Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 5:1

Clarke's Commentary

CHAPTER V

In the commencement of this chapter we are informed how

Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, when rioting in his

palace, and profaning the severed vessels of the temple, 1-4,

was suddenly terrified with the appearance of the fingers of a

man's hand, which wrote a few words on the wall before him,

5, 6.

The wise men and astrologers were immediately called in to show

the king the interpretation; but they could not so much as read

the writing, because (as Houbigant and others have conjectured)

though the words are in the Chaldee tongue, yet they were

written in the Samaritan or ancient Hebrew characters, with

which the wise men of Babylon were very probably unacquainted,

as the Jews were at that time a despised people, and the

knowledge of their language not a fashionable attainment, 7-9.

Daniel, who had been so highly esteemed by Nebuchadnezzar for

his superior wisdom, appears to have been altogether unknown to

Belshazzar, till the queen (the same who had been the wife of

Nebuchadnezzar according to the general opinion, or the queen

consort according to others) had informed him, 10-12.

Upon the queen's recommendation, Daniel is called in, 13-16;

who boldly tells this despotic king, that as he had not

benefited by the judgments inflicted on his grandfather, but

gave himself up to pride and profanity, and had added to his

other sins an utter contempt for the God of the Jews by

drinking wine out of the sacred vessels of Jehovah in honour of

his idols, 17-23;

the Supreme Being, the Ruler of heaven and earth, had written

his condemnation in three words, MENE, TEKEL, PERES, 24, 25;

the first of which is repeated in the copies containing the

Chaldean original; but all the ancient Versions, except the

Syriac, are without this repetition. Daniel then gives the king

and his lords the fearful import of the writing, viz., that the

period allotted for the duration of the Chaldean empire was now

completed, (see Jeremiah 25:12-14,)

and that the kingdom was about to be transferred to the Medes

and Persians, 26-28.

However unwelcome such an interpretation must have been to

Belshazzar, yet the monarch, overwhelmed with its clearness and

certainty, commanded the prophet to be honoured, 29.

And that very night the prediction was fulfilled, for the king

was slain, 30,

and the city taken by the Medes and Persians, 31.

This great event was also predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah; and

the manner in which it was accomplished is recorded by

Herodotus and Xenophon.

NOTES ON CHAP. V.

Verse Daniel 5:1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast — This chapter is out of its place, and should come in after the seventh and eighth. There are difficulties in the chronology. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach his son ascended the throne of Babylon. Having reigned about two years, he was slain by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar. He reigned four years, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod, who reigned only nine months. At his death Belshazzar the son of Evil-merodach, was raised to the throne, and reigned seventeen years, and was slain, as we read here, by Cyrus, who surprised and took the city on the night of this festivity. This is the chronology on which Archbishop Usher, and other learned chronologists, agree; but the Scripture mentions only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, by name; and Jeremiah, Jeremiah 27:7, expressly says, "All nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar,) and his son (Evil-merodach,) and his son's son (Belshazzar,) until the very time of his land come;" i.e., till the time in which the empire should be seized by Cyrus. Here there is no mention of Neriglissar nor Laborosoarchod; but as they were usurpers, they might have been purposely passed by. But there remains one difficulty still: Belshazzar is expressly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar by the queen mother, Daniel 5:11: "There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and in the days of THY FATHER light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him: whom the king NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians." The solution of this difficulty is, that in Scripture the name of son is indifferently given to sons and grandsons, and even to great grandsons. And perhaps the repetition in the above verse may imply this: "The king, Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king thy father." The king thy father's father, and consequently thy grandfather. If it have not some such meaning as this, it must be considered an idle repetition. As to the two other kings, Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, mentioned by Josephus and Berosus, and by whom the chronology is so much puzzled, they might have been some petty kings, or viceroys, or satraps, who affected the kingdom, and produced disturbances, one for four years, and the other for nine months; and would in consequence not be acknowledged in the Babylonish chronology, nor by the sacred writers, any more than finally unsuccessful rebels are numbered among the kings of those nations which they have disturbed. I believe the only sovereigns we can acknowledge here are the following:

1. Nabopolassar;

2. Nebuchadnezzar;

3. Evil-merodach;

4. Belshazzar; and with this last the Chaldean empire ended.

To a thousand of his lords — Perhaps this means lords or satraps, that were each over one thousand men. But we learn from antiquity that the Persian kings were very profuse in their entertainments; but it does not follow that the Chaldeans were so too. Besides, one thousand lords and their appropriate attendants would have been very inconvenient in a nocturnal assembly. The text, however, supports the common translation. Literally, "Belshazzar the king made bread for his lords a thousand; and against the thousand he drank wine." That is, say some, he was a very great drinker.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Belshazzar’s feast (5:1-31)

The events of this chapter took place in 539 BC. If Daniel was about fifteen years of age when taken captive to Babylon in 605 BC, he would now be over eighty. Nebuchadnezzar had long been dead. The present king, Nabonidus, was absent in distant territories for much of his reign, and the rule of the country was largely in the hands of his son Belshazzar. The queen who appears in the story (v. 10) was probably the queen mother, wife of Nabonidus. Nebuchadnezzar is referred to in the story as Belshazzar’s father (v. 2,11), not in the sense of being father by blood, but in the sense of being predecessor as king.

While the armies of Persia were preparing for their final attack on Babylon, Belshazzar and most of Babylon’s leaders were enjoying themselves at an extravagant banquet. Belshazzar knew of the expanding power of the Medo-Persians, but he was so self-confident that he thought nothing could shake his mighty kingdom. He also knew of the God of the Jews who had humbled Nebuchadnezzar, but he showed his contempt for this God by taking the Jews’ sacred vessels to use in his banquet of drunkenness and idolatry (5:1-4).
At the height of the feast, Belshazzar was overcome with a sickening terror when a hand suddenly appeared and wrote mysterious words on the wall (5-6). Panic-stricken, he asked his wise men to explain what it all meant. He promised that the one who explained the mystery would be given the next highest place in the kingdom after him. No one was successful (7-9).
When news of the confusion reached the queen mother, she came to the banquet hall to tell the king how Daniel had interpreted mysteries for Nebuchadnezzar many years previously (10-12. At this time Daniel no longer occupied a position of power in Babylon, either because of his age or because of the change in kings). Though able to interpret the writing, Daniel refused the king’s reward (13-17). Also, he reminded Belshazzar of how God had humbled the mighty Nebuchadnezzar (18-21), yet although Belshazzar knew all this he deliberately treated God with contempt (22-23). Therefore, God sent him this terrifying message (24).
Daniel recognized three well known Aramaic words in the mysterious writing: mene, meaning ‘numbered’; tekel, meaning ‘weighed’; and parsin (plural of peres), meaning ‘divided’. He then offered his interpretation of the words. God had numbered the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom and fixed the day when it would collapse; he had judged (weighed) Belshazzar and found him to be a failure; he would divide Belshazzar’s kingdom and give it to the Medes and Persians (25-28).
That night, before Belshazzar’s banquet was over, Babylon fell to the armies of Medo-Persia under the leadership of the Persian king Cyrus. The Darius mentioned in the story could have been Cyrus under an alternative name, or it could have been a Median general whom Cyrus appointed over Babylon. He is not the Darius mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament (29-31).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, or iron, of wood, and of stone.”

