “knees began knocking together” (NASB; v.6d). The expression “his hip joints went slack” (lit., “the knots of his loins were loosed”; cf. Lucas, 130, meaning either the king collapsed or he lost control of his bowels [cf. Seow, 79; Reddit, 92]) may involve wordplay with v.12, since Daniel has the ability “to loosen knots” (lit. trans. of Aram. qṭr; i.e., to “solve difficult problems”). Seow, 79, comments that “this portrayal of fear is as vivid and comical as any in the Bible” (cf. A. Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 [1991]: 117–22).

The NIV weakly translates the king’s call for help from his royal advisers (v.7), omitting the phrase “with strength” (cf. NASB’s “called aloud”). The sense of the participial form of the verb “to call” (Aram. qr ʾ) and the emphatic complement indicate the king “kept on screaming” for his sages (cf. Miller, 156; Seow, 79). The “enchanters, astrologers and diviners” are dutifully presented to the king (v.7a; on these guilds or classifications of royal, see comments and notes for 1:20 and 2:2). According to Baldwin, 121, the reward Belshazzar offers for deciphering the message inscribed on the wall is based on terms that appeal to him: “the right to wear royal purple, a gold chain of office and the status of third ruler in the kingdom” (see also the discussion in Smith-Christopher, 82).

All the king’s wise men fail to fulfill the king’s charge; they can neither read the inscription nor explain its meaning (v.8; cf. Miller, 159, who suggests they may have understood the words but the isolated words convey no intelligible meaning). What makes the words of the (Aramaic) inscription unreadable as well as unintelligible is unclear since there is no indication they were written in code (cf. Miller, 158–59; Redditt, 98–99, on the Jewish tradition that the letters were written vertically instead of horizontally). Goldingay, 109, offers several possible explanations (including the use of ideograms, or an unusual script of cuneiform writing, or even the use of abbreviations), but in the end he concludes: “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.” Of course, speculation as to the reasons for the wise men’s inability to interpret the inscription is “pointless”—the incompetence of the royal advisers only compounds his personal distress and befuddles his nobles (v.9).

NOTES

1 The Aramaic form of the name Belshazzar, , bēlšaʾṣṣar, is based on the Akkadian bēl-šar-uṣur (“O Bel, protect the king”). The Greek form of the name, Baltasar, is further removed from the Akkadian original. Goldingay, 100, and Lucas, 120, among others, suggest the Aramaic rendering is a bit anomalous, since one might expect bēlšar ʾeṣer by analogy to nērgal śar ʿeṣer in Jeremiah 39:3, 13 (for the Akkadian nērgal-šar-uṣur). An alternative spelling, , bēl ʾšaṣṣar, is found in Daniel 5:30; 7:1; 8:1.

2–3 King Solomon commissioned Huram, a skilled artisan from Tyre, to craft the gold and silver vessels for Yahweh’s temple (cf. 1Ki 7:40–50). Lucas, 128, notes that the fate of the vessels looted from Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar was an issue in Jeremiah’s time. Jeremiah rebuffed the priests and false prophets who declared that within two years God would return Jehoiachin to the throne of Judah and the temple vessels to the “LORD’s house” (Jer 27:16; 28:3; cf. Isa 52:11). These implements were among the treasures plundered from the temple and royal palace during Nebuchadnezzar’s second invasion of Judah in 598 BC (cf. 2Ki 24:12–13). According to the inventory lists of Ezra, 5,400 gold and silver vessels (including dishes, pans, and bowls) taken earlier by Nebuchadnezzar were returned to the Jews by King Cyrus and accompanied the first wave of Hebrew expatriates back to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile (cf. Ezr 1:7–10).

5 Lacocque, 96, compares the “fingers of a human hand” to the finger of God as a symbol of the power of God responsible for the plagues against the Egyptians (Ex 8:19) or the finger that wrote the tablets of the law for Moses (31:18). Collins (Daniel, 246) aptly counters that the finger is not visible on those occasions and that “the failure to identify the writer is a deliberate artistic device.”

7 Belshazzar’s reward of promotion to the rank of third in the kingdom for deciphering the inscription is variously understood to mean: third in rank behind King Belshazzar and the queen mother (so Smith-Christopher, 82; cf. Montgomery, 254, 257), or third in rank behind Nabonidus and Belshazzar (so Longman, 139). Jewish interpreters (e.g., Rashi and Ibn Ezra) took the expression to mean rule over a third of the empire (cf. Redditt, 92). Others equate the Aramaic word (taltî, “third”) with the Akkadian šalšu and the Hebrew , šālîš, which may denote a high-ranking official or military officer of some kind (cf. Lucas, 121; Redditt, 92), or even a triumvir (i.e., one equal in rank with two others; cf. Wood, 138), based on the later reference to “three administrators” in 6:2 (so Hartman and Di Lella, 184; Collins, Daniel, 247). Miller, 158, is confident that “the third highest ruler in the kingdom” (NIV) most accurately conveys the meaning of the term, but Seow, 79, soberly summarizes that “with our present knowledge the problem remains insoluble.”

2. The Queen Introduces Daniel (5:10–12)

COMMENTARY

10The queen, hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. “O king, live forever!” she said. “Don’t be alarmed! Don’t look so pale! 11There 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. King Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king, I say—appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. 12This man 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.”

10–12 The queen enters the banquet hall upon hearing the commotion caused by the mysterious writing on the wall (v.10; although the Old Greek has Belshazzar summoning the queen into the room; cf. Collins, Daniel, 237). The “queen” is unnamed. Since Belshazzar’s wives and concubines are present at the banquet (v.3), and the queen is free to enter the king’s presence unbidden, she is probably the “queen mother” (so Lucas, 130; cf. Kraemer, 341–42). The importance of the queen mother in the royal courts of the ancient Near East is widely attested (cf. Goldingay, 109; Collins, Daniel, 248; on the queen mother in ancient Israel, see Susan Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Bach [New York: Routledge, 1999], 179–94). As Lacocque, 97, notes, the queen plays a role similar to that of Arioch (ch. 2), an agent who brings Daniel to the attention of the king. Yet she is integral to the narrative because it is her initiative that brings resolution to the “plot conflict” of the story—albeit unhappily for King Belshazzar and the Babylonians.

Those scholars interpreting “father” rigidly to mean that Belshazzar was the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar (v.2) identify the “queen” or “queen mother” as Nitocris, the widow of King Nebuchadnezzar (e.g., Lacocque, 97; Collins, Daniel, 248; Redditt, 93; but see Miller, 160, who suggests Nitocris may have been the wife of Nabonidus). Neo-Babylonian archival documents indicate that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, making him the “grandson” or “descendant” of Nebuchadnezzar (see comments on v.2). Baldwin, 121–22, is probably correct in identifying the “queen mother” as the wife of Nabonidus (and probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar; so Miller, 160) and the mother of Belshazzar. The fact that the formal queen mother (i.e., the mother of Nabonidus) died in the ninth year of her son’s reign, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, lends support to this identification (cf. Longman, 139).

Kraemer, 342, suggests that, apart from the queen’s identity, her “absence from the banquet, and thus her implicit abstinence from the impious activity, align her with Daniel and remove any taint from her recommendation.” The queen’s acclamation of long life for the king (v.10a)—standard court etiquette (see comment on 2:4)—is tinged with irony since Belshazzar is doomed to die that very night. The queen mother is portrayed as a decisive and sagacious woman in her response to the king’s dilemma, but not without feminine instincts for compassion, as her twofold admonition to allay the king’s fears attests (v.10b).

As queen mother (whether wife or daughter of King Nebuchadnezzar), her memory extends beyond that of King Belshazzar, so she has recollections of Daniel and his role as a royal adviser in previous administrations. Often overlooked is the fact that women were the keepers of family stories in the biblical world, and the queen admirably fills that role here (cf. Carol L. Meyers, “Of Drums and Damsels: Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel,” BA 54 (1991): 22–23; idem, “The Family in Ancient Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel, ed. L. G. Perdue et al. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 31–32).

