Daniel · Chapter 5

V. 1. Belshazzar-The grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Made a great feast-After the manner of the eastern kings who shewed their magnificence this way. But this is prodigious that he should carouse when the city was besieged, and ready to be taken by Darius the Mede.

Verse 1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast] This chapter is out of its place, and should come in after the seventh and eighth. There are difficulties in the chronology. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach his son ascended the throne of Babylon. Having reigned about two years, he was slain by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar. He reigned four years, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod, who reigned only nine months. At his death Belshazzar the son of Evil-merodach, was raised to the throne, and reigned seventeen years, and was slain, as we read here, by Cyrus, who surprised and took the city on the night of this festivity. This is the chronology on which Archbishop Usher, and other learned chronologists, agree; but the Scripture mentions only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, by name; and Jeremiah, Jeremiah 27:7, expressly says, “All nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar,) and his son (Evil-merodach,) and his son’s son (Belshazzar,) until the very time of his land come;” i.e., till the time in which the empire should be seized by Cyrus. Here there is no mention of Neriglissar nor Laborosoarchod; but as they were usurpers, they might have been purposely passed by. But there remains one difficulty still: Belshazzar is expressly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar by the queen mother, Daniel 5:11: “There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and in the days of THY FATHER light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him: whom the king NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians.” The solution of this difficulty is, that in Scripture the name of son is indifferently given to sons and grandsons, and even to great grandsons. And perhaps the repetition in the above verse may imply this: “The king, Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king thy father.” The king thy father’s father, and consequently thy grandfather. If it have not some such meaning as this, it must be considered an idle repetition. As to the two other kings, Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, mentioned by Josephus and Berosus, and by whom the chronology is so much puzzled, they might have been some petty kings, or viceroys, or satraps, who affected the kingdom, and produced disturbances, one for four years, and the other for nine months; and would in consequence not be acknowledged in the Babylonish chronology, nor by the sacred writers, any more than finally unsuccessful rebels are numbered among the kings of those nations which they have disturbed. I believe the only sovereigns we can acknowledge here are the following: 1. Nabopolassar; 2. Nebuchadnezzar;

3. Evil-merodach; 4. Belshazzar; and with this last the Chaldean empire ended.

To a thousand of his lords] Perhaps this means lords or satraps, that were each over one thousand men. But we learn from antiquity that the Persian kings were very profuse in their entertainments; but it does not follow that the Chaldeans were so too. Besides, one thousand lords and their appropriate attendants would have been very inconvenient in a nocturnal assembly. The text, however, supports the common translation. Literally, “Belshazzar the king made bread for his lords a thousand; and against the thousand he drank wine.” That is, say some, he was a very great drinker.

Verse 1. Belshazzar — The son of Evil-merodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar; made a great feast to a thousand of his lords — To the principal officers and great men of his court, and was himself present at it. This feast was made at a time of public rejoicing, being an annual festival, when the whole night was spent in revelling; of which season Cyrus took the advantage to make himself master of the city, as Herodotus and Xenophon relate, and as was foretold by Jeremiah 50:24, and 51:39, 57, where see the notes.

1. On Belshazzar see Introduction, III, 3, (4). It is not distinctly stated that this famous feast occurred in Babylon, though the cuneiform texts agree very well with the usual supposition. We are to think of this banquet — if it indeed represents, as it may, an historic incident — as occurring at a time when the army of Cyrus had already captured the entire city with the exception of the royal palace and temple citadel. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4), (5); 4.] These “thousand lords” — which, of course, is but a round number, though Alexander is said to have had ten thousand nobles at his marriage feast (Curtius) — were surrounded and entrapped, yet, as can be paralleled in many a history, their very danger seems to have made them more full of braggadocio. It may have been a desire to encourage certain fainting hearts, or to restrain a possible latent wish to surrender or betray this little patriotic remnant of Belshazzar’s formerly vast army, which led him to be excessively boastful, while the insult to the sacred vessels of Jehovah may have been provoked by the fact — as is seen from many prophecies, for example, Isaiah 13; 14; 44:28; 45; Jeremiah 50; 51 — that the large Jewish population in Babylonia hailed the victories of Cyrus with unconcealed delight. Indeed it has been suspected by some scholars that the immediate edict by Cyrus for the Jews’ “return” may have been in payment for some important help rendered by them in the capture of Babylon. This hypothesis would have more weight, however, if the Jews had been the only people sent back to their own land, which was not the case. (See Introduction to Ezekiel, VII.) The Babylonians were celebrated for their feasts and drunkenness. Modern excavations have given us many details connected with these banquets. The walls of these banqueting halls were made of brick, but were covered from the floor to a considerable height with slabs of alabaster, while above these the walls were decorated with paintings on the stucco representing hunting and mythological scenes. The guests, as may be seen from the pictures, were commonly divided into groups of four who sat on raised seats facing each other, each group having a special table richly ornamented and covered with a fancy cloth. They were clothed in long robes which descended to their feet, and shod with sandals, their arms being bare and adorned with armlets and bracelets, while in the hand of each, a cup of elegant shape, the bottom often being in the form of a lion’s head, is held aloft preparatory to pledging the health of a friend or the king. These cups when emptied were refilled from a large jar standing on the floor. The wine drinking was the important part of these “feasts.” The guests are always seen in the sculptures not eating but drinking. It was a peculiarity of the Babylonians, distinguishing them from other orientals, that women were allowed at these feasts. In the British Museum may still be seen a representation of a little garden party where the Babylonian king and queen are drinking together, while above them the ghastly head of one of the king’s enemies hangs from a limb of one of the trees.

V. 2. To bring the vessels-Triumphing thereby over God and his people.

Verse 2. Whiles he tasted the wine] He relished it, got heated by it, and when WINE got fully in, WIT went wholly out; and in consequence he acted the profane part of which we immediately read.

Verses 2-4. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine — When he grew warm with wine, Houb. Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels, &c. Triumphing thereby over God and his people. They drank wine — Made themselves merry with wine. And praised the gods of gold, &c. — Praised, as gods, senseless images of gold, silver, brass, iron, &c.; thus insulting the great God of heaven and earth, as if these images were more powerful than he, and had enabled them to prevail against him and his people. This their conduct was the more sinful, because Nebuchadnezzar had, not long before, prohibited, by a solemn decree, that any one should speak lightly of the God of the Jews. The Alexandrine and Coptic versions, after mentioning their praising their false gods, add, “But the everlasting God they praised not.” Such a wanton and sacrilegious insult deserved and called for exemplary punishment.

Verse 2. Belshazzar—his father Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was the son of Evilmerodach, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. The empire therefore falling at this time, fulfilled the prophecy, that all nations should serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his son’s son. Jeremiah 27:7. Having spoken of the fall of Babylon on Isaiah 13. 14. and elsewhere, I shall subjoin some reflections from one of my sermons.

2. While he tasted the wine — Prince renders being under the influence of the wine. The earliest version of the LXX., probably through prejudice (see note Daniel 5:1), omits all reference to the presence of women.

Verses 2-4. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine — When he grew warm with wine, Houb. Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels, &c. Triumphing thereby over God and his people. They drank wine — Made themselves merry with wine. And praised the gods of gold, &c. — Praised, as gods, senseless images of gold, silver, brass, iron, &c.; thus insulting the great God of heaven and earth, as if these images were more powerful than he, and had enabled them to prevail against him and his people. This their conduct was the more sinful, because Nebuchadnezzar had, not long before, prohibited, by a solemn decree, that any one should speak lightly of the God of the Jews. The Alexandrine and Coptic versions, after mentioning their praising their false gods, add, “But the everlasting God they praised not.” Such a wanton and sacrilegious insult deserved and called for exemplary punishment.

3, 4. The favorite temple of the king adjoined the palace, so that these vessels could be obtained quickly and easily. A reason for this insult to Jehovah has already been suggested. (See note verses 1-4; see also Introduction, III, 4, “Babylon and its Fall.”)

V. 4. And praised the gods of gold-At the same time insulting the great God of heaven and earth.

Verse 4. And praised the gods of gold] They had gods of all sorts, and of all metals; with wooden gods, and stone gods, beside!

Verses 2-4. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine — When he grew warm with wine, Houb. Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels, &c. Triumphing thereby over God and his people. They drank wine — Made themselves merry with wine. And praised the gods of gold, &c. — Praised, as gods, senseless images of gold, silver, brass, iron, &c.; thus insulting the great God of heaven and earth, as if these images were more powerful than he, and had enabled them to prevail against him and his people. This their conduct was the more sinful, because Nebuchadnezzar had, not long before, prohibited, by a solemn decree, that any one should speak lightly of the God of the Jews. The Alexandrine and Coptic versions, after mentioning their praising their false gods, add, “But the everlasting God they praised not.” Such a wanton and sacrilegious insult deserved and called for exemplary punishment.

Ver. 4. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold. Here the king first sanctioned all the sacrilege committed by his grandfather, together with the profanation and desecration of the Lord’s temple. Next, he and his court were guilty of gross intemperance, and in the time of a siege, while the enemy was at his gates. Lastly, he showed the highest contempt of God, and drew all the court into his sin. Had they been quiet in their own houses, the Persians would have spared their lives.

