The Handwriting on the Wall (5:1-9):
Big Idea: Sacrilege against God can lead to a divine confrontation that worldly wealth, power, and wisdom cannot adequately address.
Understanding the Text
Daniel 5:1–31 is woven into the book’s overall literary structure in two ways. First, it advances the narrative of chapters 1–6, in which the first four focus on Nebuchadnezzar (chaps. 1–2 with historical markers and 3–4 without) and the last two show the transition from Belshazzar of Babylon to Darius the Mede (chaps. 5–6). Second, it completes the third of three parallel pairs of chapters (4 and 5) in the book’s concentric Aramaic center section. Comparatively, Daniel 4 and 5 reflect different situations and structures, yet they share the same theme: God’s punishment of proud rulers. This recalls Jehoiakim’s subjugation (1:2), while keeping Judah’s nearly “seventy-year” exile in view by contrasting Babylon’s first and last king. Within Daniel 5, Belshazzar’s blasphemy (5:1–9) is placed opposite his rebuke and judgment (5:18–31). The center section recounts Daniel’s life experience with two summaries of his consistent message of God’s sovereignty. The death of Belshazzar in 5:30 provides this chapter’s historical marker.1
Against this backdrop, 5:1–9 is the first of three sections in the chapter connecting Belshazzar’s blasphemy with Nebuchadnezzar’s desecration of the temple—an event made more personal when Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father.” It divides into three parts: Belshazzar hosts a banquet (5:1–4), the “hand” and wall writing appear (5:5–6), and the king summons the inadequate Babylonian sages (5:7–9).
Historical and Cultural Background
Nabonidus, Babylon’s last official king, took the throne in 556 BC and within three years formed a coregency with his son Belshazzar. The latter was unknown outside the Bible from the third century BC until just over a century ago when several cuneiform texts with his name were discovered. Belshazzar managed Babylon for ten years while Nabonidus was in Teima for religious reasons. Belshazzar’s status is clarified in the Nabonidus Chronicle.2
The banquet in this text occurs October 12, 539 BC (Herodotus, Hist. 1.191; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.15–25), two days after the Persians conquered Opis (modern Baghdad, about fifty miles north of Babylon) and nearby Sippar. Nabonidus fled at first, then later surrendered to Cyrus in Babylon. Praising Babylonian gods with Judean temple vessels may have brought to Belshazzar’s mind victories of Nebuchadnezzar, invoking the pagan gods’ protection during this military threat. In addition to Marduk, Nabu, and Sin (the moon god honored by Nabonidus), images of other deities from surrounding cities were moved inside Babylon’s walls for safekeeping. Modern excavations have uncovered the palace complex, including what may well be the room referenced in this narrative—with the remains of a plastered wall with a niche for the king’s throne (cf. Dan. 5:5).3Relevant to the general region and era is Herodotus’s account that wives and concubines attended Persian feasts (Hist. 5.18).4
Interpretive Insights
5:1 King Belshazzar gave a great banquet. The transition from Daniel 4 is abrupt, with no mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s passing or the four kings before Belshazzar. In their original forms, Belteshazzar (Daniel’s pagan name) and Belshazzar were likely identical (see the comments on 1:7).5 The rounded number of nobles (“a thousand”) symbolically represents all surviving high officials in Babylon after the military defeats nearby. The occasion could be to boost morale, to proclaim Belshazzar fully king (assuming Nabonidus’s death), or to observe the New Year’s festival.6 The identification of the occasion is not important to the author’s purposes. Although the takeover by Media and Persia is not mentioned until 5:31, Belshazzar may have feared the worst. Even though Daniel’s visions in chapters 7 and 8 occur, respectively, in 553 and 550 BC, there is no reason to assume that Belshazzar has knowledge of them in 539 BC.
5:2–4 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine. Because his table is set in a prominent place in the banquet room, the king is visible to the people, setting the stage for their involvement in the sacrilege. Some commentators see here a drunken king, yet the Aramaic t e ‘em more likely connotes a routine “tasting the wine.”7 Though drunkenness is folly (Prov. 20:1; 31:4, 6), the issue here is intentional sacrilege, making Belshazzar’s culpability all the more apparent.8
Nebuchadnezzar his father. Genealogically, Belshazzar was the eldest son of Nabonidus (see table 1 above). Yet the narrator (5:2), the queen (5:11), the king (5:13), and Daniel (5:18, 22) all reference Nebuchadnezzar as his “father.” The Semitic terms for “father”/“son” can reference distant ancestors/descendants or unrelated predecessors/successors. This is the case with the Israelite king Jehu, who is called “son of Omri” (his unrelated predecessor) on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (ninth century BC).9 In 5:2, the “grandfather”/“grandson” interpretation seems best.10Although three generations of kings ruled Neo-Babylonia’s nearly seventy years as the ancient Near Eastern superpower (Jer. 27:7), Daniel focuses only on the first and the last—emphasizing the comparison with chapter 4 and alluding to Judah’s nearly “seventy-year” exile.
they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple. Nebuchadnezzar’s desecration of Yahweh’s temple vessels to honor “his god” (1:2) foreshadows Belshazzar’s action. That which God allows the former to take in Judah’s judgment he now reclaims from the latter in Babylon’s judgment. The king moves from treating holy objects as common to using the vessels to worship false gods—and his nobles share his culpability (cf. 5:3–4; Isa. 44:9–20).11The idols are made of gold, silver, bronze, and iron, recalling Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (Dan. 2:31–45) and foreshadowing the continuing fulfillment of God’s judgment. Though Belshazzar may be seeking his gods’ protection, the focus is on his lack of humility—like that of Nebuchadnezzar (5:20, 22).