This literary unit features the foil contrasting the king’s fright (“alarm” that causes him to turn “pale”; v.10) and Daniel’s exceptional abilities (vv.11–12). There is almost a hint of sarcastic indictment in the queen’s declaration, “there is a man in your kingdom”—a wise king should know his own “people resources.” The queen’s recognition that Daniel was endowed with “the spirit of holy gods” recalls Nebuchadnezzar’s threefold declaration of the same (see the comments on 4:8–9, 18; cf. Porteous, 80, who suggests the queen repeats the very words she heard Nebuchadnezzar use of Daniel). Likewise, her litany in praise of Daniel’s “insight and intelligence and wisdom” (v.11b) echoes those (divinely granted) aptitudes that characterized his early days as an apprentice in the service of King Nebuchadnezzar (see comments on 1:4, 17).

The queen’s reference to Daniel’s role as a former “chief of magicians” (v.11c) indicates that Daniel had been demoted (always the prerogative of the new regime with respect to “holdover” civil servants), had retired (as he would have been eighty years old or even older at this time), and had been forgotten by the king given the size of the city of Babylon and the number of civil servants on the king’s payroll. Or perhaps “the liquor could have clouded his memory” (so Miller, 161; cf. Lucas, 130, on the various reasons why the queen must intervene before Daniel is summoned to the king).

Finally, in addition to twice referring to Daniel by his Hebrew name, the queen mentions that the man in question was renamed Belteshazzar by King Nebuchadnezzar. Smith-Christopher, 82, suggests the queen casts aspersion on Daniel in her reference to his name change, perhaps to remind the king of Daniel’s status as an exile. The similarity of the king’s name, Belshazzar, to Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, may have necessitated the queen’s identification of Daniel by the use of his two names simply for clarification. Whether known by his Hebrew or Babylonian name, Daniel’s reputation as one who possessed wisdom of a supernatural quality meant he could “interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems” (v.12a; cf. Lucas, 130–31). For this reason the queen has the utmost confidence in his ability to explain the riddle of the handwriting on the wall (v.12b). The queen’s directive to the king is (a third-person) form of a command (“let Daniel now be summoned,” NASB), so Belshazzar had no choice but to summon Daniel (cf. Seow, 81).

NOTE

11–12 Goldingay, 109–10, observes that the skills the queen attributes to Daniel “relate directly to the interpretation of a portent.” He comments further that “insight” suggests illumination from God (cf. NASB’s “illumination”); “insight” (or “intelligence,” NIV) indicates Daniel both possesses intellect and knows, by God’s gift, how to use it; and “wisdom” identifies in Daniel the “supernatural intuition of an interpreter of dreams or omens.”

3. Belshazzar Summons Daniel (5:13–16)

13So 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? 14I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom. 15The wise men and enchanters were brought before me to read this writing and tell me what it means, but they could not explain it. 16Now 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.”

COMMENTARY

13–16 According to Porteous, 80, Belshazzar essentially “treated Daniel with the greatest courtesy” (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 189; Towner, 74). Lucas, 131, concurs, observing that “from the view of a Diaspora Jew, it presents the welcome picture of a pagan king’s recognizing the unique abilities of a Jewish courtier.” Felwell, 127, however, argues rather convincingly that Belshazzar’s speech is “a complex mixture of skepticism, challenge, desperation, and resentment rather than a ‘friendly welcome.’”

The king’s interview with Daniel follows the “script” for court stories in that Belshazzar first repeats the queen’s speech recommending Daniel (v.14), then he rehearses the failure of the other wise men to explain the mysterious writing (v.15), and finally he reiterates his offer to promote the one who deciphers the cryptic inscription (v.16). As Lucas, 131, notes, such repetition is expected in the genre of court contest since it “serves to build up Daniel’s reputation and emphasize the extent of his success.”

Two things stand out in the king’s speech here. First, in the dramatic “standing before the king” scene, the first question Belshazzar poses to Daniel concerns his status as a Jewish exile—this despite the queen mother’s accolades for Daniel (v.13a). Interestingly, Belshazzar also addresses Daniel by his Hebrew name, perhaps to avoid confusion with his own (so Young, 123). More likely is the assessment of Smith-Christopher, 82, that the king begins his interrogation of Daniel “with a reminder of his station as a prisoner of war.” Felwell, 122–23, suggests Belshazzar’s query indicates that Daniel is not an unknown figure to him, and his knowledge about Daniel goes beyond the queen’s biography. Lucas, 131, interprets the king’s comment as a slight and argues that it “favors the view that Belshazzar is to be seen as having deliberately ignored Daniel when seeking sages to read and interpret the writing.”

Second, Belshazzar’s omission of the adjective “holy” in his description of the divine source of Daniel’s wisdom (v.14) may have significance in view of the king’s corrupt character. It is possible that “the king may have been fearful of Daniel’s interpretation since this man worshiped the God whom Belshazzar had just blasphemed” (Miller, 161). Felwell, 126–27, suggests the tone and content of the king’s speech is symptomatic of a much deeper psychological problem, namely, Belshazzar’s personal insecurities and his resentment of his (grand)father Nebuchadnezzar’s power and success. Lucas, 138, discerns that Nebuchadnezzar’s pride had a quality of arrogance because of his great achievements, whereas Belshazzar’s pride is marked by insolence because of his lack of achievements. Daniel reminds the king of all that his (grand)father was and all that he is not.

Belshazzar needs an explanation for an apparition that has terrified him. The king may suspect the message is a negative pronouncement (so Lacocque, 101)—“he does not want to know bad news, but not knowing is worse. . . . He is desperate, he is vulnerable, and he resents having to depend upon Daniel, the man who most represents his [grand]father’s power and success” (Felwell, 127). This helps explain Daniel’s rather undiplomatic (and uncharacteristic) disdain for the king’s gifts after successfully interpreting the enigmatic graffiti on the wall of the royal banquet hall (v.17); “the problem for Daniel is the person offering the reward. Daniel’s refusal is designed to offend” (Felwell, 127, though she erroneously attributes Daniel’s motivation to his pride rather than his humility).

4. Daniel Explains the Handwriting on the Wall (5:17–28)

17Then 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.

18“O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor. 19Because of the high position he gave him, all the peoples and nations and men 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. 20But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory. 21He was driven away from people and given the mind of an animal; he lived with the wild donkeys and ate grass like cattle; and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven, until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone he wishes.

22“But you his son, O Belshazzar, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this. 23Instead, 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. 24Therefore he sent the hand that wrote the inscription.

25“This is the inscription that was written:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN

26“This is what these words mean:

Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

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

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

COMMENTARY

17 Daniel’s speech in response to the king’s request for an explanation of the mysterious handwriting on the palace wall may be outlined in three units: his refusal of the king’s gifts (v.17), his indictment of Belshazzar (vv.18–24), and his decipherment of the inscription (vv.25–28). The repetition of the independent pronoun “you” (Aram. ʿante; vv.18 [omitted from NIV], 21) quite naturally divides Daniel’s indictment of the king into two parts: his recollection of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar (vv.18–21) and his rebuke of Belshazzar (vv.22–24).

Unlike the queen (v.10), Daniel offers the king no salutation following royal protocol upon his summons before the king. Moreover, his initial response to Belshazzar is rather curt and ungracious. Seow, 81, goes so far as to say Daniel’s comment “sounds somewhat disingenuous, for he had accepted rewards before (2:48) and at the end of this episode, he does accept the reward after all (5:29).” Lucas, 131, reminds us, however, that Daniel’s rejection of the king’s rewards are more understandable if Belshazzar’s greeting is viewed as a put down. More importantly, Daniel must establish the fact that he cannot be bribed—his message must remain independent of any price the king attempts to set.

