Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 5:1-5
5 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand.
2 Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought in the golden vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.
5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote.
______________________________________
This chapter introduces us to a new Babylonian leader, Belshazzar. For a long time, one of the arguments against the historicity of the Book of Daniel was that it was thought Belshazzar was made-up. Then archaeologists found proof of Belshazzar.
Daniel & Belshazzar – Archaeological Proof
There has never been an archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible. The Bible was not written as strictly a history book, but it does contain history, and very accurate history. There are small details sprinkled throughout the Bible that appear to have no significance, but God has a purpose for them. These small, insignificant details are often at the heart of new discoveries. One example is in the book of Daniel.
The book of Daniel was criticized for hundreds of years because of the account in chapter 5 of a king named Belshazzar and the fall of the city of Babylon in just one night. Critics pointed out that no one named Belshazzar had ever been found in any of the king lists and ancient histories of Babylon. All ancient records said that a king named Nabonidus was the last king when Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians. They also found it laughable that the city of Babylon could have been taken in just one night because of its impregnable walls. The City of Babylon had walls over 50 miles long, 75 feet thick and 300 feet high, surrounded by a moat. Legends say that chariot races were held on top of the walls. The river Euphrates which ran through the city, was the main source of water. To protect it from siege, the river was walled off and heavily fortified.
In 586 B.C., the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by Babylon under King Nebuchadnezzar. Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the gold and silver implements were carried off as spoil. Four teenagers named Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were taken captive. (The Babylonians renamed them Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego). They were gifted and educated young men who rose to the top of service in Babylonian government administration. All four remained faithful to God, even to the point of being willing to die. (Remember the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lion’s den?) Daniel was recognized and promoted by Nebuchadnezzar for his intellect and his ability to interpret dreams and visions.
The fifth chapter of Daniel contains the account that was disputed by skeptics. The king of Babylon, named Belshazzar, held a feast and invited 1000 of his lords, his wives and concubines. There was heavy drinking and the whole crowd was worshipping the Babylonian gods. Belshazzar decided it would be funny to send for the gold and silver serving vessels from the Temple in Jerusalem, so they could drink from them. Within an hour of beginning this blasphemy, a strange event occurred. A disembodied hand appeared and wrote an inscription on the wall.
Belshazzar was so terrified that “the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” vs. 6 (KJV).
Apparently, the words written on the wall remained in place, because Belshazzar summoned his astrologers and soothsayers to interpret them, but they were unable to do it.
Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonished. vs. 9 (KJV)
This must have been a very dramatic reaction to have caused astonishment in the witnesses. His joints gave out, his knees knocked together, and his face appeared to change from the trauma of it. (Makes you wonder if, since his “loins were loosed” he was also having trouble controlling his bodily functions).
The Queen advised him to consult Daniel. He had once been overseer of all the magicians and soothsayers during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. She refers to “your father” Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar sent for Daniel and promised to heap honor and glory on him if he could interpret the message.
“… Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” — Daniel 5:16b (ESV)
(Here is the seemingly insignificant detail – “the third ruler in the kingdom”. More about that later).
Daniel tells Belshazzar to keep his gifts. He is not impressed. Daniel goes on to recount the story of Nebuchadnezzar and how his pride eventually destroyed him. Nebuchadnezzar did learn from his mistakes and acknowledged God, but Belshazzar had not learned anything. Belshazzar had dishonored God:
And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. — Daniel 5:23b (ESV)
Daniel reveals the meaning of the inscription:
“Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” — Daniel 5:24-28 (ESV)
That same night, Belshazzar was killed, and the kingdom fell to the Medes. (v. 30)
Archaeological discoveries of ancient texts revealed the explanation for the discrepancies between the historical record and the Biblical account. In ancient times and in Bible genealogies, the “father” of a specific family line could refer to a grandfather or other ancestor. Nebuchadnezzar was called Belshazzar’s “father” several times in this passage. This was not an unusual practice for the time. Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s grandfather. Nebuchadnezzar had a daughter who married Nabonidus. The royal line passed through him to Belshazzar.
Nabonidus was the rightful king but had installed Belshazzar as his regent. Nabonidus was obsessed with the worship of the moon god Sin. He spent ten years of his reign traveling throughout his territories restoring temples to his god. At the time of the events in Daniel chapter 5, Nabonidus was in modern Saudi Arabia excavating temple ruins and restoring them.