5:5–6 Suddenly the fingers of a human hand . . . wrote on the . . . wall. The abrupt appearance of the “hand” parallels the sudden changes in Nebuchadnezzar’s circumstances (4:31, 33), intentionally linking theaccounts. The “fingers” and “hand” are an anthropomorphic appearance of God, but they do not confirm the presence of angels (cf. Dan. 3; 6–12). God’s “fingers” write the Ten Commandments (Exod. 31:18; Deut. 9:10) for Israel’s instruction, and here, they prescribe Babylon’s judgment. The adjacent lampstand adds vivid detail to the narrative. This pericope blends deathly terror and mocking humor. The arrogant king who has desecrated God’s holy vessels in the cheerful security of his palace is now about to collapse in fear. Though the same term (b e hal; NIV: “frightened”) is used to describe Daniel’s “fear” at the site of God’s revelations (4:19 [NIV: “terrified,” “alarm]”; 7:15 [NIV: “disturbed”]), the loss of Belshazzar’s bodily functions reveals extreme and obvious panic, intensified by the threat of the combined forces of Media and Persia (cf. Isa. 21:1–10).
5:7 The king summoned the . . . wise men of Babylon. The NIV’s “summoned” might be paraphrased “screaming for help.” Daniel’s age (early eighties) and the changes of leadership explain his absence among the sages (see the sidebar “Wise Men in the Book of Daniel” in the unit on 1:17–21). The challenge to read and interpret the writing is similar to Nebuchadnezzar’s requirement to recount and interpret his first dream (2:5–10, 26). Although the phrase “third highest ruler in the kingdom” could mean a privileged position “among three equals,” Belshazzar’s coregent status with Nabonidus makes “third in rank” more likely (cf. Esther 8:15; 10:3).
5:8 all the king’s wise men . . . could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant. Because Aramaic (like Hebrew) was written without vowels and sometimes without word divisions, separating the words can result in different meanings, such as “Who caused Persia to stumble?” “What shall I weigh, a half mina?” or “Whoever you are, Persia is insignificant.”12 Alternatively, Jewish tradition suggests that these letters were written vertically as an anagram, creating an even more enigmatic letter puzzle.13 The author never reveals the reason but focuses on the third recorded failure of the Babylonian cult and its representatives (2:1–10; 4:6–7).
5:9 Belshazzar became even more terrified . . . His nobles were baffled. The king’s increased terror spreads to his guests, reinforcing their complicity in his sacrilege and its consequences (cf. 5:3–4) and setting the stage for the queen’s (most likely “queen mother’s”) dramatic entrance in the next section.
Theological Insights
Although God is mostly behind the scenes in 5:1–9 at the outset of this pagan banquet, three insights are implicit regarding his work with unbelievers. First, intentional mistreatment of that which is sacred is a direct challenge to the Most High God. Second, God sometimes acts in a dramatic way to confront human pride. Third, wealth and power can inspire a false sense of confidence about controlling one’s place in a world where God is sovereign.
Teaching the Text
1. Profaning that which is sacred. While we cannot expect unbelievers to live holy lives, we can learn from their failures. In this case, mistreating that which is holy is sacrilegious and offensive to the one true God. Although we may not venerate things and places, this text can legitimately have a broader application. From the giving of the law through Moses, God set his people apart as holy (Exod. 19:4–6) and expected them to treat him and his name as holy (e.g., Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 5:11). In today’s religiously pluralistic, secularly relativistic, and sometimes blatantly pagan culture, treating the one true God as common, or taking his name in vain, amounts to sacrilege. Guide your listeners toward holy living as children of God who clearly stand out from unbelievers, realizing we should live lives set apart from, yet in witness to, our world (2 Pet. 3:8–16; 1 Tim. 2:1–4).
2. God’s confrontation of pride. Although God often shows patience and grace, he may also intervene decisively at any time to confront human arrogance against him (cf. Nebuchadnezzar in 4:31, 33). Belshazzar’s narrative does not teach that God regularly appears anthropomorphically (the “hand”) or that we should understand all supernatural abnormalities as messages from heaven. Rather, God gets the attention of the king, his nobles, and his sages to make them consider their actions and to provide an occasion for the inspired interpretation that follows. Ask your listeners to be sensitive to the way God works through life’s everyday events that give us pause, pushing us toward an understanding of who God is as revealed in Scripture. Warn them against the false assumption that God’s patience means he does not care about apathy or prideful rebellion.
