Daniel 5 commentary

Belshazzar bade defiance to the judgments of God. Most historians consider that Cyrus then besieged Babylon. Security and sensuality are sad proofs of approaching ruin. That mirth is sinful indeed, which profanes sacred things; and what are many of the songs used at modern feasts better than the praises sung by the heathens to their gods! See how God struck terror upon Belshazzar and his lords. God's written word is enough to put the proudest, boldest sinner in a fright. What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures, and in the book of the Scriptures, should fill us with awful thoughts concerning that part which we do not see. If this be the finger of God, what is his arm when made bare? And what is He? The king's guilty conscience told him that he had no reason to expect any good news from heaven. God can, in a moment, make the heart of the stoutest sinner to tremble; and there needs no more than to let loose his own thoughts upon him; they will give him trouble enough. No bodily pain can equal the inward agony which sometimes seizes the sinner in the midst of mirth, carnal pleasures, and worldly pomp. Sometimes terrors cause a man to flee to Christ for pardon and peace; but many cry out for fear of wrath, who are not humbled for their sins, and who seek relief by lying vanities. The ignorance and uncertainty concerning the Holy Scriptures, shown by many who call themselves wise, only tend to drive sinners to despair, as the ignorance of these wise men did.

Daniel was forgotten at court; he lived privately, and was then ninety years of age. Many consult servants of God on curious questions, or to explain difficult subjects, but without asking the way of salvation, or the path of duty. Daniel slighted the offer of reward. He spoke to Belshazzar as to a condemned criminal. We should despise all the gifts and rewards this world can give, did we see, as we may by faith, its end hastening on; but let us do our duty in the world, and do it all the real service we can.

Daniel reads Belshazzar's doom. He had not taken warning by the judgments upon Nebuchadnezzar. And he had insulted God. Sinners are pleased with gods that neither see, nor hear, nor know; but they will be judged by One to whom all things are open. Daniel reads the sentence written on the wall. All this may well be applied to the doom of every sinner. At death, the sinner's days are numbered and finished; after death is the judgment, when he will be weighed in the balance, and found wanting; and after judgment the sinner will be cut asunder, and given as a prey to the devil and his angels. While these things were passing in the palace, it is considered that the army of Cyrus entered the city; and when Belshazzar was slain, a general submission followed. Soon will every impenitent sinner find the writing of God's word brought to pass upon him, whether he is weighed in the balance of the law as a self-righteous Pharisee, or in that of the gospel as a painted hypocrite.

Daniel here refers to the history of what happened at the taking of Babylon; but meanwhile he leaves those judgments of God to the consideration of his readers, which the Prophets had predicted before the people had become exiles. He does not use the prophetic style, as we shall afterwards see, but is content with simple narrative; while the practice of history may be learnt from the following expressions. It is our duty now to consider how this history tends towards 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 away from the time when Daniel had been led into exile with his companions. For although Nebuchadnezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, yet it is clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them; for he reigned twenty-three years. Some reckon two kings before Belshazzar; for they place Regassar after Labassardach; and these two will occupy eight years. Metasthenes has stated it so, 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 forty-five years. Some transfer two years to the reign of his father; at any rate, he held the regal power for forty-five years; and if the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, they will make sixty-eight years — in which Belshazzar had reigned eight years. We see, then, how seventy-two years had passed away from the period of Daniel being first led captive. Metasthenes reckons thirty years for the reign of Evil-Merodach; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than eighty years — which appears probable enough, although Metasthenes seems to be in error in supposing different kings instead of only different names. See the Dissertations at the end of this volume, in which these historical points are treated at length. For Herodotus does not call Belshazzar, of whom we are now speaking, a king, but calls his father Labynetus, and gives him the same name. Herod., lib. 1, sect. 188. Comp. Cyropoed., lib. 4 and 7. Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily embrace his computation of time, when he asserts Evil-Merodach to have reigned thirty years. For when we treat of the seventy years which Jeremiah had formerly pointed out, we ought not to begin with Daniel’s exile, no,’ yet with the destruction of the city, but with the slaughter which occurred between the first victory of king Nebuchadnezzar, and the burning and ruin of the temple and city. For when the report concerning the death of his father was first spread abroad, as we have elsewhere said, he returned to his own country, lest any disturbance should occur through his absence. Hence we shall find the seventy years during which God wished the people’s captivity to last, will require a longer period for the reign of Evil-Merodach than twenty-three years; although there is not any important difference, for soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the king, leaving the city untouched. Although the temple was then standing, yet God had inflicted the severest punishment upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least nearly equal to it. However this was, we see that Belshazzar was celebrating this banquet just as the time of the deliverance drew nigh.

Here we must consider the Providence of God, in arranging the times of events, so that the impious, when the time of their destruction is come, cast themselves headlong of their own accord. This occurred to this wicked king. Wonderful indeed was the stupidity which prepared a splendid banquet filled with delicacies, while the city was besieged. For Cyrus had begun to besiege the city for a long time with a large army. The wretched king was already half a captive; and yet, as if in spite of God, he provided a rich banquet, and invited a thousand guests. Hence we may conjecture the extent of the noise and of the expense in that banquet. For if any one wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests, it will occasion him much trouble, if he wishes to treat them splendidly. But when it was a royal entertainment, where there were a thousand nobles with the king’s wife and concubines, and so great a multitude assembled together, it became necessary to obtain from many quarters 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; although he trifles in many things, yet here had no reason or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was laid up, so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of even ten or more years. And Babylon was deservedly compared to a kingdom; for its magnitude was so large as to surpass belief. It must really have been very populous, but since they drew their provisions from the whole of Asia, it is not surprising that the Babylonians had food in store, sufficient to allow them to close their gates, and to sustain them for a long period. But in this banquet it was most singular that the king, who ought to have been on guard, or at least have sent forth his guards to prevent the city from being taken, was as intent upon his delicacies as if he had been in perfect peace, and exposed to no danger from any outward enemy. He had a contest with a strong man, if any man ever was so. Cyrus was endued with singular prudence, and in swiftness of action by far excelled all others. Since, then, the king was so keenly opposed, it is surprising to find him so careless as to celebrate a banquet. Xenophon, indeed, states the day to have been a festival. The assertion of those Jews who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over the Persians, is but trifling. For Xenophon — who may be trusted whenever he does not falsify history in favor of Cyrus, because he is then a very grave historian, and entirely worthy of credit; but when he desires to praise Cyrus, he has no moderation — is here historically correct, when he says the Babylonians were holding a usual annual festival. He tells us also how Babylon was taken, viz., by Gobryas and Gadatas his generals. For Belshazzar had castrated one of these to his shame, and had slain the son of the other in the lifetime of his father. Since then the latter burnt with the desire of avenging his son’s death, and the former his own disgrace, they conspired against him. Hence Cyrus turned the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon was suddenly taken. The city we must remember was twice taken, otherwise there would not have been any confidence in prophecy; because when the Prophets threaten God’s vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies should be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring human blood; and then they narrate every kind of atrocious deed which is customary in war. (Jeremiah 50:42.) But nothing of this kind happened when Babylon was taken by Cyrus; but when the Babylonians freed themselves from the Persian sway by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city by the assistance of Zopyrus, who mutilated his person, and pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king as to induce him to betray the city. But then we collect how hardly the Babylonians were afflicted, when 3000 nobles were crucified! And what usually happens when 8000 nobles are put to death, and all suspended on a gallows — nay, even crucified? Thus it easily appears, how severely the Babylonians were punished at the time, although they were then subject to a foreign power, and treated shamefully by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. For they were forbidden the use of arms, and were taught from the first to become the slaves of Cyrus, and dare not wear a sword. We ought to touch upon these things shortly to assure us of the government of human events by the judgment of God, when he casts headlong the reprobate when their punishment is at hand. We have an illustrious example of this in King Belshazzar.

