Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 5

Belshazzar the king - See Introduction to the chapter, Section II. In the Introduction to the chapter referred to here, I have stated what seemed necessary to illustrate the history of Belshazzar, as far as it can now be known. The statements regarding this monarch, it is well understood, are exceedingly confused, and the task of reconciling them is now hopeless. Little depends, however, on the attempt to reconcile them for the interpretation of this book, because the narrative given here is equally credible, whichever of the accounts is taken, unless that of Berosus is followed.

It will be observed that the principal point of difference in these accounts is that Hales contends that the succession of Darius the Mede to the Babylonian throne was not attended with war; that Belshazzar was not the king in whose time the city was taken by Cyrus; and, consequently, that the events which took place this night were quite distinct from and before that siege and capture of the city by the Persian king which Isaiah and Jeremiah so remarkably foretold.

Made a great feast - On what occasion this feast was made is not stated, but it was probably an annual festival in honor of some of the Babylonian deities. This opinion seems to be supported by the words of the Codex Chisianus, “Belshazzar the king made a great festival ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων (en hēmera engkainismou tōn basileiōn), on the day of the dedication of his kingdom;” and in Daniel 5:4 it is said that they praised the gods of gold, of silver, and of brass, etc.

To a thousand of his lords - The word thousand here is doubtless used as a general term to denote a very large number. It is probable, however, that this full number was assembled on such an occasion. “Ctesias says, that the king of Persia furnished provisions daily for fifteen thousand men. Quintus Curtius says that ten thousand men were present at a festival of Alexander the Great; and Statius says of Domitian, that he ordered, on a certain occasion, his guests ‘to sit down at a thousand tables.’” - Prof. Stuart, commenting on this passage.

And drank wine before the thousand - The Latin Vulgate here is, And each one drank according to his age. The Greek of Theodotion, the Arabic, and the Coptic is, and wine was before the thousand. The Chaldee, however, is, as in our version, he drank wine before the thousand. As he was the lord of the feast, and as all that occurred pertained primarily to him, the design is undoubtedly to describe his conduct and to show the effect which the drinking of wine had on him. He drank it in the most public manner, setting an example to his lords, and evidently drinking it to great excess.

Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine – This describes the effect of tasting the wine, stating a fact illustrated in every age and land: that men, under the influence of intoxicating drinks, will do what they would not do when sober. In his sober moments, it seems probable that he would have respected the vessels consecrated to religious service and would not have treated them dishonorably by introducing them for purposes of revelry.

Commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels – These vessels had been carefully deposited somewhere as spoils of victory , and it appears that they had not previously been desecrated for feasting. Belshazzar did what other men would have done in the same condition. He wished to make a display, to do something unusually surprising. And, though using these vessels had not been contemplated when the festival was planned, yet, under the excitement of wine, nothing was too sacred to be introduced to the scenes of intoxication, nothing too foolish to be done. Regarding the vessels taken from the temple at Jerusalem, see the note on Daniel 1:2.

Which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken – The margin says, “grandfather.” According to the best account we have of Belshazzar, he was the son of Evil-Merodach, who was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (see the Introduction to the chapter, Section II.). Therefore, the word is used here, as the margin suggests, to denote grandfather. . See the note on Isaiah 14:22. The word “father” is often used with a broad meaning. See 2 Samuel 9:7; also the notes on Matthew 1:1. There is no improbability in supposing that this word would be used to denote a grandfather when applied to one of Nebuchadnezzar's family or dynasty.

The fact that Belshazzar is here called “the son” of Nebuchadnezzar has been made a ground of objection to the credibility of the book of Daniel by Lengerke (p. 204). The objection is that the “last king of Babylon was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.” But, in reply to this, in addition to the remarks made above, it may be observed that it is not necessary, in vindicating the assertion in the text, to suppose that he was the immediate descendant of Nebuchadnezzar in the first degree.