3. False confidence and human arrogance. Point to examples in your culture or context in which people use power, wealth, and prestige as either a substitute for or a means by which to manipulate, twist, or exploit godly wisdom. Such knowledge is not available at the whims of kings and sages. Use the interlude that ends this pericope (5:9) to allow your listeners to reflect on the emptiness of false religious systems(or secular philosophies) apart from God’s Word and Spirit. Warn them against putting their confidence in the wrong sources of wisdom. Call those who are given positions of influence and power to guard their hearts against pride.
What not to teach. Do not build a sermon or teaching lesson from this passage on the foolishness of misusing alcohol or the dangers of partying with unbelievers. Other Old Testament texts caution us regarding such matters (cf. Prov. 20:1; 24:1). Keep your focus on the clearer issues of prideful rebellion against God, treating that which is holy with proper respect, and the failures of seeking wisdom apart from God.
Illustrating the Text
God is jealous for his own glory.
Quote: Godly Jealousy, by Erik Thoennes. The gravity of offense in profaning what is holy is best understood in light of the seriousness of God’s holiness. In his book Godly Jealousy, Christian scholar and professor Erik Thoennes writes: “We have seen that God’s primary goal in human history, a goal for which he is intensely jealous, is his own glory and honor. . . . God desires the fidelity of his people because he loves them, but ultimately because he is most glorified when they ascribe to him the honor that belongs to him alone.”14 God is a jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14) who demands that he receive all glory and disdains all irreverence for his holiness. In the same way that God is jealous for his exclusive glory, we must also be jealous for his glory and consequently abhor the profaning of his holiness in all its forms.
Boastful arrogance by mere mortals is foolishness before God.
History: On its maiden voyage from the United Kingdom to New York in 1912, the luxury passenger liner RMS Titanicstood as a monument to human engineering in its time and was immediately an international sensation. Moreover, it was deemed by many to be unsinkable. In retrospect, such pride and arrogance were clearly misplaced, resulting in a tragic collision with an iceberg, the sinking of the ship, and the loss of more than 1,500 lives. It is one of the deadliest peacetime disasters in modern history. In the same way, having an arrogant pride in our own power and political security—especially when it is set against God—can lead us to consequences and punishment of sin. Although we may be tempted to trust in our own strength, we only deceive ourselves. God opposes the arrogant boasting of mere mortals in whatever form it appears.
Trust in false wisdom is especially dangerous in those with influence.
Culture: The modern Scientology movement began with L. Ron Hubbard’s self-help book Dianetics in 1952. Its beliefs, which include spiritual beings caught in human bodies with past lives from extraterrestrial cultures, have grown more popular partially due to endorsement from prominent actor and producer Tom Cruise. In particular, the financial resources required as “fixed donations” for participation in Scientology practices make it an attraction for those with greater power and influence. The false philosophies of this group, as well as others like it, are often popularized due to their bold claims of self-knowledge and wisdom. Yet these sources cannot meet people’s true spiritual needs and instead give a false sense of confidence in using human wisdom as a substitute for God as the only true source of wisdom and answer to human emptiness.
Daniel Confronts Belshazzar (5:10-17):
Big Idea: God is able and willing, through his Spirit, to gift and sustain those who honor him over years of faithful service.
Understanding the Text
See the unit on 5:1–9 for a discussion of the larger context, structure, and comparisons of this chapter, as well as a comparison of chapters 4 and 5. Against this backdrop, the second pericope in this chapter draws from chapters 1, 2, and 4, in which Daniel’s God-given abilities and administrative successes lead to his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams. Now Babylon’s queen mother introduces him to the king, referencing the “spirit of the holy gods” (5:11; cf. 4:8–9, 18), which links the parallel accounts. Within this framework, 5:10–17 divides into three parts: the queen mother’s appearance and announcement of Daniel (5:10–12), Daniel’s appearance and Belshazzar’s offer (5:13–16), and Daniel’s response (5:17).