The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at hand — the seventy years were finished — Babylon was besieged. (Jeremiah 25:11.) The Jews might now raise up their heads and hope for the best, because the arrival of Cyrus approached, contrary to the opinion of them all; for he had suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when that was a barbarous nation. Since, therefore, the sudden coming of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might possibly give some hope to the Jews; but after a length of time, so to speak, had elapsed in the siege of the city, this might east down their spirits. While king Belshazzar was banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seems able to thrust him out in the midst of his merriment and hilarity. Meanwhile the Lord did not sit at rest in heaven; for he blinds the mind of the impious king, so that he should willingly incur punishments, yet no one drew him on, for he incurred it himself. And whence could this arise, unless God had given him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of which Jeremiah was the herald. Hence, although Daniel narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to treat of things far more important; for God who had promised his people deliverance, was now stretching forth his hand in secret, and fulfilling the predictions of his Prophets. (Jeremiah 25:26.)

It now follows — 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 he says, he drank wine before a thousand, he alludes to the custom of the nation, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited guests to their table; they usually dined alone, as the kings of Europe now do; for they think it adds to their dignity to enjoy a solitary meal. The pride of the kings of Chaldea was of this kind. When, therefore, it is said, Belshazzar drank wine before a thousand, something extraordinary is intended, since he was celebrating this annum 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 ordeals, 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:

Daniel 5:2

2. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

2. Beltsazar princepit Verbally it means said, but here it signifies commanded. — Calvin,. in gustu, vel, sapore, vini, ut afferrent vasa auri et argenti, Made of gold and silver. — Calvin. quae asportaverat, vel, extulerat, Nebuchadnezer pater ejus ex temple quod est in Jerusalem, ut biberent in illis rex, et proceres ejus, uxores et concubine. Some translate his wife, since there was one principal wife, who alone was the king’s companion, and she received the name of Queen, as we shall afterwards see. — Calvin.

Here king Belshazzar courts his own punishment, because he furiously stirred up God’s wrath against himself, as if he was dissatisfied with its delay while God put off his judgment for so long a period. This is according to what I have said. When the destruction of a house is at hand, the impious remove the posts and gates, as Solomon says. (Proverbs 17:19.) God therefore, when he wishes to execute his judgments, impels the reprobrate by a secret instinct to rush forward of their own accord, and to hasten their own destruction. Belshazzar did this. His carelessness was the sign of his stupidity, and also of God’s wrath, when in the midst of his own pride and crimes he could delight in reveling. Thus his blindness more clearly points out God’s vengeance, since he was not content with his own intemperance and excesses, but must openly declare war against God. He ordered, therefore, says he, the gold and silver vessels to be brought to him which he had taken away from Nebuchadnezzar These vessels appear to have been laid up in the treasury; hence Nebuchadnezzar had never abused these vessels in his lifetime; we do not read that Evil-Merodach did anything of this kind, and Belshazzar now wishes purposely to inflict this insult on God. There is no doubt he brought forth those vessels by way of ridicule, for the purpose of triumphing over the true God, as we shall afterwards see.

We have already explained the sense in which the Prophet calls Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, since it is usual in all languages to speak of ancestors as fathers; for Belshazzar was of the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar, and being really his grandson, he is naturally called his son; and this will occur again. There are some who think Evil-Merodach was stricken with that grievous affliction mentioned in the last chapter: possibly his name was Nebuchadnezzar, but there is no reason for adopting their opinion; This is the view of the Duke of Manchester; it is ably supported in his learned volume on “The Times of Daniel.” As we have had occasion to review the general argument elsewhere, we merely allude to it here. — See Dissertations. it is frivolous to fly directly to this conjecture when the name of the father occurs. the Prophet says Belshazzar committed this under the influence of wine Since טעם, tegnem, signifies “to taste,” no doubt he here speaks of tasting; and since this may be metaphorically transferred to the understanding, some explain it to mean being impelled by wine, and thus his drunkenness took the place of reason and judgment. Nights and love and wine, says Ovid, have no moderation in them. Ars. Amor., Eleg. 6. The French translation is worthy of notice, —

“La nuiet, l’amour, le boire sans mesure, N’ induit a rien sinon a toute ordure.”

— Ed. This explanation I think too forced; it seems simply to mean, when Belshazzar grew warm with wine, he commanded the vessels to be brought to him; and this is the more usual view. When, therefore, the savor of the wine prevailed, — that is, when it seized upon the king’s senses, then he ordered the vessels to be brought It is worth while to notice this, to induce us to be cautious concerning intemperance in drinking, because nothing is more common than the undertaking many things far too rashly when our senses are under the influence of wine. Hence we must use wine soberly, that it may invigorate not only the body but the mind and the senses, and may never weaken, or enervate, or stupify our bodily or mental powers. And this is, alas! too common, since the vulgar proverb is well known — pride springs from drunkenness. For this reason the poets supposed Bacchus to have horns, since intemperate men are always puffed up, and the most wretched fancy themselves kings. What then must happen to monarchs, when in their forgetfulness they dream themselves kings of kings, and even deities? The Prophet wishes to mark this fault when he says, Belshazzar, under the influence of wine, ordered vessels to be brought to him It now follows, —

Daniel 5:3

3. 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 princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

3. Tunc attulerunt vasa aurea quae extulerant ex temple domus Dei quae erat in Jerusalem: et biberunt in illis rex, et proceres ejus, et uxor, Or, “wives,” in the plural number. — Calvin. et concubinae ipsius.

The Prophet uses the word “golden,” probably, because the most precious vessels were brought; silver might also have been added, but the more splendid ones are noticed. He does not say that Nebuchadnezzar carried them off, but implies it to be the common act of all the Babylonians. They obtained the victory under the direction of this king, hence he used the spoils; and since they were all engaged in the victory, the Prophet speaks of them all. In using the phrase, “the temple,” he expresses more than before, by saying, not from Jerusalem only but from the temple of God’s house.