In 539 B.C., on the night of Belshazzar’s big party, he was aware that there were enemies nearby, but he wasn’t concerned because he believed the city was impregnable. The city had several years of provisions and they were not worried about a siege. Some ancient texts describe his guards laughing at the enemy army of the Medes and the Persians. They were so confident that they joined in the partying and were drunk on duty.
Cyrus commanded the armies of the Medes and the Persians. He consulted his officers about possible ways to take the city and they agreed that it would be impossible to storm it or take it by siege.
The Euphrates river ran through the city, was well fortified and very deep. Cyrus decide to invade the city by diverting the course of the river. He commanded his army to dig a channel north of the city and divert the water, so his soldiers were able to wade under the city walls. Everyone inside was drunk and it was easy to overtake the palace and kill Belshazzar. One of Cyrus’ generals, a man named Darius the Mede, took the palace and killed Belshazzar. This all occurred in one night.
Belshazzar was not able to make Daniel the second ruler of the kingdom because he was already in that position. This seemingly insignificant detail provided the answer to the supposed discrepancy.
Daniel thus presents back-to-back chapters which are difficult for both its proponents and its detractors. Chapter 4 seems to know about a historical event – the long-term madness of a Babylonian ruler – that was unknown to archaeology for centuries. But it credits to Nebuchadnezzar that event, when the records indicates that it occurred to Nabonidus. Is there a possible explanation? Possible, but we do not know it. Then in the following chapter, Daniel tells us about a ruler, Belshazzar, who was unknown to historians for hundreds of years, until finally his existence was proven much later. Chapter 5 is thus viewed as one of the best arguments for the early dating of the text. If you’re trying to “prove” Daniel, in one direction or another, you find yourself up against this type of back and forth throughout.
Anyway, let us dive into the text, starting with a note from The Pulpit Commentaries covering verse 1:
Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. As we have just indicated, there are two versions in the Septuagint of several verses in this chapter, and the verse before us is one of these. The first of these is “Baltasar the king made a great feast on the day of the dedication of his palace, and invited from his lords two thousand men.” The other reading, which appears to have formed the text, is, “Baltasar the king made a great feast for his companions.” The first version seems to have read the dual instead of the singular—a proof of the state of the language, for the dual has practically disappeared in the Targums. The second version has evidently read הברין instead of רברבין. Theodotion reads, “Baltasar the king made a great feast to thousands of his lords, and drank wine before the thousands.” The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic text. The numeral is thus omitted in the text of the Septuagint,inserted in the dual in the margin, and appears in Theodotion in the plural. As the shortest text is also the oldest, and omits the numeral, we feel inclined to do so also, the more so as the numeral may have resulted from אַלֻּף (aluph) being put as the interpretation of רברב (rabrab). The clause in the marginal version, “on the day of the dedication of his palace,” or, as it is rendered by Paulus Telleusis, “in the day of the dedication of the house of his kingdom,” is worthy of notice. From the fact that early in his reign every Ninevite king seems to have begun a palace, this statement has a great deal of verisimilitude. The clause in the Massoretic text, “and drank wine before the thousand,” is meaningless, unless as a rhetorical amplification. From the fact that only the first clause appears in the text of the Septuagint, the authenticity of the rest of the verse is rendered doubtful; the more so that קובלא (see Eastern Aramaic word) means “a feast” in Eastern Aramaic, though not in Western. It is a possible solution of the presence of the clause that קבל, excluded from the text and its place supplied by לחם, was placed in the margin. לקבל, however, means “before.” If there was also in the margin אלפא, “thousands,” in the emphatic state; as the translation into Hebrew of רברב (Genesis 36:17, Genesis 36:15 Onkelos). If, further, חברין, “companion,” appeared as a various reading for רברבין, that would easily be read חמר, “wine;” the verb “to drink” would be added to complete the sense. We have thus all the elements to produce the different versions of the story of the feast. The fact that in what we regard as the marginal reading the clause appears quite differently rendered, confirms us in our suspicion that the Massoretic text presents a case of a “doublet.” The reading which begins the chapter in the LXX. may be due to regarding קבל as the verb “to receive.” The name Belshazzar has been the occasion of much controversy. It was regarded as one of the proofs of the non-historicity of Daniel that this name occurred at all (as Bertholdt). We were told that the last King of Babylon was Nabunahid, not Belshazzar. The name, however, has turned up in the Mugheir inscription as the son of Nabunahid, and not only so, but in a connection that implies he was associated in the government. From the annals of Nabunahid we find that from