“The Semitic use of the word in question goes far beyond the first degree of descent, and extends the appellation of ‘son’ to the designation ‘grandson,’ and even of the most remote posterity. In Ezra 6:14, the prophet Zechariah is called ‘the son of Iddo;’ in Zechariah 1:1, Zechariah 1:7, the same person is called ‘the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo.’ So Isaiah threatens Hezekiah (Isaiah 39:7) that the sons whom he will beget will be conducted as exiles to Babylon; in which case, however, four generations intervened before this happened. So in Matthew 1:1, Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. And so we speak every day: ‘The sons of Adam, the sons of Abraham, the sons of Israel, the sons of the Pilgrims,’ and the like.” – Prof. Stuart, “Com. on Dan.” p. 144.

That the king and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink in them – Nothing is too sacred to be profaned when men are under the influence of wine. They do not hesitate to desecrate the holiest things, and vessels taken from the altar of God are regarded with as little reverence as any other. It seems that Nebuchadnezzar had some respect for these vessels, as having been used for religious purposes—at least enough respect to set them aside as trophies of victory—and that this respect had been shown for them under the reign of his successors, until the exciting scenes of this impious feast occurred, when all veneration for them vanished.

It was not very common for females in the East to be present at such festivals as this, but it seems that all the usual restraints of propriety and decency were disregarded as the feast advanced. The wives and concubines were probably not present when the feast began, for it was made for his lords (Daniel 5:1); but when the scenes of revelry had advanced so far that it was proposed to introduce the sacred vessels of the temple, it would not be unnatural to propose also to introduce the females of the court.

A similar instance is related in the book of Esther. In the feast which Ahasuerus gave, it is said that on the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, etc., the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty, etc. (Esther 1:10–11). Compare Josephus, “Ant.” b. xi. ch. 6: Section 1.

The females who were thus introduced to the banquet were those of the harem, yet it seems that she who was usually called the queen by way of eminence, or the queen-mother (compare the note on Esther 5:10), was not among them at this time. The females in the court of an Oriental monarch were divided into two classes: those who were properly concubines and had none of the privileges of a wife, and those of a higher class who were spoken of as wives and who had the privileges of that relation.

Among the latter, also, in the court of a king, it seems that there was one to whom the appellation of queen properly belonged; that is, probably, a favorite wife whose children were heirs to the crown. See Bertholdt, in loc. (Compare 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; Song of Solomon 6:8).

They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, ... - Compare the note at Daniel 5:1. Idols were made among the pagans of all the materials here mentioned. The word "praised" here means that they spoke in praise of these gods: of their history, their attributes, and what they had done.

Nothing can readily be conceived more senseless and stupid than what they are said to have done at this feast, and yet it is a fair illustration of what occurs in all the festivals of idolatry. And is what occurs in more civilized Christian lands, in the scenes of carousal and festivity, more rational than this? It was not much worse to lavish praises on idol gods in a scene of revelry than it is to lavish praises on idol men now; not much less rational to “toast” gods than it is to “toast” men.

In the same hour - On the word “hour,” see the note at (Daniel 4:19).

Came forth fingers of a man’s hand - Not the whole hand, but only the parts usually employed in writing. Not a man writing; not even an arm, but fingers that seemed to move themselves. They appeared to come forth from the walls and were seen before they began to write. It was this that made it so impressive and alarming. It could not be supposed that it was the work of man, or that it was devised by man for the purpose of producing consternation.

It was perfectly manifest to all who were there that this was the work of someone superior to man; that it was designed as a Divine intimation of some kind regarding the scene that was then occurring. But whether as a rebuke for the sin of revelry and dissipation, or for sacrilege in drinking out of the consecrated vessels, or whether it was an intimation of some approaching fearful calamity, would not at once be apparent. It is easy to imagine that it would produce a sudden pause in their revelry and diffuse seriousness over their minds.

The suddenness of the appearance; the fingers, unguided by the hand of man, slowly writing in mysterious characters on the wall; the conviction which must have flashed across the mind that this must be either to rebuke them for their sin or to announce some fearful calamity—all these things must have combined to produce an overwhelming effect on the revelers. Perhaps, from the prevalent views in the pagan world regarding the crime of sacrilege, they may have connected this mysterious appearance with the profane act which they were then committing—that of desecrating the vessels of the temple of God.

How natural would it be to suppose—recognizing as they did the gods of other nations as real, as truly as those which they worshiped—that the God of the Hebrews, seeing the vessels of his worship profaned, had come forth to express his displeasure and to intimate that there was impending wrath for such an act.