18–24 Daniel begins his indictment of King Belshazzar with the rehearsal of God’s humiliation of King Nebuchadnezzar for his sin of pride (vv.18–21). Nebuchadnezzar had claimed a position of absolute freedom and power that typically the OT reserves for God alone (cf. Seow, 82). For this reason God afflicted Nebuchadnezzar with a mental illness (boanthropy), and the king was deposed, stripped of his glory (v.20), and driven away to live like an animal for a time (v.21). As a result Nebuchadnezzar learned that God had granted kingship to him (v.18) and that ultimately the Most High God is sovereign over all earthly kingdoms (v.21). (See the discussion of ch. 4.)

Daniel rebukes Belshazzar for his pride on two accounts. First, the king has learned nothing from the example of Nebuchadnezzar despite his awareness of the episode (v.22). Second, Belshazzar has “exalted” (NASB) himself against the Lord of heaven in his arrogant act of desecrating the drinking vessels from the Jerusalem temple (v.23a). God holds Belshazzar equally culpable for the sin of pride—perhaps even more so, since his sacrilege is combined with blatant idolatry (v.23b; cf. Miller, 163). Thus the handwriting on the wall of the banquet hall is God’s response to the proud heart and profane actions of the Babylonian king (v.24). Naturally, Daniel’s indictment of Belshazzar sets the judgmental tone and portends the apocalyptic content of the divine message encrypted in the supernatural inscription.

The epithet “Lord of heaven” (v.23) is synonymous with “Most High God” (v.18) in the sense of God’s sovereign rule over human affairs. The title also serves to emphasize the spiritual contrast between the true God and the earthly nature of the idolatrous gods made of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood, and stone (v.23). This name for God also has implications for the nature of God as a “living God” and for the spiritual or heavenly source behind the message on the wall. Some of the most biting satire of the Bible is found in the OT prophets’ denunciation of those who worship humanly fabricated gods made of wood, stone, and precious metals (cf. Isa 40:18–20; 44:9–20; Hab 2:18–20; cf. Ps 115:2–8).

Daniel exposes both Belshazzar’s ignorance and foolishness for his failure to “honor” the God who holds his “life” (or “life-breath,” NASB) in his hand (v.23) by worshiping “lifeless” objects made with human hands. The prophet Jeremiah recognized as much when he acknowledged that a person’s life is not one’s own and that individuals do not direct their own steps (Jer 10:23). The “ways” (v.23; Aram. ʾaraḥ; GK 10068) of a person refers to the destiny of an individual, “the course of life that someone follows, which is seen as plotted and controlled by God—without implying that it is predetermined in such a way as to make human decision-making illusory” (Goldingay, 110). The concept is prominent in OT wisdom literature (Job 8:13; 22:28; 24:23; Pr 3:6; 4:18; 20:24), as is the idea that God holds a person’s breath or life in his hand (cf. Job 12:10; 34:14–15; Ps 104:29).

25–28 Daniel identifies the hand that wrote the message as an agent of God, thus confirming the divine source of the message (v.24; cf. Seow, 82, on the idea of hypostasis [the extension of divine presence through some entity that represents the deity] in the biblical world). Collins (Daniel, 250) states, “the fact that the message was written conveys a sense of finality, even of determinism.”

The inscription itself contained but four words: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN.” Presumably the inscription was written in (unpointed) Aramaic; that is, the words were composed of consonants only. (The NIV omits the conjunction “û” [“and”] in “ûparsîn”; cf. Archer, 74, on the Aramaic script.) Thus several different meanings for the inscription are possible, depending on the vowels supplied by the interpreter. Certain textual problems in the inscription have been identified as well: (1) the omission of the second menē ʾ in some of the ancient versions (e.g., Old Greek and Vulgate), leading Montgomery, 262, Lacocque, 100, 102, and Collins (Daniel, 250) to declare the three-word inscription original because of an error of dittography in the MT; (2) the inversion of the words teqēl and parsîn in the Old Greek version (cf. Redditt, 98); and (3) the plural form parsîn (v.25) considered by some as secondary, replacing the original perēs found in Daniel’s interpretation (v.28; e.g. Hartman and Di Lella, 183; yet Lacocque, 102–3, deems it original). We concur with Goldingay, 102, and Lucas, 132, on retaining the MT as the original reading of v.25.

Daniel reads the four words of the inscription as noun forms (v.25): menē ʾ (Aram. “mina”), menē ʾ (= a “mina”), teqēl (Aram. “shekel”), and parsîn (Aram. perēs; pl. parsîn = “half-pieces”). He takes the roots of the nouns, however, and reinterprets them as verbs (passive participles; vv.26–28): menē ʾ (“numbered”), menē ʾ (“numbered”), teqēl (“weighed”), and perēs (“divided”). This form of wordplay is an interpretive method evidenced later in the Qumran community (cf. Lucas, 133). The perfect form of the verbs (i.e., “has numbered,” “have been weighed”) indicates that the matter has been decided—the outcome is certain. Finally, he applies the meaning of the riddle directly to King Belshazzar (“your reign,” “you,” “your kingdom”; vv.26–28).

God himself has “numbered” the days of Belshazzar’s life and closed the books on his reign (v.26; Miller, 165, understands the repetition of menē ʾ as emphasis on the certainty of the fulfillment of the divine decision).

The idea of God’s “weighing” a person’s motives and actions in a balance scale (v.27) is found in Hebrew wisdom tradition (e.g., Pr 16:2; 21:2; 24:12; cf. BBCOT, 738). The “weighing of souls” on a balance scale before Osiris, god of the underworld, is a common motif in ancient Egyptian religion (e.g., the heart of the deceased is weighed against the feather of truth in a scene from the Book of the Dead). Specifically, Belshazzar has been “found wanting” for his failure to humble himself and acknowledge the Most High God as sovereign over human kingdoms, and for his idolatrous profanation of the vessels looted from Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem (vv.22–23; cf. Miller, 165, who understands this more generally as “deficient in moral worth”).

Finally, his kingdom is “divided” and given to others—namely the Medes and the Persians (v.28). Daniel does not mean that the Babylonian Empire will be divided between the two conquering nations, but “rather that Belshazzar’s dynasty will be broken and his authority will pass on to others” (Goldingay, 111; cf. Miller, 165).

Note too that the words parsîn (v.25) and perēs (v.28) may also be another form of wordplay on the name “Persian,” since the Persians succeeded the Babylonians as the Mesopotamian “superpower” of the biblical world (cf. Miller, 166). Seow, 84, detects perhaps one final subtle form of wordplay in the inscription: if the words are read as weights and parsîn refers to two half-shekels, then the total weights counted in the message add up to “sixty-two”—the age of Darius the Mede (v.31), Belshazzar’s successor!

For a discussion of scholarly renderings of the inscription different from that of the interpretation given by Daniel (e.g., the metaphorical approach explaining the terms as monetary weights or measures and applying them to a successive Babylonian king-list), see Goldingay, 110–11, Miller, 165 (esp. n. 92), Collins (Daniel, 250–52), Lucas, 132–34, and Redditt, 98–99.

5. Conclusion (5:29–31 [5:29–6:1])

29Then 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.

30That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.

COMMENTARY

29–31 King Belshazzar rewards Daniel according to the dictates of his earlier pronouncement concerning the decipherment of the mysterious inscription (v.29; cf. v.7). The king must save face by not breaking a promise in front of his nobles (cf. Lucas, 134). As for his part, Daniel inexplicably accepts the king’s gifts after having refused them earlier (v.17; cf. Lucas, 134, who states that Collins [Daniel, 252] “sidesteps the problems by seeing here a traditional motif of the tale of court contest”). The gifts are bestowed on Daniel at the king’s command (v.29), making them irrefutable in one sense.