3, 4. The favorite temple of the king adjoined the palace, so that these vessels could be obtained quickly and easily. A reason for this insult to Jehovah has already been suggested. (See note verses 1-4; see also Introduction, III, 4, “Babylon and its Fall.”)

V. 5. Came forth fingers-The likeness of a man’s hand.

Verse 5. Fingers of a man’s hand] The fingers were collected about the style or pen as in the act of writing.

Verses 5, 6. In the same hour — At the very time; came forth fingers of a man’s hand — The likeness of a man’s hand; and wrote over against the candlestick — The angel Gabriel, say the rabbins, directing this hand, and writing by it. Belshazzar seems to have filled up the measure of his iniquity, by this act of gross impiety and dishonour done to the true God. And the king saw — It seems, first saw; the part of the hand that wrote — It is probable this candlestick was a hanging sconce, near the king, and that the light it cast made him see the hand while it was writing, as well as the writing which remained on the wall. His seeing the hand, but not the person whose hand it was, made the thing more frightful. Then the king’s countenance was changed, &c. — His face became pale with terror: for although he could not read the writing, and therefore did not know what was its purport, yet a sense of guilt made him forebode that the words had some dreadful meaning; and his thoughts troubled him — His remorse of conscience respecting the past, and his fearful apprehensions with regard to the future; so that the joints of his loins were loosed — He discovered the disorder of his mind by the trembling which seized his whole body. And his knees smote one against another — So soon can the terrors of God shake the loftiest cedars, and terrify the tyrants of the earth! Thus can the Lord spoil the mad mirth of drunken atheists in a moment! “The expressions in this verse, in a collected view, contain such a description of terror as is rarely to be met with; the dead change of the countenance, the perturbation of the thoughts, the joints of the loins becoming relaxed, and the knees smiting against each other, are very strong indications of horror. Horace has, ‘Et corde et genibus tremit;’ and Virgil, ‘Tarda trementi genua labant;’ but these are far inferior to the picturesque description of Daniel.” — Wintle.

5. Poetry and story have done their best to make vivid this climax of the feast, when Belshazzar, having publicly scorned Jehovah, drinking from his holy cup amid the laughter of his lords, suddenly felt the boisterous company grow deathly silent, and looking up saw on the plaster (literally, stucco) of the wall, under the full light of the golden chandelier, a ghostly hand appear, and saw the “palm” of that supernatural hand as it wrote strange words before his eyes, —

And wrote, and wrote, on the white wall

Letters of fire — wrote and disappeared!

— Heine.

The fact that the king saw the “hollow” of the hand would suggest that no pen seemed to be used, but the writing was accomplished by the stroke of the “fingers.” The “hand” was the organ of divine power (compare Ezekiel 8:3). In a famous Egyptian papyrus the hand, with its fingers as digits, represents certain mystic numbers and stands, in different positions, for certain well-known deities. The symbol of the “hand of might” has always been common in the Orient and may he seen in Jerusalem to this day sculptured, or colored with vermilion, on the lintel or above the arch of the door. While this symbol might, among the Jews, have been connected with the tradition of the deliverance of Israel from the last Egyptian plague, yet the uplifted open hand was prominent above the doors in ancient Carthage, and remains as an emblem of power in modern Turkey and Persia. So Siva, the Destroyer, in the Hindu triad, had as his symbol a hand — “token of might and life.” The king of Babylon could not be recognized as a legitimate ruler until he had lifted up his hand and clasped the hand of the image of Bel, his “father.” This mysterious hand, which the Assyrians as well as the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and other ancient nations regarded as a divine symbol of power, and which often, if not always, includes the thought of covenant relations between God and man (Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, 1896), here appears to write the doom of the king and dissolve his covenant with life.

V. 6. His knees smote-So soon can the terrors of God make the loftiest cedars, the tyrants of the earth.

Verse 6. The king’s countenance was changed] Here is a very natural description of fear and terror. 1. The face grows pale; 2. The mind becomes greatly agitated; 3. Pains seize on the lower part of the back and kidneys; 4. A universal tremor takes place, so that the knees smite against each other; 5. And lastly, either a syncope takes place, or the cry of distress is uttered, Daniel 5:7: “The king cried.”

Verses 5, 6. In the same hour — At the very time; came forth fingers of a man’s hand — The likeness of a man’s hand; and wrote over against the candlestick — The angel Gabriel, say the rabbins, directing this hand, and writing by it. Belshazzar seems to have filled up the measure of his iniquity, by this act of gross impiety and dishonour done to the true God. And the king saw — It seems, first saw; the part of the hand that wrote — It is probable this candlestick was a hanging sconce, near the king, and that the light it cast made him see the hand while it was writing, as well as the writing which remained on the wall. His seeing the hand, but not the person whose hand it was, made the thing more frightful. Then the king’s countenance was changed, &c. — His face became pale with terror: for although he could not read the writing, and therefore did not know what was its purport, yet a sense of guilt made him forebode that the words had some dreadful meaning; and his thoughts troubled him — His remorse of conscience respecting the past, and his fearful apprehensions with regard to the future; so that the joints of his loins were loosed — He discovered the disorder of his mind by the trembling which seized his whole body. And his knees smote one against another — So soon can the terrors of God shake the loftiest cedars, and terrify the tyrants of the earth! Thus can the Lord spoil the mad mirth of drunken atheists in a moment! “The expressions in this verse, in a collected view, contain such a description of terror as is rarely to be met with; the dead change of the countenance, the perturbation of the thoughts, the joints of the loins becoming relaxed, and the knees smiting against each other, are very strong indications of horror. Horace has, ‘Et corde et genibus tremit;’ and Virgil, ‘Tarda trementi genua labant;’ but these are far inferior to the picturesque description of Daniel.” — Wintle.

6. The ruddy “brightness” (Aramaic) of the king’s face, flushed with wine, turns white, like the plaster on which his doom is being written; his loins grow weak and his knees smite together with fear. The strength of man was in the loins (Job 40:16; Ezekiel 21:6), and when he gave way here he suffered total collapse. The unmeaning “spectral letters” quite unmanned the king. The bravest soldiers of antiquity grew weak as babes when put face to face with what they thought to be the supernatural. The hand is gone, the record tarries yet.

As one who waits the warrant of his death

With pale lips parted and with bridled breath,

They watched the sign and dared not turn to seek

Their fear reflected in their fellow’s cheek.

Verse 7. Whosoever shall read this writing] He knew it must be some awful portent, and wished to know what.

Verse 7. The king cried aloud — Manifesting at once great fear and great impatience; to bring in the astrologers, &c. — In this he imitated Nebuchadnezzar his grandfather: it seems indeed to have been the general practice of these heathen kings, in all unexpected emergencies, to apply to these their wise men for help. But the ill success of Nebuchadnezzar, in such applications, might have taught Belshazzar a better lesson. The king said, Whosoever shall read this writing, &c. — To engage these wise men to exert the utmost of their skill in this matter, he promises that whosoever would give him a satisfactory account of this writing should be dignified with the highest honours of the court; and be the third ruler in the kingdom — “Grotius considers the king as the first, the king’s son as the second, and the interpreter of the vision to be the third. Or it may mean, that there should be a triumvirate appointed to govern the kingdom, as was the case in the beginning of the reign of Darius, and the interpreter should be one of these. Mr. Bruce (vol. 4. p. 32) speaks of a person who was suddenly advanced to a command, the third in the kingdom of Abyssinia for rank, power, and riches; and that, at his public investiture, he had a circle of gold put upon his head, was clothed with a white and blue mantle, and made the king’s lieutenant-general in the provinces allotted to him.” — Wintle.

Ver. 7. Bring in the astrologers, the stargazers who affected to read the fate of men and of nations in the position of the planets. See on Daniel 2:2.

7-9. This Babylonian king, like his “father,” forgetting Daniel, calls for help from the same worthless crowd of “witches” (Wyclif) and Chaldeans (see note Daniel 2:2; some ancient texts omit “Chaldeans” here) and offers, as Nebuchadnezzar had done, great rewards to the man who can explain the vision (see Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:15; Ezekiel 27:7), who also shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. That is, according to its natural meaning, “third in rank” (Kautzsch); meaning, probably, chief ruler after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4); 4.] The rendering “one of the board of three” is not a fit here, while Bevan’s twist, changing the word so as to make it mean that the successful interpreter should reign over the kingdom on alternate days with the king himself, is more ingenious than convincing.

Verse 8. They could not read the writing] Because it was in the pure Hebrew, not the Chaldean character. See below.

Verses 8, 9. Then came in all the king’s wise men — Ambitious of the honour, and desirous to gratify the king. But they could not read the writing — Because, says Houbigant, it was written in the ancient Samaritan characters, which were very unlike the Chaldean letters. Or perhaps only the initial letters, M.T.P. were written. But God, for his own glory, reserved the honour of reading and interpreting it for his servant Daniel. Mr. Wintle renders the clause, “They were unable to read the writing, so as to make known the interpretation to the king.” Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled — His consternation and distress were renewed and increased, his last hope having failed him; and his lords were astonished — His associates in sin shared in the consternation; and notwithstanding their number, mirth, and wine, were dismayed and terrified exceedingly.