Daniel 5:4

4. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

4. Biberunt vinum, et laudarunt deos aureos, et argenteos, aereos, ferreos, ligneos, et lapideos.

Here the Prophet shews more distinctly and clearly how the king insulted the true and only God, by ordering his vessels to be brought to him. For when they had been brought forth, they praised, says he, all their gods of gold and silver; meaning in defiance of the true God they celebrated the praises of their false deities, and thanked them, as we find in Habakkuk. (Habakkuk 1:16.) Although there is no doubt they sacrificed heartily the produce of their industry, as the Prophet there expresses it, yet they exalted their own gods, and thus obliterated the glory of the true God. And this is the reason why the Prophet now takes pains to state those vessels to have been brought from the temple of God’s house For he here strengthens the impiety of the king and his nobles for erecting their horns against the God of Israel. There is then a great contrast, between God who commanded his temple to be built at Jerusalem, and sacrifices to be offered to him and false gods. And this was the head and front of Belshazzar’s offending, because he thus purposely rose up against God, and not only tyrannically and miserably oppressed the Jews, but triumphed over their God — the Creator of heaven and earth. This madness accelerated his ultimate destruction, and it occurred for the purpose of hastening the time of their deliverance. Hence I have represented him to have been drawn by God’s great instinct to such madness that vengeance might be ripened.

They drank, says he, wine, and praised their gods. The Prophet does not ascribe the praise of their gods to drunkenness, but he obliquely shews their petulance to have been increased by drink. For if each had been sober at home, he would not have thus rashly risen up against God; but when impiety exists in the heart, intemperance becomes an additional stimulus. The Prophet seems to me to mean this, when he repeats, they were drinking; for he had said, the king and his nobles, his wife, and concubines, were drinking He now inculcates the same thing in similar words, but adds, they drank wine, — meaning their madness was the more inflamed by the excitement of the wine. Then they praised the gods of silver, etc. The Prophet here reproachfully mentions gods of gold, silver, brass, wood, and stone, since we know God to have nothing in common with either gold or silver. His true image cannot be expressed in corruptible materials; and this is, the reason why the Prophet calls all the gods which the Babylonians worshipped, golden, silver, brazen, wooden, and stone. Clearly enough the heathen never were so foolish as to suppose the essence of Deity to reside in gold, or silver, or stone; they only called them images of their deities; but because in their opinion the power and majesty of the deity was included within the material substance, the Prophet is right in so completely condemning their criminality, because we hear how carefully idolaters invent every kind of subtlety. In the present times, the Papacy is a glaring proof how men cling to gross superstitions when they desire to excuse their errors; hence the Prophet does not here admit those vain pretenses by which the Babylonians and other heathens disguise their baseness, but he says, their gods were of silver and gold And why so? for although they orally confessed that gods reign in heaven, (so great was the multitude and crowd of their deities that the supreme God was quite shrouded in darkness,) although therefore the Babylonians confessed their gods to have dwelt in heaven, yet they fled to statues and pictures. Hence the Prophet deservedly chides them for adoring gods of gold and silver. As to his saying, then the vessels were brought, it shews how the slaves of tyrants obey them in the worst actions, because no delay intervened in bringing the vessels from the treasury. Daniel therefore signifies how all the king’s servants were obedient to his nod, and desirous of pleasing a person brutish and drunken; at the same time he shews the shortness of that intemperate intoxication; for he says, —

Daniel 5:5

5. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

5. In ilia hora egressi sunt digiti manus hominis, et scribebant e regione lucernae Or, “candlestick;” some explain it, “window.” — Calvin. super calcern parietis Some consider it the surface, others the roof, which is probable. — Calvin palatii regis, et rex cernebat palmam Others translate it “finger.” — Calvin. manus scribentis.

Here Daniel begins his narration of the change which took place, for at that instant the king’ acknowledged something sorrowful and disturbing to be at hand. Yet, as he did not at once understand what it was, God gave him a sign as an omen of calamity, according to the language of the profane. In this way God sent him warning when he saw the king and his nobles raging with mad licentiousness. There appeared, then, the hand of a man, says the Prophet, using this expression from its similitude and form. We are sure it was not a man’s hand; it had the appearance of one, and hence was called so. Scripture often uses this method of expression, especially when treating external symbols. This is, then, a sacramental form of speech, This phrase is worthy of notice. The Latin is “sacramentalis locutio;” the French, “est aussi sacramentale ” See our Ezekiel, volume 2, p. 312 and note, where the Sabbath is termed a Sacrament. if I may use the expression. God, indeed, wrote the inscription by his own power, but he shews King Belshazzar the figure as if a man had written it on the wall; hence the fingers of a hand were put forth. This expression conduces in no slight degree to the reality of the miracle; for if Belshazzar had seen this on the wall from the very first, he might have supposed some artifice had placed the hand there; but when the wall was previously bare, and then the hand suddenly appeared, we may readily understand the hand to have been a sign from heaven, through which God wished to shew something’ important to the king. The fingers of a hand, then, were put forth, and wrote from the midst of the candlestick, or lamp. Clearly, then, this was a feast by night, and Babylon was taken in the midst of the night. No wonder their banquets were protracted to a great length, for intemperance has no bounds. When men are accustomed to spend the day in luxury, I confess indeed they do not usually continue their banquets till midnight; but when they celebrate any splendid and remarkable feast, they do not find the daylight sufficient for their festivites and the grosser indulgences of the table.

Hence the hand appeared from the candlesticks to render it the more conspicuous. That hand, says the Prophet, wrote on the surface of the palace wall. If any one had announced to the king this appearance of a human hand, he might have doubted it; but he says the king was an eye-witness, for God wished to terrify him, as we shall afterwards see, and hence he set before him this spectacle. The king, then, perceived it; perhaps his nobles did not; and we shall afterwards see how the terror operated upon the king alone, unless, indeed, some others trembled with him. When, therefore, they saw his countenance changed and exhibiting proofs of terror, they began to fear, although they were all desirous of affording him some consolation. Hence God wished to summon this impious king to His tribunal when the hand of a man appeared before him in the act of writing. We shall see what it wrote in its proper place.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, since we are so prone to forgetfulness and to our own indulgence in the desires and pleasures of the flesh, — Grant, I say, to each of us to be recalled to the contemplation of thy judgments; and may we be anxious to walk as in thy sight. May we be afraid of thy just vengeance, be careful not to provoke it by our petulance and other vices; but may we submit ourselves to thee, be held up, and propped up by thy hands, and proceed in the sacred course of thy calling, until at length thou shalt raise us to thy heavenly kingdom, which has been acquired for us by the blood of thine only-begotten Son. — Amen.

Lecture Twenty-Fourth

Daniel 5:6

6. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

6. Tunc Regis vultus “The form or figure,” verbally. — Calvin. mutatus est: et cogitationes ejus terruerunt eum, et ligamina lumborum ejus solvebantur, “His hip-joints,” for the Hebrews and Chaldees use roundabout expressions. — Calvin. et poplites ejus invicem collisi sunt.