his seventh to his eleventh year, if not from an earlier to a later date, Nabunahid was in retirement in Tema, and “came not to Babil,” and the king’s son was with the nobles (rabuti) snd the army. Even when the king’s mother died, the mourning was carried on by the king’s sou, Belshazzar. Dr. Hugo Winckler says Nabunahid remained intentionally far from the capital, and abode continually in Tema, a city otherwise unknown. Not once at the new year’s feast, where his personal presence was indispensable, did he come to Babylon. What occasioned it, we know not; but it appears as if he had devoted himself to some kind of solitary life, and would not disturb himself with the business of government. Not once while Cyrus was marching against Babylon did he rouse himself, but allowed things to take their course. The government appears to have been carried on by his son, Bel-shar-utzur, for while Nabunahid lived in Tema in retirement, it is mentioned that his son, with the dignitaries, managed affairs in Babylon, and commanded the army. Also in several inscriptions in the concluding prayer, he is named along with his father, while it is usually the name of the king that is there mentioned. Belshazzar is, then, no mere luxurious despot, like the Nabeandel of Josephus, no incapable youth flushed with the unexpected dignity of government in the city of Babylon, while his father was shut up in Borsippa; he is a bold capable warrior. Tyrannical and imperious he may be, yet faithful to his father, as had Nebuchadnezzar been to Nabopolassar his father. We need not even look at the identifications of Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, with Labasi-marduk, or with Nabunahid. The name Bel-shar-utzur means “Bel protects the king,” and is rendered in the Greek versions “Baltasar,” and in the Vulgate “Baltassar,” and identical with the name given to Daniel, as we have remarked elsewhere. In the Peshitta the name here is rendered “Belit-shazar,” while Daniel’s Babylonian name is “Beletshazzar.” We do not know when this feast took place. If we take the Septuagint text here as our guide, it did not take place at the capture of the city by Cyrus. If for five, six, or seven years he was practically king, Belshazzar may have built a palace, and the feast may have been held at its dedication. We knew that the Babylonians were notorious for their banquets—banquets that not infrcquently ended in drunkenness. Although the number of the guests is doubtful from diplomatic reasons, the number itself is not excessive. We read of Alexander the Great having ten thousand guests.
The note above gives a pretty thorough walk through the text variances and the historical arguments regarding Belshazzar.
The note above also mentions that the Babylonian ruler’s name means “Bel protects the king.” Bel is thus a name of a Babylonian deity. Is Bel roughly the same character as the more familiar Ba’al? Yes. Kind of. Bel is an East Semitic form cognate with the Northwest Semitic Baal with the same meaning.
Bel was especially used for the Babylonian god Marduk in Assyrian and neo-Babylonian personal names or mentioned in inscriptions in a Mesopotamian context.
Beelzebub or Beelzebul was identified by the writers of the New Testament as Satan, “prince” (i.e., king) of the demons.
Thus, from the Christian perspective (and perhaps also the Jewish perspective during the 2nd Temple period) you might conclude that many of the Near Eastern pantheons had as their head, Satan, who often went by a cognate of “Bel/Beel/Baal/etc.” depending on the location.
Luke 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
As Bel is associated with Marduk, you could then link Satan and Marduk. We also see New Testament writers link Satan with Zeus.
Revelation 2:13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
The place where Antipas was killed is usually identified as Pergamum, in what is now Turkey, and that city famously had a gigantic altar/throne for the Greek god Zeus. John thus identified Zeus with Satan. The altar was rediscovered in the 19th century and was relocated to Berlin, where a museum to display it was opened in the 1930s.
One final note on this, since we mentioned cognates before. Zeus is cognate with the “Ju” part of Jupiter. The “piter” part of the name means “father.” Jupiter is thus “sky father.” Both the Greek and Roman pantheons descend from the same original pantheon, and thus there are similarities in the two names. The “duk” part of Marduk might also be cognate with Zeus and Jupiter. All three gods are associated with the planet Jupiter.
So… name that are cognate with Bel/Beel/Baal seem to refer to Satan, as do names cognate with Zeus/Jupiter/Marduk.
Continuing on to verse 2, this time in Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(2) Whiles he tasted—i.e., while he was enjoying the wine. The sacred vessels were brought out of the temple of Merodach, and profaned in this manner for the purpose of defying Jehovah. But it may be reasonably asked, What led him to think of Jehovah in the midst of the revelry? It may have been that some drunken fancy seized him. It may have been that he had been warned that the prophets of Jehovah had foretold the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, whose armies were now in the neighbourhood. Whatever the true explanation may be, there can be no doubt, from Daniel’s language (Daniel 5:23), and from the way in which Belshazzar’s gods are mentioned (Daniel 5:4), that the whole act was one of defiance of Jehovah.
