John Calvin Commentary Daniel 5:1

"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand." — Daniel 5:1 (ASV)

Daniel here refers to the history of what happened at the capture of Babylon. In the meantime, he leaves to his readers' consideration those judgments of God which the Prophets had predicted before the people became exiles. He does not use the prophetic style, as we will see later, but is content with a simple narrative. The practice of history can be learned from the following expressions.

It is our duty now to consider how this history contributes to building us up in the faith and fear of God. First of all, we notice the time at which Belshazzar celebrated this banquet. Seventy years had passed since Daniel had been led into exile with his companions.

For although Nebuchadnezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, it is clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them, as he reigned for twenty-three years. Some count two kings before Belshazzar, placing Regassar after Labassardach; these two would occupy eight years. Metasthenes has stated it this way, and he has many followers.

But Nebuchadnezzar the Great, who took Daniel captive and was the son of the first king of that name, evidently reigned for forty-five years. Some transfer two years to his father's reign; in any case, he held royal power for forty-five years. If the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, this totals sixty-eight years—during which Belshazzar had reigned for eight years.

We see, then, how seventy-two years had passed since Daniel was first led captive. Metasthenes counts thirty years for the reign of Evil-Merodach; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than eighty years. This appears probable enough, although Metasthenes seems to be mistaken in supposing different kings instead of only different names.

For Herodotus does not call Belshazzar (of whom we are now speaking) a king, but calls his father Labynetus and gives Belshazzar the same name. Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily accept his calculation of time when he asserts Evil-Merodach reigned for thirty years.

When we discuss the seventy years that Jeremiah had previously indicated, we should not begin with Daniel’s exile, nor even with the destruction of the city. Instead, we should start with the slaughter that occurred between King Nebuchadnezzar's first victory and the burning and ruin of the temple and city.

For when the report concerning his father's death was first spread, as we have said elsewhere, he returned to his own country to prevent any disturbance from occurring due to his absence. Therefore, we will find that the seventy years during which God wished the people’s captivity to last will require a longer period for Evil-Merodach's reign than twenty-three years.

Although there is not any significant difference, soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the king, leaving the city untouched. Even though the temple was then standing, God had inflicted the severest punishment upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least nearly equal to it. However this may be, we see that Belshazzar was celebrating this banquet just as the time of deliverance drew near.

Here we must consider the providence of God in arranging the timing of events, so that the impious, when the time of their destruction has come, cast themselves headlong of their own accord. This happened to this wicked king.

Indeed, it was wonderful stupidity that led him to prepare a splendid banquet filled with delicacies while the city was besieged.

Cyrus had been besieging the city for a long time with a large army. The wretched king was already half captive; yet, as if in defiance of God, he provided a rich banquet and invited a thousand guests. From this, we may conjecture the extent of the noise and expense of that banquet.

If anyone wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests splendidly, it will cause him much trouble. But this was a royal entertainment with a thousand nobles, along with the king’s wife and concubines. With so great a multitude assembled, it became necessary to obtain from many sources what was required for such a festival—and this may seem incredible!

But Xenophon, though he related many fables and preserved neither the gravity nor the fidelity of a historian because he desired to celebrate the praises of Cyrus like a rhetorician, and although he trifles in many things, yet here he had no reason or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was stored up, so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of ten or more years.

Babylon was deservedly compared to a kingdom, for its size was so large as to surpass belief. It must have been very populous, but since they drew their provisions from all of Asia, it is not surprising that the Babylonians had enough food in store to allow them to close their gates and sustain themselves for a long period.

But what was most peculiar about this banquet was that the king, who should have been on guard or at least have sent out his guards to prevent the city from being captured, was as intent on his delicacies as if he were in perfect peace and exposed to no danger from any external enemy.

He was contending with a strong man, if ever a man was so. Cyrus was endowed with singular prudence and far excelled all others in swiftness of action. Since, then, the king was so keenly opposed, it is surprising to find him so careless as to celebrate a banquet.

Xenophon, indeed, states that the day was a festival. The assertion of those Jews who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over the Persians is insignificant. For Xenophon—who can be trusted whenever he does not falsify history in favor of Cyrus, because he is then a very serious historian and entirely worthy of credit, but who has no moderation when he desires to praise Cyrus—is historically correct here when he says the Babylonians were holding their usual annual festival.

He also tells us how Babylon was taken, namely, by his generals Gobryas and Gadatas. Belshazzar had shamefully castrated one of these and had slain the son of the other during his father's lifetime. Since the latter burned with the desire to avenge his son’s death, and the former his own disgrace, they conspired against him.

Therefore, Cyrus diverted the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon was suddenly captured. We must remember the city was captured twice; otherwise, there would not have been any confidence in prophecy.

This is because when the Prophets threaten God’s vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies would be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring human blood. Then they narrate every kind of atrocious deed customary in war (Jeremiah 50:42).

However, nothing of this kind happened when Babylon was captured by Cyrus. But when the Babylonians freed themselves from Persian rule by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city with the assistance of Zopyrus.

Zopyrus mutilated himself and pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king that it induced him to betray the city.

From this, we gather how harshly the Babylonians were afflicted when 3,000 nobles were crucified! And what usually happens when 8,000 nobles are put to death, all suspended on a gallows—indeed, even crucified?

Thus it easily appears how severely the Babylonians were punished at that time, even though they were then subject to a foreign power, treated shamefully by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. They were forbidden the use of arms, taught from the first to become slaves of Cyrus, and dared not wear a sword.

We should briefly touch upon these things to assure ourselves of God's governance of human events by His judgment, when He casts the reprobate headlong as their punishment is near. We have an illustrious example of this in King Belshazzar.

The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was near—the seventy years were finished, and Babylon was besieged (Jeremiah 25:11). The Jews could now raise their heads and hope for the best because the arrival of Cyrus approached, contrary to everyone's expectation.

For Cyrus had suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when it was still a barbarous nation.

Therefore, since the sudden arrival of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might have given some hope to the Jews. However, after a considerable time had passed in the siege of the city, so to speak, this might have disheartened them.

While King Belshazzar was banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seemed able to oust him in the midst of his merriment and hilarity.

In the meantime, the Lord was not idle in heaven; for He blinded the mind of the impious king, so that he willingly incurred punishment. Yet no one drew him on, for he brought it upon himself.

And from where could this arise, unless God had given him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of which Jeremiah was the herald. Therefore, although Daniel narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to discuss things far more important.

For God, who had promised His people deliverance, was now secretly stretching out His hand and fulfilling the predictions of His Prophets (Jeremiah 25:26).

King Belshazzar was drinking wine before a thousand. Some of the Rabbis say, “He strove with his thousand nobles and contended with them all in drinking to excess,” but this seems grossly ridiculous.

When the text says, he drank wine before a thousand, it alludes to a national custom, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited guests to their table. They usually dined alone, as the kings of Europe do now, because they thought it added to their dignity to enjoy a solitary meal.

The pride of the Chaldean kings was of this kind. Therefore, when it is said, Belshazzar drank wine before a thousand, something extraordinary is intended, since he was celebrating this annual banquet contrary to his ordinary custom, and he deigned to treat his nobles with such honor as to receive them as his guests.

Some, indeed, conjecture that he drank wine in private, as he was accustomed to become intoxicated when there were no witnesses present; but there is no force in this comment. The word before means in the presence or society of others. Let us go on.