Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 5:31

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Daniel 5:31. Darius the Median took the kingdom — This is supposed to be the same as Cyaxares, son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus, to whom he gave the throne of Babylon, after himself had had the honour of taking the city.

Daniel speaks nothing of the war that raged between the Babylonians and the Medes; but Isaiah speaks particularly of it, Isaiah 13:0, Isaiah 14:0, Isaiah 45:0, Isaiah 46:0, Isaiah 47:0; and so does Jeremiah, Jeremiah 50:0, Jeremiah 51:0. I need not add, that it is largely spoken of by profane authors. The Medes and Persians were confederates in the war; the former under Darius, the latter under Cyrus. Both princes are supposed to have been present at the taking of this city. Mandane, daughter of Astyages, was mother of Cyrus, and sister to Cyaxares.

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

“In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.”

THE PROPHECY FULFILLED

Darius did not take the Median kingdom; Darius the Mede took the kingdom for the Medo-Persians. No “Median kingdom” is in the passage. It was just like saying that Eisenhower the Texan took the presidency! or that William the Frenchman took the kingdom of England in 1066.

Of course, the critics are certain that there never was such a king as Darius; and it is difficult to know just what the passage here indicates. We believe that the passage stands without any support whatever from secular history. Truth revealed in God’s Word needs no outside support. Faith can wait on the ultimate answer here. Many ancient kings had more than one name; and it is possible that Darius was another name for Cyrus whom the secular historians identify as the ruler who captured Babylon. Culver concluded that Darius was a sub-king under Cyrus.Footnote is not available “Some authorities have identified Darius with Gobryas (of which the name may be a corruption), who is said to have commanded the attacking army at the siege of Babylon, and as viceroy of Cyrus to have taken over the government of the city, appointing governors, etc.”Footnote is not available Either of these very plausible and reasonable solutions of the problem could be correct; but no believer need feel any embarrassment by a little problem like this. It is the truth that Darius the Mede received the kingdom!

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

And Darius the Median took the kingdom - The city and kingdom were actually taken by Cyrus, though acting in the name and by the authority of Darius, or Cyaxares, who was his uncle. For a full explanation of the conquests of Cyrus, and of the reason why the city is said to have been taken by Darius, see the notes at Isaiah 41:2. In regard to the question who Darius the Median was, see the Introduction to Daniel 6:0, section II. The name Darius - דריושׁ dâr^eyâvêsh, is the name under which the three Medo-Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament. There is some difference of opinion as to its meaning. Herodotus (vi. 98) says, that it is equivalent to ἑρξίης herxiēs, “one who restrains,” but Hesychius says that it is the same as φρόνιμος phronimos - “prudent.” Grotefend, who has found it in the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Darheush, or Darjeush (“Heeren’s Ideen,” i. 2, p. 350), makes it to be a compound word, the first part being an abbreviation of Dara, “Lord,” and the latter portion coming from kshah, “king.” Martin reads the name Dareiousch Vyschtasponea on the Persepolitan inscriptions; that is, Darius, son of Vishtaspo. Lassen, however, gives Darhawus Vistaspaha, the latter word being equivalent to the Gustasp of the modern Persian, and meaning “one whose employment is about horses.” See Anthon’s “Class. Dict.,” and Kitto’s “Cyclo.,” art. “Darius.” Compare Niehbuhr, “Reisebeschr.,” Part II. Tab. 24, G. and B. Gesenius, “Lex.” This Darius is supposed to be Cyaxares II. (Introduction to Daniel 6:0 Section II.), the son and successor of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, who held the empire of Media between Astyages and Cyrus, 569-536 b.c.

Being - Margin, “He as son of.” The marginal reading is in accordance with the Chaldee - כבר k^ebar. It is not unusual in the language of the Orientals to denote the age of anyone by saying that he is the son of so many years.