Historical and Cultural Background
That the “queen” enters late, rebukes Belshazzar publicly, and appears separate from the “wives” suggests that she is the “queen mother” and wife of Nabonidus. Nabonidus’s mother, Adad-Guppi, also fits this description, but she died seventeen years earlier. Herodotus’s description of Belshazzar’s mother, Nitocris, Nabonidus’s wife (Hist. 1.185–88), supports this interpretation. She was the politically astute daughter of Nebuchadnezzar who aided in the ongoing construction of canals and bridges in Babylon after his death and lived to experience Babylon’s siege by the Medes and Persians in 539 BC (Josephus, Ant. 10.11.2).1
The elaborate palaces of successive kings of Babylon were eventually merged into a palace complex that is now thoroughly excavated. The huge throne room (170 by 55 feet) stands adjacent to the largest of the palace’s three courtyards, just inside the massive Ishtar Gate. This is, quite likely, the room used by Belshazzar for this banquet. Along one of the walls is a niche for the king’s throne. Elsewhere, this room is adorned with brightly colored enameled bricks and white plaster.2
Interpretive Insights
5:10 The queen . . . came into the banquet hall. With the wives of Belshazzar already at the banquet (5:3), the chaotic uproar that had followed the appearance of the “hand” and the Babylonian sages’ failure spreads quickly through the palace complex, drawing the queen mother into the king’s presence.3 The royal salutation “May the king live forever!” provides an ironic contrast to the king’s death in this chapter’s ending (5:30).4 The older stateswoman risks breach of protocol in order to take control of the panicked situation. She comes unsummoned to rebuke and instruct her son in public, providing another instance of his humiliation (cf. 5:6, 9). Moreover, her voice brings wisdom in the face of folly, like the woman of wisdom in Proverbs 31 (a passage also written by a queen mother speaking to a son).5
5:11–12 a man in your kingdom . . . he will tell you what the writing means. The specificity of “your kingdom” suggests Belshazzar should be aware of Daniel’s value as a sage. Daniel may need such an introduction because he is less active (now in his eighties), or because new rulers want their own advisors, or because Belshazzar ignores Daniel as part of his rebellion and sacrilege against the God of the Jews. The last option fits this context best.6 The formal introduction of Daniel to Belshazzar quickly points the reader to the source of Daniel’s giftedness: from the queen mother’s perspective, “the spirit of the holy gods.” Daniel clarifies this to mean “the Most High God” in 5:18 (cf. 4:2, 17, 24, 32, 34). This gift of God’s Spirit to Daniel is put first, providing a context for the seven also-familiar gifts to follow: “insight,” “intelligence,” “wisdom,” “keen mind,” “knowledge,” “understanding,” and “the ability to interpret dreams.” In addition, two new gifts are added here, particular to this narrative: the ability to “explain riddles” (the wall writing) and “solve difficult problems” (Belshazzar’s crisis inside and outside the palace). It is clear that God is in control.
5:13 Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah? Every voice in this chapter (narrator, queen mother, Belshazzar, and Daniel) emphasizes the “father”/“son” relationship between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar (see the comments on 5:2–4). The constant repetition of this fact serves to indict Belshazzar—even by his own words (5:13)—for not realizing and appropriating the moral lesson learned by his grandfather of submitting to God’s sovereign rule. Moreover, the king’s words to Daniel are likely sarcastic: “So, you are that Daniel.” Belshazzar’s knowledge goes beyond the words of the queen mother. He may have heard of Daniel’s reputation but by choice has not met him yet. Whereas the queen mother emphasizes Daniel’s appointments and giftedness, Belshazzar focuses on his status as an exile—implying an adversarial relationship.7 The fact that Nebuchadnezzar names Daniel “Belteshazzar” (perhaps a deliberate corruption by the author of “Belshazzar”; see the comments on 1:7) may offend the king. The reference “brought from Judah” is reminiscent of the temple vessels “brought in” at this time (cf. 1:2; 5:2).
5:14–16 I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you. In the parallel narrative Nebuchadnezzar unambiguously states that “the spirit of the holy gods” is in Daniel and he can do what is needed (4:8–9, 18). This confidence is also evident in the queen mother’s words (5:11–12). Here, however, Belshazzar speaks only by way of hearsay expressed in the form of a taunt, “if you can” (5:16). This reflects the tension in his relationship with Daniel and prepares the reader for the unsympathetic prophetic confrontation in 5:18–31. The king’s omission of “holy” in his reference to “the gods” also subtly reflects his profaning of the temple vessels. For the third time the wisdom of the Babylonian sages is insufficient (cf. 2:1–13; 4:6–7). Offering the same ruling status to Daniel (cf. 5:7) prepares the reader for the contrast of Daniel and the Babylonian sages. The terms of the reward (“third highest ruler in the kingdom”) reflect the lower status of Belshazzar—a coregent under Nabonidus—in contrast to Nebuchadnezzar.8
5:17 You may keep your gifts for yourself and give your rewards to someone else. The offer of a disproportionately great reward for services otherwise expected as part of his job would pressure any sage to return a favorable interpretation. But, as in chapter 4, Daniel once again takes the role of a prophet. The message given by the hand of God is sacred and therefore cannot be manipulated with human rewards (cf. Num. 22:18; Mic. 3:5–8). Though Daniel appears to accept gifts elsewhere (2:46–49), this one is offered in advance in order to affect the outcome of the interpretation. In response, Daniel shuns the sovereignty of Belshazzar in deference to the sovereignty of God. Also, the familiar and personal “you” language certainly offends the king.
Nevertheless, I will read the writing for the king and tell him what it means. The conjunction “nevertheless” (Aramaic b e ram) carries an adversarial force: the interpretation comes in spite of the offer. This retort by Daniel sets the tone for the comparison and contrast with Nebuchadnezzar, and the judgment of Belshazzar to follow.
Theological Insights
In 5:10–17, the center section of this story, one can discern three character traits of the God who gives. First, he gives his Spirit to reveal what is needed for the challenges faced by faithful servants. Second, the nature of the gifts that God imparts reflects God’s wisdom, knowledge, and ability to solve difficult problems. Third, the worthiness of the gift-giving God makes those gifts too valuable to be corrupted by human rewards.
Teaching the Text
1. The Spirit of the Holy God. The work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is foreshadowed here by the way God’s Spirit is reflected in Daniel’s life and ministry. Although the king and the queen mother seem to understand “the spirit of the holy gods” in a pagan sense, God does not work that way. The critical gifts that Daniel possesses are the direct outworking of God’s Spirit in his life. Encourage your listeners to become sensitive to the work of God’s Spirit in their lives. Help them recognize that the gifts, abilities, and opportunities we are given as believers reflect the way God works through us, as we are faithful to him.