As the note tells us, we do not know why Beshazzar decided to antagonize the God od of the Jews. By this time, there has been so many proof of His power that this seems somewhat hard to believe. However, it is not hard to imagine a drunken fancy happening. It’s also not hard to imagine that a Babylonian ruler, perhaps after some distance of time has occurred since the previous miracle, wants to test himself and his own gods against this same God. His predecessors eventually came out well after doing similar things. As we will see though, it does not go well here. Returning to TPC and its note covering verses 3 and 4:
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. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. The corresponding verses in the Septuagint differ in several points from those above; the Septuagint third verse contains, condensed, the Massoretic third and fourth verses, but adds new matter in its fourth verse: “(3) And they were brought, and they drank in them, and blessed their idols made with hands; (4) and the God the eternal, who hath dominion over their spirit (‘breath,’ πνεῦμα), they did not bless.” In the introductory portion, which contains, as we think, marginal readings, we have the second and fourth verses brought into connection, “In that day Baltasar, being uplifted with wine, and boasting himself, praised in his drink all the gods of the nations, the molten and the carved, but to God the Highest he gave not praise.” The reading of the latter portion of this seems better than the text, as it is briefer; the description of God as he that has power “over their breath,” is a preparation for what we find in Daniel 5:23, “and thy breath is in his hand.” Theodotion is, as usual, much nearer the Massoretic text, but while the Massoretic only mentions the “golden” vessels being brought, Theodotion mentions the silver also, and the verb hanpiqoo is translated singular, as if it were hanpayq, and “Nebuchadnezzar” understood. A various reading adds, “and the God of eternity, who hath power of their breath, did they not bless,” according to the Alexandrine and Vatican codices. In both these cases Jerome follows Theodotion. The Peshitta agrees only in the latter, putting the verb in the singular. Modern translators, as Luther and Ewald, the Authorized and Revised English Versions, retain the plural, but make the verb passive, as if it were written honpaqoo. Calvin alone preserves both number and voice. The French Version, which makes it impersonal, is probably as good as any. It is, however, not impossible that the true reading is huphal; that seems better than Calvin’s suggestion, that what Nebuchadnezzar had done is now transferred to all the Babylonians. The praises of the gods being sung was especially natural, if this were a dedication of a palace. In such a case the various elemental deities would be invoked to bless the residence of the king.
The fact that the vessels belonging to the temple of the God of the Jews were brought forward from the treasury of Bel would afford an occasion for praising Bel, the god who had given them the victory. While they praised these god, of the nations, they did not even mention Jehovah—an addition in the text of Theodotion and the LXX; both text and margin, and therefore one that, we think, ought, in some form, to lie in the text. It is singular that in the Cyrus Cylinder, 17, the overthrow of Nabunahid is attributed to Marduk, “whom Nabunahid did not fear.” The reason of Belshazzar thus ostentatiously praising the gods might be to get over the reputation of unfaithfulness to the gods, which was weakening them, father and son, in their struggle with Cyrus. Belshazzar most likely was, at this very time, carrying on war against Cyrus. The object of this festive gathering of his nobles might be to hearten them in their struggle against the King of Persia.
So we now have the scene set for what happens next. From Ellicott:
(5) In the same hour—i.e., suddenly and unexpectedly. (Comp. Daniel 3:6.) Observe that it was only a portion of the hand that the king saw (comp. Daniel 5:24), and that we are not told whether the guests saw the hand or not. That the writing was visible to all is plain from Daniel 5:8. We remark here, as in other supernatural manifestations recorded in Scripture, that a portion only has been witnessed by many, while the whole has been seen only by one or by a few. (Comp. John 12:28-29; Acts 9:7.)
Candlestick.—This, of course, would make both the hand and the writing more distinctly visible to the king.
Plaister.—This was invariably used in the inner chamber of the Assyrian and Babylonian palaces. (See Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 529.)
The famous English idiom, “saw the writing on the wall,” comes from this story. I don’t know if the expression – which is used in the sense that someone has become aware his/her cause is over – really captures how terrifying this would have been to witness.
We’ll get into the king’s terror in the next section. Babylon is about to fall.
Well shared 👏
Thank you!