The date of this remarkable banquet was the night in which Babylon fell, usually given in the history books as in 538 B.C. A Babylonian text (presumably of Herodotus) was cited by Millard, which gave the date of this event as October 12, 539 B.C.A. R. Millard, The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1979), p. 913.

“Belshazzar the king” It was at one time the arrogant assertion of Biblical enemies that there never was any such king as Belshazzar during the final years of Babylon. Andrews was boasting as recently as in 1924 that, “The statements of the historians and the evidence of the Inscriptions make it abundantly clear that at the time of the conquest the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus.”H. T. Andrews, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, Ltd., 1924), p. 527. He even went on to say that it is “impossible” that Belshazzar could have been king at that time.

But, as has been the case so frequently, in the case of blatant and confident denials of God’s Word, archeologists have excavated from the mud of Mesopotamia dramatic and undeniable proof of the Bible’s accuracy. “One of the cuneiform documents expressly states that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar.”Edward J. Young, op. cit., p. 694. It follows, of course, that if a man has been entrusted with the kingship and is exercising all of the authority and privileges of autocratic rule, then he should properly have been addressed as “king,” exactly as in this chapter. That Nabonidus the “king’s” father was still living, and that Belshazzar’s true status was that of a sub-king while his father was either absent or incapacitated appears in Belshazzar’s promise to make Daniel the “third ruler” in the kingdom, indicating that Belshazzar himself was the “second ruler” in the kingdom, under his father, the true king, Nabonidus. Thus the Book of Daniel fits the true facts of history perfectly.

Charges are also leveled against this passage because of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as “the father” of Belshazzar. This is no problem whatever. In the Hebrew usage of the term, the word father is often used for grandfather, as in Genesis 9:20-25, where Canaan, a grandson, is called Noah’s son. Also, father is also used for ancester. Jeffery admitted that this usage of father in such a loose sense was common, but went on and called such an explanation “unsatisfactory.”Arthur Jeffery, The Interpreter’s Bible, Daniel, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 622. “That this true explanation is indeed “unsatisfactory” to critics is of no concern at all to believers. Owens declared unequivocally that, “Daniel 5:2 refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s predecessor.”Ibid.

“And drank wine before the thousand” Jeffery stated that this might mean either of two things: (1) the king, by drinking first, opened the drinking phase of the banquet, or (2) that he drank before the thousand in the sense of doing so in their presence.J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 536. It is our opinion that the king probably did both.

The critical allegation that Belshazzar’s actions here “were very similar to those of Antiochus Epiphanes,”John Joseph Owens, Beacon Bible Commentary, Daniel (Nashville: Broadman Press, 11971), p. 404. is absolutely untrue. Antiochus robbed the treasury of the temple, but he did not do so for pleasure, as did Belshazzar here, but because he found himself in dire financial straits. Besides that, look at the rewards that Belshazzar heaped upon Daniel. We might go so far as to say that nothing in this passage is remotely suggestive of Antiochus Epiphanes. Frequent references to this alleged resemblance by critics is merely their device of trying to import such a likeness into the chapter. Keil and many other great scholars have exposed this error repeatedly.

Belshazzar’s behavior here was incredibly arrogant and sinful. To begin with, he was not actually king in the full sense of that word. “Belshazzar here had insolently and arrogantly taken to himself a higher position and authority than were rightfully his. Many elected officials of church and state have done likewise.”Ibid. “Gobryas, Cyrus’ great general, was at that very moment making his way up the bed of the Euphrates, its waters diverted by a canal, leaving the gates of Babylon unguarded.”Robert D. Culver, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Daniel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 785.

The bringing of the women into the banquet hall, probably at a point in the feast when the drinking had begun, is a strong suggestion of the immorality and debauchery which usually attended such affairs. Keil tells us that both Herodotus and Xenophon confirm the fact of Babylon’s fall upon the occasion of a drunken feast in Babylon.C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 166.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Belshazzar the king - See Introduction to the chapter, Section II. In the Introduction to the chapter here referred to, I have stated what seemed to be necessary in order to illustrate the history of Belshazzar, so far as that can be now known. The statements in regard to this monarch, it is well understood, are exceedingly confused, and the task of reconciling them is now hopeless. Little depends, however, in the interpretation of this book, on the attempt to reconcile them, for the narrative here given is equally credible, whichever of the accounts is taken, unless that of Berosus is followed. But it may not be improper to exhibit here the two principal accounts of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, that the discrepancy may be distinctly seen. I copy from the Pictorial Bible. “The common account we shall collect from L’Art de Verifier les Dates, and the other from Hales’ “Analysis,” disposing them in opposite colums for the sake of comparison:

It will be observed that the principal point of difference in these accounts is, that Hales contends that the succession of Darius the Mede to the Babylonian throne was not attended with war; that Belshazzar was not the king in whose time the city was taken by Cyrus; and, consequently, that the events which took place this night were quite distinct from and anterior to that siege and capture of the city by the Persian king which Isaiah and Jeremiah so remarkably foretold.

Made a great feast - On what occasion this feast was made is not stated, but is was not improbably an annual festival in honor of some of the Babylonian deities. This opinion seems to be countenanced by the words of the Codex Chisianus, “Belshazzar the king made a great festival ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων en hēmera engkainismou tōn basileiōn) on the day of the dedication of his kingdom;” and in Daniel 5:4 it is said that “they praised the gods of gold, of silver, and of brass,” etc.