Here Daniel shews how the king’s mind was struck with fear, lest any one should think his fright without foundation. But he expresses, by many circumstances, how disturbed the king was, and thus the sufficiency of the reason would easily appear. It was needful for him to be so struck, that all might understand how God was seated on his throne, and summoned him as a criminal. We mentioned before how Daniel impresses us with the pride of this king, and his careless security is a clear proof of it. When the daily siege of the city ought to have rendered him anxious, he was celebrating his usual banquets, as if in profound peace. Whence he appears to be corrupted by a kind of spiritual drunkenness, so as not to feel his own calamities. This, then, is the reason why God roused him up and awakened him from his lethargy, because no ordinary means were effectual in recalling him to soundness of mind. The fear which he experienced might seem a convenient preparation for penitence. But we see the same thing in this case as we do in that of Esau; for he was not only touched with contrition when he saw himself cut off, but he uttered a loud and piercing’ lamentation when seeking his father’s “blessing,” and yet he was too late. (Genesis 27:24.) A similar occurrence is related here of King Belshazzar, but we must remark upon everything in order. Daniel says. The king’s countenance was changed; then, the joints of his limbs were loosened, and he was disturbed, or frightened, in his thoughts; and lastly, he adds, his knees smote together The word properly signifies, to strike one against another. By these signs the Prophet shews how King Belshazzar was frightened by the vision already mentioned. Without doubt, as I have just said, God inspired him with this terror, for we know even when God has openly ascended to his own tribunal, how stupid the reprobate remain, and how immovable! But God wished to affect the mind of this impious king, and to render his ignorance without excuse.

Here we may remark, generally, in how many ways God touches men’s hearts — not those of the reprobate only, but also of his elect, for we see even the best men slow and slothful when God summons them to his judgment-seat. It becomes necessary to chastise them with rods, otherwise they never approach God of their own accord. He might, indeed, move their minds without violence; but he wishes to set before us, as in a glass, our slowness and slothfulness, since we do not obey his word with natural willingness. Hence he tames his children with cords when they will not profit by his word. With regard to the reprobate, he often chides their obstinacy, because, before he undertakes the office of judge, he kindly entices them; when they do not profit by this, he threatens; and when his threats are useless and devoid of efficacy, he then calls them to his tribunal. Respecting the fate of the King of Babylon, God had suffered Daniel to be silent, for his ingratitude and pride had closed the door, so as to prevent Daniel from undertaking the office of a teacher as he was prepared to do; hence the King of Babylon continued without one. But God suddenly appeared as a judge, by the writing of which we have shortly spoken, and of which we shall say more in the proper place. Whatever its meaning may be: we see King Belshazzar not only admonished by an outward sign of his approaching death, but inwardly stirred up to acknowledge himself to be dealing with God. For the reprobate often enjoy their own pleasures, as I have said, although God shews himself to be their judge. But he treats King Belshazzar differently: he desires to inspire him with terror, to render him more attentive to the perusal of the writing. This time was, as I have said, a preparation for repentance; but he failed in the midst of his course, as we see too many do who tremble at the voice of God and at the signs of his vengeance, as soon as he admonishes them; but these feelings are but evanescent; thus proving how little they have learnt of the necessary lesson.

The example of Esau is similar to this, since he despised God’s grace when he heard himself deprived of the inheritance divinely promised him. (Genesis 25:33.) He treated the blessing as a fable, till he found it a serious matter; he then began to lament, but all in vain. Such also was the fright of King Belshazzar, as we shall soon perceive. Even when Daniel explained the writing to him, he was by no means moved by it, but adorned Daniel with royal tokens of regard. Yet the object and use of this was totally different, for when the nobles were moved, and the reality became manifest, God in this way demonstrated his glory: and Darius, who took the city, with his son-in-law Cyrus, understood how his own valor and perseverance were not the sole cause of his victory, and how the satraps, Gobryas and Gadata, would not have assisted him so materially unless the whole affair had been under God’s auspices. Thus God shewed himself as in a glass to be the avenger of his people, as he had promised seventy years previously. It now follows: —

Daniel 5:7

7. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

7. Clamavit rex fortiter, ut introducerentur magi, Chaldaei, et astrologi, We have previously explained these words. — Calvin. et loquutus est rex, et dixit sapientibus Babylonis, Quisquis legerit scripturam hanc, et interpretationem ejus indieaverit mihi, purpura vestietur, et torques ex auro, hoc est, aureus, super collum ejus, et tertius in regno dominabitur.

The Prophet narrates how King Belshazzar sought a remedy for his anxiety; hence we gather how his mind was so immediately wounded, and how he felt he could not escape God’s hand, otherwise he would not have called the wise men so suddenly in the midst of the banquet. Again, when the Prophet says, He cried out loudly, he was clearly so astonished as to forget his being king, for to cry out at table was not consistent with his dignity. But God expelled all pride from him, by compelling him to burst forth into a cry, like a man completely beside himself. We must now consider the remedy to which he resorted: he ordered the Chaldeans, and magi, and astrologers to be called We learn from this how exceedingly prone men are to vanity, lying, and falsehood. Daniel ought to have been first, even among the Chaldeans, for that was an answer worthy of remembrance which he had given to the grandfather of this king, when he predicted his becoming like the beasts of the forest. Since this prophecy was verified by the event, his authority ought to have flourished even to a thousand years. He was daily in the king’s sight, and yet he was neglected, while the king sent for all the Chaldeans, and astrologers, and diviners, and magi. Truly enough, these men were then in so great repute that they deservedly obscured the fame of Daniel, for they were indignant at a captive being preferred to native teachers, when they knew their own glory amongst all peoples depended upon the persuasion of their being the only wise men. As, therefore, they wished to retain their good opinion, as being God’s counselors, no wonder they despised this stranger. But this feeling cannot avail for a moment before God: for what can be urged in defense of the king’s impiety? His grandfather was a memorable instance of God’s vengeance, when rejected from the company of men, and compelled to dwell among the wildest beasts of the forest. This, truly, could not appear a matter of chance. God, then, had first admonished him by a dream, and next sent his own Prophet as the interpreter of the oracle and the vision. As I have said, the fame of this event ought to have been perpetual among the Chaldeans, yet the grandson of King Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his example, insulted the God of Israel, profaned the vessels of the temple, and triumphed with his idols! When God sets before him the sign of his judgment, he calls together the magi and the Chaldeans, and passes by Daniel. And what possible excuse can he have for this? We have seen, as I have said, how very prone men are to be deluded by Satan’s impostures, and the well-known proverb becomes true, — The world loves to be deceived!

This, also, is worthy of notice, because in the present day, and in troublous times, many protect themselves behind the shield of their ignorance. But the explanation is at hand — they are willingly blind; they shut their eyes amidst the clearest light; for if God considered King Belshazzar without excuse when the Prophet was once presented to him, what excuse can the ‘blind of these days allege? Oh! if I could determine what God’s will is for me, I would submit myself instantly to it, because God daily and openly calls to us and invites us, and shews us the way; but none answer him, none follow him, or at least how very few! Hence we must diligently consider the example of the King of Babylon when we see him full of anxiety, and yet not seeking God as he ought. And why so? He wanders about in great hesitation; he sees himself constrained, and yet he cannot fly from the judgment of God, but seeks consolation in magi, Chaldeans, and other impostors; for, as we have seen, they had been once or twice proved so, and this ought to have been sufficiently celebrated and notorious to all men. We see, then, how blind King Belshazzar was, since he closed his eyes to the light offered him. So in the present day almost all the world continues in blindness; it is not allowed to wander in darkness, but when light shines upon it, it closes its eyes, rejects God’s grace, and purposely desires to cast itself headlong. This conduct is far too common.