Ver. 8. They could not read the writing, because it was in the old Hebrew characters, or the Samaritan text. This was the special interposition of heaven to preserve religion, which was almost lost in the earth.

7-9. This Babylonian king, like his “father,” forgetting Daniel, calls for help from the same worthless crowd of “witches” (Wyclif) and Chaldeans (see note Daniel 2:2; some ancient texts omit “Chaldeans” here) and offers, as Nebuchadnezzar had done, great rewards to the man who can explain the vision (see Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:15; Ezekiel 27:7), who also shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. That is, according to its natural meaning, “third in rank” (Kautzsch); meaning, probably, chief ruler after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4); 4.] The rendering “one of the board of three” is not a fit here, while Bevan’s twist, changing the word so as to make it mean that the successful interpreter should reign over the kingdom on alternate days with the king himself, is more ingenious than convincing.

Verses 8, 9. Then came in all the king’s wise men — Ambitious of the honour, and desirous to gratify the king. But they could not read the writing — Because, says Houbigant, it was written in the ancient Samaritan characters, which were very unlike the Chaldean letters. Or perhaps only the initial letters, M.T.P. were written. But God, for his own glory, reserved the honour of reading and interpreting it for his servant Daniel. Mr. Wintle renders the clause, “They were unable to read the writing, so as to make known the interpretation to the king.” Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled — His consternation and distress were renewed and increased, his last hope having failed him; and his lords were astonished — His associates in sin shared in the consternation; and notwithstanding their number, mirth, and wine, were dismayed and terrified exceedingly.

7-9. This Babylonian king, like his “father,” forgetting Daniel, calls for help from the same worthless crowd of “witches” (Wyclif) and Chaldeans (see note Daniel 2:2; some ancient texts omit “Chaldeans” here) and offers, as Nebuchadnezzar had done, great rewards to the man who can explain the vision (see Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:15; Ezekiel 27:7), who also shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. That is, according to its natural meaning, “third in rank” (Kautzsch); meaning, probably, chief ruler after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4); 4.] The rendering “one of the board of three” is not a fit here, while Bevan’s twist, changing the word so as to make it mean that the successful interpreter should reign over the kingdom on alternate days with the king himself, is more ingenious than convincing.

V. 10. The queen came-The women in those courts had an apartment by themselves, and this being the queen-mother, and aged, did not mingle herself with the king’s wives and concubines, yet she broke the rule in coming in now, upon this solemn occasion.

Verse 10. The queen—came] This is generally allowed to have been the widow of Nebuchadnezzar; if so, she was the queen Amiyt, daughter of Astyages, sister of Darius the Mede, and aunt of Cyrus, according to Polyhistor, cited by Cedrenus. See Calmet. Others think that Nitocris was the person who is said to be queen when Cyrus took the city; and is stated to have been a lady of eminent wisdom and discretion, and to have had the chief direction of the public affairs. She was the mother of Labynithus; and, if this be the same as Belshazzar, she must be the person here introduced.

Verses 10-12. Now the queen, &c. — The king’s wives and concubines sat with him at the feast, verse 2; therefore the person here called the queen, and said to come into the banqueting-house on this solemn occasion, must have been the queen-mother, the widow of Evil-merodach, named Nitocris, a lady, according to Herodotus, eminent for her wisdom, and who had the chief direction of public affairs. The queen said, Let not thy thoughts trouble thee — Be not so distressed, nor yield to terror and despondency. There is a man in thy kingdom — Some persons are apt to wonder that Daniel was unknown to Belshazzar, which others have accounted for from the abandoned and indolent character of this prince; but there is a further reason: which Mr. Harmer, vol. 1. p. 166, has hinted, from Sir John Chardin, namely, that he had been mazouled, as they express it in the East, that is, displaced at the death of a prior king; since, in the East, when the king dies, the physicians and astrologers are removed: the former for not having driven away death, and the latter for not having predicted it. It is probable, however, that Daniel was not totally unknown to the king; but being perhaps in no esteem, or not employed in any considerable department of the state, in the early part of his reign, he was not readily recollected. In whom was the spirit of the holy gods — See note on Daniel 4:8. And in the days of thy father — That is, of thy grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, light and understanding, &c. — That is, an enlightened understanding, or supernatural illumination, as the next words show. Such an insight he had into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired, and possessed of extraordinary wisdom, given him from above. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit and knowledge, &c., were found in the same Daniel — His excellent disposition, his humble, holy, heavenly spirit, was both a great ornament to his wisdom, and fitted him for the reception and increase of that extraordinary gift of God. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation — She speaks with confidence; for, being aged, and Nebuchadnezzar having been dead not above twenty-four years, she no doubt well remembered the extraordinary events which had occurred in the latter part of his life, and the supernatural inspiration, and extraordinary wisdom, which Daniel had manifested on these occasions. And she speaks as if she knew where to find Daniel, though Belshazzar probably did not.

10. The queen mentioned here — who according to the context comes to the hall because of the babel of voices which arose after the first shock had passed — was not, as formerly conjectured, mother of Nabonidus, for a cuneiform text mentions her death, and the universal lamentation it caused, some years previous to this. The narrative becomes harmonious, however, by assuming that this was the wife of Nabonidus, and quite probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore the mother of Belshazzar. It was the ordinary expedient for a usurper like Nabonidus to strengthen himself on the throne by allying himself in marriage with the family of the previous king. The authority of her utterances and her superior knowledge concerning past events would identify her as the mother of the king, even if it had not been stated previously that the king’s wives were already in the banquet chamber (verse 2). Even an ordinary “mother” had great honor in ancient Babylon, being commonly represented by a sign which means “the goddess of the house,” and any disrespect to her was punished with severest penalties; but both in ancient Babylon and in Egypt, as in modern China, the queen mother had peculiar honor; being one of the most influential members of the court, whose judgment even the reigning king felt bound to respect (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16; Jeremiah 13:18; 29:2).

Verse 11. Nebuchadnezzar thy father] See Clarke’s note on “Daniel 5:1”.

Verses 10-12. Now the queen, &c. — The king’s wives and concubines sat with him at the feast, verse 2; therefore the person here called the queen, and said to come into the banqueting-house on this solemn occasion, must have been the queen-mother, the widow of Evil-merodach, named Nitocris, a lady, according to Herodotus, eminent for her wisdom, and who had the chief direction of public affairs. The queen said, Let not thy thoughts trouble thee — Be not so distressed, nor yield to terror and despondency. There is a man in thy kingdom — Some persons are apt to wonder that Daniel was unknown to Belshazzar, which others have accounted for from the abandoned and indolent character of this prince; but there is a further reason: which Mr. Harmer, vol. 1. p. 166, has hinted, from Sir John Chardin, namely, that he had been mazouled, as they express it in the East, that is, displaced at the death of a prior king; since, in the East, when the king dies, the physicians and astrologers are removed: the former for not having driven away death, and the latter for not having predicted it. It is probable, however, that Daniel was not totally unknown to the king; but being perhaps in no esteem, or not employed in any considerable department of the state, in the early part of his reign, he was not readily recollected. In whom was the spirit of the holy gods — See note on Daniel 4:8. And in the days of thy father — That is, of thy grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, light and understanding, &c. — That is, an enlightened understanding, or supernatural illumination, as the next words show. Such an insight he had into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired, and possessed of extraordinary wisdom, given him from above. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit and knowledge, &c., were found in the same Daniel — His excellent disposition, his humble, holy, heavenly spirit, was both a great ornament to his wisdom, and fitted him for the reception and increase of that extraordinary gift of God. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation — She speaks with confidence; for, being aged, and Nebuchadnezzar having been dead not above twenty-four years, she no doubt well remembered the extraordinary events which had occurred in the latter part of his life, and the supernatural inspiration, and extraordinary wisdom, which Daniel had manifested on these occasions. And she speaks as if she knew where to find Daniel, though Belshazzar probably did not.

11. Compare Daniel 2:2, 47; 4:7, 8. It is now known that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and that Nabonidus was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless the queen mother might have used these very words; for “son,” as all Assyriologists know, is very often used in the sense of “descendant” or even “successor” in the royal letters. It is not at all impossible Nabonidus may have claimed to be a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, it would have been death for anyone at the court to deny this, and to appeal to his descent from this greatest king would have been to make the strongest possible appeal to his pride and (especially when coming from the queen mother, see note verse 10) would have offered also the strongest possible pledge of allegiance. It meant a good deal, at a time when everyone was suspected of being a traitor (see note verses 1-4), to have this highest representative of the old dynasty acknowledge Belshazzar as the legitimate successor of Nebuchadnezzar. This accounts perfectly for the unusual emphasis given by the queen to the relationship of Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar. The criticisms of Meinhold and others, who have seen in these words another colossal “blunder” by the writer of this book, are thus disposed of. [See also Introduction, III, 3, (3), (4), (5); 4.]