2. The gifts reflect on the giver. Daniel’s gifts—insight, intelligence, and wisdom—are directly linked to his sphere of influence in the palace. These gifts are also discernible in the aged Judean’s (now in his eighties) keen mind, knowledge, understanding, skills in interpretation, and ability to solve riddles and problems. Encourage your congregation or class to consider the many ways in which they have been prepared to serve God through the Spirit’s working in their lives and to be careful to give God the credit for each of these gifts (cf. 2:27–30). It would not be inappropriate to speak specifically to the senior members in your audience, reminding them to give thanks for the way God has sustained them over decades of faithful service and godly living.
3. The enticement of human rewards. Daniel and his friends have been honored earlier in a tangible and public way after God had accomplished something special through them (2:48–49). However, the reward in chapter 5 is offered to Daniel, as well as to the other sages, as a conditional inducement before the fact, which might be understood as influencing the outcome. This kind of reward carries inherent dangers for corrupting the integrity of the message. In using the gifts God has given us, we must remain keenly aware of our inner motives and of the outward perceptions of corruption by others. This is not to say that believers should refuse payment for serving in professional ways. But we should carefully guard the opportunities God gives us so as not to tarnish his reputation before a watching world.
What not to teach. First, avoid parsing too finely the distinction between the ways in which God’s Spirit works in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. In Daniel, the Spirit is consistently described as being “in him.” Second, this passage is focused not on Daniel’s faithful commitment to God for his lifetime but rather on God’s gifting of, and faithfulness to, Daniel. Third, this passage does not teach that any specific gift is available, or not available, to believers today. Rather, it describes God’s generous and relevant work through Daniel in a particular situation.
Illustrating the Text
The question is not how to use the Spirit but how the Spirit uses us.
Quote: R. A. Torrey. The working of the Holy Spirit in our lives is always a reflection of his character in us and should always point to him as the source. As R. A. Torrey has written,
The Holy Spirit is a real Person, infinitely holy, infinitely wise, infinitely mighty and infinitely tender who is to get hold of and use us. . . . If we think of the Holy Spirit as so many do as merely a power or influence, our constant thought will be, “How can I get more of the Holy Spirit,” but if we think of Him in the Biblical way as a Divine Person, our thought will rather be, “How can the Spirit have more of me?”9
These wise words should call us to humility and submission to the Spirit’s work so that God can use us as testimonies to his greatness.
God equips us for the contexts he calls us to.
Children’s Book: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, by C. S. Lewis. In Lewis’s book, siblings Peter, Susan, and Lucy receive unexpected gifts when Father Christmas appears in their adventure. Though they are unaware of the purpose of the gifts when given, each item ends up being an essential tool on their journey. The sword given to Peter is used in his battle with the evil witch Jadis; the enchanted horn for Susan summons her brother to her aid when she is attacked by a wolf; and Lucy’s magical cordial heals many wounded in battle, including their brother Edmund. None of the siblings could have known how these gifts would later be critical in these situations, yet each was intentionally granted exactly what he or she would need for the peril that lay ahead. In the same way, God in his foreknowledge knows exactly what his children need to be equipped for wherever he leads them.
Receiving human rewards should be a testimony to God’s goodness.
Biography: Ben Carson. Born in 1952, pediatric neurosurgeon and author of six best-selling Christian books Ben Carson rose from humble beginnings to become a remarkably accomplished person. He became the youngest physician to lead a major division at Johns Hopkins, was the first to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head, and won the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom award from George W. Bush (2008). These awards were rightly bestowed on a man whose medical career is clearly worthy of its recognition; yet human recognition for Carson has served as an opportunity to testify to God’s goodness through extensive philanthropic work, particularly in the service of children and education, as well as books encouraging the importance of persistent dedication and faith in God. While receiving human honors is not sinful, each accolade should be used as an opportunity to point others toward God as the giver of eternal reward.
Belshazzar’s Judgment and Babylon’s Fall (5:18-31):
Big Idea: The God who sovereignly governs kings and kingdoms—for blessing or for judgment—also controls every breath a person takes.
Understanding the Text
See the unit on 5:1–9 for a discussion of the larger context, structure, and comparisons of this chapter, as well as a comparison of chapters 4 and 5. Against this backdrop, the third and last section of Daniel 5 provides the theological climax for the chapter. Daniel appears here again as a classical Old Testament prophet, as he did in chapter 4—the only two places this occurs in the book. This final narrative concerning Babylon signals the transition to the third of the four kingdoms seen in Daniel’s vision of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in 2:31–49. Within this framework, 5:18–31 divides into four parts: Daniel’s retelling of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience (5:18–21), Daniel’s confrontation of Belshazzar (5:22–24), Daniel’s interpretation of the wall writing (5:25–29), and Belshazzar’s death and Babylon’s fall (5:30–31).