To a thousand of his lords - The word thousand here is doubtless used as a general term to denote a very large number. It is not improbable, however, that this full number was assembled on such an occasion. “Ctesias says, that the king of Persia furnished provisions daily for fifteen thousand men. Quintus Curtius says that ten thousand men were present at a festival of Alexander the Great; and Statius says of Domitian, that he ordered, on a certain occasion, his guests ‘to sit down at a thousand tables.’ “ - Prof. Stuart, in loc.

And drank wine before the thousand - The Latin Vulgate here is, “And each one drank according to his age.” The Greek of Theodotion, the Arabic, and the Coptic is, “and wine was before the thousand.” The Chaldee, however, is, as in our version, “he drank wine before the thousand.” As he was the lord of the feast, and as all that occurred pertained primarily to him, the design is undoubtedly to describe his conduct, and to show the effect which the drinking of wine had on him. He drank it in the most public manner, setting an example to his lords, and evidently drinking it to great excess.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Daniel here refers to the history of what happened at the taking of Babylon; but meanwhile he leaves those judgments of God to the consideration of his readers, which the Prophets had predicted before the people had become exiles. He does not use the prophetic style, as we shall afterwards see, but is content with simple narrative; while the practice of history may be learnt from the following expressions. It is our duty now to consider how this history tends towards building us up in the faith and fear of God. First of all we notice the time at which Belshazzar celebrated this banquet. Seventy years had passed away from the time when Daniel had been led into exile with his companions. For although Nebuchadnezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, yet it is clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them; for he reigned twenty-three years. Some reckon two kings before Belshazzar; for they place Regassar after Labassardach; and these two will occupy eight years. Metasthenes has stated it so, and he has many followers. But Nebuchadnezzar the Great, who took Daniel captive, and was the son of the first king of that name, evidently reigned forty-five years. Some transfer two years to the reign of his father; at any rate, he held the regal power for forty-five years; and if the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, they will make sixty-eight years — in which Belshazzar had reigned eight years. We see, then, how seventy-two years had passed away from the period of Daniel being first led captive. Metasthenes reckons thirty years for the reign of Evil-Merodach; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than eighty years — which appears probable enough, although Metasthenes seems to be in error in supposing different kings instead of only different names. ⁽²⁴⁰⁾ For Herodotus does not call Belshazzar, of whom we are now speaking, a king, but calls his father Labynetus, and gives him the same name. ⁽²⁴¹⁾ Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily embrace his computation of time, when he asserts Evil-Merodach to have reigned thirty years. For when we treat of the seventy years which Jeremiah had formerly pointed out, we ought not to begin with Daniel’s exile, no,’ yet with the destruction of the city, but with the slaughter which occurred between the first victory of king Nebuchadnezzar, and the burning and ruin of the temple and city. For when the report concerning the death of his father was first spread abroad, as we have elsewhere said, he returned to his own country, lest any disturbance should occur through his absence. Hence we shall find the seventy years during which God wished the people’s captivity to last, will require a longer period for the reign of Evil-Merodach than twenty-three years; although there is not any important difference, for soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the king, leaving the city untouched. Although the temple was then standing, yet God had inflicted the severest punishment upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least nearly equal to it. However this was, we see that Belshazzar was celebrating this banquet just as the time of the deliverance drew nigh.

Here we must consider the Providence of God, in arranging the times of events, so that the impious, when the time of their destruction is come, cast themselves headlong of their own accord. This occurred to this wicked king. Wonderful indeed was the stupidity which prepared a splendid banquet filled with delicacies, while the city was besieged. For Cyrus had begun to besiege the city for a long time with a large army. The wretched king was already half a captive; and yet, as if in spite of God, he provided a rich banquet, and invited a thousand guests. Hence we may conjecture the extent of the noise and of the expense in that banquet. For if any one wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests, it will occasion him much trouble, if he wishes to treat them splendidly. But when it was a royal entertainment, where there were a thousand nobles with the king’s wife and concubines, and so great a multitude assembled together, it became necessary to obtain from many quarters what was required for such a festival; and this may seem incredible! But Xenophon though he related many fables and preserved neither the gravity nor the fidelity of a historian, because he desired to celebrate the praises of Cyrus like a rhetorician; although he trifles in many things, yet here had no reason or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was laid up, so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of even ten or more years. And Babylon was deservedly compared to a kingdom; for its magnitude was so large as to surpass belief. It must really have been very populous, but since they drew their provisions from the whole of Asia, it is not surprising that the Babylonians had food in store, sufficient to allow them to close their gates, and to sustain them for a long period. But in this banquet it was most singular that the king, who ought to have been on guard, or at least have sent forth his guards to prevent the city from being taken, was as intent upon his delicacies as if he had been in perfect peace, and exposed to no danger from any outward enemy. He had a contest with a strong man, if any man ever was so. Cyrus was endued with singular prudence, and in swiftness of action by far excelled all others. Since, then, the king was so keenly opposed, it is surprising to find him so careless as to celebrate a banquet. Xenophon, indeed, states the day to have been a festival. The assertion of those Jews who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over the Persians, is but trifling. For Xenophon — who may be trusted whenever he does not falsify history in favor of Cyrus, because he is then a very grave historian, and entirely worthy of credit; but when he desires to praise Cyrus, he has no moderation — is here historically correct, when he says the Babylonians were holding a usual annual festival. He tells us also how Babylon was taken, viz., by Gobryas and Gadatas his generals. For Belshazzar had castrated one of these to his shame, and had slain the son of the other in the lifetime of his father. Since then the latter burnt with the desire of avenging his son’s death, and the former his own disgrace, they conspired against him. Hence Cyrus turned the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon was suddenly taken. The city we must remember was twice taken, otherwise there would not have been any confidence in prophecy; because when the Prophets threaten God’s vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies should be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring human blood; and then they narrate every kind of atrocious deed which is customary in war. (Jeremiah 50:42.) But nothing of this kind happened when Babylon was taken by Cyrus; but when the Babylonians freed themselves from the Persian sway by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city by the assistance of Zopyrus, who mutilated his person, and pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king as to induce him to betray the city. But then we collect how hardly the Babylonians were afflicted, when 3000 nobles were crucified! And what usually happens when 8000 nobles are put to death, and all suspended on a gallows — nay, even crucified? Thus it easily appears, how severely the Babylonians were punished at the time, although they were then subject to a foreign power, and treated shamefully by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. For they were forbidden the use of arms, and were taught from the first to become the slaves of Cyrus, and dare not wear a sword. We ought to touch upon these things shortly to assure us of the government of human events by the judgment of God, when he casts headlong the reprobate when their punishment is at hand. We have an illustrious example of this in King Belshazzar.