Moreover, Daniel is now free to accept the king’s gifts since they are no longer “bribes” that could influence his message. Besides all this, the gifts are essentially meaningless given the imminent collapse of the Babylonian Empire. Miller, 166, has noted that Belshazzar makes no (recorded) acknowledgment of the greatness of Daniel’s God (unlike Nebuchadnezzar in the previous court stories of chs. 3 and 4), but simply “conferring the promised gifts upon Yahweh’s representative . . . itself was an indication of Yahweh’s reality and power” (cf. Seow, 83, who notes that Belshazzar has learned nothing from the experience of his predecessor).

According to the narrator of the court story, Daniel’s interpretation of the cryptic inscription written on the wall of the royal palace by the supernatural hand is fulfilled “that very night” with the assassination of Belshazzar (v.30). Seow, 84, in his insightful summary of ch. 5, observes that all the events of the story occur on a single night. Moreover, Belshazzar is slain on the very night he has committed the sacrilege with the drinking vessels plundered from Yahweh’s Jerusalem temple. The story begins with a reference to the “Chaldean king” Nebuchadnezzar, who looted Solomon’s temple and was responsible for the Jewish exile in Babylonia. The story ends with a reference to the “Chaldean king” Belshazzar, whose kingdom is literally “received” (so NASB) by the Medes and Persians. Finally, the passive voice is used to report the execution of Belshazzar, and the fall of Babylonia to the Persians is narrated in nonmilitary terms. What else may one conclude from this pointed evidence other than “in context, one can only see Belshazzar’s demise as an event according to the will of the sovereign God whom he dared to defy” (Seow, 84).

Persian and Greek historical sources report several traditions concerning the fall of Babylon (cf. BBCOT, 738). None of the extrabiblical documents mention Belshazzar by name as the king slain when the Median/Persian armies took the city. The sources do tend to agree that Babylon fell without a battle (see the discussions in Miller, 166–69; Collins, Daniel, 29–33, 252–53; Hartman and Di Lella, 191; Goldingay, 106–8; Lucas, 126–27).

The reference to Darius the Mede (v.31 [6:1]) is one of the several historical problems of this biblical book. Generally for critical commentators the character is simply a literary fiction appropriate to the genre of court-contest tale (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 36; Lacocque, 106, 109; Montgomery, 65; Porteous, 83). Redditt, 100, concedes that Darius the Mede is a composite drawn from various sources, not just the creation of the author (namely, the conflation of the historical King Darius I of Persia and the text of Jeremiah 51:11 stating that God stirred up the Medes to defeat the Babylonians; cf. Collins, Daniel, 253).

Those commentators seeking to harmonize the biblical record of Daniel with ancient Near Eastern history have posed any number of possible identifications for Darius the Mede, such as Cyaxares II, Cyrus, Ugbaru, Gubaru, Cambyses, Darius, and Darius II. Conservative scholars tend to line up in one of two camps: either Darius the Mede is Gubaru (or Gobryas), who was appointed governor of Babylon by Cyrus after the city was conquered by the Persians (e.g., Archer, Wood); or Darius the Mede is a title for Cyrus the Great (e.g., Baldwin; see the discussions in Miller, 171–77; Lucas, 134–37). Yet it must be admitted that “none of those nominated . . . is ever called Darius the Mede in extant literature from that time” (Redditt, 100). For now, the identity of “Darius the Mede” remains a puzzle.

F. The Lions’ Den (6:1–28 [6:2–29])

OVERVIEW

Daniel 6 completes the “court stories” section of the book (chs. 1–6) and concludes what Felwell, 15–16, calls a “story of stories” about God’s sovereignty. For a discussion of this larger literary context within the book of Daniel, see comments on 2:1–13 and 3:1–7.

The literary form of the story is typically identified as a tale of court conflict (e.g., Goldingay, 122). Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 71) construes the character of the tale to be that of “legend” because of numerous features, especially the miraculous preservation of Daniel and the virtual conversion of the pagan king (see the comments on 5:1–9 on the form-critical definition of “legend”). Lucas, 145–47, has observed that the stories of the three Hebrews in the furnace (ch. 3) and Daniel in the lions’ den (ch. 6) have several words and phrases in common, suggesting these two chapters were intentionally composed as a literary pair. See “Literary Form” in the introduction and the discussion of the genre of “story of court conflict” in the comments on 3:1–7.

Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 71) equates the plot of the story with the folkloric plot typical of the “disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister of state.” In Daniel, the two stories of court conflict share the same formal elements:

Lucas, 145, however, calls attention to major differences between the two stories of conflict, especially the facts that the accusers in ch. 6 are other political officials (not the sages as in ch. 3), an element of conspiracy is present in ch. 6 (whereas the action in ch. 3 seems to be “opportunistic”), and Darius hears of Daniel’s deliverance in ch. 6, whereas Nebuchadnezzar witnesses the deliverance of the three Hebrews (ch. 3).

Since the story type is known from different cultures, critical scholars speculate as to the dating of the pericope (cf. Redditt, 102: “the only issues here are when people in the Diaspora began to tell the story and when its hero became Daniel”). Hartman and Di Lella, 197, place the story broadly within the Persian period on the basis of Persian loanwords. For Porteous, 88, the story “comes alive” as literature for the Jews during the persecution under the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BC (cf. Redditt, 102). Baldwin, 127, represents the conservative approach by noting, “old [i.e., early Persian period], authentic stories would have provided comfort to sufferers of later generations far more convincingly than a book of new parables.”

The plot of the story may be outlined in five major scenes: the report of Daniel’s success (vv.1–3), the conspiracy against Daniel (vv.4–9), Daniel accused and condemned (vv.10–18), Daniel’s deliverance (vv.19–24), and Darius’s letter of proclamation and doxology (vv.25–28). Unlike the court stories in chs. 3 and 5, the story in ch. 6 contains less reported speech by the main characters. Instead, the straightforward narrative is “carried along by the repeated use of the conjunction . . . ‘then’” (Aram. ʾedayin, vv.4–7, 12–17, 19–20, 22–23, 26 [MT]; Lucas, 146). The repetition and wordplay in the story underscore certain of its points, notably, the foil of obedience to God’s law or the civil law (vv.5, 8) and the virtue of a daily prayer ritual (vv.5, 11; i.e., Daniel’s conspirators can “find” nothing against him until they “find” him praying). For Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 71), a major goal of the story “is to evoke wonder: ‘that in all my royal dominion men tremble with fear before the God of Daniel’ (v.27).”

Goldingay, 124, following Towner, 79, has outlined the contents of the chapter in a chiastic pattern:

Lucas, 146, has noted that the chiastic structure of the story highlights Daniel’s deliverance and God’s role as the agent of that deliverance—doing what Darius can only hope for. Yet the outline is somewhat artificial in that the report of Darius’s publishing of his decree (v.9) more naturally concludes the unit containing the conspiracy against Daniel (vv.4–9; cf. Baldwin, 127; Miller, 179; Seow, 88). The repetition of the conjunction “then” (Aram. ʾedayin) in each of vv.12–17 permits the division of the pericope describing the condemnation of Daniel (vv.10–18) at numerous points (e.g., v.13 [Seow, 90]; v.14 [Baldwin, 129]; v.15 [Lucas, 151]; v.17 [Porteous, 90]). Finally, Darius’s edict and doxology (B/B´) are loosely related at best.

The story features Daniel as the protagonist (v.2), with Darius (v.1) playing a central role as a supporting character, while the unnamed “administrators and satraps” (v.3) are the chief antagonists (cf. Towner, 80, who identifies the protagonists of the story as the hundred-plus administrators and satraps [including Daniel]). The setting of the story is the Persian period and continues the narrative of ch. 5 by “illustrating how Daniel continues to function during the reigns of the Median and Persian kings who succeed Belshazzar” (Goldingay, 126).

By way of literary context, the doxology published as an edict by Darius (vv.25–27) “sums up the confessions of the pagan rulers in the preceding stories” and emphasizes the theme of the court stories, namely, God’s sovereignty. The last verse of ch. 6 echoes 1:21, the testimony of Daniel’s longevity as a civil servant in the royal courts of the Babylonians and Persians. Daniel is a living example of God’s power to sustain (and even prosper) his people through the “dislocation” of the Babylonian exile. Finally, the court stories are instructional for the Diaspora Jews since they reveal that the Hebrew in exile “is defined by his religion and its outward observance, not by language, personal name, or profession . . . these stories convey both security and insecurity; political success and martyrdom are equally possible” (Davies, 55).