Verses 10-12. Now the queen, &c. — The king’s wives and concubines sat with him at the feast, verse 2; therefore the person here called the queen, and said to come into the banqueting-house on this solemn occasion, must have been the queen-mother, the widow of Evil-merodach, named Nitocris, a lady, according to Herodotus, eminent for her wisdom, and who had the chief direction of public affairs. The queen said, Let not thy thoughts trouble thee — Be not so distressed, nor yield to terror and despondency. There is a man in thy kingdom — Some persons are apt to wonder that Daniel was unknown to Belshazzar, which others have accounted for from the abandoned and indolent character of this prince; but there is a further reason: which Mr. Harmer, vol. 1. p. 166, has hinted, from Sir John Chardin, namely, that he had been mazouled, as they express it in the East, that is, displaced at the death of a prior king; since, in the East, when the king dies, the physicians and astrologers are removed: the former for not having driven away death, and the latter for not having predicted it. It is probable, however, that Daniel was not totally unknown to the king; but being perhaps in no esteem, or not employed in any considerable department of the state, in the early part of his reign, he was not readily recollected. In whom was the spirit of the holy gods — See note on Daniel 4:8. And in the days of thy father — That is, of thy grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, light and understanding, &c. — That is, an enlightened understanding, or supernatural illumination, as the next words show. Such an insight he had into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired, and possessed of extraordinary wisdom, given him from above. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit and knowledge, &c., were found in the same Daniel — His excellent disposition, his humble, holy, heavenly spirit, was both a great ornament to his wisdom, and fitted him for the reception and increase of that extraordinary gift of God. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation — She speaks with confidence; for, being aged, and Nebuchadnezzar having been dead not above twenty-four years, she no doubt well remembered the extraordinary events which had occurred in the latter part of his life, and the supernatural inspiration, and extraordinary wisdom, which Daniel had manifested on these occasions. And she speaks as if she knew where to find Daniel, though Belshazzar probably did not.

12. Dissolving of doubts — Literally, loosing of knots. This probably refers to his skill in unraveling difficulties; although the figure used is drawn from Babylonian magic, where we now know “knots” (which could only be untied, according to the common notion, by the exercise of greatest care and skill) were commonly used to entangle and bewitch one’s enemies. The version which seems to represent the original LXX. is much briefer and more reserved than our Aramaic text.

Verses 13-17. Then was Daniel brought in before the king — Daniel was now near ninety years of age; so that his years and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king’s presence; yet he was willing to be introduced, as a stranger, by the king’s servants. The king said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel — This question of the king shows, that if he was at all acquainted with Daniel, it was very imperfectly; and that in however high esteem that extraordinary man had been held in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and whatever offices of trust and honour he had then filled, he was now sunk into neglect, Belshazzar being a weak and vicious prince, according to the character historians give of him, and one who interested himself very little in public affairs, leaving the care of them to his mother, and himself minding nothing but his pleasures. Now if thou canst read the writing, &c., thou shalt be clothed with scarlet — He promises him the same rewards if he could read and interpret the writing as he had promised his wise men on condition of their doing it. Then Daniel answered, Let thy gifts be to thyself — As Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar young, he therefore seems to take a greater liberty, and to deal more plainly with him, than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. He addresses him as a very aged and eminent person would address one much younger than himself. When he was consulted by Nebuchadnezzar, and was allowed the liberty of conversing with him and giving him counsel, he foresaw that the Chaldean monarchy would continue for some time, and that his being preferred would give him an opportunity of being useful to his brethren; but he now knew that that empire was about to terminate, and Belshazzar’s reign and life to come to a period. Nebuchadnezzar, though an idolater and a tyrant, yet had great abilities, attended to the affairs of his kingdom, and was, in many respects, very eminent as a monarch; but Belshazzar was every way base, odious, and contemptible. “Above all, he had that night been insulting the God of heaven in the most daring manner, by profaning the sacred vessels in his revels, and extolling his own idols. Daniel therefore knew that his doom was irreversible, and immediately to be put in execution; and he did not speak to him as a subject to his prince, but as the delegate of heaven he denounced sentence against him as a condemned criminal.” — Scott. Some commentators have been puzzled to account for Daniel’s rejecting the king’s presents here, and afterward accepting them, as is mentioned verse 29; but his intention in what he now says is only modestly to decline the honours, and to intimate that they could have no influence on his mind, which yet, at the king’s command, afterward he could not but accept. In other words, he means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king enjoined, without any respect to a recompense: see Calmet. Yet will I read the writing unto the king — Daniel seems to have made this declaration in consequence of a persuasion wherewith he was inspired of God, before he even cast his eye upon the writing.

13-16. Art thou that Daniel — Or, with Prince, So thou art Daniel. (Compare 8:27, and note on verse 12.) The oldest LXX. follows a shorter text: “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? And I will clothe thee with purple and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” This is more reasonable than the elaborate speech of the A.V., which he would hardly have made while trembling in the presence of the mysterious writing (verse 6, and see remarks of Thomson in loco). Wyclif speaks of the decoration given to Daniel as “a golden bee in the neck.”

Verses 13-17. Then was Daniel brought in before the king — Daniel was now near ninety years of age; so that his years and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king’s presence; yet he was willing to be introduced, as a stranger, by the king’s servants. The king said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel — This question of the king shows, that if he was at all acquainted with Daniel, it was very imperfectly; and that in however high esteem that extraordinary man had been held in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and whatever offices of trust and honour he had then filled, he was now sunk into neglect, Belshazzar being a weak and vicious prince, according to the character historians give of him, and one who interested himself very little in public affairs, leaving the care of them to his mother, and himself minding nothing but his pleasures. Now if thou canst read the writing, &c., thou shalt be clothed with scarlet — He promises him the same rewards if he could read and interpret the writing as he had promised his wise men on condition of their doing it. Then Daniel answered, Let thy gifts be to thyself — As Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar young, he therefore seems to take a greater liberty, and to deal more plainly with him, than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. He addresses him as a very aged and eminent person would address one much younger than himself. When he was consulted by Nebuchadnezzar, and was allowed the liberty of conversing with him and giving him counsel, he foresaw that the Chaldean monarchy would continue for some time, and that his being preferred would give him an opportunity of being useful to his brethren; but he now knew that that empire was about to terminate, and Belshazzar’s reign and life to come to a period. Nebuchadnezzar, though an idolater and a tyrant, yet had great abilities, attended to the affairs of his kingdom, and was, in many respects, very eminent as a monarch; but Belshazzar was every way base, odious, and contemptible. “Above all, he had that night been insulting the God of heaven in the most daring manner, by profaning the sacred vessels in his revels, and extolling his own idols. Daniel therefore knew that his doom was irreversible, and immediately to be put in execution; and he did not speak to him as a subject to his prince, but as the delegate of heaven he denounced sentence against him as a condemned criminal.” — Scott. Some commentators have been puzzled to account for Daniel’s rejecting the king’s presents here, and afterward accepting them, as is mentioned verse 29; but his intention in what he now says is only modestly to decline the honours, and to intimate that they could have no influence on his mind, which yet, at the king’s command, afterward he could not but accept. In other words, he means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king enjoined, without any respect to a recompense: see Calmet. Yet will I read the writing unto the king — Daniel seems to have made this declaration in consequence of a persuasion wherewith he was inspired of God, before he even cast his eye upon the writing.

13-16. Art thou that Daniel — Or, with Prince, So thou art Daniel. (Compare 8:27, and note on verse 12.) The oldest LXX. follows a shorter text: “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? And I will clothe thee with purple and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” This is more reasonable than the elaborate speech of the A.V., which he would hardly have made while trembling in the presence of the mysterious writing (verse 6, and see remarks of Thomson in loco). Wyclif speaks of the decoration given to Daniel as “a golden bee in the neck.”

Verses 13-17. Then was Daniel brought in before the king — Daniel was now near ninety years of age; so that his years and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king’s presence; yet he was willing to be introduced, as a stranger, by the king’s servants. The king said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel — This question of the king shows, that if he was at all acquainted with Daniel, it was very imperfectly; and that in however high esteem that extraordinary man had been held in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and whatever offices of trust and honour he had then filled, he was now sunk into neglect, Belshazzar being a weak and vicious prince, according to the character historians give of him, and one who interested himself very little in public affairs, leaving the care of them to his mother, and himself minding nothing but his pleasures. Now if thou canst read the writing, &c., thou shalt be clothed with scarlet — He promises him the same rewards if he could read and interpret the writing as he had promised his wise men on condition of their doing it. Then Daniel answered, Let thy gifts be to thyself — As Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar young, he therefore seems to take a greater liberty, and to deal more plainly with him, than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. He addresses him as a very aged and eminent person would address one much younger than himself. When he was consulted by Nebuchadnezzar, and was allowed the liberty of conversing with him and giving him counsel, he foresaw that the Chaldean monarchy would continue for some time, and that his being preferred would give him an opportunity of being useful to his brethren; but he now knew that that empire was about to terminate, and Belshazzar’s reign and life to come to a period. Nebuchadnezzar, though an idolater and a tyrant, yet had great abilities, attended to the affairs of his kingdom, and was, in many respects, very eminent as a monarch; but Belshazzar was every way base, odious, and contemptible. “Above all, he had that night been insulting the God of heaven in the most daring manner, by profaning the sacred vessels in his revels, and extolling his own idols. Daniel therefore knew that his doom was irreversible, and immediately to be put in execution; and he did not speak to him as a subject to his prince, but as the delegate of heaven he denounced sentence against him as a condemned criminal.” — Scott. Some commentators have been puzzled to account for Daniel’s rejecting the king’s presents here, and afterward accepting them, as is mentioned verse 29; but his intention in what he now says is only modestly to decline the honours, and to intimate that they could have no influence on his mind, which yet, at the king’s command, afterward he could not but accept. In other words, he means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king enjoined, without any respect to a recompense: see Calmet. Yet will I read the writing unto the king — Daniel seems to have made this declaration in consequence of a persuasion wherewith he was inspired of God, before he even cast his eye upon the writing.