The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at hand — the seventy years were finished — Babylon was besieged. (Jeremiah 25:11.) The Jews might now raise up their heads and hope for the best, because the arrival of Cyrus approached, contrary to the opinion of them all; for he had suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when that was a barbarous nation. Since, therefore, the sudden coming of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might possibly give some hope to the Jews; but after a length of time, so to speak, had elapsed in the siege of the city, this might east down their spirits. While king Belshazzar was banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seems able to thrust him out in the midst of his merriment and hilarity. Meanwhile the Lord did not sit at rest in heaven; for he blinds the mind of the impious king, so that he should willingly incur punishments, yet no one drew him on, for he incurred it himself. And whence could this arise, unless God had given him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of which Jeremiah was the herald. Hence, although Daniel narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to treat of things far more important; for God who had promised his people deliverance, was now stretching forth his hand in secret, and fulfilling the predictions of his Prophets. (Jeremiah 25:26.)

It now follows — King Belshazzar was drinking wine before a thousand Some of the Rabbis say, “he strove with his thousand nobles, and contended with them all in drinking to excess;” but this seems grossly ridiculous. When he says, he drank wine before a thousand, he alludes to the custom of the nation, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited guests to their table; they usually dined alone, as the kings of Europe now do; for they think it adds to their dignity to enjoy a solitary meal. The pride of the kings of Chaldea was of this kind. When, therefore, it is said, Belshazzar drank wine before a thousand , something extraordinary is intended, since he was celebrating this annum banquet contrary to his ordinary custom, and he deigned to treat his nobles with such honor as to receive them as his guests. Some, indeed, conjecture that he drank wine ordeals, as he was accustomed to become intoxicated when there were no witnesses present; but there is no force in this comment: the word before means in the presence or society of others. Let us go on:

(240) See the Dissertations at the end of this volume, in which these historical points are treated at length.

(241) Herod., lib. 1, sect. 188. Comp. Cyropoed., lib. 4 and 7.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Shall we turn now in our Bible to Daniel, chapter 5.

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

There are men who call themselves Bible scholars and they belong to a school known as "higher criticism." And for years these men declared that the book of Daniel was not valid. And one of their reasons for this declaration was that in secular history they had not discovered the name Belshazzar. But one of ancient historians, Neobonis, I think it was who, Neobonodis, who gave a genealogy of Nebuchadnezzar, and there was no mention of any Belshazzar in the genealogy that he gave. And naturally the historian could not be wrong; it's got to be the Bible. And so they put out their disclaimers on the book of Daniel and discredit the book, and they gave a later author and just were willing to use any little excuse to disbelieve the book of Daniel. However, Sir Rawlinson, one of the great archeologists was doing a lot of excavating in the area of Babylon, the Palace of Shushan when they discovered it. And he found some very interesting, many interesting tablets and all in which the name Belshazzar and all existed. And there were, of course, many confirmations of this particular account that we have in Daniel. And so the critics, you'd think they'd give up. No, they just went to something else. But nonetheless, once more the archeologist's spade has proved the truth of God's Word, it's authenticity, it's reliability, and it's a rather tragic thing that man keeps pounding away hoping that one day he'll discover a true flaw. You would think that after this length of time, surely as brilliant and all as these men are, they would have found one that they could have hung their hats on. Or you'd think that they'd be wise enough to quit trying, you know, at this length.

The account of Belshazzar is an interesting account. Belshazzar was not really the son of Nebuchadnezzar. In the language, there was really no real words for grandson. So, "the son of" means that he came from that lineage or from the line. He was actually the grandson of Belshazzar. And he was co-regent with his father. Now being a co-regent with his father, it would seem that his father was, according to other historians, his father was leading the Babylonian troops in their battles, whereas Belshazzar remained at the palace and in Babylon, ruling there in Babylon. His father, a king, also co-reigning with his son, Belshazzar, was out in the field with the troops in their conquering and plundering. And that is, of course, the reason why when this experience came where there was the handwriting on the wall and Daniel was brought in to interpret it, he offered Daniel the third part of the kingdom because there were already two parts; one for his father, one to him, and so Daniel would receive the third part of the kingdom.

"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords. He drank wine before the thousands." So here's a tremendous party. It lasted for quite a period of time. Josephus records it. Gives us some interesting details about it, as does Herodotus the other ancient historian. And Xenophon also makes reference to this banquet. There are stories of ostriches pulling around trays of fruits and nuts and delicacies, and quite a party. In fact, they say that the incense was so thick within the chambers that when a person would just walk in they'd become intoxicated with the thickness of the incense.

Belshazzar, while he was tasted the wine [or actually, while he was under the influence of the wine], commanded to bring the gold and the silver vessels which his father [which would have been grandfather] Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink from them. And then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem and the king and his princes, his wives, his concubines began to drink from them. And they drank wine, and they praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, iron, wood, and of stone. And in the same hour came forth the fingers of a man's hand, and wrote against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. And the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another ( Daniel 5:2-6 ).

Quite a graphic description of the whole affair, to say the least. As his thoughts began to trouble him and, of course, well might his thoughts trouble him. As he had taken these vessels that have been sanctified for use in the temple unto the Lord only. And he had profaned, not only profaned them by drinking his wine out of them, but he began to praise the gods of gold and silver.

Now there is an interesting prophecy in Isaiah, chapter 21, in which in verse Daniel 5:2 , the prophet declares, "Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media, or the Medes. All the sign thereof have I made deceased. Therefore are my loins filled with pain. Pangs have taken hold upon me as the pangs of a woman that travails. I was bowed down at the hearing of it. I was dismayed at the seeing of it. My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me. The night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me." And he speaks then, of course, of the, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen; all the graven images of her gods are broken to the ground," in verse Daniel 5:9 . So it's a prophecy against Babylon speaking of the fall of Babylon and surely seems to describe a couple of hundred years before the event this very thing of which Daniel now describes took place there as "the heart was panting, fearfulness affrighted of me, the night of my pleasure he hath turned into fear unto me." And, of course, this is the night that Babylon fell. Cyrus the Persian king, Medo-Persian king came in to conquer and that, of course, brings up another interesting prophecy in Isaiah, as he was prophesying the destruction of Babylon in which he names Cyrus, in chapter 44 of Isaiah, verse Daniel 5:28 . "Then saith He of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd. He shall perform all My pleasure.' Even saying to Jerusalem, 'Thou shalt be built,' and to the temple, 'Thy foundation shall be laid.' Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held to subdue nations before him and I will loose the loins of kings."