Historical and Cultural Background
Standard Babylonian monetary weights (although not yet coins in the ANE) include a mina, a shekel, and a half mina or a half shekel (a mina equals sixty shekels). Daniel converts these to verbs when interpreting the wall writing, a common wordplay in deciphering omens at this time. The imagery of being weighed on scales as a sign of divine judgment is also found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Not coincidentally, the fall of Babylon occurred on the sixth of Tishrit (October 12, 539 BC), a month linked in Babylonian tradition to the appearance of the constellation of “The Scales” (modern, Libra).1The court astrologers may see this as a sign confirming Daniel’s explanation.2
The mention of purple clothing (purple was an expensive dye used mostly by royalty) and a gold chain (perhaps with an insignia of office) suggests that Daniel is offered the third position in rank under Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus. If taken, such a position would put Daniel at risk when the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon.
Numerous Persian and Greek accounts of Babylon’s fall have been preserved, ranging from the sixth to third century BC. They all attribute the conquest to Cyrus II of Persia, and some suggest it was without a fight (as was the case with the city of Sippar two days prior to Babylon’s fall). Herodotus (Hist. 1.188–92, fifth century BC) claims that the Euphrates was diverted to allow access to the city through the canals. Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5.1–34) mentions a wicked Babylonian king, which may refer to Belshazzar. The exact fate of Nabonidus is unclear, although he was most likely either exiled or killed.3Regarding Darius the Mede, see “Additional Insights: Darius and/or Cyrus in Media and Persia” at the end of this unit.4
Interpretive Insights
5:18–19 the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar. The verb “gave” (Aramaic y e hab) echoes Daniel’s earlier declaration to Nebuchadnezzar (2:37), as well as God’s “giving” that outlines Daniel’s opening narrative (1:2, 9, 17; Hebrew natan). The “sovereignty” (Aramaic malku, “kingdom”) given by God to Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 27:5–7), and held temporarily by Belshazzar, is divinely regifted to Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31). This and its attendant “greatness and glory and splendor” are attributes elsewhere attributed to God as their true source (cf. 1 Chron. 29:11). Similarly, the power that accompanies these—life and death, promotion and humbling—also reflects divine prerogatives (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:7–8).
5:20 But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride. The Aramaic literally concludes this clause, “and his ‘spirit’ [Aramaic ruah] became hardened.” The language of “heart” and “spirit” captures the wide range of the inner, immaterial nature, including the mind, will, and psyche. This comprehensive self-exaltation is like the progressive hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 7–14 (cf. Hebrew hazaqand kabedin Exod. 7:13–14). The Aramaic text continues the use of malku in “the throne of his ‘kingdom’” (instead of the NIV’s “royal throne”), providing the connecting thread between the gift of the kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar and its loss under Belshazzar.
5:21 until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign. The most striking contrast between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is neither their reigns nor their sins, although these differences are easily discerned. Rather, it is specifically the former’s willingness and the latter’s failure to repent.5 Nebuchadnezzar recognized God’s sovereignty over “all kingdoms on earth” (so the NIV; but the ESV preserves the literal sense, “kingdom of mankind,” a corporate entity in contrast to God’s kingdom).
5:22 you, Belshazzar, his son, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this. The repeated reference to Nebuchadnezzar as the king’s “father” throughout this passage reaches its climax in Belshazzar’s complicit knowledge of his grandfather’s judgment and subsequent repentance. Since Belshazzar is more accountable because of this knowledge, his sins of omission (not humbling himself and not honoring God) combine with his sin of commission (setting himself up against the Lord of heaven) to seal his fate. Though he knew firsthand what the Most High God had done with Nebuchadnezzar, he chose to honor false gods that “do not . . . know” (5:23 ESV).
5:23 the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways. Job rightly acknowledges that God holds in his hand “the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10 ESV). Here the metaphor of the “hand of God” is linked to the “hand” that writes on the palace wall in 5:5, which is sent by God to inscribe a declaration of his sovereign work among mortals. Elsewhere in Daniel, God’s “hand” shapes kingdoms (2:45) while he does as he pleases without human hindrance (4:35).
5:25–28 This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin. The wall writing is a riddle that is first read (vocalized) as Babylonian weights: a mina, a shekel (“tekel”), and two halves of a shekel.6 Then Daniel interprets these as verbs. “Mene” means “to be numbered” (cf. Ps. 90:10–12) and is most likely mentioned twice to emphasize God’s active role in determining the now-elapsed days for the king’s rule.7 “Tekel” is the Aramaic form of “shekel,”meaning “to be weighed,” here in the sense of judgment (cf. 1 Sam. 2:3; Job 31:6). Belshazzar is found deficient on the scales in comparison both to Nebuchadnezzar and to what God required of him. “Peres” is the singular form of “parsin,” which means, “to be divided” (into two halves)—although not necessarily in equal portions. The wordplay relates to the noun “Persia” (Aramaic paras; NIV: “Persians”).8 The closing reference to “the Medes and Persians” is literally “Media and Persia” (cf. Dan. 8:20); Cyrus the Great of Persia had by now subjugated the Median Empire. Paras is emphasized in the wordplay because “Persia” will become the enduring and comprehensive empire.9
5:29 Daniel . . . was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom. The NIV is correct in understanding Daniel’s position to be one of rank under Belshazzar and Nabonidus (cf. Dan. 5:7; Esther 8:15; 10:3). He had refused this royal reward earlier (Dan. 5:7, 17), and the text does not say that he accepts it here. Perhaps Belshazzar forces it on him in fear of an even greater punishment or in hope that God will show mercy (cf. 4:36). Regardless, the reward is worthless at the best, and dangerous at the worst, in light of Babylon’s imminent downfall.