13-16. Art thou that Daniel — Or, with Prince, So thou art Daniel. (Compare 8:27, and note on verse 12.) The oldest LXX. follows a shorter text: “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? And I will clothe thee with purple and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” This is more reasonable than the elaborate speech of the A.V., which he would hardly have made while trembling in the presence of the mysterious writing (verse 6, and see remarks of Thomson in loco). Wyclif speaks of the decoration given to Daniel as “a golden bee in the neck.”

Verse 16. Dissolve doubts] Untie knots—unbind what is bound. An expression used in the east to signify a judge of eminent wisdom and skill.

Verses 13-17. Then was Daniel brought in before the king — Daniel was now near ninety years of age; so that his years and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king’s presence; yet he was willing to be introduced, as a stranger, by the king’s servants. The king said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel — This question of the king shows, that if he was at all acquainted with Daniel, it was very imperfectly; and that in however high esteem that extraordinary man had been held in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and whatever offices of trust and honour he had then filled, he was now sunk into neglect, Belshazzar being a weak and vicious prince, according to the character historians give of him, and one who interested himself very little in public affairs, leaving the care of them to his mother, and himself minding nothing but his pleasures. Now if thou canst read the writing, &c., thou shalt be clothed with scarlet — He promises him the same rewards if he could read and interpret the writing as he had promised his wise men on condition of their doing it. Then Daniel answered, Let thy gifts be to thyself — As Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar young, he therefore seems to take a greater liberty, and to deal more plainly with him, than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. He addresses him as a very aged and eminent person would address one much younger than himself. When he was consulted by Nebuchadnezzar, and was allowed the liberty of conversing with him and giving him counsel, he foresaw that the Chaldean monarchy would continue for some time, and that his being preferred would give him an opportunity of being useful to his brethren; but he now knew that that empire was about to terminate, and Belshazzar’s reign and life to come to a period. Nebuchadnezzar, though an idolater and a tyrant, yet had great abilities, attended to the affairs of his kingdom, and was, in many respects, very eminent as a monarch; but Belshazzar was every way base, odious, and contemptible. “Above all, he had that night been insulting the God of heaven in the most daring manner, by profaning the sacred vessels in his revels, and extolling his own idols. Daniel therefore knew that his doom was irreversible, and immediately to be put in execution; and he did not speak to him as a subject to his prince, but as the delegate of heaven he denounced sentence against him as a condemned criminal.” — Scott. Some commentators have been puzzled to account for Daniel’s rejecting the king’s presents here, and afterward accepting them, as is mentioned verse 29; but his intention in what he now says is only modestly to decline the honours, and to intimate that they could have no influence on his mind, which yet, at the king’s command, afterward he could not but accept. In other words, he means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king enjoined, without any respect to a recompense: see Calmet. Yet will I read the writing unto the king — Daniel seems to have made this declaration in consequence of a persuasion wherewith he was inspired of God, before he even cast his eye upon the writing.

13-16. Art thou that Daniel — Or, with Prince, So thou art Daniel. (Compare 8:27, and note on verse 12.) The oldest LXX. follows a shorter text: “Then Daniel was brought to the king, and the king answered and said, O Daniel, art thou able to show me the interpretation of the writing? And I will clothe thee with purple and put a gold chain about thy neck, and thou shalt have authority over a third part of my kingdom.” This is more reasonable than the elaborate speech of the A.V., which he would hardly have made while trembling in the presence of the mysterious writing (verse 6, and see remarks of Thomson in loco). Wyclif speaks of the decoration given to Daniel as “a golden bee in the neck.”

Verse 17. Let thy gifts be to thyself] They could be of little use to any, as the city was in a few hours to be taken and pillaged.

Verses 13-17. Then was Daniel brought in before the king — Daniel was now near ninety years of age; so that his years and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king’s presence; yet he was willing to be introduced, as a stranger, by the king’s servants. The king said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel — This question of the king shows, that if he was at all acquainted with Daniel, it was very imperfectly; and that in however high esteem that extraordinary man had been held in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and whatever offices of trust and honour he had then filled, he was now sunk into neglect, Belshazzar being a weak and vicious prince, according to the character historians give of him, and one who interested himself very little in public affairs, leaving the care of them to his mother, and himself minding nothing but his pleasures. Now if thou canst read the writing, &c., thou shalt be clothed with scarlet — He promises him the same rewards if he could read and interpret the writing as he had promised his wise men on condition of their doing it. Then Daniel answered, Let thy gifts be to thyself — As Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar young, he therefore seems to take a greater liberty, and to deal more plainly with him, than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. He addresses him as a very aged and eminent person would address one much younger than himself. When he was consulted by Nebuchadnezzar, and was allowed the liberty of conversing with him and giving him counsel, he foresaw that the Chaldean monarchy would continue for some time, and that his being preferred would give him an opportunity of being useful to his brethren; but he now knew that that empire was about to terminate, and Belshazzar’s reign and life to come to a period. Nebuchadnezzar, though an idolater and a tyrant, yet had great abilities, attended to the affairs of his kingdom, and was, in many respects, very eminent as a monarch; but Belshazzar was every way base, odious, and contemptible. “Above all, he had that night been insulting the God of heaven in the most daring manner, by profaning the sacred vessels in his revels, and extolling his own idols. Daniel therefore knew that his doom was irreversible, and immediately to be put in execution; and he did not speak to him as a subject to his prince, but as the delegate of heaven he denounced sentence against him as a condemned criminal.” — Scott. Some commentators have been puzzled to account for Daniel’s rejecting the king’s presents here, and afterward accepting them, as is mentioned verse 29; but his intention in what he now says is only modestly to decline the honours, and to intimate that they could have no influence on his mind, which yet, at the king’s command, afterward he could not but accept. In other words, he means to say, that he was ready to do whatever the king enjoined, without any respect to a recompense: see Calmet. Yet will I read the writing unto the king — Daniel seems to have made this declaration in consequence of a persuasion wherewith he was inspired of God, before he even cast his eye upon the writing.

Ver. 17. Let thy gifts be to thyself. Let those who buy preferment in the church weigh these words, and study the character of Daniel.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verse 18. Nebuchadnezzar thy father] Or grandfather, as the margin reads, Daniel 5:2. See Clarke’s notes on “Daniel 5:1”.

Verses 18, 19. O thou king — Before Daniel reads the writing, he judges it proper to remind the king of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar, his progenitor, and of those remarkable instances of divine providence, both in mercy and in judgment, which were intended to be an instructive lesson, as to all princes that should hear of them, so especially to all the descendants of that great monarch. He also, with great fidelity and seriousness, sets Belshazzar’s profane conduct before him, that he might be humbled and brought to repentance. The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, &c. — His great power, and vast extent of empire, were the gifts of God to him, and were not acquired by his own policy or bravery, or those of his generals and armies. Grotius explains the different terms of this verse thus: A kingdom, that is, a widely-extended empire; majesty, or magnificence among his subjects; glory from his victories; and honour from the enlargement of the city, the building of its walls, temple, and palace. And for the majesty that he gave him — For the vast power, riches, and victorious hand which he gave him; all people, nations, &c., trembled and feared before him, &c. — We have here a strong picture of the absolute and independent power of these princes; they regarded their subjects only as slaves. Xerxes, having assembled the great men of his kingdom, when he had determined to undertake the war against Greece, said to them, “I have assembled you that I might not seem to act solely by my own counsel; but remember that I expect obedience, not advice from you.” — Calmet.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verse 19. Whom he would he slew] The genuine character of a despot, whose will is the only rule of his conduct.

Verses 18, 19. O thou king — Before Daniel reads the writing, he judges it proper to remind the king of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar, his progenitor, and of those remarkable instances of divine providence, both in mercy and in judgment, which were intended to be an instructive lesson, as to all princes that should hear of them, so especially to all the descendants of that great monarch. He also, with great fidelity and seriousness, sets Belshazzar’s profane conduct before him, that he might be humbled and brought to repentance. The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, &c. — His great power, and vast extent of empire, were the gifts of God to him, and were not acquired by his own policy or bravery, or those of his generals and armies. Grotius explains the different terms of this verse thus: A kingdom, that is, a widely-extended empire; majesty, or magnificence among his subjects; glory from his victories; and honour from the enlargement of the city, the building of its walls, temple, and palace. And for the majesty that he gave him — For the vast power, riches, and victorious hand which he gave him; all people, nations, &c., trembled and feared before him, &c. — We have here a strong picture of the absolute and independent power of these princes; they regarded their subjects only as slaves. Xerxes, having assembled the great men of his kingdom, when he had determined to undertake the war against Greece, said to them, “I have assembled you that I might not seem to act solely by my own counsel; but remember that I expect obedience, not advice from you.” — Calmet.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verse 20. He was deposed from his kingly throne] Became insane; and the reins of government were taken out of his hands.

