Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 5:2-3

"Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them." — Daniel 5:2-3 (ASV)

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).