Now the Prophet says, — The king promised the wise men a present of a chain of gold to whoever read the writing; and besides this, raiment of purple, and the third rank in the kingdom! This shews him not to have been sincerely touched by the fear of God. And this repugnance is worthy of observation in the wicked, who dread God’s judgments, and yet the pride of their hearts is not corrected and subdued, as we saw in the case of this king. For his knees smote one against the other, and the joints of his loins were loosened: he trembles throughout his entire frame, and becomes half dead with fear, because God’s terror seizes on all his senses. Meanwhile, we see a hidden pride lurking in his mind, which breaks forth in the promise, whoever shall interpret the writing, shall be the third in rank in the kingdom! God had already deprived him of his royal dignity; yet he still wishes to raise others on high in defiance of God! What, then, is the meaning of this? We see how often the wicked are terrified, and how deeply they cherish a hidden contumacy, so that God never subdues them. They shew, indeed, many signs of repentance; but if any one carefully weighs all their words and deeds, he will find the Prophet’s narration concerning King Belshazzar completely verified, because they rage against God, and are never teachable or obedient, but utterly stupefied. We saw this partly in former verse, and shall see it again more clearly at the end of the chapter. As to the latter clause of the verse, he shall rule as third in the kingdom, it is uncertain whether he promises the third portion or the third rank; for many think the queen, of whom mention will soon be made, was the wife of King Nebuchadnezzar, and grandmother of King Belshazzar. It follows: —

Daniel 5:8-9

8. Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.

8. Tunc ingressi sunt omnes sa-pientes regis, et non potuerunt scripturam legere, et interpreta-tionem ejus patefacere regi.

9. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

9. Tunc rex Beltsazar multum territus fuit, et vultus ejus mutatus fuit super eum, in eo: et principes ejus fuerunt obstupefacti. Or, anxious. — Calvin.

Here Daniel relates how deceived the king was in his opinion, in hoping for any interpretation of the writing from either the magi or the astrologers, the Chaldeans or the soothsayers; for none of them could read it. Hence he pays here the punishment of his ingratitude in passing over God’s Prophet, while he knew he had predicted truth to his grandfather just as it had happened, as well as Daniel’s general excellence in wisdom, Hence the proofs of his calling were sufficiently numerous and trustworthy. Since, then, he had so despised God’s unparalleled benefit, he is destitute of counsel:, and sees himself call in vain upon all the Chaldeans and astrologers. For Daniel says, There was no one who could read the writing or reveal its interpretation to the king Because this seems absurd, many Rabbis have hazarded various conjectures. Some think the letters were transposed; others guess that they were changed into their counterparts and equivalents; and others think the char-actors were changed. But we have elsewhere shewn how bold the Jews are in their conjectures, whenever they have no certain guide. We do not require their guesses, because, very probably, the writing was visible to the king and concealed from all the Chaldeans, or else they were so blind that they could see nothing; just as God denounced against the Jews a stupor of this kind. We see what he pronounces, by Isaiah, (Isaiah 29: 11,) “Your law shall be like a. sealed book: If it shall be said to any one, ‘Read it,’ he shall say, ‘The book is sealed, I cannot:’ or the book may be opened and ye shall all become blind: even those who seem to be sharper than all others, shall say they are ignorant and unlettered men.” Whatever God threatened against the Jews we know was fulfilled, and is fulfilled to this day, since a veil is put before their eyes, as Paul says. (2 Corinthians 3:14.) Hence they were blind in the midst of the brightest light. What wonder then if the same thing happened to the Chaldeans, so flint they could not read the writing? There is no necessity to conjecture any transposition of letters, or any inversion of their, order, or any change of one into another; for the word תקל, tekel, went first, and afterwards מנא, מנא Mena, Mena. These guesses then are frivolous; and thus much is certain, God wished the king to be made aware of his approaching destruction; next, his soul was moved, not with repentance, but only enough to render his sloth without excuse; and hence, whether willingly or not, he was compelled to send for some remedy, since he knew himself to be dealing with God.

Now, with regard to the writing itself, God could not be a free agent unless he possessed the power of addressing one man at one time, and a number of men at another. He wished King Belshazzar to be conscious of this writing, while the magi were all as unable to read it as if they were blind. And then, with reference to the interpretation, their perplexity need not surprise us. For God spoke enigmatically, when he said Mene, Mene, and then Tekel, that is weighed, and Peres, divided. If the magi could have read these words a hundred times over, they could never either conjecture or comprehend their true meaning. The prophecy was allegorical, until an interpreter was divinely ordained for it. So far as the mere letters are concerned, there is no reason why we should be surprised at the eyes of the magi being blinded, since God pleased it to be so, and wished to cite the king to his tribunal, as we have already said. The Prophet says, The king was frightened, his countenance was changed, and the princes also were disturbed The publicity of the event ought to have increased the sense of God’s judgment, for, as we shall afterwards see, King Belshazzar himself was slain that very night. Cyrus entered while the Babylonians were feasting, and enjoying their luxuries in security. So remarkable an example of God’s justice might have been instantly buried in that drunken revel, had it not been rendered conspicuous to many bystanders. Hence Daniel repeats, The king was disturbed, after he saw no prospect of either aid or advice from his magi and astrologers. He says also, his princes were astonished, because not only the king ought to be troubled but the whole Court, and the report ought to flow forth not only through the city, but to foreign nations, since there is no doubt that Cyrus was afterwards informed of this prophecy; for he would not have courted Daniel so much, nor honored him so remarkably, unless this occurrence had been made known to him. It afterwards follows:

Daniel 5:10-11

10. Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house; and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:

10. Regina propier verba regis et procerum in domum symposii, It must be translated in this way, because the noun is derived from שתה shetheh, to drink. — Calvin. ingressa est, loquuta est et dixit, Rex, in aeternum vive: ne terreant to cogitationes tuae, et vultus tuus ne mutetur.

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, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

11. Est vir in regno tuo, in quo spiritus est deorum sanctorum: et in diebus parris tui intelligentia Verbally, “light,” used metaphorically. — Calvin. et scientia, et sapientia quasi sapientia deorum reperta est in eo: et Rex Nebuchadnezer pater tuus magistrum magorum, I do not stop to explain these words. — Calvin. astrologorum, Chaldaeorum, aruspicum constituit ipsum, pater tuus rex, inquam.