Verses 20-23. But when his heart was lifted up — The expressions here have a peculiar force, in marking the haughty insolence of King Nebuchadnezzar. His authority, as mentioned in the last verse, had been raised to the highest pitch; and on that account we find here that his mind was elated, and his spirit grown obdurate in pride and arrogance; instead of his ascribing all his honours and advantages to the real giver of them, the true God, whom he had been brought to acknowledge, and to the neglect of whom, and of improving by his grandfather’s sufferings, the prophet justly and judiciously attributes Belshazzar’s fate. Thou his son, &c., hast not humbled thy heart — Thou hast not been made sensible of thy own utter weakness, and thy absolute dependance on Jehovah, the true God, who thus abased thy father in the midst of his power and pride. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven — As if thou hadst been equal, or even superior to him in wisdom and power. He instances in four particulars: 1st, They have brought the vessels of his house before thee — To profane them in your idolatrous feasts: 2d, Thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, &c., which see not, &c. 3d, Thou hast not glorified the true God, in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy ways: yea, 4th, Thou hast highly dishonoured, affronted, and reproached him.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verses 20-23. But when his heart was lifted up — The expressions here have a peculiar force, in marking the haughty insolence of King Nebuchadnezzar. His authority, as mentioned in the last verse, had been raised to the highest pitch; and on that account we find here that his mind was elated, and his spirit grown obdurate in pride and arrogance; instead of his ascribing all his honours and advantages to the real giver of them, the true God, whom he had been brought to acknowledge, and to the neglect of whom, and of improving by his grandfather’s sufferings, the prophet justly and judiciously attributes Belshazzar’s fate. Thou his son, &c., hast not humbled thy heart — Thou hast not been made sensible of thy own utter weakness, and thy absolute dependance on Jehovah, the true God, who thus abased thy father in the midst of his power and pride. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven — As if thou hadst been equal, or even superior to him in wisdom and power. He instances in four particulars: 1st, They have brought the vessels of his house before thee — To profane them in your idolatrous feasts: 2d, Thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, &c., which see not, &c. 3d, Thou hast not glorified the true God, in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy ways: yea, 4th, Thou hast highly dishonoured, affronted, and reproached him.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verse 22. Hast not humbled thine heart] These judgments and mercies have had no good effect upon thee.

Verses 20-23. But when his heart was lifted up — The expressions here have a peculiar force, in marking the haughty insolence of King Nebuchadnezzar. His authority, as mentioned in the last verse, had been raised to the highest pitch; and on that account we find here that his mind was elated, and his spirit grown obdurate in pride and arrogance; instead of his ascribing all his honours and advantages to the real giver of them, the true God, whom he had been brought to acknowledge, and to the neglect of whom, and of improving by his grandfather’s sufferings, the prophet justly and judiciously attributes Belshazzar’s fate. Thou his son, &c., hast not humbled thy heart — Thou hast not been made sensible of thy own utter weakness, and thy absolute dependance on Jehovah, the true God, who thus abased thy father in the midst of his power and pride. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven — As if thou hadst been equal, or even superior to him in wisdom and power. He instances in four particulars: 1st, They have brought the vessels of his house before thee — To profane them in your idolatrous feasts: 2d, Thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, &c., which see not, &c. 3d, Thou hast not glorified the true God, in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy ways: yea, 4th, Thou hast highly dishonoured, affronted, and reproached him.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

Verse 23. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord] And the highest evidence of this rebellion was, the profaning the sacred vessels of the Lord’s house.

Verses 20-23. But when his heart was lifted up — The expressions here have a peculiar force, in marking the haughty insolence of King Nebuchadnezzar. His authority, as mentioned in the last verse, had been raised to the highest pitch; and on that account we find here that his mind was elated, and his spirit grown obdurate in pride and arrogance; instead of his ascribing all his honours and advantages to the real giver of them, the true God, whom he had been brought to acknowledge, and to the neglect of whom, and of improving by his grandfather’s sufferings, the prophet justly and judiciously attributes Belshazzar’s fate. Thou his son, &c., hast not humbled thy heart — Thou hast not been made sensible of thy own utter weakness, and thy absolute dependance on Jehovah, the true God, who thus abased thy father in the midst of his power and pride. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven — As if thou hadst been equal, or even superior to him in wisdom and power. He instances in four particulars: 1st, They have brought the vessels of his house before thee — To profane them in your idolatrous feasts: 2d, Thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, &c., which see not, &c. 3d, Thou hast not glorified the true God, in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy ways: yea, 4th, Thou hast highly dishonoured, affronted, and reproached him.

17-23. According to our text (the Greek is shorter) Daniel refuses to recognize his equality with the Babylonian Magi by accepting the presents which had previously been promised to them (verse 7), though afterward he accepts them (verse 29). His speech is abrupt (as Daniel 3:16) and sharp, with an intimation that Belshazzar himself needs gifts rather than he, and there may be a touch of irony in the opening words which offer to Belshazzar his coveted position as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a strong emphasis upon the fact that if that great king of the world, who had all power over all nations, was humbled by Jehovah, his little “son,” who reigned only over one palace, which was even now surrounded by a conquering army (see note verses 1-4 and Introduction, III, 4), need not expect a less punishment when he sacrilegiously lifts himself up against the Lord of heaven. With the wild asses — This expression is not found in 4:32, 33, but by a slight change the text may read “with the herds.” (Compare verses 3, 4; Psalm 119; 116; 117; Jeremiah 10:23.)

V. 24. From him-From that God whom thou hast despised.

Verse 24. Then was the part of the hand sent] This was the filling up of the cup of thy iniquity; this last act made thee ripe for destruction.

Verses 24-28. Then was part of the hand sent from him — The LXX. read, Dia touto ek proswpou autou apestalh astragalov ceirov, kai thn grafhn tauthn enetaxe. “On this account hath the joint, or part of a hand, been sent from his presence, and hath formed this writing.” The reading in the Vulgate is to the same purpose. Houbigant translates the verse, “Therefore is the hand sent from him, the fingers whereof have formed this writing.” And this is the writing, MENE, &c. — In the Arabic the three words are considered as participles, Mensuratum, Appensum, Divisum, “Measured, Weighed, Divided.” The words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, &c. — God hath numbered the days of thy reign, and put an end to it. The word MENE is doubled in the foregoing verse, to show that the thing was certain, and established by God, as Joseph tells Pharaoh in a like case, Genesis 41:32. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, &c. — The reason that an end is put to thy reign so soon is, that thou art found light in the scales of divine equity. Wicked men are often compared to silver adulterated, and alloyed with baser metals, which makes it too light when weighed in the balances: such was Belshazzar when weighed in the scales of divine justice. The same comparison is used by Homer, when Hector’s fatal day approaches, Iliad, xxii, and by Virgil, at the death of Turnus, Æn.

12. And so Milton, in the war of the angels,

“ — — — — — Long time in even scale

The battle hung.”

Par. Lost, b. 6. 50:245.

PERES; Thy kingdom is divided — Or broken from thee. The word PERES signifies broken; and it also signifies the nation of the Persians, for they were called Paros, by the Chaldeans: so that this word not only signified that the Babylonish kingdom should be broken, but also by whom it should be broken. UPHARSIN, the other word in the writing, is a participle of the same verb from whence PERES is derived, and literally signifies, And they divide it. Concerning Belshazzar’s destruction, see notes on Isaiah 14.

24. For the hand see note verse 5. Writing — Rather, engraving. The Babylonians were a scribbling people, and wrote or carved their inscriptions everywhere. (See Introduction, III, 2.)

Verse 25. And this is the writing] Had the words been written in the Chaldean character, every wise man there, every one that could read the alphabet of his own language, could have read and interpreted them. Let it be observed,—1. That the character which we now call Hebrew is the Chaldean character. 2. That the true Hebrew character is that which we call the Samaritan. 3. Daniel could easily read this, for it was the character used by the Jews previously to the Babylonish captivity. 4. It appears that it was simply on account of the strangeness of the character that the Chaldeans could not read it.

I shall set down the words in both characters, by which the least learned reader may see that it was quite possible that one might be well known, while the other might be unintelligible.

Hebrew

ˆysrpw lqt anm anm

Samaritan

[Samaritan]

In ancient times, no doubt, these letters differed more from each other than they appear to do now; for we know that the Samaritan on ancient coins, though radically the same, differs very much from that now used in printing.

It should be observed, that each word stands for a short sentence; anm mene signifies NUMERATION; lqt tekel, WEIGHING; and crp peres, DIVISION. And so the Arabic translates them. [Arabic] mokeeson, measured; [Arabic] mewzonon, weighed; [Arabic] mokesoomon, divided. All the ancient Versions, except the Syriac, read the words simply Mene, Tekel, Phares, as they are explained in the following verses; without the repetition of Mene, and without the conjunction w vau, and plural termination, ינ in, in Peres.