5:30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. The immediacy of the king’s judgment recalls that of Nebuchadnezzar’s (4:31, 33), as well as the sudden appearance of the “hand” (5:5). Other Old Testament prophets explicitly predict Babylon’s fall as well (Isa. 13:1–22; 21:1–10; Jer. 51:1–58), but the focus here is on the judgment of Belshazzar.
5:31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two. The Septuagint connects this verse with chapter 5 (so the NIV makes 5:30–31 one sentence), whereas the Masoretic Text reads it as the first verse of chapter 6.10 Contextually and grammatically it makes sense either way. The mention of Darius’s age, however, may intentionally conclude the wordplays in this pericope. If the identification of the weights above is correct, their monetary sum equals sixty-two shekels.11 This historical marker is the second of four allusions to Babylon’s fall in Daniel’s narratives (1:21; 9:1–2; 11:1), although this significant event is not mentioned directly.
Theological Insights
In 5:18–31, the last pericope of this narrative, God’s sovereignty confronts the reader in three ways. First, Scripture’s redemptive history teaches mere mortals about the person and work of God in their lives. Second, God, the righteous judge of human sacrilege and blasphemy, holds the life breath and varied ways of all persons in his hand. Third, God sets up and takes down kings and kingdoms in this world to accomplish his purposes among humanity.
Darius and/or Cyrus: All accounts of Babylon’s fall in 539 BC credit Cyrus II, the Great, of Persia (600–530 BC) with its conquest. No extrabiblical records have yet been discovered that mention a person named “Darius the Mede” (cf. Dan. 5:31; 6:1–28; 11:1). As a result, liberal-critical scholars consider him an “unhistorical character.”1
Those who accept Daniel’s narratives as historically accurate propose two ways of resolving this problem. The first understands Darius as a subordinate to Cyrus, possibly Gubaru/Ugbaru (Greek Gobryas), a general under Cyrus to whom the Nabonidus Chronicle attributes Babylon’s conquest, and/or the one appointed afterward as governor in the city. It is not clear whether these are one or two persons, and whether his reign as “king of Babylon” is long enough to fit the account in Daniel 6. The statement that he “received the kingdom” (5:31; NIV: “took over”) and “was made ruler” (9:1) could imply that a superior gave it to him. In this view, Cyrus would not have assumed the title “king of Babylon” until a year into his rule.2
The second way of resolving the problem, that “Darius the Mede” is an alternative name for Cyrus the Persian, is more likely. The linking of Darius with Cyrus in 6:28, which could be read, “Darius, that is, Cyrusthe Persian” (see NIV footnote), suggests this theory. It also fits well with Cyrus’s mixed ancestry, which included a Persian father, Cambyses I, a vassal king in the Anshan province under Median control, and a Median mother, Mandane, daughter of Median king Astyages, and granddaughter of the powerful Cyaxares the Great, who united the loosely affiliated Median tribes into a kingdom. Both the Old Greek and Theodotion read “Cyrus” instead of the Masoretic Text’s “Darius” in 11:1, and Theodotion names Cyrus as the king of the events parallel to Daniel 6 in his version of Bel and the Dragon (Bel 1). Herodotus notes that the name of Persia’s founder, given to him at birth by his Median mother, was not Cyrus (Hist. 1.108–14). Darius/Cyrus was likely in his early sixties when he conquered Babylon. And the statements that Darius “received the kingdom” (5:31) and “was made ruler” (9:1) could refer to God as the giver of kings and kingdoms, as it was for Nebuchadnezzar (1:2; 5:18).3
Media and Persia: The proper nouns “Media”/“Medes” (maday) and “Persia”/“Persians” (paras) appear in close proximity in the Old Testament, yet always distinctly. Daniel speaks of God giving Babylon to Media and Persia (5:28), as well as of their laws (6:8, 12, 15) and kings (8:20; cf. Jer. 25:25)—listing Media first to emphasize historical sequence. Esther refers to military leaders (1:3), nobles (1:14), and laws (1:19)—putting Persia first, except regarding their kings (10:2). Isaiah notes the joint conquest of Babylon by Media and Persia (21:2; “Elam” connotes “Persia”). Earlier, Media helped Babylon conquer Assyria; then Media became Babylon’s rival after Nebuchadnezzar’s death (562 BC). Cyrus became king of Anshan in 559 BC, and then he revolted against his Median overlords in 556 BC, winning a three-year battle against Astyages in 553–550 BC. With the combined forces of the Medes and Persians under his control, he took Babylon in 539 BC and began his rule as Darius the Mede, then as Cyrus the Great, king of Persia (Dan. 5:31–6:1). To be clear, Persia reflected “Medo-Persian” culture, and its legal system became known as the “law of the Medes and Persians,” much like Rome later reflected “Greco-Roman” culture after it conquered Greece. However, there was no “Medo-Persian Empire” just as there was no “Greco-Roman Empire.”