About - Margin, “or, now.” The word, both in the text and the margin, is designed to express the supposed sense of his “being the son of sixty years.” The language of the original would, however, be accurately expressed by saying that he was then sixty years old. Though Cyrus was the active agent in taking Babylon, yet it was done in the name and by the authority of Cyaxares or Darius; and as he was the actual sovereign, the name of his general - Cyrus - is not mentioned here, though he was in fact the most important agent in taking the city, and became ultimately much more celebrated than Darius was.

This portion of history, the closing scene in the reign of a mighty monarch, and the closing scene in the independent existence of one of the most powerful kingdoms that has ever existed on the earth, is full of instructive lessons; and in view of the chapter as thus explained, we may make the following remarks.

Remarks

(1) We have here an impressive illustration of the sin of sacrilege Daniel 5:2-3. In all ages, and among all people, this has been regarded as a sin of peculiar enormity, and it is quite evident that God in this solemn scene meant to confirm the general judgment of mankind on the subject. Among all people, where any kind of religion has prevailed, there are places and objects which are regarded as set apart to sacred use, and which are not to be employed for common and profane purposes. Though in themselves - in the gold and silver, the wood and stone of which they are made - there is no essential holiness, yet they derive a sacredness from being set apart to Divine purposes, and it has always been held to be a high crime to treat them with indignity or contempt - to rob altars, or to desecrate holy places. This general impression of mankind it was clearly the design of God to confirm in the case before us, when the sacred vessels of the temple - vessels consecrated in the most solemn manner to the worship of Jehovah - were profanely employed for the purposes of carousal. God had borne it patiently when those vessels had been removed from the temple at Jerusalem, and when they had been laid up among the spoils of victory in the temples of Babylon; but when they were profaned for purposes of revelry - when they were brought forth to grace a pagan festival, and to be employed in the midst of scenes of riot and dissipation, it was time for him to interpose, and to show to these profane revellers that there is a God in heaven.

(2) We may see the peril of such festivals as that celebrated by Belshazzar and his lords, Daniel 5:1 following. It is by no means probable that when the feast was contemplated and arranged, anything was designed like what occurred in the progress of the affair. It was not a matter of set purpose to introduce the females of the harem to this scene of carousal, and still less to make use of the sacred vessels dedicated to the worship of Jehovah, to grace the midnight revelry. It is not improbable that they would have been at first shocked at such an outrage on what was regarded as propriety, or what would have been deemed sacred by all people. It was only when the king had “tasted the wine” that these things were proposed; and none who attend on such a banquet as this, none who come together for purposes of drinking and feasting, can foretell what they may be led to do under the influence of wine and strong drink. No man is certain of not doing foolish and wicked things who gives himself up to such indulgences; no man knows what he may do that may be the cause of bitter regret and painful mortification in the recollection.

(3) God has the means of access to the consciences of men Daniel 5:5. In this case it was by writing on the wall with his own fingers certain mysterious words which none could interpret, but which no one doubted were of fearful import. No one present, it would appear, had any doubt that somehow what was written was connected with some awful judgment, and the fearfulness of what they dreaded arose manifestly from the consciousness of their own guilt. It is not often that God comes forth in this way to alarm the guilty; but he has a thousand methods of doing it, and no one can be sure that in an instant he will not summon all the sins of his past life to remembrance. He “could” write our guilt in letters of light before us - in the chamber where we sleep; in the hall where we engage in revelry; on the face of the sky at night; or he can make it as plain to our minds “as if” it were thus written out. To Belshazzar, in his palace, surrounded by his lords, he showed this; to us in society or solitude he can do the same thing. No sinner can have any security that he may not in a moment be overwhelmed with the conviction of his own depravity, and with dreadful apprehension of the wrath to come.