Verses 24-28. Then was part of the hand sent from him — The LXX. read, Dia touto ek proswpou autou apestalh astragalov ceirov, kai thn grafhn tauthn enetaxe. “On this account hath the joint, or part of a hand, been sent from his presence, and hath formed this writing.” The reading in the Vulgate is to the same purpose. Houbigant translates the verse, “Therefore is the hand sent from him, the fingers whereof have formed this writing.” And this is the writing, MENE, &c. — In the Arabic the three words are considered as participles, Mensuratum, Appensum, Divisum, “Measured, Weighed, Divided.” The words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, &c. — God hath numbered the days of thy reign, and put an end to it. The word MENE is doubled in the foregoing verse, to show that the thing was certain, and established by God, as Joseph tells Pharaoh in a like case, Genesis 41:32. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, &c. — The reason that an end is put to thy reign so soon is, that thou art found light in the scales of divine equity. Wicked men are often compared to silver adulterated, and alloyed with baser metals, which makes it too light when weighed in the balances: such was Belshazzar when weighed in the scales of divine justice. The same comparison is used by Homer, when Hector’s fatal day approaches, Iliad, xxii, and by Virgil, at the death of Turnus, Æn.

12. And so Milton, in the war of the angels,

“ — — — — — Long time in even scale

The battle hung.”

Par. Lost, b. 6. 50:245.

PERES; Thy kingdom is divided — Or broken from thee. The word PERES signifies broken; and it also signifies the nation of the Persians, for they were called Paros, by the Chaldeans: so that this word not only signified that the Babylonish kingdom should be broken, but also by whom it should be broken. UPHARSIN, the other word in the writing, is a participle of the same verb from whence PERES is derived, and literally signifies, And they divide it. Concerning Belshazzar’s destruction, see notes on Isaiah 14.

25. This was intended to be a puzzle, and it has thoroughly served its purpose. Formerly there were great discussions among exegetes as to whether the grammatical forms used (for example, Peres for Persians) could be defended; but since it has been seen that this was a Babylonian pun or play on words this criticism has been abandoned. It was supposed by the rabbis that these words must have been written in a strange language which the magicians did not understand, or in the form of an acrostic or anagram; but although the incantations and magic charms of ancient Babylon were written generally in a dead language, which needed translation even for the priests, and although the double system of Babylonian writing (phonetic and ideographic) favored philological riddles, and although there is at least one example of a Babylonian acrostic in the British Museum, yet it is now seen that the “puzzle” was not chiefly in the deciphering of the words (though this was a part of it, see verse 8), but in their explanation. The first clue to this Babylonian riddle was found by Clermont Ganneau, who published in 1886 his discovery that these words — Mene, Tekel, Peres — were simply names of Babylonian weights (Journal Asiatique; Hebraica, iii). This article was quickly followed by a careful philological discussion of the whole question by Noldeke (Zeits. fur Assy., 1886), and the general conclusions of these scholars have been accepted by Sayce, Hommel, Haupt, Prince, and other Assyriologists. The puzzle, therefore, written upon the wall was this: A mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas. A mina was a well-known Assyrian weight consisting of sixty shekels, or five hundred and thirteen grains (Hilprecht). The parsu, or barsu, although inadvertently stated by Sayce to have been “part of a shekel,” was really equal to the half of a mina. Numbers had a mystic significance among the Babylonians (see Introduction to Ezekiel, VIII), and it is not impossible that the double mina (1+1) may represent Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (1) Nabonidus, and the divided mina (½) Belshazzar; although Paul Haupt has recently suggested that the mina, which is the largest Babylonian weight, was a cryptic representation of Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel of his little “son,” Belshazzar, while the broken minas referred to the division of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire between the Medes and Persians. (Compare Daniel 2:39; 8:5.) All the gods had their “numbers” in ancient Babylon, and it is not at all improbable that an unworthy son could then, as in later Talmudic times, be described as a “peras [half-mina], the son of a mina.” The doubling of the mina may be for the reason suggested above, or merely for emphasis, or, as Meinhold thinks, because a double meaning is hidden in the cryptogram; or, as Haupt has conjectured, the first “mina” may be an introductory verb meaning “reckon” or “there have been counted.” The latter supposition, however, does not approve itself to the writer. In the cuneiform inscription, therefore, the puzzle stood, mana, mana, sitkla, (u) parsn; that is, “A mina, a mina, a shekel (and) halves,” or, transliterated into the sacred Semitic tongue — often used in the incantations and other religious texts — “Numbered, numbered, weighed, divided;” while by another slight change of vowels the word which had already meant “half-minas” and “divided” was seen to be the very name of the conquerors of Babylon, Paras, “the Persians!” This, then, was a typical Babylonian puzzle, so archaic in its construction that no ancient version or commentary was able to catch its root meaning. Itis an interesting fact in connection with the above that Nebuchadnezzar boasts in one inscription that he had fixed the weight of the mina in his day to conform with the heavier standard established by king Dungi about 3000 B.C. It may also seem suggestive that at the beginning of many Babylonian incantations stands this mystic word Sitkalu, sitkalu, “Shekeled, shekeled,” or “Weighed, weighed.”

V. 26. MENE-MENE MENE, it is numbered, it is numbered; the words are doubled for the greater confirmation. It relates to the number of the seventy years for the overthrow of the Babylonish empire.

Verses 24-28. Then was part of the hand sent from him — The LXX. read, Dia touto ek proswpou autou apestalh astragalov ceirov, kai thn grafhn tauthn enetaxe. “On this account hath the joint, or part of a hand, been sent from his presence, and hath formed this writing.” The reading in the Vulgate is to the same purpose. Houbigant translates the verse, “Therefore is the hand sent from him, the fingers whereof have formed this writing.” And this is the writing, MENE, &c. — In the Arabic the three words are considered as participles, Mensuratum, Appensum, Divisum, “Measured, Weighed, Divided.” The words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, &c. — God hath numbered the days of thy reign, and put an end to it. The word MENE is doubled in the foregoing verse, to show that the thing was certain, and established by God, as Joseph tells Pharaoh in a like case, Genesis 41:32. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, &c. — The reason that an end is put to thy reign so soon is, that thou art found light in the scales of divine equity. Wicked men are often compared to silver adulterated, and alloyed with baser metals, which makes it too light when weighed in the balances: such was Belshazzar when weighed in the scales of divine justice. The same comparison is used by Homer, when Hector’s fatal day approaches, Iliad, xxii, and by Virgil, at the death of Turnus, Æn.

12. And so Milton, in the war of the angels,

“ — — — — — Long time in even scale

The battle hung.”

Par. Lost, b. 6. 50:245.

PERES; Thy kingdom is divided — Or broken from thee. The word PERES signifies broken; and it also signifies the nation of the Persians, for they were called Paros, by the Chaldeans: so that this word not only signified that the Babylonish kingdom should be broken, but also by whom it should be broken. UPHARSIN, the other word in the writing, is a participle of the same verb from whence PERES is derived, and literally signifies, And they divide it. Concerning Belshazzar’s destruction, see notes on Isaiah 14.

V. 27. Art found wanting-There is no weight nor worth in thee; thou hast made light of God, and the Lord makes light of thee.

Verses 24-28. Then was part of the hand sent from him — The LXX. read, Dia touto ek proswpou autou apestalh astragalov ceirov, kai thn grafhn tauthn enetaxe. “On this account hath the joint, or part of a hand, been sent from his presence, and hath formed this writing.” The reading in the Vulgate is to the same purpose. Houbigant translates the verse, “Therefore is the hand sent from him, the fingers whereof have formed this writing.” And this is the writing, MENE, &c. — In the Arabic the three words are considered as participles, Mensuratum, Appensum, Divisum, “Measured, Weighed, Divided.” The words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, &c. — God hath numbered the days of thy reign, and put an end to it. The word MENE is doubled in the foregoing verse, to show that the thing was certain, and established by God, as Joseph tells Pharaoh in a like case, Genesis 41:32. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, &c. — The reason that an end is put to thy reign so soon is, that thou art found light in the scales of divine equity. Wicked men are often compared to silver adulterated, and alloyed with baser metals, which makes it too light when weighed in the balances: such was Belshazzar when weighed in the scales of divine justice. The same comparison is used by Homer, when Hector’s fatal day approaches, Iliad, xxii, and by Virgil, at the death of Turnus, Æn.

12. And so Milton, in the war of the angels,

“ — — — — — Long time in even scale

The battle hung.”

Par. Lost, b. 6. 50:245.

PERES; Thy kingdom is divided — Or broken from thee. The word PERES signifies broken; and it also signifies the nation of the Persians, for they were called Paros, by the Chaldeans: so that this word not only signified that the Babylonish kingdom should be broken, but also by whom it should be broken. UPHARSIN, the other word in the writing, is a participle of the same verb from whence PERES is derived, and literally signifies, And they divide it. Concerning Belshazzar’s destruction, see notes on Isaiah 14.

V. 28. PERES-Separated, divided, broken. Phars signifies two things, broken off, and Persian; noting that, first, this kingdom was broken down from Belshazzar. Secondly, that it was given to the Persians.