The crime of sacrilege was regarded among the pagans as one of the most awful which could be committed, and there was no state of mind in which men would be more likely to be alarmed than when they were, even in the midst of scenes of drunken revelry, engaged in such an act.

“The pagan,” says Grotius, “thought it a great impiety to convert sacred things to common uses.” Numerous instances are on record of the sentiments entertained among the pagans on the subject of sacrilege and of the calamities which were believed to come upon men as a punishment for it. Among them, we may refer to the miserable end of the Phocians, who robbed the temple of Delphos, and whose act was the occasion of that war which was called the Holy War; the destruction of the Gauls in their attempt upon the same temple; and of Crassus, who plundered the temple of Jerusalem and that of the Syrian goddess. (See Lowth, on this passage).

That a conviction of the sin of sacrilege, according to the prevalent belief on the subject, may have contributed to produce consternation when the fingers of the hand appeared at Belshazzar’s feast, there is no good reason to doubt, and we may suppose that the minds of the revelers were at once turned to the insult which they had thus offered to the God of the Hebrews.

And wrote over against the candlestick - The candlestick, or lamp-bearer, perhaps, which had been taken from the temple at Jerusalem, and which was, as well as the sacred vessels, introduced into this scene of revelry. It is probable that as they brought out the vessels of the temple to drink in, they would also bring out all that had been taken from the temple in Jerusalem. Two objects may have been contemplated in the fact that the writing was “over against the candlestick;” one was that it might be clearly visible, the other that it might be more directly intimated that the writing was a rebuke for the act of sacrilege.

On the probable situation where this miracle occurred, the reader may consult Taylor’s “Fragments to Calmet’s Dictionary,” No. 205. He supposes that it was one of the large inner courts of the palace—that part of the palace which was prohibited to persons not sent for. See the note at (Daniel 5:10).

Upon the plaster of the wall - The Chaldee word means “lime,” not inappropriately rendered here “plaster.” The “manner” of the writing is not specified. All that is necessary to suppose is that the letters were traced along on the wall so as to be distinctly visible. Whether they seemed to be cut into the plaster, or to be traced in black lines, or lines of light, is not mentioned and is immaterial. They were such as could be seen distinctly by the king and the guests. Compare, however, the remarks of Taylor in the “Fragment” just referred to.

And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote - It is not necessary to suppose that the others did not see it also, but the king was the most important personage there, and the miracle was intended particularly for him. Perhaps his eyes were first attracted to it.

Then the king’s countenance was changed - The word translated “countenance” is, in the margin, as in (Daniel 5:9), “brightnesses.” The Chaldee word (זיו zı̂yv) means “brightness, splendor,” and the meaning here is bright looks, cheerfulness, hilarity. The word translated “was changed” is in the margin “changed it”; and the meaning is, that it changed itself: probably from a joyful, cheerful, and happy expression, it suddenly assumed a deadly paleness.

And his thoughts troubled him - Whether from the recollection of guilt, or the dread of wrath, is not said. He would, doubtless, regard this as some supernatural intimation, and his soul would be troubled.

So that the joints of his loins were loosed - Margin, “bindings,” or “knots,” or “girdles.” The Chaldee word translated “joints” (קטר q^eṭar) means, properly, “knots”; then joints of the bones, resembling knots or apparently functioning as knots in the human frame, binding it together. The word “loins” in the Scriptures refers to the part of the body around which the girdle was passed, the lower part of the back. Gesenius supposes that the meaning here is that the joints of his back, that is, the vertebrae, are referred to.

This part of the body is spoken of as the seat of strength. When this is weak, the body has no power to stand, to walk, or to labor. The simple idea is that he was greatly terrified, and that under the influence of fear, his strength departed.

And his knees smote one against another - A common effect of fear (Nahum 2:10). So Horace, “Et corde et genibus tremit.” And so Virgil, “Tarda trementi genua labant.” “Belshazzar had as much power, and of drink as well, to lead him to bid defiance to God as any ruffian under heaven; and yet when God, as it were, did but lift his finger against him, how poorly did he crouch and shiver! How did his joints loosen, and his knees knock together!” - South’s Sermons, vol. iv. p. 60.