II. God’s Sovereignty
seen in His Control over World Empires (chs. 2-7).
D.
Divine Judgment: Belshazzar’s Feast and the Writing on the Wall (5:1-31).
Recall that structurally, with reference to the
chiastic pattern of the Aramaic portions of Daniel (chs. 2-7), this
chapter is a companion piece to chapter 4, which also pertains to God
visiting a proud ruler with an outpouring of judgment (cf., our introduction to
ch. 4: II. C. 2. c. ii.).
As a parallel, however, it also serves as a contrast
between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and with the nature of God’s dealings
with both. Under God’s sovereignty, King Nebuchadnezzar is graciously numbered
amongst the elect; Belshazzar, however, falls under the
classification of a reject. A classic case of Augustinian
double-predestination!
Rom. 9:18: So then He has mercy on whom He
desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Rom. 9:22-24: What if God, although willing to demonstrate
His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His
glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us,
whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
1.
The Feast of Folly (5:1-4).
v. 1a: “Belshazzar the king…”
o
The
probable meaning of his name: “Bel, protect the King!” But, ironically,
the false god Bel, an object of the King’s praise (5:4), would sadly prove
utterly powerless to do so (5:30)!
o
The
son of Nabonidus, last King of Babylon, Belshazzar was co-regent with his father,
and thus, second ruler in the kingdom (cf., 5:7).
o
Belshazzar
held sway within the capital city of Babylon during his father’s decade-long
period of absence in Arabia. As the great Persian Bear (7:5) moved-in to devour
the rotting corpse of Neo-Babylonian Empire, Nabonidus took to the field to lead
a final futile military campaign against Cyrus, while Belshazzar continued to
oversee the administration of the government from the capital.
o
The matter of Belshazzar’s identity: yet another example
of the Bible’s vindication in the face of opposition from liberal higher-critics.
o Due to his lesser
status as a subordinate-king, both Belshazzar’s name and regal
dignity were soon forgotten by post-Neo-Babylonian Era chroniclers and
historians—and long-forgotten by the time of Maccabees (2nd
century BC—the general era from which liberal critics have long insisted that
the Book of Daniel originated). Subsequent secular history over the centuries
thus recorded and remembered only Nabonidus as the “last king of
Babylon.”
o Daniel’s seeming
ignorance of the person and position of Nabonidus (but again, note 5:7!) along
with its multiple references to the “mythical” Belshazzar as “king” (cf., 5:1-31,
7:1, 8:1) were thus regarded by modern liberal critics as constituting hopeless
anachronisms, confirming both Daniel’s general unfamiliarity with the
basic facts of Neo-Babylonian history and the book’s general status as a pious fraud
and forgery.
o Beginning in the
1860’s, however, a steady stream of archeological digs unearthed multiple
references that served to confirm both Belshazzar’s existence and his
co-regency (i.e., sharing of royal authority) with Nabonidus. Amongst
the various ancient cuneiform texts and documents that emerged, for example,
was the “Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus” (published in 1924), which
states that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” unto his firstborn.
o
Herein
lies a great confirmation of Daniel’s origins arising from the 6th
century BC! In that all of the available historical sources arising after the 6th
century BC lost sight of Belshazzar’s existence, we must pose the following
questions: “How would a 2nd century BC Maccabean Era “Daniel”
have known about Belshazzar? Would he not have named the well-remembered
Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon?”
o
The
above questions are bewildering unto liberal writers, who face an insoluble
mystery as long as they cling to their presuppositions with regard to a later, pseudonymous
“Daniel.” Note R.H. Pfeiffer of Harvard University:
“We shall presumably never know how
our author [i.e.,
Daniel] learned… that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in
Daniel, and in Baruch 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king
when Cyrus took Babylon.”—R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament
(1948)
But humble, ordinary Christians who trust in
the Living God and in His Word know the answer to this question which has
stumped the experts of infidel scholarship! The simple reason that Daniel knew
all about Belshazzar is because he was an actual eyewitness to these
events!
o All of this illustrates
both the value and limitations of evidentialist apologetics.
1)
There are many spectacular “proofs” which confirm the
veracity of the Word of God. Biblical events occurred within the spectrum of
the real space/time continuum—and thus it is to be anticipated that an inerrant
Bible is not only true with regard to spiritual matters, but with reference to
scientific and historical ones as well (cf., John 3:12: "If I told you
earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you
heavenly things?).
2)
But the problem is not with the evidence—rather, it
is with the stubborn and unregenerate human heart, for which no
amount of “proofs” will be sufficient! (Note Luke 16:30-31, Matt. 11:20-24,
and John 12:9-11).
Luke 16:30-31: And he said, “No, father Abraham, but
if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If
they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if
someone should rise from the dead.”
v. 1b: “Belshazzar the king made a great
feast…”
o
Some
commentators have stressed the phraseological and thematic similarity
between this opening phrase and the opening phrase of the account of the making
of the great Golden Image in chapter 3:
Dan. 3:1: “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold…”
Both the image and the feast were born out of
royal arrogance and a false sense of security created by the illusion of human
power and strength.