So you read here that his loins were loosed and the joints of his knees began to smite one against another. And here is the prediction two hundred years in advance. "I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two levied gates and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee and make the crooked places straight," and so forth. And he said, "That you may know that I am the Lord which called thee by thy name. I am the God of Israel, for Jacob my servant's sake, Mine elect. I then call thee by thy name and surnamed thee." Now Isaiah wrote this about the year 712 B.C. We are writing of things that took place in the year of about 538 B.C. So a hundred and fifty years before the event, God speaks about it and He talks about loosing the loins of the kings and opening up the levied gates.

The city of Babylon was thought to be totally impregnable. It had a wall some three hundred feet high, eighty feet thick, with these massive towers upon it. And then it had also a secondary wall, not quite as large, the river Euphrates flowed through the middle of the city of Babylon. The wall was fifteen miles around the city and the city was lined off with blocks going east and west, or streets, wide streets going east and west and north and south. Now where these streets intersected the Euphrates River, they had bridges and they also had gates that they could shut so that the Euphrates River could be sealed off and the city actually would be divided in two by the sealing off of the Euphrates River.

According to the historians, the night that Babylon fell, this particular night that we're reading about in chapter 5, for some reason, and they say it was because the soldiers were too drunk to know what they were doing, they did not lock those gates to the levy or that came in from the river Euphrates. Now Cyrus, the king of the Medo-Persian army had diverted or had built diversion channels for the river Euphrates. And he diverted the flow of the river Euphrates and his soldiers came under the wall in the riverbed, having diverted the flow of the river, and then they came up into the city and found these gates unlocked and were able to come in and take the city. Of course the soldiers were really too drunk to defend it. And so prophesied by Daniel in great detail, even naming the king that God would use to destroy the city of Babylon. And now the fulfillment of it and God mentioning even such things as the loins being loosed in prophecy, the joints of the loins being loosed. The fear that came upon Belshazzar when he saw the hand of God.

You know, there are people whose activities are those of open blasphemy against God. There are people who seem to be so forward in their mockery, ridicule, and blaspheming of God. It seems that there is no fear of God within their hearts at all. And they are just brazen. Imagine this man calling for the gold and silver vessels that have been sanctified for use in the temple of God. And now drinking his wine out of these vessels as he praises gods of gold and silver. But suddenly, he saw the hand of God and this king who seemed to be so brazen and so blasphemous is suddenly shaking like a leaf. And there are people today who seem to be so brazen and blasphemous in their activities, but once they see the hand of God beginning to come in judgment. I've seen God break people just down to a withering leaf kind of a thing. People talk so tough. People who seem to be so blasphemous against God. But when God begins to work, I'll tell you, there's no man that can stand against it. This fellow began to shake. His thoughts troubled him and well might they trouble him.

And the king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, the soothsayers. And the king spoke, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom ( Daniel 5:7 ).

His father was first; he was second. He is offering now the position of third ruler.

Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. And then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance changed in him, and his lords were astonished. Now the queen [that is, the queen mother], by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: There is a man in the kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made the master of the magicians, and the astrologers, and the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers; Whereasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, the interpreting of dreams, and the showing of hard sentences, and the dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show you the interpretation. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto to Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing: And I have heard of thee, that you can make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if you can read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation, you will be clothed with scarlet, you'll have a chain of gold about your neck, you'll be the third ruler in the kingdom ( Daniel 5:8-16 ).

Interesting reputation that Daniel possesses. In him dwells the spirit of the holy gods. Man of excellent wisdom, understanding.

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Keep your gifts, give your rewards to someone else; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known unto him the interpretation ( Daniel 5:17 ).

The gifts of God are not really to be bought. It is really wrong for a man to receive hire, or to be hired to do the work of God in that sense. Jesus spoke about the hirelings. And for a man to sell these God-given capacities would be a wrong thing. It would be the prostituting of the gifts and the works of God. That is why Daniel said, "Keep your gifts, give them to someone else. I don't need them. I'll tell you what it says. I'll interpret it for you." And but before he interprets it, he's going to give the king a little message.

Now, at this point, Daniel must be close to ninety years old. Because the seventy years of the captivity are almost over. He was probably a teenager, maybe late teens when he was taken captive. So the seventy plus the late teens puts him up close to the ninety mark. Probably eighty-five to ninety years old, somewhere in there. And he takes now this opportunity to preach a stern message to this young king.

O thou king, the most high God gave to Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honor: And for the majesty that he gave him, all of the people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: and whom he would he slew ( Daniel 5:18-19 );

The absolute authority that Nebuchadnezzar possessed.

whom he would he kept alive; whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind was hardened by pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him ( Daniel 5:19-20 ):

They took it, these watchers from heaven.

And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and he was dwelling with the wild asses: and they fed him with grass like the oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, you have not humbled your heart, though you knew all of this ( Daniel 5:21-22 );

Now Belshazzar was well aware of the things that happened to his grandfather. The madness that he experienced until the seven seasons had passed over him and his restoration and the proclamation that his grandfather made upon restoration that there is no god in all the earth like the God of Daniel who is able to set up those whom He would and bring down those whom He would. And sets in authority those whom He will. Belshazzar knew all of this. And Daniel is reminding him that you are sinning against the knowledge that you have. You know better.

But you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and you, and your lords, your wives, your concubines, have drunk the wine in them; and you have praised the gods of silver, gold, brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and in whose all of thy ways, hast thou not glorified ( Daniel 5:23 ):

Now here was the man's sin. He was praising these gods of wood, stone, gold, brass, silver. The gods that they had made with their own hands. Gods that could not see, gods that could not hear. Insensate little idols. Gods that knew nothing. He was praising them. Yet blaspheming the God in whose hand his very breath was.

That, of course, is an interesting statement. The God in whose hand thy very breath is. The lungs are an involuntary muscle. That is, they're not attached to the skeleton and you do not have to think to breathe. It something this is done automatically. Now there are some people, a very, very few, that are afflicted with an extremely rare disease and that is they have to think to breathe. And it's a very tragic thing because they sleep very fitfully. Actually, they've monitored them during their sleep and they sleep for about thirty seconds and then they wake up and take a breath and then sleep for another thirty seconds, and it's a very frightening kind of a thing because they do not breathe except by the control of the mind. They have to think to breathe. But you don't. You can be thankful for that. God controls the breath. It's interesting, God controls the heart, the heartbeat. God controls... those things that are vital to your life, God controls. He let's you control other things, other muscles of your body. But those that involve life, God put on this what we call the involuntary system. That is, they don't take the mind to control them. You don't have to think to make your heart beat. It's something that is done automatically, for your lungs to work, for your kidneys to function, things of this nature, those things upon which your life depends God doesn't leave with something as feeble as your mind to control.