Daniel varies his usage of the names Cyrus (1:21; 6:28; 10:1) and Darius (5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 15, 25, 28; 9:1; 11:1) but places a slightly greater emphasis on Darius. This serves a twofold purpose. First, it emphasizesthe fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who focus on the fall of Babylon to the Medes (Isa. 13:17; 21:2; Jer. 51:11, 28). Second, it helps to distinguish the rise of the inferior second kingdom (Media) from the expansive rule of the third kingdom (Persia) in Daniel’s four-kingdom scheme (2:39).4
Teaching the Text
1. Learn lessons from the past. Knowing how God has worked with others in the past—especially in the Bible where inspired commentary is often provided—should teach us lessons of humility and repentance as we face our own failures and challenges. That God has blessed Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance and judged his arrogance does not make him a hero or a villain but shows us how God works with flawed human beings. Belshazzar is expected to learn from these lessons, and so are modern readers of Daniel. Encourage your listeners to reflect on and learn from the examples of those believers who have preceded them or even their own experiences earlier in their lives. The greater our privilege and understanding of God’s ways in the past, the greater our accountability is in the present.
2. Sacrilege, humility, and the fragile nature of this life. Because the Most High God is the giver of high positions, we should honor him if and when we receive such privileges. When acknowledging a person’s efforts, achievements, and influence, always set these in the context of God as the giver. In contrast, it is sheer folly to set oneself up against the Lord of heaven. In Belshazzar’s context this takes the form of desecrating sacred vessels from God’s temple and using them to praise pagan gods. Today, we often fall prey to more subtle forms of dishonoring God, and as a result we are tempted to think that he overlooks such sins. Remind your congregation or study group that the sovereign Lord holds our best-laid plans in his grip—even the next breath we take! Keeping this truth before us can change the way we live and make us grateful for the gift of life itself.
3. The changing of kings and kingdoms. Belshazzar had only so much time to learn from the example of his grandfather and to choose sincere and lasting repentance before God instead of arrogance against him. Tragically, he came up light on the scales of justice, and his appointed days came to an end. These images remind us that we have only so much time to honor God and that this gift of life should not be wasted. In the bigger picture, the critical turn from this chapter to the next should also remind us that God sovereignly changes kings and kingdoms on the way to establishing his kingdom.
What not to teach. First, this neither is a place to heroize Daniel as a wise sage and courageous prophet nor a place to dwell on his prestigious reward for serving God faithfully. Keep your focus on the God who humbles the proud regardless of their status, yet in response and proportion to their repentance. Second, the use of the numbers-and-scales metaphor does not teach that salvation comes from doing more good deeds than bad ones, but it does confirm that God cares about righteousness.
Illustrating the Text
Know your history to avoid the mistakes of the past.
History: Philosopher George Santayana (1863–1952) has observed, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”12 After winning military fame abroad, French general Napoleon Bonaparte returned home to arrange his own election as emperor of France. However, in 1812, he met a miserable end in his failed invasion of Russia, which led Napoleon deep into that country’s harsh winter with dwindling supplies. Only a fraction of his army survived to return to France in defeat. Ignoring this lesson of history, German dictator Adolf Hitler attempted a similar strategy during World War II, besieging critical Soviet cities in 1941 but likewise running afoul of the same egotism and Russian winter that had ruined Napoleon. Learning from the past to avoid making the same mistakes is just as critical for believers as it is for world leaders. We are to learn from the work of God in the past, particularly in Scripture.
God, the righteous judge over all, opposes irreverent treatment of his holiness.
Bible: Throughout biblical history, sacrilege is considered a serious offense, whether against places or objects used in worship, or against the very name and person of God. In the Old Testament the Israelites in the exodus are sternly warned about coming too close to Mount Sinai, where God appears (Exod. 19:9–25). They are also told not to misuse God’s name (Exod. 20:7). Later, the people of Beth Shemesh (1 Sam. 6:13–20), as well as a Levite named Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1–7), are killed for mishandling the ark of the covenant. In the New Testament Jesus speaks against swearing an oath before God, going further to insist that it is better to simply keep one’s word as it is spoken (Matt. 5:33–37). Similarly, Paul warns against taking communion in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27–32). Although Scripture does not speak of “sacred objects” after the advent of Jesus, we still serve a holy God whose person and work are profaned by our sacrilegious behavior. God is the judge over all, holds everyone’s life in his hands, and therefore is deserving of our honor.
Beware of letting time slip away; live every moment for the Lord.
Quote: Thomas Jefferson. God is constantly at work bringing things to pass in his timing, and every day is an opportunity to serve God before our time comes to an end. United States president and founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote the now-famous adage “Never put off to tomorrow what you can do today.”13 We are often tempted to be lazy and procrastinate change in our spiritual lives, yet we do not know how long our time is. God has called us to serve faithfully each day, for we never know which breath will be our last. These wise words from Jefferson are a challenge to believers to follow their calling every day and never put off change for the better through godly service until the future.