The shared motifs of Daniel in the lions’ den and a pagan king’s doxology praising Daniel’s God has led some to see a relationship between ch. 6 and the deuterocanonical story of Bel and the Serpent belonging to the Additions to Daniel (e.g., Wills, 134–38). Collins (Daniel, 264) downplays the connections and suggests that the lions’-den motif is an older tradition that circulated independently and then was developed later in different ways. The story of Bel and the Serpent, however, is a polemic against idolatry, not a story of court conflict. Lucas, 147, is probably correct in his speculation that the lions’-den motif was borrowed from the canonical story and included in the story about Bel and the Serpent, “which seems a more contrived story, especially with the transportation of Habakkuk to feed Daniel in the lion’s den.”

For discussions of the divergences from the MT in the Greek versions of ch. 6, see Lacocque, 108–21 [Critical Notes sections]); Collins (Daniel, 262–64); Lucas, 147–48).

1. Daniel’s Success (6:1–3 [6:2–4])

1It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, 2with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. 3Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.

COMMENTARY

1–3 [2–4] Historical problems abound in ch. 6 to the extent that Porteous, 88–89, comments, “the author of our book is not concerned about historical accuracy.” For instance, as noted in ch. 5, the identity of “Darius the Mede” (v.1) is in question (see the survey of opinions in Miller, 171–73). In addition, the “three administrators” appointed by Darius as overseers of the satraps (v.2) are unknown royal offices in the extant Persian documents (cf. Redditt, 104). Beyond this, there is no mention of Daniel himself as a high-ranking Persian bureaucrat in any extrabiblical documents.

The problems are not insurmountable, however, and conservative scholars have offered plausible solutions to explain perceived historical difficulties and harmonize seemingly conflicting data. Darius the Mede has been equated with Cyrus the Great, understanding the conjunction (“and”) in v.28 explicatively or epexegetically: “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, namely, the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (e.g., Baldwin, 132; cf. Miller, 176, on a similar example from 1Ch 5:26 with the Assyrian king Pul or Tiglath-pileser). Others suggest Darius the Mede was a “king” or “governor” of Babylon appointed by Cyrus, perhaps the official named Gubara (or Ugbaru if they are the same person?) in neo-Babylonian documents (cf. Miller, 173). Still others note that both “Cyrus” and “Darius” were titles, and kings in the ancient world often bore more than one name or title (cf. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems, 16).

The number of satrapies or administrative districts within the Persian Empire varied according to time period and historical source (anywhere from twenty to twenty-nine; cf. Miller, 177). The text of Daniel 6, though, mentions satraps—not satrapies. The word “satrap” (Aram. ʾahašdarpan) means “protector of the kingdom,” and the term was used loosely (by Greek historians) to refer to various royally appointed officials (cf. Montgomery, 269). Thus the figures of 120 (6:1) and 127 (Est 1:1) “refer to smaller divisions within the empire than those which the term ‘satrapy’ would apply when used in its strictest sense” (Lucas, 148; cf. Seow, 88, who notes that the term is used of governmental officials in Daniel 3:2–3 even before the Persians came to power).

Greek historians refer to the Persian kings’ seven counselors or princes, but there is no known parallel to the three “administrators” or “commissioners” (NASB) in the Persian government. As is the case with any argument from silence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps further archaeological discovery will shed new light on this aspect of Persian royal administration. Daniel is named as one of the three chief administrators (v.2), a supervisory role of some sort in the context of the narrative (cf. Redditt, 104). Some scholars have connected Daniel’s role among the three with his promotion for interpreting the writing on the wall (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 265; Hartman and Di Lella, 198; see comment on 5:29). But Lucas, 148, comments that this is unlikely, since “that was a different office under a different king in a different empire” (cf. Redditt, 104, who also sees no clear connection between the two passages).

Unlike the Babylonian king Belshazzar, Darius the Mede is portrayed as a friend of Daniel (so Redditt, 104); but like the other kings in the court stories of Daniel, Darius is not above being duped by advisers. The satraps reported directly to their designated administrative overseers, and presumably the three chief administrators reported directly to the king. This organizational hierarchy was designed to prevent the king from suffering loss (v.2). Baldwin, 128, understands this to mean “loss of territory” because of uprisings and “loss of taxation” because of graft.

How Darius came to know of Daniel is never mentioned, though stories of his role in deciphering the cryptic message given to Belshazzar concerning the fall of Babylonia to Persia no doubt circulated widely. As was the case at every stage in his long diplomatic career, Daniel’s distinguished service was attributed to his “exceptional qualities” (NIV; v.3). More literally, the narrator states that Daniel “possessed an extraordinary spirit” (NASB). Presumably this recognized his endowment with a “divine spirit” (as in 4:8, 18; 5:12; cf. Seow, 89), not just affirmed his exceptional abilities. Daniel’s success is the main point of the introductory verses, since Darius considers elevating the Hebrew civil servant to an unspecified position of supremacy in the kingdom (v.3). The king’s intention stirs up professional (or ethnic?) jealousy among Daniel’s colleagues, and this becomes the point of conflict in the story.

2. The Conspiracy against Daniel (6:4–9 [6:5–10])

4At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.”

6So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, live forever! 7The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. 8Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 9So King Darius put the decree in writing.

COMMENTARY

4–9 The king incites the jealousy of Daniel’s colleagues because he “planned” (or more literally was “inclined” [v.3; Aram. ʿšt; Redditt, 105; Lucas, 143]) to elevate Daniel to a place of supremacy in the kingdom. Implicitly, Darius bases his promotion of Daniel on his flawless character and professional abilities. These qualities are made explicit in the narrator’s commentary on the failure of Daniel’s detractors to “find” any grounds on which to bring charges against him. Specifically we are told that Daniel is honest, trustworthy, and reliable (v.4). In short, his impeccable record as a civil servant places him beyond indictment (v.5a).

Once aroused, the jealousy of Daniel’s rivals festers until an alternative “solution” emerges. Whether for purposes of political self-preservation or ethnic cleansing, Daniel’s critics become conspirators, and they hatch a plot to “find” another way to bring charges against the Hebrew diplomat. The collaborators in the conspiracy include the other two administrators or commissioners (v.4) and an unspecified number of the 120 satraps (probably a “handful” according to Miller, 179; but cf. Wills, 137–38, who assumes all the satraps are involved in the scheme and wonders how the lions’ pit can hold such a crowd [cf. v.24]).

Since the conspirators can find no fault in Daniel’s professional conduct, their assault against Daniel must shift to the personal sphere—namely, “something to do with the law of his God” (v.5b). According to Russell, 100, the word “law” (Aram. dāt; GK 10186) is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew “Torah” or the revealed law of God. In context the phrase “law of his God” refers to the practice of law-keeping or “religion.” The conspirators attempt to trap Daniel “in respect of private religious observances which, if performed without proper state authority, were indictable offenses and punishable by the laws of the land” (Russell, 100). Gowan, 96, considers the two words “law” and “petition” (Aram. bʿh, “seek, request”; GK 10114) as key words in the narrative because “they point to the tension that runs through the story . . . [that is] whose law must Daniel obey given his daily practice of prayer—the law of the Medes and Persians or the law of the living God (vv.20, 26)?”

The administrators and satraps go “as a group to the king” to set the trap for “religious” Daniel (v.6). The NIV’s translation is weak here, as the verb (Aram. regaš; GK 10656) suggests both collusion (cf. NASB’s “came by agreement”) and agitation—“the implication is that these government officials are conspiring to agitate” (Seow, 89; “conspired and came,” NRSV). Towner, 81, offers a vivid word picture when he says the word conveys some sense of “swarming.” Baldwin, 128, has observed that “the writer is not claiming that Daniel was sinless, but only that he was law-abiding, and that his first allegiance was to his God.” It is upon this question of loyalty or allegiance that Daniel’s enemies seek to topple him “from the king’s good graces” (Miller, 179).