"The God in whose hand your very breath is." Your stinking breath. Wine. Have you ever smelled a wino's breath? Sour. Yet the God in whose hand your very breath is.

Paul the apostle, in talking about God to the philosophers on Mars Hill, said "I want to declare to you, I want to talk to you about the unknown the God. For in Him we live and we move and we have our being." God is much closer to people than they realize. But we need to become more conscious of the all-prevailing and pervading presence of God. As David said, "Where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend in to heaven Thou art there. If I descend in hell Thou art there. If I take the wings and I flee to the uttermost parts of the earth, even there You surround me." He was conscious of the presence of God wherever he might be.

One of the fallacies of the people have always been that of localizing God. And so they had gods of the cities, and they thought that this god dwelt in this city, another god dwells in the next city. Or god is being put in an idol and the worshipping of an idol. It's the localizing of God. He's there, let's go, let's go and visit our god. It's always wrong to localize God. God cannot be localized. He isn't confined to one area. Now we, even in church, many times fall into this same kind of a fallacy of localizing God in church. And so often we'll hear prayers being offered, "Oh Lord, we're so thankful to have this opportunity to come into Your presence this morning and sit here before You," as though we weren't in the presence of God when we woke up. We weren't in the presence of God as we were driving here, but at last we've arrived and we've come into the presence. "Oh let's be quiet now. Let's, you know, let's look sober now or let's not joke now," or you know. And we have that tendency of localizing God. So that we're not aware and conscious of the fact that God is with us wherever we are, in whatever circumstances we are. He hears us, He sees us when we think that we are hiding. We so often are with those blasphemers of Psalms 71:0 who says, "Doth God know? Hath God seen?" And we think that we can hide ourselves from God because God is localized. And so if I do my evil down the street, God won't know it. I just don't do my evil when I get in church. But not so. God is not localized.

"The very God in whose hand thy breath is." Now gods who have no breath, gods who could not see, the little insensate god, they were glorifying and praising them. But the God who controlled their breath, they did not glorify. And for this reason,

That part of the hand was sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. And this is the interpretation: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it [you've had it]. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and you've come up short. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and will be given to the Medes and the Persians ( Daniel 5:24-28 ).

What an awesome declaration from God: "Your kingdom is numbered; it's finished. You've been weighed in the balances; you've come up short. Your kingdom is going to be taken from you and divided, Medes and the Persians."

Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, they put a chain of gold about his neck, they made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom [for the next few hours]. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old ( Daniel 5:29-31 ).

"

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Some older critical scholars claimed that Belshazzar was never a king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. [Note: E.g., H. H. Rowley, "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel," Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12.] However, modern discoveries have shown that Belshazzar acted as king during his father’s frequent and prolonged absences from Babylon.

"The last actual Chaldean king, Nabonidus, ’entrusted the kingship’ in 539 B.C. to his son Bel-sar-usur during his ten-year absence from Babylon, returning as the threat from Cyrus grew." [Note: Goldingay, p. 106. See also N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 76; Young, pp. 115-19; Keil, pp. 162-79; Leupold, pp. 208-13; and Whitcomb, pp. 70-72.]

Banquets the size described in this verse also drew the attack of critics. Yet the ancient historian Ktesias wrote that Persian kings frequently dined daily with 15,000 people (cf. Esther 1). [Note: See Leupold, pp. 214.]

Later we shall read that Belshazzar hosted this banquet on the night the city of Babylon fell (Daniel 5:30-31). The invading Medes and Persians, led by Ugbaru, commander of the Persian army, would have already taken the surrounding countryside, and everyone in the city would have known of their intentions. However, Babylon the city had not fallen to an invading army for 1,000 years because of its strong fortifications. According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, Babylon occupied about 14 square miles with a double wall system enclosing a moat between the two walls. The outer wall was 87 feet thick, wide enough for four chariots to drive on side-by-side. It was 350 feet high with 100 gates, plus hundreds more towers that reached another 100 feet above the walls. [Note: Herodotus, 1:178-83.]

Belshazzar’s confidence in the security of his capital is evident in his banqueting and getting drunk while his enemy was at his door. His name, which means "Bel [also known as Marduk] has protected the king," [Note: Pentecost, p. 1344.] may have increased his sense of invulnerability. Herodotus also mentioned that a festival was underway in Babylon when the city fell. [Note: Herodotus, 1:191.]

"With the armies of a conqueror pressing at the capital this deputy ruler took refuge in an orgy of wine." [Note: Baldwin, p. 119.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

1. Belshazzar’s dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Belshazzar the king made a great feast,.... This king was not the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, but Evilmerodach, Jeremiah 52:31, who, according to Ptolemy's canon, reigned two years; then followed Neriglissar, his sister's husband, by whom he was slain, and who usurped the throne, and reigned four years; he died in the beginning of his fourth year, and left a son called Laborosoarchod, who reigned but nine months, which are placed by Ptolemy to his father's reign, and therefore he himself is not mentioned in the canon; and then followed this king, who by Ptolemy is called Nabonadius; by Berosus, Nabonnedus t by Abydenus u, Nabannidochus; by Herodotus w, Labynitus; and by Josephus x, Naboandelus, who, according to him, is the same with Belshazzar; whom some confound with the son of Neriglissar; others take him to be the same with Evilmerodach, because he here immediately follows Nebuchadnezzar, and is called his son, Daniel 5:11, and others that he was a younger brother, so Jarchi and Theodoret; but the truth is, that he was the son of Evilmerodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees with the prophecy in Jeremiah 27:7, for though Nebuchadnezzar is called his father, and he his son, Daniel 5:2 this is said after the manner of the eastern nations, who used to call ancestors fathers, and their more remote posterity sons. He had his name Belshazzar from the idol Bel, and may be rendered, "Bel's treasurer": though, according to Saadiah, the word signifies "a searcher of treasures", of his ancestors, or of the house of God. Hillerus translates it, "Bel hath hidden". This king