Here Daniel relates the occasion of his being brought before the king, as the reader and interpreter of the writing. The queen, he says, did this. It is doubtful whether it was the wife of King Belshazzar, or his grandmother. She was probably an old woman, as she refers to events in the time of King Nebuchadnezzar This conjecture has no sufficient foundation, and hence it is better to suspend our judgment than to assert anything rashly; unless, as we before saw, his wife was at table with him. As far as we can gather the words of the Prophet with certainty, we must diligently notice them, and thus convict the king of ingratitude, because he did not admit Daniel among the magi, Chaldeans, and astrologers. The holy man had no wish to be reckoned in that company; he would have deserved to lose God’s prophetic spirit had he thus mingled with impostors; and he is clearly to be distinguished from them. King Nebuchadnezzar had set him over all the magi; he had no wish to exercise this honor, unless, as I have just said, he would deprive himself of the singular gift of prophecy; for we must always take care how far we can go. We know how very prone we are to be enticed by the blandishments of the world, especially when ambition blinds us and disturbs all our senses. No plague is worse than this, because when any one sees a prospect of the acquisition of either profit or honor, he does not regard either what he ought to do or what God permits, but is hurried on by a blind fury. This would have happened to Daniel, unless he had been restrained by a sense of true piety, and hence he repudiated the honor offered him by King Nebuchadnezzar. He never wished to be reckoned among soothsayers, and astrologers, and impostors of this kind, who deluded that nation with prodigies. Here the queen enters and mentions Daniel; but this does not render the king without excuse; for, as we have already said, Daniel had acquired a name of renown among men of all ages, and God wished to signalize him by a distinct mark, to fix the minds of all upon him, as if he were an angel from heaven. As King Belshazzar was ignorant of the existence of such a Prophet in his kingdom, this was the result of his gross and brutish indifference. God, therefore, wished King Belshazzar to be reproved by a woman, who said, Let not thy thoughts disturb thee! She calms him quietly, because she saw how frightened he was; but, meanwhile, she shews him the grossness of his error in wandering about in uncertainty, when the way was plain before him. God had put his torch in the Prophet’s hand for the very purpose of lighting the king, unless he willfully desired to wander in darkness, as all the wicked do. Hence, we may learn from the example of this king, the common fault of our nature; for no one runs out of the right way, unless he indulges in his own ignorance, and desires all light to be extinct within him. As to the language of the queen, The spirit of the holy gods is in Daniel! we have elsewhere explained its meaning. It is not surprising that the profane use this language, since they cannot discern between the one God and angels. Hence they promiscuously call anything divine and celestial, a god. Thus also the queen calls angels, holy gods, and places the true God among them. But it is our privilege to acknowledge the true God as shining forth alone, and the angels as all taking their own ranks without any excellence in heaven or earth to obscure the glory of the only God. The writing has this tendency — the exaltation of God in the highest degree, and the magnifying of his excellency and his majestic supremacy. We here see how needful it is for us to be instructed in the essential unity of God, since from the very beginning of the world men have always been persuaded of the existence of some Supreme Deity; but after they became vain in their imaginations, this idea entirely escaped them, and they mingled God and angels in complete confusion. Whenever we perceive this, let us feel our need of Scripture as a guide and instructor which shines on our path, urging us to think of God as inviting us to himself and willingly revealing himself to us.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, since thou dost constantly address us by thy Prophets, and permittest us not to wander in the darkness of error, — Grant us, I say, to be attentive to thy voice, and make us docile and tractable towards thee; especially when thou settest before us a Master in whom are included all treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Grant us further, I pray thee, to be subject to thine only-begotten Son, to hold on in the right course of our holy calling, and to be always pressing onwards to that goal to which thou callest us, until we are successful in all our contests with this world, and at length arrive at that blessed rest which thou hast obtained for us through the blood of the same thy Son. — Amen.

Lecture Twenty-Fifth

WE began yesterday to explain the passage where Daniel relates how the queen advised King Belshazzar to send for the Prophet. We shewed how the king was here convicted of ingratitude, in suffering such a Prophet of God to be in obscurity so long, because that memorable prophecy, already treated, ought to have been well known and in everybody’s mouth, as conferring a permanent authority on the holy man. Now, when Daniel says, the queen entered the banqueting-room; very probably she was not the king’s wife, but his grandmother. I have expressed my intention of not contending the point, since in doubtful cases every one ought to enjoy his own unbiased judgment. But it is incongruous to say, The king was feasting with his wife and concubines, and then to add, “the queen entered the banqueting-room.” Hence we suppose her to be called Queen, through the honor, rank, and respect which she still enjoyed, without any power. The testimony of Herodotus confirms this view, for he praises the queen of King Nebuchadnezzar for her singular prudence, calling him Labynetus and her Nitocris. Herod., lib. i.e. 185 and 188. It is far more probable that this matron was absent from a banquet unsuitable to her age and gravity, since she would scarcely be feasting with those who were thus devoting themselves to luxury. When she enters the room, she reminds the king of Daniel, and she now gives the reason why he surpasses all the magi and soothsayers, the diviners and the Chaldees.

Daniel 5:12

12. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

12. Propterea quod spiritus excellens, et intelligentia, et cognitio, interpretatio somniorum, et arca. norton norum, et solutio nodorum That is, he resolved difficulties by prudence and knowledge, as I said previously. I read it all in one context, though verbs and nouns are intermingled, for I wish to make it simple, and to avoid ambiguity — Calvin. inventa est in eo, nempe Daniel, cui rex imposuerit nomen Beltsazar: et nunc Daniel vocetur, et interpre-tationem patefaciat.

The queen here assigns the reason why Daniel had obtained the honor of being esteemed the prince and master of all the wise men; because she said, An excellent spirit was found in him, as he interpreted dreams, revealed secrets, and solved difficulties The three gifts in which Daniel excelled are here enumerated, and this proves him to have surpassed the other magi, since none of them could be compared with him. The magi boasted in their ability to interpret dreams, to solve all difficulties, and explain enigmas; but this boast of theirs was twice shewn to be vanity and folly. The queen therefore deservedly claims these three qualities for Daniel, while shewing his superiority to all others. Hence she reasons with authority when she says, A name was imposed upon him by the king. We have already spoken of this name, Belteshazzar; but the queen now refers to this name, to inform the king in what great esteem and honor he was held by his grandfather. The name of his father is here expressed, since Belshazzar might despise all strangers; yet reason would dictate the propriety of deferring to the judgment of his grandfather, whom every one knew to be a most remarkable character, whom God humbled for a time, as we saw, and as Daniel will now allude to it. Let us proceed, —

Daniel 5:13-16

13. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?

13. Tunc Daniel adductus est coram rege: loquutus est rex, et dixit Danieli, Tu me est If we read it interrogatively; or, “Thou art Daniel?” — Calvin. the Daniel, qui, ex filiis caprivitatis Jehudah, quem abduxit rex pater mens e Jehudah.

14. I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

14. Et audivi de to, quod spiritus deorum in to, et intelligentia, et cognitio, et sapientia excellens, inventa sit in re.

15. And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing:

15. Et nunc producti sunt coram me sapientes, arioli, Or, conjurers. I do not dwell on this as I said before. — Calvin. qui scripturam hanc legerent, et interpretationem ejus patefacerent mihi: et non potuerunt interpretationem sermonis indicate.

