Dan.
5:17a: “Let your gifts remain with you…”
o
These
words should not be viewed as a crude, impudent, and injudicious expression of
open contempt for the King—which would justly carry with it an expectation of regal
fury and well-merited vengeance. We strongly resist the idea that Daniel was
being “saucy” or “cheeky” in his manner and conduct.
Prov. 20:2: The terror of a king is like the
roar of a lion; he who provokes him to anger sins against his own soul.
1Pet. 2:13: Be subject for the sake of
the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority…
Rom. 13:7: Pay everyone whatever you owe
them—taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom
fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.
1Pet. 2:17: Honor all people, love the
brethren, fear God, honor the king.
o
There
are four factors that bear our consideration, with reference to Daniel’s
opening comments.
o First, this statement serves
as a prologue for all that follows, starkly defining Daniel’s role as a
forthright and incorruptible Divine messenger.
Daniel is, from the very onset of his discourse,
establishing the fact that he is not merely a “hired gun” whose services are
for rent (in stark contrast to the Babylon’s professional caste spiritual
“experts”). Rather, he is a prophet of the Living God who must speak the
truth.
The Scripture contains various negative
examples of those “professionals” and “hirelings” (John 10:12-13) who,
motivated by self-interest, prophesize or serve for money, such as Balaam,
the son of Beor (who was outsourced to Balak, King of Moab, in Num. 22), or the
young Levite Jonathan (Judges 17-18) who sold himself out to the
idolatrous Micah of Ephraim for “ten shekels and a shirt”[1] (Judges 17:10), and who subsequently
hired himself out to the men of Dan (Judges 18) for similar reasons.[2]
In contrast to such men as these are those like
Abraham (who would not accept enrichment from the hand of the King of
Sodom; cf., Gen. 14:21-24), Elisha (cf., 2 Kings 5:15-16, who would
accept no “fee” for the cure of Naaman), Peter (who could not be
“bought” by Simon Magus in Acts 8:18-20), or Paul (who could truthfully
state unto the Ephesian elders “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or
clothes;” cf. Acts 20:33-35).
To be sure, the laborer is due his well-earned
wages (1 Tim. 5:17-18), but we are dealing here with the question of
motivation.
Matt. 6:24: "No one can serve two masters; for either he
will hate the one and love the other, or
he will be devoted to one and despise
the other.
You cannot serve God
and wealth.”
o Second, these words must be
understood in a manner that is consistent with the context that is established
by Daniel’s ensuing testimony as a faithful and accurate interpreter. The grim
report that Daniel will subsequently convey unto the Royal House is that
Babylon’s doom is immediate in its proximity—thereby rendering
Belshazzar’s promised lavish rewards both imminently and utterly worthless!
o Third, Daniel’s discomfort
in accepting royal favors may also stem from the fact that he has been made
aware of Belshazzar’s desecration of the sacred Temple objects (v. 23).
o Fourth, Daniel utters these
words in faith and trust. Well aware that he was walking the “thin line” (i.e.,
faithfully serving the Living God in relating and interpreting a Divine message
that would most assuredly be disagreeable unto the ears of the Royal Court—and thus
potentially incur the King’s wrath and violent displeasure), Daniel nonetheless
places his destiny in the Hands of God, boldly serving the Lord in total
obedience and leaving the consequences and results with Him.
o This is an important
example for believers to take note of, as all of us called upon by our Divine
Master to fulfil the demands of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) within
“hostile territory.”
o
While
it is true that the Royal Honors are ultimately presented by Belshazzar
and accepted by Daniel (cf., 5:29), it is essential to note that this
occurs only after the message is interpreted—underlining with clarity the
fact that Daniel did not exercise his prophetic gifts in a mercenary fashion.
He accepts the gifts only after establishing the foundational principle
and condition that the King’s offer of reward would in no wise affect the
outcome of the interpretation.
Also, we would note the thought offered by Lange’s
commentary on this matter: namely, that Daniel ultimately accepted the
King’s gifts in the spirit of regarding them “as a recognition of his God.”
In other words, Belshazzar’s rewards represented a public acknowledgement of the
veracity of Daniel’s interpretation.
We would further add these significant points
from Barnes with reference to the discussion: 1) Belshazzar was presenting
Daniel with an honor that he did not seek, and 2) Belshazzar was, à
la Don Corleone, making Daniel an offer that “he couldn’t refuse!”
“It may seem somewhat strange that Daniel,
who here disclaimed all desire of office or reward, should so soon (Dan. 5:29)
have submitted to be clothed in this manner, and to receive the insignia of
office. But, it may be remarked, that when the offer was proposed to him he
stated his wishes, and declared that he did not desire to be honored in that
way; when he had performed the duty, however, of making known the writing, he
could scarcely feel at liberty to resist a command of the king to be clothed in
that manner, and to be regarded as an officer in the kingdom. His intention, in
the verse before us, was modestly to decline the honors proposed, and to
intimate that he was not influenced by a desire of such honors in what he would
do; yet to the king’s command afterward that he should be clothed in robes of
office, he could not with propriety make resistance. There is no evidence that
he took these honors voluntarily, or that he would not have continued to
decline them if he could have done it with propriety.”
[1]
Note the missionary Paris Reidhead’s classic 1965 sermon “Ten Shekels and a
Shirt,” which can be found on Sermon Audio.com (https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180222445).
[2]
This episode is held up as a prime example of what happens to a nation that is
not under authority (Judges 18:1).