made a great feast; or "bread" y, which is put for all provisions; it was great, both on account of plenty of food, variety of dishes, and number of guests, and those of the highest rank and quality. On what account this feast was made is not easy to say; whether out of contempt of Cyrus and his army, by whom he was now besieged, and to show that he thought himself quite safe and secure in a city so well walled and fortified, and having in it such vast quantities of provision; or whether it was on account of a victory he had obtained that morning over the Medes and Persians, as Josephus Ben Gorion z relates; and therefore in the evening treated his thousand lords, who had been engaged in battle with him, and behaved well: though it seems to have been an anniversary feast; since, according to Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus knew of it before hand; either on account of the king's birthday, or in honour to his gods, particularly Shach, which was called the Sachaenan feast; Daniel 5:2- : Daniel 5:2- : which seems most likely, since these were praised at this time, and the vessels of the temple of God at Jerusalem profaned, Daniel 5:2, this feast was prophesied of by Isaiah, Isaiah 21:5 and by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 51:39, it had its name from Shach, one of their deities, of which Jeremiah 51:39- : Jeremiah 51:39- : the same with Belus or the sun. The feasts kept in honour of it were much like the Saturnalia of the Romans, or the Purim of the Jews; and were kept eleven days together, in which everyone did as he pleased, no order and decorum being observed; and, for five of those days especially, there was no difference between master and servant, yea, the latter had the government of the former; and they spent day and night in dancing and drinking, and in all excess of riot and revelling a; and in such like manner the Babylonians were indulging themselves, when their city was taken by Cyrus, as the above writers assert b; and from the knowledge Cyrus had of it, it appears to be a stated feast, and very probably on the above account. According to Strabo c, there was a feast of this name among the Persians, which was celebrated in honour of the goddess Anais, Diana, or the moon; and at whose altar they placed together Amanus and Anandratus, Persian demons; and appointed a solemn convention once a year, called Saca. Some say the occasion of it was this; that Cyrus making an expedition against the Sacse, a people in Scythia, pretended a flight, and left his tents full of all provisions, and especially wine, which they finding, filled themselves with it; when he returning upon them, finding some overcome with wine and stupefied, others overwhelmed with sleep, and others dancing and behaving in a bacchanalian way, they fell into his hands, and almost all of them perished; and taking this victory to be from the gods, he consecrated that day to the god of his country, and called it Sacaea; and wherever there was a temple of this deity, there was appointed a bacchanalian feast, in which men, and women appeared night and day in a Scythian habit, drinking together, and behaving to one another in a jocose and lascivious manner; but this could not be the feast now observed at Babylon, though it is very probable it was something of the like nature, and observed in much the same manner. And was made "to a thousand of his lords"; his nobles, the peers of his realm, governors of provinces, c. such a number of guests Ptolemy king of Egypt feasted at one time of Pompey's army, as Pliny from Varro relates d; but Alexander far exceeded, who at a wedding had nine (some say ten) thousand at his tables, and gave to everyone a cup of gold, to offer wine in honour of the gods e; and Pliny reports f of one Pythius Bythinus, who entertained the whole army of Xerxes with a feast, even seven hundred and eighty eight thousand men.

And drank wine before the thousand; not that he strove with them who should drink most, or drank to everyone of them separately, and so a thousand cups, as Jacchiades suggests; but he drank in the presence of them, to show his condescension and familiarity; this being, as Aben Ezra observes, contrary to the custom of kings, especially of the eastern nations, who were seldom seen in public. This feast was kept in a large house or hall, as Josephus g says, afterwards called the banqueting house, Daniel 5:10.

t Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. u Apud Euseb. Evangel. l. 9. c. 41. p. 457. w Clio, sive l. 1. c. 188. x Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2. y לחם "panem", Montanus, Piscator. All food is called bread, Jarchi in Lev. xxi. 17. z Hist. Hebr. l. 1. c. 5. p. 24. a Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 14. c. 10. ex Beroso & Ctesia. b Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 7. c. 23. Herodot. Clio, sive l. 1. c. 191. c Geograph. l. 11. p. 352, 353. d Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10. e Plutarch. in Vit. Alexand. f Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 10.) g Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.   2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.   3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.   4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.   5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.   6 Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.   7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.   8 Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.   9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

      We have here Belshazzar the king very gay, but all of a sudden very gloomy, and in straits in the fulness of his sufficiency. See how he affronts God, and God affrights him; and wait what will be the issue of this contest; and whether he that hardened his heart against God prospered.

      I. See how the king affronted God, and put contempt upon him. He made a great feast, or banquet of wine; probably it was some anniversary solemnity, in honour off his birth-day or coronation-day, or in honour of some of their idols. Historians say that Cyrus, who was now with his army besieging Babylon, knew of this feast, and presuming that they then would be off their guard, somno vinoque sepulti--buried in sleep and wine, took that opportunity to attack the city, and so with the more ease made himself master of it. Belshazzar upon this occasion invited a thousand of his lords to come and drink with him. Perhaps they were such as had signalized themselves in defense of the city against the besiegers; or these were his great council of war, with whom, when they had well drunk, he would advise what was further to be done. And they were to look upon it as a great favour that he drank wine before them, for it was the pride of those eastern kings to be seldom seen. He drank wine before them, for he made this feast, as Ahasuerus did, to show the honour of his majesty. Now in this sumptuous feast, 1. He put an affront upon the providence of God and bade defiance to his judgments. His city was now besieged; a powerful enemy was at his gates; his life and kingdom lay at stake. In all this the hand of the Lord had gone out against him, and by it he called him to weeping, and mourning, and girding with sackcloth. God's voice cried in the city, as Jonah to Nineveh, Yet forty days, or fewer, and Babylon shall be destroyed. He should therefore, like the king of Nineveh, have proclaimed a fast; but, as one resolved to walk contrary to God, he proclaims a feast, and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine, as if he dared the Almighty to do his worst, Isaiah 22:12; Isaiah 22:13. To show how little fear he had of being forced to surrender, for want of provisions, he spent thus extravagantly. Note, Security and sensuality are sad presages of approaching ruin. Those that will not be warned by judgments of God may expect to be wounded by them. 2. He put an affront upon the temple of God, and bade defiance to his sanctuary, Daniel 6:2; Daniel 6:2. While he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the vessels of the temple, that they might drink in them. When he tasted how rich and fine the wine was, "O," said he, "it is a pity but we should have holy vessels to drink such delicious wine as this in," which was looked upon as a piece of wit, and, to carry on the humour, the vessels of the temple were immediately sent for. Nay, there seems to have been something more in it than a frolic, and that it was done in a malicious despite to the God of Israel. The heart of his people was very much upon these sacred vessels, as appears from Jeremiah 27:16; Jeremiah 27:18. Their principal care, at their return, was about these, Ezra 1:7. Now, we may suppose, they had an expectation of their deliverance approaching, reckoning the seventy years of their captivity near a period; and some of them might perhaps have given out some words to that purport, that shortly they should have the vessels of the sanctuary restored to them, in defiance of which Belshazzar here proclaims them to be his own, will keep them in store no longer, but will make use of them among his own plate. Note, That mirth is sinful indeed, and fills the measure of men's iniquity apace, which profanes sacred things and jests with them. This ripened Babylon for ruin--that no songs would serve them but the songs of Zion (Psalms 137:3), no vessels but the vessels of the sanctuary. Let those who thus sacrilegiously alienate what is dedicated to God and his honour know that he will not be mocked. 3. He put an affront upon God himself, and bade defiance to his deity; for they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver,Daniel 6:4; Daniel 6:4. They gave that glory to images, the work of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, which is due to the true and living God only. They praised them either with sacrifices offered to them or with songs sung in honour of them. When their heads were giddy, and their hearts merry, with wine, they were in the fittest frame to praise the gods of gold and silver, wood and stone; for one would think that men in their senses, who had the command of a clear and sober thought, could not be guilty of so gross an absurdity; they must be intoxicated ere they could be so infatuated. Drunken worshippers, who are not men, but beasts, are the most proper for the service of dunghill deities, that are not gods, but devils. They have erred through wine,Isaiah 27:7. They drank wine, and praised their idol-gods, as if they had been the founders of their feast and the givers of all good things to them. Or, when they were drinking wine, they praised their gods by drinking healths to them; and the king drank wine before them (Daniel 6:1; Daniel 6:1), that is, he began the health, first to this god, and then to the other, till they went through the bead-roll or farrago of them, those of wood and stone not excepted. Note, Immorality and impiety, vice and profaneness, strengthen the hands and advance the interests one of another. Drunken frolics were an introduction to idolatry, and then idolatrous healths were a shoeing-horn to further drunkenness.