The contrast, however, is found in the
fact that Nebuchadnezzar made his great image at a time when Neo-Babylonian
power was at its zenith. Belshazzar, however, made his great feast on
the night of Babylon’s nadir—when its powerful enemies were at its very
gates! Is not the arrogance of Belshazzar thus all the greater—and more absurd?
o
This
drunken feast was also referenced by the later Greek historians Herodotus (5th
cent. BC) and Xenophon (4th and 5th cents. BC):
Herodotus, Histories, 1:191:
“Because the city is so immense, its inhabitants
say that when the Babylonians at the edges of the city were taken, those
Babylonians who lived in the center were unaware of their capture because they
happened to be celebrating a festival at that moment, and so they sang and
danced and enjoyed themselves until they found out all too well what had
happened. This is how Babylon fell to the Persians the first time.”
Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 7:5:
“…Cyrus heard that there was a festival in
Babylon in which all the Babylonians drank and reveled the entire night…”
o
The
peculiar context and timing of such a Feast (Oct. 12, 539 BC)…
The vast army of the Persians and the Medes—under
the command of Cyrus, one of the greatest conquerors of antiquity, who had
recently devoured the huge collective-domain of many other kingdoms and who was
now fresh from his decisive victory over King Nabonidus’ Neo-Babylonian forces
at Opis (Sept., 539 BC)—was completely surrounding the city!
o
WHY such a Feast? Shouldn’t Belshazzar have been fasting,
instead? What was his mindset? Was there any method behind his madness? Various
proposals…
o Possibly this was a regular
annual affair dedicated unto the gods, as inferred by the Greek historians
and suggested by Daniel 5:4. To cancel such an affair would be damaging
to morale, constituting an official admission that the current situation was
indeed most dire and abnormal—and possibly hopeless. Also, such a
difficult hour was certainly not the time to offend Babylon’s official patron-deities,
whose demands required some form of appeasement!
o Even if this was simply
a state banquet (and thus not a an explicitly cultic festival), it
should be remembered that even so-called “secular” court activities were always
infused with some level of religious and spiritual content that acknowledged of
the patronage and protection of the gods.
o Perhaps the King saw
this as a morale-boosting grand-show-of-confidence to brighten dark
times. The message he was thus communicating unto the nation: “Who’s afraid
of Cyrus? Are we not Babylon the Great? See how untroubled and nonchalant your
brave King is in the face of Persian might!”
o Not unlike the modern
French Maginot Line, the massive walls of Babylon were considered unbreachable.
Further, Herodotus records that the Babylonians had stocked years’ worth of
provisions before retreating to safety within the great walls:
“A
battle was fought at a short distance from the city, in which the Babylonians
were defeated by the Persian king, whereupon they withdrew within their defenses.
Here they shut themselves up, and made light of his siege, having laid in a
store of provisions for many years in preparation against this attack; for when
they saw Cyrus conquering nation after nation, they were convinced that he
would never stop, and that their turn would come at last.”
Ultimately, Belshazzar’s confidence and trust
in the man-made defenses of brick and mortar proved to be tragically mislaid!
Ultimately, a nation’s security rests in the invisible Hand of God—not
in the power of its armies or the wonders of its defensive technologies. Only
the Lord is uniquely worthy of the investment of our absolute trust!
Ps. 33:16-17: The king is not
saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The
war horse is a false hope for salvation, and by its great might it cannot
rescue.
Ps. 20:7: Some trust in
chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
The wise man, according to Solomon, approaches
life recognizing that despite having various beneficial resources, a man’s
destiny is ultimately in the Hands of the Lord. While it is true
that in accordance with the general principles and normal outworkings of nature
that certain advantages (e.g., wealth, physical strength, intelligence, etc.) are
usually of great profit, it is also true that there are always notable
exceptions to the rule. Space must be left in our thinking for the
unexpected actualization of the Sovereign will of God!
Eccl. 9:11: Again I saw that
under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor
bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with
knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.
o The King may have also
been attempting to psychologically dampen and discourage the foreign enemy
outside the city through a prominent display of indifference and bravado. Doubtless,
the Persians were carefully monitoring the internal developments within the
city, as indicated by Xenophon.
o Was this audacious exhibition
of brazen nonchalance also a response to certain prophecies that were being
circulated by the conspicuous Jewish community, such as Jer. 51:11 (which
specifically prophesized the destruction of Babylon at the hand of Median
rulers)? Note further discussion on vv. 2-4.
Jer. 51:11: “Sharpen the
arrows! Take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the spirit of the kings of
the Medes, because His purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is
the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance for His temple.”
o However, even upon granting due
consideration to the plausible motivations lying beneath such an extravagant assembly,
the matter remains drenched in a bizarre atmosphere of tragi-comic irony and absurdity.
Indeed, the very phrase “Belshazzar’s Feast” has entered the cultural
lexicon as a proverbial byword signifying an obnoxious display of obscene wealth
and decadent frivolity that stands oblivious and indifferent to the basic facts
of human mortality, Divine Judgment, and impending doom (Ps. 10:4-6, 14:1; Rom.