The test matches Daniel’s unquestioned loyalty to the state against his loyalty to God in an attempt to show “how his devotion to his job might be compromised when it is pitted against commitment to his religion” (Seow, 89; cf. Wallace, 114–15, on the “law-and-order trap”). The recommendation to the king is made all the more persuasive by the exaggerated claim that “all” the subordinate officials, from royal administrator, prefect, satrap, adviser, to governor, have endorsed the proposed edict (v.7; on these classes or ranks of officials, see Notes on 3:2).

The governmental officials have conspired and swarmed to the king for the purpose of encouraging the monarch to enact a law that will entrap Daniel (vv.7–9). Beyond this, they have presumed to specify the exact dictates of the law (no one may pray “to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to . . . [the] king”; v.7b) and the commensurate punishment for violation (execution by exposure to wild beasts, i.e., a pit of lions; v.7c). In so doing, as Seow, 90, notes, they go beyond the astrologers and other royal advisers, who merely tattled on the three Hebrew insubordinates and left King Nebuchadnezzar to deal with the case as he saw fit (cf. 3:8–12).

What’s more, the law is contradictory in that it is enacted for thirty days and yet is said to be irrevocable (v.8). Miller, 180, following Montgomery, 270, and others, understands that the decree to pray to the king alludes to the role of the priests through whom petitions were mediated to the gods—“thus Darius was to be the only priestly mediator during this period.” There is no extant record of the use of wild-animal pits for the execution of criminals in the ancient Near East, prompting Redditt, 107, to comment that both the law and the punishment are exceptional.

This ploy by the conspirators is obviously designed to play on the king’s pride—“to boost his ego and give expression to his new authority” (Baldwin, 128). The narrative reports the episode by ascribing a sense of urgency among the petitioners, who seek the immediate issuing of the decree in writing (v.8). Presumably they fear the king may see through their devious scheme if given time for thoughtful reflection on the matter. The idea of the immutability of “the law of the Medes and Persians,” also mentioned in Esther (Est 1:19; 8:8), has been challenged by some biblical scholars (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 267–68; Gowan, 98; Redditt, 107). Lacocque, 113, finds supporting evidence in the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus for the accuracy of Daniel’s statement. (Compare BBCOT, 739, Miller, 181, and Lucas, 150, who emphasizes the need to distinguish between Persian “law” and “custom.”)

Thus, gullible Darius gets hoodwinked into compliance with the requests of Daniel’s conspirators and posthaste puts the decree in writing (v.9). Goldingay, 131, speculates that Darius is either a “victim of his own vanity” or enamored with the idea of “quasi-divine authority,” given the advantages it held for his leadership of the state. Porteous, 90, is probably correct to remark that Darius has the document drafted by royal scribes and then affixes his seal to authorize it (v.9).

NOTE

7 Persian kings were not inclined to self-deification (cf. BBCOT, 739), so some scholars suggest that the background for Darius’s edict is some sort of “intramural” religious squabble between the advocates of a pure Zoroastrianism and those who favor a more syncretistic religion (e.g., the Magi; cf. J. H. Walton, “The Decree of Darius the Mede in Daniel 6,” JETS 31 [1988]: 282–85; Gowan, 97–98). Such speculation assumes what is known about Zoroastrianism from the later Achaemenid period applies to the early history of the religion. Beyond that, there is the problem of “how early,” given the uncertainty as to the identity of Darius the Mede. Historically, “religion” in the biblical world was frequently used to manipulate kings for the sake of personal or professional advantage—with or without the pretense of some “ideological” issue that must be addressed for the sake of social stability in the kingdom.

The Aramaic word (gōb; translated lions’ “den,” NIV, NASB), refers to a “pit” (cf. Lucas, 150). The pit envisaged here seems to be an underground, cavern-like cavity (Daniel has to be “lifted” out; vv.22–23) with two entrances: a ramp down which the animals might enter and a small opening in the roof for feeding purposes (cf. Baldwin, 130).

3. Daniel Accused and Condemned (6:10–18 [6:11–19])

10Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions’ den?”

The king answered, “The decree stands—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

13Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.” 14When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him.

15Then the men went as a group to the king and said to him, “Remember, O king, that according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed.”

16So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!”

17A stone was brought and placed over the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the rings of his nobles, so that Daniel’s situation might not be changed. 18Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.

COMMENTARY

10–13 No doubt when Daniel learns “that the decree had been published” (v.10a) he knows it is directed primarily against him. Yet he is not dissuaded from maintaining his daily discipline of prayer (v.10b). Naturally, Daniel’s enemies count on his being resolute in this matter of his “personal religion,” and they plant themselves outside Daniel’s home waiting to catch him in the act of defying the king’s edict by praying to “another god” (v.11). Miller, 183, rightly implies that despite the gravity of the situation, there is a humorous side to this scene of the story—“dignified” governmental officials spying on Daniel.

Once they have garnered the necessary evidence against Daniel, the conspirators come “in a throng” (so Collins, Daniel, 269; see the discussion of the Aram. regaš in v.6) to verify (by trapping the king in his own testimony; so Seow, 91) that the edict and the requisite punishment for its violation are still in force (v.12). Then the officials bring formal charges against Daniel for breaking the king’s edict by praying to his own God three times a day (v.13). The accusation leveled against Daniel echoes the charge levied against Daniel’s three Hebrew colleagues in that it insinuates that this act of insubordination makes Daniel a dangerous subversive, “who pays no attention to you” (v.13; cf. 3:12), and thus a threat to the stability of the kingdom.

The direction of Daniel’s prayer (facing the Jerusalem temple; v.10) is based on the injunctions mentioned in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (i.e., “pray toward this place”; 1Ki 8:35, 38, 44, 48). The custom of praying three times a day probably stems from the psalmist who cried out to God evening, morning, and midday (Ps 55:17), perhaps an indication that this had become a traditional pattern of prayer by the time of Daniel. Many different prayer postures are mentioned in the OT, and while particular postures and gestures are not commanded, they are always conditioned by the mood, content, and circumstance of the prayer. Kneeling is the posture in which a person is the most “defenseless,” and in prayer it is a symbol of dependence, humility, and contrition before God.

Porteous, 90, comments that Daniel is not “flaunting his religion” by immediately retiring to his home to pray, but rather “a man like Daniel was not prepared to lower his flag when trouble threatened.” Daniel learned early on in his experience as a Hebrew exile in Babylon to entrust crisis situations to God in prayer, and as an octogenarian he is not going to abandon that resource now (cf. 2:18).

Daniel’s custom is to pray and give thanks to his God (v.10). Goldingay, 131, sees two major aspects of prayer in the report, that of intercession (perhaps for the government in which he served and for exiled Israel) and confession (in the sense that Daniel offers “thanksgiving” because he knows God hears and answers prayer). Beyond this, Daniel asks God for help (v.11) or seeks mercy (Aram. ḥnn, “to show favor, grace”; GK 10274) “in contravention of the law against petitioning anyone other than the king” (Seow, 91). It is also possible that Daniel is praying for other Jews who might be targeted by the king’s edict, since he well understands that he belongs to the Hebrew covenantal community (cf. 9:5 and the repetition of the first-person plural “we”). As in his previous tests of loyalty (e.g., 1:8), Daniel remains true to God despite the high personal risk. The confession of the three Hebrews before Nebuchadnezzar in the episode of the blazing furnace could be Daniel’s confession as well (3:16–18). Like the apostles of Jesus several centuries later, Daniel knows he “must obey God rather than men” (Ac 5:29).