(4) We have in this chapter Daniel 5:6 a striking illustration of the effects of a sudden alarm to the guilty. The countenance of the monarch was changed; his thoughts troubled him; the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote together. Such effects are not uncommon when a sinner is made to feel that he is in the presence of God, and when his thoughts are led along to the future world. The human frame is so made that these changes occur as indicative of the troubles which the mind experiences, and the fact that it is thus agitated shows the power which God has over us. No guilty man can be secure that he will “not” thus be alarmed when he comes to contemplate the possibility that he may soon be called before his Maker, and the fact that he “may” thus be alarmed should be one of the considerations bearing on his mind to lead him to a course of virtue and religion. Such terror is proof of conscious guilt, for the innocent have nothing to dread; and if a man is sure that he is prepared to appear before God, he is “not” alarmed at the prospect. They who live in sin; they who indulge in revelry; they who are profane and sacrilegious; they who abuse the mercies of God, and live to deride sacred things, can never be certain that in a moment, by the revelation of their guilt to their own souls, and by a sudden message from the eternal world, they may not be overwhelmed with the deepest consternation. Their countenances may become deadly pale, their joints may be loosed, and their limbs tremble. It is only the righteous who can look calmly at the judgment.

(5) We may see from this chapter one of the effects of the terror of a guilty conscience. It is not said, indeed, that the mysterious fingers on the wall recorded the “guilt” of the monarch. But they recorded “something;” they were making some record that manifestly pertained to him. How natural was it to suppose that it was a record of his guilt! And who is there that could bear a record made in that manner of his own thoughts and purposes; of his desires and feelings; of what he is conscious is passing within the chambers of his own soul? There is no one who would not turn pale if he saw a mysterious hand writing all his thoughts and purposes - all the deeds of his past life - on the wall of his chamber at night, and bringing at once all his concealed thoughts and all his forgotten deeds before his mind. And if this is so, how will the sinner bear the disclosures that will be made at the day of judgment?

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and thus held in the highest honor and estimation, it is not surprising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus was content with his own power and with the praise and fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Astyages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers had informed him how an offspring should be born of her who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them undecided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he was unmarried at the capture of Babylon; for his uncle, and perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he reigned over the Chaldeans. It now follows, —

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

7. Daniel’s rise and Belshazzar’s fall 5:29-31

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Belshazzar suffered execution that very night, and Darius the Mede became the ruler of Babylonia (cf. Daniel 2:21). The writer introduced Darius in Daniel 5:31, which is the first verse of chapter 6 in the Hebrew Bible, and he is the prominent king in chapter 6.

"The references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book." [Note: H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, p. 8.]

Critics, including Rowley, claim that history allows no room for a person by this name. However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire, as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire-or, I might add, as "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 18-19, 76.] If this was so, "Darius" could refer to another man known in history by another name or names. The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. [Note: D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 12-14.] This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king" in chapter 6. Furthermore, it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (Daniel 5:1). Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent (Daniel 9:1).

Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 76-77; Whitcomb, Darius the . . ., p. 35; and Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pp. 128-29. Cf. Wood, The Prophets . . ., p. 348. Young, p. 183, believed Darius was a viceroy under Cyrus.]

"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was ’king of Babylon, king of lands.’ . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king’s [i.e., Cyrus’] departure [from Babylon]." [Note: A. T. Olmstead, The History of the Persian Empire, p. 71.]

This view distinguishes Gubaru from Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium and Persian commander who led the assault against Babylon. A third view is that Ugbaru and Gubaru are different spellings of the same man’s name. [Note: William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede: An Update," Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47. See also idem, "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel’s Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105.]

"But the syllable GU is written quite differently from UG in Akkadian cuneiform." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 76.]

A fourth view equates Darius the Mede with Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, who ruled Persia from about 530 to 522 B.C. [Note: Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pp. 142-55.] Darius the Mede was definitely not the same person as Darius the Great (Darius I) who was much younger and ruled Persia later, from 521-486 B.C., nor was he Darius II who ruled even later. [Note: See the discussion of the problem in Longman and Dillard, pp. 377-81.]

"It must be emphasized that there is no established fact which contradicts a person by the name of Darius the Mede reigning over Babylon if Darius is an alternate name for a known ruler." [Note: Walvoord, p. 134.]

"This chapter illustrates the involvement of king and kingdom in one destiny. Belshazzar’s blatant disrespect for the Most High God was all of a piece with the national character, indeed with our human condition, as it is depicted in Psalms 90. Though human days are numbered (Daniel 5:10), few number them for themselves and ’get a heart of wisdom’ (Daniel 5:12). Belshazzar in this chapter presents a vivid picture of the fool, the practising [sic] atheist, who at the end can only brazen it out with the help of alcohol which blots out the stark reality." [Note: Baldwin, p. 125.]