Verses 24-28. Then was part of the hand sent from him — The LXX. read, Dia touto ek proswpou autou apestalh astragalov ceirov, kai thn grafhn tauthn enetaxe. “On this account hath the joint, or part of a hand, been sent from his presence, and hath formed this writing.” The reading in the Vulgate is to the same purpose. Houbigant translates the verse, “Therefore is the hand sent from him, the fingers whereof have formed this writing.” And this is the writing, MENE, &c. — In the Arabic the three words are considered as participles, Mensuratum, Appensum, Divisum, “Measured, Weighed, Divided.” The words are fully explained by Daniel in the following verses. MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, &c. — God hath numbered the days of thy reign, and put an end to it. The word MENE is doubled in the foregoing verse, to show that the thing was certain, and established by God, as Joseph tells Pharaoh in a like case, Genesis 41:32. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, &c. — The reason that an end is put to thy reign so soon is, that thou art found light in the scales of divine equity. Wicked men are often compared to silver adulterated, and alloyed with baser metals, which makes it too light when weighed in the balances: such was Belshazzar when weighed in the scales of divine justice. The same comparison is used by Homer, when Hector’s fatal day approaches, Iliad, xxii, and by Virgil, at the death of Turnus, Æn.

12. And so Milton, in the war of the angels,

“ — — — — — Long time in even scale

The battle hung.”

Par. Lost, b. 6. 50:245.

PERES; Thy kingdom is divided — Or broken from thee. The word PERES signifies broken; and it also signifies the nation of the Persians, for they were called Paros, by the Chaldeans: so that this word not only signified that the Babylonish kingdom should be broken, but also by whom it should be broken. UPHARSIN, the other word in the writing, is a participle of the same verb from whence PERES is derived, and literally signifies, And they divide it. Concerning Belshazzar’s destruction, see notes on Isaiah 14.

Verse 29. Clothed Daniel with scarlet] anwgra argevana, more probably with purple. The gold chain about the neck was an emblem of magisterial authority. It is often thus mentioned in Scripture.

Verse 29. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel — The king was so struck with his superior wisdom, and conceived himself so bound by the promise he had made before his nobles, that he ordered the prophet to be rewarded immediately with the honours he had promised him, which he was forced to accept, and which probably prepared him for a more easy reception by the succeeding monarch. “Nor let it be matter of wonder that Daniel is said to be clothed as it were immediately, for these habits were always at hand for the eastern monarchs to reward their friends or favourites with; and Mr. Harmer tells us, from Sir John Chardin, that the kings of Persia have great wardrobes, where there are always many hundreds of habits ready, designed for presents, and sorted. — Obs., vol.

2. p. 87. It seems likewise that, on some occasions, the great men of the East were accustomed to carry with them, on their journeys, a variety of habits and vestments, in order to distribute them as presents to those whom they wished to honour and reward. And this will account for the changes of garments which Naaman the Syrian had with him, when he returned from the Prophet Elisha, some of which were given to his perfidious servant, 2 Kings 5.” — Wintle.

29. And they clothed — Or, commanded to clothe. (Compare verse 17). Professor Kautzsch reads the famous phrase, third ruler in the kingdom, exactly as the A.V. and adds the explanation, “Either as one of three over the whole kingdom or as third by the side of the king and the king’s mother.” (See note verse 7-9.)

Verse 30. In that night was Belshazzar—slain.] Xenophon says, he was despatched by two lords, Gadatas and Gobrias, who went over to Cyrus, to avenge themselves of certain wrongs which Belshazzar had done them. We have already seen that Cyrus entered the city by the bed of the Euphrates, which he had emptied, by cutting a channel for the waters, and directing them into the marshy country.

Verses 30, 31. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain — He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revelling, as Herodotus, lib. 1., and Xenophon, inform us. The latter relates the story thus, Cyropæd., lib. 7. — “That two deserters, Gadatas and Gobryas, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards, and seize upon the palace, they entered into the room where the king was, whom they found standing up in a posture of defence; but they soon despatched him, and those that were with him.” It seems not improbable, likewise, that they burned the houses of the city, or at least the advanced buildings, in their progress, and forced the citizens to quit them in the greatest consternation; for they came upon them with such surprise, that, according to Herodotus, “they had passed through the gates, which were left open in this riotous night, and had taken the extreme parts of the city, before those who inhabited the middle parts knew of the capture,” lib.

1. p. 77. Thus the prophecy of Jeremiah was accomplished, that Babylon should be taken at the time of a public feast, while her princes and great men, &c., should be drunken, and should sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake: see notes on Jeremiah 51:32, 39, 57. Respecting the method practised by Cyrus to surprise the city, by draining that part of the Euphrates which ran through it, together with many other curious particulars relating to Babylon, see notes on Isaiah 13. And Darius the Median took the kingdom — This Darius is said to be one of the seed of the Medes, Daniel 9:1, and is supposed, by the most judicious chronologers, to be the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages; him Cyrus made king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mother’s side, and his partner in carrying on the war against the Babylonians; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased, as Xenophon relates, Cyropæd., lib. 8. As Darius succeeded to the empire through Cyrus’s permission, or appointment, and was dependant upon him for it, Ptolemy’s canon supposes Cyrus to be the immediate successor of Nabonnedus, or Belshazzar, and allots nine years to his reign; whereas Xenophon reckons two of these years to Darius, and seven to Cyrus. The Chaldee phrase, rendered here took the kingdom, is translated, possessed the kingdom, Daniel 7:18, and means the same with succeeding in the kingdom. — Lowth.

Ver. 30. In that night was Belshazzar slain. The particulars appear in Ezra

1. and Isaiah 29, 45. Isaiah had foretold the fall of Babylon one hundred and forty years before it happened.

30, 31. For the facts connected with the capture of Babylon see Introduction, III, 4. Took — Rather, “received” (R.V.). For conjectures concerning Darius the Mede see Introduction, III, 3, (5), and for “Medes and Persians” notes 2:39-42, and 7:5.

This account has powerfully influenced both art and literature. While the weighing of the heart of the dead forms one of the most beautiful chapters in the Book of the Dead, and while Homer, and Vergil, and AEschylus elaborate this thought, there need be no doubt that it was from Belshazzar’s feast and not from Egypt or Greece that the Hebrew hymn came which is even yet sung on the Day of Atonement in the Jewish synagogue: —

O be Thy mercy in the balance laid,

To hold thy servant’s sins more lightly weighed,

When, his confession penitently made,

He answers for his guilt before the king.

In mediaeval Christian architecture Michael is represented bearing a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other.

V. 31. Darius the Mede-This was he that with Cyrus besieged and took Babylon.

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

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

Verses 30, 31. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain — He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revelling, as Herodotus, lib. 1., and Xenophon, inform us. The latter relates the story thus, Cyropæd., lib. 7. — “That two deserters, Gadatas and Gobryas, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards, and seize upon the palace, they entered into the room where the king was, whom they found standing up in a posture of defence; but they soon despatched him, and those that were with him.” It seems not improbable, likewise, that they burned the houses of the city, or at least the advanced buildings, in their progress, and forced the citizens to quit them in the greatest consternation; for they came upon them with such surprise, that, according to Herodotus, “they had passed through the gates, which were left open in this riotous night, and had taken the extreme parts of the city, before those who inhabited the middle parts knew of the capture,” lib.

1. p. 77. Thus the prophecy of Jeremiah was accomplished, that Babylon should be taken at the time of a public feast, while her princes and great men, &c., should be drunken, and should sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake: see notes on Jeremiah 51:32, 39, 57. Respecting the method practised by Cyrus to surprise the city, by draining that part of the Euphrates which ran through it, together with many other curious particulars relating to Babylon, see notes on Isaiah 13. And Darius the Median took the kingdom — This Darius is said to be one of the seed of the Medes, Daniel 9:1, and is supposed, by the most judicious chronologers, to be the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages; him Cyrus made king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mother’s side, and his partner in carrying on the war against the Babylonians; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased, as Xenophon relates, Cyropæd., lib. 8. As Darius succeeded to the empire through Cyrus’s permission, or appointment, and was dependant upon him for it, Ptolemy’s canon supposes Cyrus to be the immediate successor of Nabonnedus, or Belshazzar, and allots nine years to his reign; whereas Xenophon reckons two of these years to Darius, and seven to Cyrus. The Chaldee phrase, rendered here took the kingdom, is translated, possessed the kingdom, Daniel 7:18, and means the same with succeeding in the kingdom. — Lowth.

Ver. 31. Darius the Median took the kingdom. He was the uncle of Cyrus. Herodotus, in Erato or sixth book, gives us the etymon of the names of three of the Persian kings. Darius, exterminator; Xerxes, warrior; Artaxerxes, great warrior. The Medes were descendants of Medai. Genesis 10:4.

30, 31. For the facts connected with the capture of Babylon see Introduction, III, 4. Took — Rather, “received” (R.V.). For conjectures concerning Darius the Mede see Introduction, III, 3, (5), and for “Medes and Persians” notes 2:39-42, and 7:5.

This account has powerfully influenced both art and literature. While the weighing of the heart of the dead forms one of the most beautiful chapters in the Book of the Dead, and while Homer, and Vergil, and AEschylus elaborate this thought, there need be no doubt that it was from Belshazzar’s feast and not from Egypt or Greece that the Hebrew hymn came which is even yet sung on the Day of Atonement in the Jewish synagogue: —

O be Thy mercy in the balance laid,

To hold thy servant’s sins more lightly weighed,

When, his confession penitently made,

He answers for his guilt before the king.

In mediaeval Christian architecture Michael is represented bearing a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other.