14–18 The indictment of Daniel “greatly distressed” the king (v.14a), though Goldingay (121, n. 15a, 132) contends the more natural understanding of the word (Aram. beʾēš) is “displeased.” The reason or source for the king’s distress or displeasure is unspecified, but he may have been angry with Daniel for ignoring his edict, or upset that Daniel is now under a charge of sedition. More likely, he is distressed by the plot concocted by Daniel’s conspirators and his own naiveté in being duped by subordinates. Darius spends the daylight hours seeking to rescue or “deliver” (NASB) Daniel, but no information is given as to what options may have been open to the king (v.14b). Miller, 184, deduces that Daniel must have been observed praying at midday, so the king has only the afternoon to secure Daniel’s release, and Seow, 92, suggests that an investigation or formal trial may have been among the options that Darius might pursue in an effort to stay Daniel’s execution. The king’s diligence in seeking to rescue Daniel (“he was determined . . . and made every effort”; v.14) is commendable and indicates Daniel is well liked by Darius (even his “favorite” according to Seow, 92; cf. v.3).

The attempt by Darius to rescue Daniel unsettles the conspirators, for they come “thronging” or “swarming” back to the king for a third time (v.15). Even as these enemies of Daniel presume to know the content of Daniel’s prayer(s), they now presume to instruct the king on “law enforcement.” For the third time in the story, reference is made to the irrevocable law of the Medes and Persians (v.15b; cf. vv.8, 12). The law is the law, and the king has no choice but to order Daniel’s execution (v.16). Interestingly, the king complies with his own law in having Daniel thrown into the lions’ pit (v.16a) but then violates his own edict by invoking the name of Daniel’s God in his petition that his choice servant be delivered (v.16b).

The scene reveals how jealousy breeds hatred and that the real issue for Daniel’s rivals is removing him permanently from any position of authority (cf. Baldwin, 130: “the tyrants would not permit the king to play for time” but pressure the king to carry out the death sentence that very day). One wonders whether Darius, in his affirmation of Daniel’s loyal service to his Hebrew God (v.16b), understands any direct relationship between that and his honesty, integrity, reliability, and competence as a civil servant in the royal bureaucracy.

Daniel’s fate is sealed, literally by a stone barrier placed over the opening of the lions’ pit and then by seal impressions from the signet rings of Darius and his nobles (v.17). The two acts serve to heighten the foreshadowing of Darius’s petition in v.16 for the divine deliverance of Daniel because human intervention is now impossible—the situation cannot be changed (v.17b). Seow, 93, observes that the double sealing of the stone (v.17) “ensures that neither side will be able to rig the outcome of Daniel’s trial in the pit” (since the king and Daniel’s friends are unable to rescue him, and the nobles will be unable to kill him if somehow the lions do not).

The king’s distress over Daniel’s predicament—one Darius himself has created by issuing the edict—induces such anxiety that he is unable to eat (“fasting,” NASB). Goldingay (121, n. 19a) and Lucas, 144, consider this normal deprivation of food but not religious fasting (though the king’s failure to eat is interpreted by some as “fasting and praying”; cf. Miller, 186; Smith-Christopher, 93). Neither does the king seek enjoyment in any forms of royal entertainment (or “diversions”; so Russell, 105), nor does he sleep the night (lit., “his sleep fled from him,” NASB; v.18). The king’s self-denial and misery are perhaps another sign of the depth of feeling he has for Daniel (cf. Pr 14:35, “a king delights in a wise servant”; 22:11, “he who loves a pure heart and whose speech is gracious will have the king for a friend”).

NOTES

10 The “upstairs room” of Daniel’s house may indicate his high status (cf. Goldingay, 129; Miller, 182). According to J. J. Slotki (Ezra–Nehemiah–Daniel [London: Soncino, 1951], 49), “this was not an attic but a room on the flat roof of the house. These rooms were, and still are, common in the East, being used as private apartments to which one retired when wishing to be undisturbed. They usually had latticed windows which allowed free circulation of air.”

17 The “signet ring” was an engraved stone set on a ring or inscribed stone worn as a ring or on a chain cord around the neck (cf. Redditt, 110). Each person’s seal was carved with distinctive symbols (usually some combination of pictures and words), making the signet the equivalent of one’s personal mark or “signature.” Miller, 185–86, suggests that “soft clay was attached to the chains draped over the stone, and the king and his nobles made their personal marks (seals) by pressing their rings to the clay. After the clay hardened, the chains could not be removed without breaking the seal.” The door of Bel’s temple is sealed with the king’s signet ring in the story of Bel and the Serpent in the Additions to Daniel (14:14).

18 There is no agreement on the forms of “entertainment” (NIV, NASB) King Darius shuns while keeping vigil during Daniel’s night in the lions’ pit because the meaning of the Aramaic (daḥawān) is unknown (so Lucas, 144). Special food, musicians, dancing girls, and concubines are among the suggested royal “diversions” the king rejects because of his distress over Daniel’s fate (see Montgomery, 277–78).

4. Daniel’s Deliverance (6:19–24 [6:20–25])

19At the first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions’ den. 20When he came near the den, he called to Daniel in an anguished voice, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?”

21Daniel answered, “O king, live forever! 22My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, O king.”

23The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.

24At the king’s command, the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.

COMMENTARY

19–24 The king’s anxiety over Daniel’s fate is captured in three expressions: “at first light of dawn” (“at dawn, at the break of day,” NASB; v.19a; cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 196), “the king . . . hurried” (“went in haste,” NASB; v.19b), and “he called . . . in an anguished voice” (“he cried out with a troubled voice,” NASB; v.20a). Lacocque, 118, wonders whether the king’s hasty return to the lions’ pit early the next morning should be viewed in the light of the Babylonian custom that the victim would be pardoned if he were tortured and had not died by the following day. Miller, 186, interprets the subsequent events to “indicate that this must have been the practice involved here.”

Darius identifies Daniel as a “servant of the living God” (v.20b). This epithet for God is often used in the OT for the God of Israel as the true God (Jer 10:10; 23:36; cf. Seow, 93). Goldingay, 133, states that “this rich OT title for God suggests not merely that God is alive rather than dead, but that he is active and powerful, awesome and almighty, involved in bringing judgment and blessing.” The repetition of Daniel as one who serves God continually (v.20; cf. v.16) accents the constancy of his character and anticipates the rationale for his vindication as one “innocent” before God (v.22). Reddit, 110, appropriately summarizes, “the martyr story was broken; God turned out to be the ‘living God’ as Darius had hoped (v.16).” Seow, 93, surmises that Darius’s acknowledgment of Daniel’s deity as the “living God” is tantamount to a confession of faith, albeit a tentative one (cf. Miller, 186–87).

Ironically, Daniel greets the king with the same address, “O king, live forever” (v.21), as that proffered earlier by his accusers (v.6). They had “swarmed” to the king seeking Daniel’s death; but hauntingly, Daniel’s formal response to the king’s question provides dramatic testimony that their nemesis still lives (cf. Lacocque, 117, on the LXX’s “O king, I am alive”). This is the only time in the book of Daniel that a Hebrew addresses a foreign king with the salutation “live forever.” According to Seow, 93, given the reference to the “living God” in the context, “the phrase serves to link and to subsume the life of the king to the will of the God from whom life derives and on whom life depends” (cf. Goldingay, 133: “Daniel’s prayer that Darius may do so [i.e., ‘live forever’] both honors and relativizes Darius’s kingship by the interweaving of references to the living God with those to the living king”).