"The whole chapter is an instructive symbolic assessment of the perils and limits, the sources and responsibilities, of power in human affairs." [Note: Paul Lehmann, The Transfiguration of Politics, p. 311, footnote.]

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And Darius the Median took the kingdom,.... This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, Ezra 4:5, the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years; and not alone, but Cyrus with him, though he is only mentioned. Xenophon k says, that Cyrus, after he took Babylon, set out for Persia, and took Media on his way; and, saluting Cyaxares or Darius, said that there was a choice house and court for him in Babylon, where he might go and live as in his own:

being about threescore and two years old; and so was born in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year in which Jechoniah was carried captive, 2 Kings 24:12, thus God in his counsels and providence took care that a deliverer of his people should be raised up and provided against the appointed time. Darius was older than Cyrus, as appears by several passages in Xenophon; in one place l Cyaxares or Darius says,

"since I am present, and am "elder" than Cyrus, it is fit that I should speak first;''

and in another place m, Cyrus, writing to him, says,

"I give thee counsel, though I am the younger''

and by comparing this account of the age of Darius with a passage in Cicero, which gives the age of Cyrus, we learn how much older than he Darius was; for, out of the books of Dionysius the Persian, he relates n, that Cyrus dreaming he saw the sun at his feet, which he three times endeavoured to catch and lay hold upon, but in vain, it sliding from him; this, the Magi said, portended that he should reign thirty years, and so he did; for he lived to be seventy years of age, and began to reign when he was forty; which, if reckoned from his reigning with his uncle, then he must be twenty two years younger; or if from the time of his being sole monarch, then the difference of age between them must be twenty four years; though it should be observed that those that make him to reign thirty years begin his reign from the time of his being appointed commander-in-chief of the Medes and Persians by Cyaxares o, which was twenty three years before he reigned alone, which was but seven years p; and this account makes but very little difference in their age; and indeed some q have taken them to be one and the same, their descent, age, and succession in the Babylonian empire, agreeing.

k Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 36. l lbid. l. 6. c. 2. m lbid. l. 4. c. 21. n De Divinatione, l. 1. o See the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 181. and vol. 21. p. 64, 65. p Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 45. q Nicol. Abrami Pharus Vet. Test. l. 12. c. 24. p. 338. Pererius in ib, Graeci Patres apud Theodoret. Orat. 6. in Daniel.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.   31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

      Here is, 1. The death of the king. Reason enough he had to tremble, for he was just falling into the hands of the king of terrors,Daniel 6:30; Daniel 6:30. In that night, when his heart was merry with wine, the besiegers broke into the city, aimed at the palace; there they found the king, and gave him his death's wound. He could not find any place so secret as to conceal him, or so strong as to protect him. Heathen writers speak of Cyrus's taking Babylon by surprise, with the assistance of two deserters that showed him the best way into the city. And it was foretold what a consternation it would be to the court, Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:39. Note, Death comes as a snare upon those whose hearts are overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. 2. The transferring of the kingdom into other hands. From the head of gold we now descend to the breast and arms of silver. Darius the Mede took the kingdom in partnership with, and by the consent of, Cyrus, who had conquered it, Daniel 6:31; Daniel 6:31. They were partners in war and conquest, and so they were in dominion, Daniel 6:28; Daniel 6:28. Notice is taken of his age, that he was now sixty-two years old, for which reason Cyrus, who was his nephew, gave him the precedency. Some observe that being now sixty-two years old, in the last year of the captivity, he was born in the eighth year of it, and that was the year when Jeconiah was carried captive and all the nobles, &c. See 2 Kings 24:13-15. Just at that time when the most fatal stroke was given was a prince born that in process of time should avenge Jerusalem upon Babylon, and heal the wound that was now given. Thus deep are the counsels of God concerning his people, thus kind are his designs towards them.