1:28; 2 Pet. 3:3-4).
Ps. 10:4-6: With haughty arrogance, the wicked
thinks, "God will not seek justice." He always presumes "There
is no God." Their ways always seem prosperous. Your judgments are on high,
far away from them. They scoff at all their enemies. They say to themselves,
"We will not be moved throughout all time, and we will not experience
adversity."
Rom. 1:28: And since they did not see fit to
acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be
done.
"…you know when God will ruin a man
he first of all bereaves him of his senses…"—Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot, III:9
v. 1c: “for a thousand of his nobles…”
o “thousand...” Such huge numbers were
not uncommon
for royal feasts in the ancient Middle East, demonstrating the power and majesty
of the vainglorious kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. Persian sovereigns were
known to often dine with up to 15,000 guests on a daily (!) basis.
o Ashurnasirpal II, the
great king of Assyria, claimed to host an astonishing 69,574 guests at a
feast of dedication for his new capital in 879 BC!
o Note the extravagant
ways of Xerxes (i.e., Ahasuerus), King of Persia:
Esther 1:1-5: Now in the days of Ahasuerus, the
Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, in those days
when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in Susa, the citadel, in the third
year of his reign he gave a feast for all his officials and servants. The army
of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the provinces were before
him, while he showed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of
his greatness for many days, 180 days.
And when these days were completed, the king gave for all the people
present in Susa the citadel, both great and small, a feast lasting for seven
days in the court of the garden of the king's palace.
o Archeological
excavation has revealed that the dimensions of the probable site of the great
hall within the king’s palace were comparable to those of the entire original
main White House building in Washington, DC!
v. 1d: “…and he was drinking wine in the
presence of the thousand.”
o We see within the
narrative a strongly implied indication of overindulgence in the use of
alcohol—leading, in all probability, to the brazen and perverse command
of verse 2, involving the foolish and impious desecration of the sacred
articles of the Hebrew nation.
o It is clear that “all
of the stops” were pulled-out in this supreme exhibition of carnal and worldly
decadence, featuring a gross overindulgence in wine, women, and gluttonous
feasting, as well as an overall display of bohemian irreverence
towards both the ways of God and the conventions of men.
o Probably the King was
situated upon a raised dais in full view of the multitude—guiding the
company’s behavior by way of both his personal commands and his alcohol-fueled
example (cf., vv. 1-4).
o An immodest
inattentiveness to prevailing ancient Middle Eastern royal protocol may
also be implied here; generally, kings were screened or veiled from public view
upon such festal occasions.
v. 2a: “When Belshazzar tasted the wine…”
o The inflaming
influence of alcohol serves to dull the perceptions and create an
illusion of invincibility—thereby emboldening a man and causing him to neglect his
own natural inhibitions and lower his sensitivity toward societal conventions. Thus,
the wise queen-mother of Proverbs 31 advised her royal son, King Lemuel, to abstain
from the use of intoxicating beverages.
Prov. 31:4-5: It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is
not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they
drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the
afflicted.
o The sensual
character of the feast is also implied, with the subtle reference to
the presence of women in vv. 2-3; the King’s wives and concubines are
specifically referenced.
o It has been suggested
by some commentators that in all probability, these women were not present
at the beginning of the feast (which was given explicitly for the benefit
of “his nobles;” v. 1), but that they were invited to participate at
some later point—after the alcohol had begun to flow freely and take its
toll upon the character of the assembly. Recall a similar alcohol-inspired situation
and consequent lapse in
regnal
propriety in Esther 1:10-11.
o Here too is a reminder
of the corruptions associated with polygamy—a tragic lapse from God’s
original creation-design for human intimacy, which was established by the Edenic-model
of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (cf., Gen. 2:20-25, Matt. 19:3-9).
o While the Scripture records
the historical fact that certain ancient worthies (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon) departed from the standard of primitive monogamy, it never
endorses this example. It is worth noting that such departures by the
ancients were always attended by grave personal and familial
difficulties!
o It is also worth noting
that the first bigamist referenced in the Bible is Lamech (Gen. 4:19)—a wicked,
violent, and rebellious son of Cain. Belshazzar, King of Babylon, thus follows
the way of the rebel!
o Overindulgence in food was also something
that typically characterized the “great feasts” of pagan antiquity. The Greeks
and the Romans, for example, were infamous for such exhibitions of debauched
gluttony—which were frequently characterized by the use of vomit-inducing emetic
substances that allowed the participants to repeatedly gorge themselves over
and over again.
And despite current political circumstances,
the assembly had plenty of food available to them!
“Thus his [i.e., Cyrus’] army was
employed, but the men within the walls laughed at his preparations, knowing
they had supplies to last them more than twenty years.”—Xenophon: Cyropaedia,
VII.5.13
Furthermore, the flowing Euphrates River which
intersected the city meant that there would always be a perpetual source of fresh
water.