      II. See how God affrighted the king, and struck a terror upon him. Belshazzar and his lords are in the midst of their revels, the cups going round apace, and all upon the merry pin, drinking confusion, it may be, to Cyrus and his army, and roaring out huzzas, in confidence of the speedy raising of the siege; but the hour had come when that must be fulfilled which had been long ago said of the king of Babylon, when his city should be besieged by the Persians and Medes, Isaiah 21:2-4. The night of my pleasures has he turned into fear to me. The mirth of this ball at court must be spoiled, and a damp cast upon their jollity, though the king himself be master of the revels; immediately, when God speaks the word, we have him and all his guests in the utmost confusion, and the end of their mirth is heaviness. 1. There appear the fingers of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall, before the king's face (Daniel 6:5; Daniel 6:5), "the angel Gabriel," say the rabbin, "directing these fingers and writing by them." "That divine hand" (says a rabbi of our own, Dr. Lightfoot) "that had written the two tables for a law to his people now writes the doom of Babel and Belshazzar upon the wall." Here was nothing sent to frighten them which made a noise, or threatened their lives, no claps of thunder nor flashes of lightning, no destroying angel with his sword drawn in his hand, only a pen in the hand, writing upon the wall, over-against the candlestick, where they might all see it by the light of their own candle. Note, God's written word is sufficient to put the proudest boldest sinners into a fright, when he is pleased to give it the setting on. The king saw the part of the hand that wrote, but saw not the person whose hand it was, which made the thing more frightful. Note, What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures and the book of the scriptures (Lo, these are parts of his ways,Job 26:14), may serve to possess us with awful thoughts concerning that of God which we do not see. If this be the finger of God, what is his arm made bare? And what is he? 2. The king is immediately seized with a panic fear (Daniel 6:6; Daniel 6:6): His countenance was changed (his colour went and came); the joints of his loins were loosed, so that he had no strength in them, but was struck with a pain in his back, as is usual in a great fright; his knees smote one against another, so violently did he tremble like an aspen leaf. But what was the matter? Why is he in such a fright? He perceives not what is written, and how does he know but it may be some happy presage of deliverance to him and to his kingdom? But the business was his thoughts troubled him; his own guilty conscience flew in his face, and told him that he had no reason to expect any good news from Heaven, and that the hand of an angel could write nothing but terror to him. He that knew himself liable to the justice of God immediately concluded this to be an arrest in his name, a summons to appear before him. Note, God can soon awaken the most secure and make the heart of the stoutest sinner to tremble; and there needs no more to do it than to let loose his own thoughts upon him; they will soon play the tyrant, and give him trouble enough. 3. The wise men of Babylon are immediately called in, to see what they can make of this writing upon the wall, Daniel 6:7; Daniel 6:7. The king cried aloud, as one in haste, as one in earnest, to bring the whole college of magicians, to try if they can read this writing, and show the interpretation of it; for the king and all his lords cannot pretend to it, it is out of their sphere. The study of divine revelation (such as they had, or thought they had) and converse with the world of spirits were by the heathen confined to one profession, and no other meddled with it; but what is written to us by the finger of God is legible to all; whoever will may read the mind of God in the scriptures. To engage these wise men to exert the utmost of their skill in this matter, and provoke them to an emulation in the attempt, he promised that whoever would give him a satisfactory account of this writing should be dignified with the highest honours of the court. He knew what these pretenders to wisdom aimed at, and what would please them, and therefore promised them a scarlet robe and a gold chain, glorious things in the eyes of those that know no better. Nay, he should be primus par regni--chief minister of state, the third ruler in the kingdom, next to the king and his heir apparent. 4. The king is disappointed in his expectations from them; they can none of them read the writing, much less interpret it (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:8), which increases the king's confusion, Daniel 6:9; Daniel 6:9. He likes the thing yet worse and worse, and fears that mischief is towards him. His lords also, that had been partners with him in his jollity, are now sharers with him in his terrors; they also were astonished at their wits' end; and neither their numbers nor their refreshment by wine would serve to keep up their spirits. The reason why the wise men could not read the writing was not because it was written in any language or characters unknown to them, but God either cast a mist before their eyes or put such confusion upon their spirits that they could not read it, that the honour of expounding this mystical writing might be reserved for Daniel. Note, The terror of an awakened convinced conscience may justly be increased by the utter insufficiency of all creatures to give it ease or satisfaction.