Daniel’s vindication is acknowledged at two levels. First, he is found “innocent” before God (v.22a); and second, his survival of the lion-pit ordeal proves he is guiltless of any wrongdoing before the king (“I have committed no crime,” NASB; v.22b). According to Lucas, 144, the word “innocent” (Aram. zākû) is a legal term signifying formal acquittal, probably borrowed from Akkadian (cf. CAD, 21:23–25). Redditt, 111, notes that technically Daniel “was guilty of breaking the king’s law, but was not disloyal to the king in so doing.” The narrator reports both the king’s joy at discovering Daniel has survived the ordeal (v.23a) and the reason for it—“he had trusted in his God” (v.23b; on the “ordeal” in the biblical world see Longman, 163). The verbal root for “trust” (Aram./Heb. ʾmn; GK 586. 10041) means to “have faith, to believe” in theological contexts in the sense of “standing fast” (cf. THAT, 1:142). Wood, 173, deduces that “the mention of trust at this point suggests that after their inspection, the examiners came to recognize this trust as having accounted for the miracle.”

The agent of Daniel’s deliverance was an “angel” of God (v.22). Naturally, scholarly speculation abounds as to the identity of this being who shut the mouths of lions, apparently visible to Daniel. Whether Daniel’s divine rescuer was a member of the angelic host (so Hartman and Di Lella, 200) or “the angel of the LORD” himself (so Miller, 187) is not the point; rather, the text means to convey that the “angel” is “nothing other than the very presence of God, as the LXX has well understood” (Lacocque, 118; cf. the LXX’s “God . . . closed the lions’ mouths”). The moral of the story is not the deliverance of the righteous from the “jaws” of death, but “the fulfilling of God’s purpose” (Goldingay, 134). Seow, 94, observes that much like Daniel’s three friends, Daniel, too, experiences the divine presence in the midst of trial—thus suggesting “that God knows what transpires on earth and God does respond whenever God wills.”

The king’s retributive act of throwing those who had “maliciously accused” (NASB; v.24) Daniel into the lions’ pit is one of the more gruesome passages of the Bible, as these conspirators are ripped apart by the wild beasts before they reach “the floor of the den” (v.24b). The execution of the wives and children of Daniel’s defamers as accomplices in the conspiracy strikes the modern reader as cruel and unjust. Yet Collins (Daniel, 271) observes that such practice “follows the ancient custom of corporate responsibility, rather than the ideal of individual responsibility” (cf. Jos 7; see discussion in Longman, 163–64). Baldwin, 131, comments that the Bible simply records the event “as a fact, without either approval or disapproval.”

The miracle of Daniel’s emergence from the lions’ pit without “wound” (NIV) or “injury” (NASB) is rooted in the original creation mandate giving humanity dominion over the animal kingdom (Ge 1:26). According to the Hebrew prophets, harmony between humanity and the animals and within the animal kingdom itself will be restored in the eschaton (Isa 11:6; 65:25; Eze 34:25; Hos 2:18). Baldwin, 131, projects that “in the man of God [i.e., Daniel] the powers of the world to come have broken in, in anticipation of what will be when the king comes to reign.” This may explain, in part, the inclusion of summary statements of both stories of court conflict from Daniel (the three Hebrews and the blazing furnace in ch. 3 and Daniel and the lions’ pit in ch. 6) in the so-called “honor roll of OT faith” found in Hebrews 11:33–34. Daniel and his three friends are among those of the great cloud of OT witnesses who point to “Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Heb 12:2).

NOTE

24 Goldingay, 129, and Redditt, 111, among other commentators, erroneously assume the other two administrators and all 120 of the satraps are party to the conspiracy against Daniel, raising the question of logistics with respect to the number of individuals thrown into the lions’ pit and the reasonable size of such a pit. Nowhere does the text explicitly cite “all” these officials as coconspirators, and logic would suggest that the contention of Young, 138, that “the plot was the work of a few men,” better represents the reality of the situation.

5. Darius’s Letter of Proclamation and Doxology (6:25–28 [6:26–29])

25Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations and men of every language throughout the land:

“May you prosper greatly!

26“I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel.

“For he is the living God

and he endures forever;

his kingdom will not be destroyed,

his dominion will never end.

27He rescues and he saves;

he performs signs and wonders

in the heavens and on the earth.

He has rescued Daniel

from the power of the lions.”

28So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

COMMENTARY

25–27 Like his predecessor King Nebuchadnezzar (see comments on 4:1–3), King Darius writes a royal letter (v.25a), or “epistle,” since publication is intended for a “universal audience” (i.e., the peoples of his vast realm; cf. Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 61, 72). The letter is Darius’s personal confession of his own experience with Daniel’s God, Darius having witnessed Daniel’s miraculous deliverance from the lions’ pit. According to Goldingay, 129, whether or not King Darius “converted” to the Hebrew religion is not the point; rather, it is his confession acknowledging the living, eternal, saving, and active power of Daniel’s God—an affirmation desperately needed by the Hebrews enduring the dark days of Babylonian exile (cf. Porteous, 92).

Both royal epistles offer the same greeting or salutation, “may you prosper greatly” (v.25b; see comments on 4:1–3). The formal proclamation of Darius here (vv.26–27) contains the additional literary forms of decree, commanding the subjects of his kingdom to respect the God of Daniel (v.26a). Both “encyclicals” (as Seow, 95, labels them) conclude with a doxology in praise of the God of the Hebrews (vv.26b–27). The hymnic language of the doxology justifies the poetic format of the king’s decree in the more recent English translations.

The decree of Darius that his subjects must hold “the God of Daniel” in awe is stated more positively than the decree of Nebuchadnezzar that threatened dismemberment to anyone who defamed “the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” (3:29). To “fear” (lit., “tremble,” Aram. zûaʿ) and “reverence” (lit., “fear,” Aram. deḥal) God mean to both “respect Him and recognize that they could be hurt by Him, Darius thus admitting that this God’s power extended far beyond the boundaries of Judah” (Wood, 175). The decree of Darius serves two purposes: first, it gives official sanction to the God of the Hebrews as a legitimate and even superior deity to the gods of the Babylonian pantheon; and second, it rescinds the “irrevocable” edict that Darius had earlier published forbidding petition to anyone but the king (cf. Redditt, 112). How ironic, as Seow, 95, observes, that “now the king himself publicizes to the world the reversal of his supposedly unchangeable edict, for God has brought about the change.”

The doxology of Darius repeats the epithet “the living God” (v.26b; cf. v.20), whereas Nebuchadnezzar makes reference to the Most High God (4:2). The reference to God as “the living God” not only contrasts Yahweh with the lifeless gods of the nations (e.g., Jer 16:18; Hab 2:19) but also calls attention to his capacity to preserve life as a God who saves and rescues his followers (v.27a). The doxology of Darius extols the eternality of God and the indestructibility of his kingdom, echoing the affirmation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:3). Like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius also testifies to God’s ability to perform “signs and wonders” (v.27a; see comments on 4:1–3). Lastly, God’s power to perform signs and wonders is applied specifically to his rescue of Daniel “from the power of the lions” (v.27b).

Both royal epistles make the same claim—God alone is sovereign, and “he does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth” (4:35; cf. Seow, 95). Perhaps for the Hebrews in Babylonian captivity the testimony by a pagan king to God’s power to perform signs and wonders and deliver his people stirred thoughts of the “signs and wonders” associated with the exodus from Egypt and the possibility of a “second exodus” (cf. Lucas, 153).

28 Baldwin, 132, observes that the chapter ends with “an enigmatic note connecting the reign of Darius with that of Cyrus,” understanding that the conjunction “and” (NIV, NASB) actually conveys the explicative force of “namely” or “that is” (i.e., “during the reign of Darius, namely, Cyrus the Persian”). Thus the writer explains to the reader that the two names, “Darius” and “Cyrus,” belong to the same person. Given the current state of scholarship on the book of Daniel, this solution is as plausible as any of the attempts to identify the “King Darius” mentioned in ch. 6. The approach has merit in that it unifies the court-stories section of the book by forming an envelope construction with the reference to Cyrus in 1:21 (cf. Lucas, 153).

NOTES

26 Lucas, 145, notes that Qumran documents (4QDanb) support the more difficult reading “a living God” also found in the LXX(θ). This suggests that Darius’s decree merely elevates Yahweh, as God of the Hebrews, to the status of other “living gods” (i.e., his own Babylonian pantheon?).