16. And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.

16. Et ego audivi de to, quod possis nodos solvere, et arcana explicare: nunc si poteris scripturam legere et interpretationem ejus patefacere mihi, purpura vestieris, et torques ex auro super collum tuum, et tertius in regno dominaberis.

Here the king does not acknowledge his own folly, but without any modesty he interrogates Daniel, and that, too, as a captive, — Art thou, that Daniel, of the captives of Judah, whom my father led away? He seems to speak contemptuously here, to keep Daniel in servile obedience; although we may read this sentence as if Belshazzar inquired, Are you that Daniel? In truth, I have heard of thee! He had heard before, and had said nothing; but now, when extreme necessity urges him, he pays the greatest respect to Daniel. I have heard, therefore, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, since thou canst unravel intricacies and reveal secrets With regard to the spirit of the gods, we have already mentioned how King Belshazzar, by the common custom of all nations, promiscuously mingled angels with God; because those miserable ones could not extol God as they ought, and treat angels as entirely under his feet. But this sentence shews men never were so brutal as not to ascribe all excellence to God, as we see in profane writers; whatever promotes human advantage, and is remarkable for superiority and dignity, they treat as benefits derived from the gods. Thus the Chaldeans called the gift of intelligence a spirit of the gods, being a rare and singular power of penetration; since men acknowledge they do not acquire and attain to the prophetic office by their own industry, but it is a heavenly gift. Hence men are compelled by God to assign to him his due praise; but because the true God was unknown to them, they speak implicitly, and, as I have said, they called angels gods, since in the darkness of their ignorance they could not discern which was the true God. Whatever be the meaning, Belshazzar here shews in what estimation he holds Daniel, saying, he depends on the reports received from others, and thus displaying his own slothfulness. He ought to have known the Prophet by personal experience; but from his being content with simple rumor, he proudly neglected the teacher offered to him, and neither reflected upon nor wished to confess his own disgrace. But thus God. often extracts a confession from the impious, by which they condemn themselves, even if they wish exceedingly to escape censure.

The following phrase has the same meaning: — All the wise men were brought before me, and the soothsayers or diviners, to read this writing to me, and to reveal its interpretation; and they could not do it, said he; for God punished him by shewing how profitless were all the Chaldeans and soothsayers, in whom he trusted at the moment of his extremity. While he was thus disappointed in his hopes, he acknowledges himself to have been deceived; and when he preferred the magi and soothsayers, he thought himself fortified by their counsel, as long as they were on his side. Meanwhile his rejection of the holy Prophet was deservedly intolerable to God. Belshazzar confesses this without intending to do so; hence I said his confession was not ingenuous or voluntary, but violently extorted by the secret instinct of God. He also promises Daniel what he had previously promised the magi, — Thou shalt be clothed in purple if thou canst read this writing, and wear a golden chain round thy neck, and thou shalt reign as the third person in the kingdom But the end of his reign was now close at hand, and yet in security he offers this dignity to Daniel. This shews how rapidly the terror which God had occasioned him had vanished away. He is agitated by the greatest uneasiness, just like madmen, for they having no certainty exult amidst their terror, and wish to leap or fly towards heaven itself. Thus also this tyrant though he trembles at God’s judgment, yet retains a hidden obstinacy in his heart, and imagines his kingdom will permanently continue, while he promises wealth and honors to others. It now follows, —

Daniel 5:17

17. Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

17. Tunc respondit Daniel, et dixit coram rege, Dona tua tibi sint, That is, may they remain with thee. — Calvin. et munera tua alteri da: tamen scripturam legam regi, et interpretationem ejus patefaciam ei.

First of all, Daniel here rejects the proffered gifts. We do not read of his doing so before; he rather seemed to delight in the honors conferred by King Nebuchadnezzar. We may inquire into the reason for this difference. It is not probable that the intention, feeling, or sentiments of the Prophet were different. What then could be his intention in allowing himself to be previously ennobled by Nebuchadnezzar, and by now rejecting the offered dignity? Another question also arises. At the end of this chapter we shall see how he was clothed in purple, and a herald promulgated an edict, by which he became third in the kingdom. The Prophet seems either to have forgotten himself in receiving the purple which he had so magnanimously rejected, or we may ask the reason why he says so, when he did not refuse to be adorned in the royal apparel. With respect to the first question, I have no doubt of his desire to treat the impious and desperate Belshazzar with greater asperity, because in the case of King Nebuchadnezzar there still remained some feelings of honor, and hence he hoped well of him and treated him more mildly. But with regard to King Belshazzar, it was necessary to treat him more harshly, because he had now arrived at his last extremity. This, I have no doubt, was the cause of the difference, since the Prophet proceeded straight forward in his course, but his duty demanded of him to distinguish between different persons, and as there was greater pertinacity and obstinacy in King Belshazzar, he shews how much less he deferred to him than to his grandfather. Besides, the time of his subjection was soon to be finished, and with this end in view he had formerly honored the Chaldean empire.

As to the contrast apparent between his reply and his actions, which we shall hereafter see, this ought not to seem absurd, if the Prophet had from the beginning borne his testimony against the king’s gifts, and that he utterly re-jeered them. Yet he does not strive very vehemently, lest he should be thought to be acting cunningly, for the purpose of escaping danger. In each case he wished to display unconquered greatness of mind; at the beginning he asserted the king’s gifts to be valueless to him, for he knew the end of the kingdom to be at hand, and afterwards he received the purple with other apparel. If he had entirely refused them, it would have been treated as a fault and as a sign of timidity, and would have incurred the suspicion of treason. The Prophet therefore shews how magnificently he despised all the dignities offered him by King Belshazzar, who was already half dead. At the same time he shews himself intrepid against all dangers; for the king’s death was at hand and the city was taken in a few hours — nay, in the very same hour! Daniel therefore did not reject this purple, she wing his resolution not to avoid death if necessary. He would have been safer in his obscurity, had he dwelt among the citizens at large, instead of in the palace; and if he had resided among the captives, he might have been free from all danger. As he did not hesitate to receive the purple, he displays his perfect freedom from all fear. Meanwhile he, doubtless, wished to lay prostrate the king’s foolish arrogance, by which he was puffed up, when he says, Let thy gifts remain with thee, and give thy presents to another! I care not for them. Because he so nobly despises the king’s liberality, there is no doubt of his desire to correct the pride by which he was puffed up, or at least to wound and arouse his mind to feel God’s judgment, of which Daniel will soon become both the herald and the witness. It now follows, —

Daniel 5:18-20

18. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

18. O rex, Verbally, “Thou, O king,” as he addresses him. — Calvin. Deus excelsus imperium, et magnitudinem, et praestantiam, et splendorem dedit Nebuchadnezer patri tuo.

19. And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

19. Et ob magnitudinem quam dederat ei, omnes populi, gentes et linguae tremuerunt, et formidarunt a conspectu ejus: quem volebat, occidebat: That is, “whom he wished to slay was slain.” — Calvin. et quem volebat percutere, percutiebat: et quem volebat attol-lere, attollebat: et quem volebat dejicere, dejiciebat.

20. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:

20. Quando autem elevatum fuit cor ejus, et spiritus ejus roboratus est Or, “he was hardened.” — Calvin. ad superbtam, dejectus fuit e solio regni, et gloriam abstulerunt ab eo.

Before Daniel recites the writing, and adds its interpretation, he explains to King Belshazzar the origin of this prodigy. He did not begin the reading at once, as he might conveniently have done, saying Mene, Mene! as we shall see at the end of the chapter, since the king could not have pro-fired by his abrupt speech. But here Daniel shews it to be by no means surprising, if God put forth his hand and shewed the figure of a hand describing the king’s destruction, since the king had too obstinately provoked his anger. We see then why Daniel begins by this narrative, since King Nebuchadnezzar was a most powerful monarch, subduing the whole world to himself and causing all men to tremble at his word, and was afterwards hurled from the throne of his kingdom. Hence it more clearly appears that Belshazzar did not live in ignorance, for he had so signal and remarkable an example [hat he ought to have conducted himself with moderation. Since then that domestic admonition did not profit him, Daniel shews the time to be ripe for the denunciation of God’s wrath by a formidable and portentous sign. This is the sense of the passage. Passing on to the words themselves, he first says, To King Nebuchadnezzar God gave an empire, and magnificence, and loftiness, and splendor; as if he had said, he was magnificently adorned, as the greatest monarch in the world. We have stated elsewhere, and Daniel repeats it often, that empires are bestowed on men by divine power and not by chance, as Paul announces, There is no power but of God. (Romans 13:1.) God wishes his power to be specially visible in kingdoms. Although, therefore, he takes care of the whole world, and, in the government of the human family even the most miserable things are regulated by his hand, yet his singular providence shines forth in the empire of the world. But since we have often discussed this point at length, and shall have many opportunities of recurring to it, it is now sufficient just briefly to notice the principle, of the exaltation of earthly kings by the hand of God, and not by the chances of fortune.

When Daniel confirms this doctrine, he adds, On account of the magnificence which God conferred upon him, all mortals trembled at the sight of him! By these words he shews how God’s glory is inscribed on kings, although he allows them to reign supreme. This indeed cannot be pointed out with the finger, but the fact is sufficiently clear; kings are divinely armed with authority, and thus retain under their hand and sway a great multitude of subjects. Every one desires the chief power over his fellow-creatures. Whence happens it, since ambition is natural to all men, that many thousands are subject to one, and suffer themselves to be ruled over and endure many oppressions? How could this be, unless God entrusted the sword of power to those whom he wishes to excel? This reason, then, must be diligently noticed, when the Prophet says, All men trembled at the sight of King Nebuchadnezzar, because God conferred upon him that majesty, and wished him to excel all the monarchs of the world. God has many reasons, and often hidden ones, why he raises one man and humbles another; yet this point ought to be uncontroverted by us. No kings can possess any authority unless God extends his hand to them and props them up. When he wishes to remove them from power, they fall of their own accord; not because there is any chance in the changes of the world, but because God, as it is said in the Book of Job, (Job 12:18,) deprives those of the sword whom he had formerly entrusted with it.

It now follows, Whom he wished to slay he slew, and whom he wished to strike he struck Some think the abuse of kingly power is here described; but I had rather take it simply, for Nebuchadnezzar being able to east down some, and to raise others at his will, since it was in his power to give life to some and to slay others. I, therefore, do not refer these words to tyrannical lust, as if Nebuchadnezzar had put many innocent persons to death, and poured forth human blood without any reason; or as if he had despoiled many of their fortunes, and enriched others and adorned them with honor and wealth. I do not take it so. I think it refers to his arbitrary power over life and death, and over the rise of some and the ruin of others. On the whole, Daniel seems to me to describe the greatness of that royal power which they may freely exercise over their subjects, not through its being lawful, but through the tacit consent of all men. Whatsoever pleases the king, all are compelled to approve of it, or at least no one dares to murmur at it. Since, therefore, the regal license is so great, Daniel here shews how King Nebuchadnezzar was not carried away by his own plans, or purposes, or good fortune, but was entrusted with supreme power and rendered formidable to all men, because God had designed him for his own glory. Meanwhile, kings usually despise what they are permitted to enjoy, and what God allows them. For powerful as they are, they must hereafter render an account to the Supreme King. We are not to gather from this, that kings are appointed by God without any law, or any self-restraint; but the Prophet, as I have said, speaks of the royal power in itself. Since kings, therefore, have power over their subjects for life and death, he says, the life of all men was in the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar. He now adds, When his heart was exalted, then he was cast down (or ejected) from the throne of his kingdom, and they deprived him of his majesty He follows up his own narrative, tie wishes to shew King Belshazzar how God bears with the insolence of those who forget him, when they have obtained the summit of power. Desiring to make this known, he says, King Nebuchadnezzar, thy grandfather, was a mighty monarch. He did not obtain this mightiness by himself, nor could he have retained it, except he had been supported by God’s hand. Now his change of circumstances was a remarkable proof that the pride of those who are ungrateful to God can never be endured unto the end, as they never acknowledge their sway to proceed from his benevolence. When, therefore, says he, his heart was raised up and his spirit strengthened in pride, a sudden change occurred. Hence you and all his posterity ought to be taught, lest pride still further deceive you, and ye profit not by the example of your father; as we shall afterwards relate. Hence this writing has been set before thee, for the purpose of making known the destruction of thy life and kingdom.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, since our own station in life has been assigned to us, that we may be content with our lot, and when thou dost humble us, may we willingly be subject to thee, and suffer ourselves to be ruled by thee, and not desire any exaltation, which may lead us down to destruction. Grant us also, to conduct ourselves so modestly in our various callings, that thou mayest always shine forth in. us. May nothing else be set before us than to assist our brethren to whom we are attached, as in thy sight; and thus glorify thy name among all men, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Amen.

Lecture Twenty-sixth.

In the sentence which we began to explain yesterday, the clause must be noticed where Daniel says, The heart of King Nebuchadnezzar was strengthened by pride, signifying that he was not suddenly elated by folly, as vain men often swell with pride without a cause; nor does any interior affection of the mind precede; but he wishes to express in addition, the length of time during which this pride had been conceived; as if he had said, he was not seized by any sudden vanity, but his pride was studied, and obstinacy and obduracy were added to it. The change of number which afterwards occurs from singular to plural, some refer to the angels, as if they deprived him by God’s command; but I rather think these words are taken indefinitely, implying merely his being deprived of his glory, as we have formerly observed similar forms of speech. It now follows —

Daniel 5:21

21. And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

21. Eta filiis hominum exterminatus fuit: et cor ejus cum bestils positum est: et cum onagris habitatio ejus: herba sicut tauros ciba-verunt eum: et tore coeli corpus ejus irrigatum fuit, donec cognos-ceret quod dominetur Deus excelsus in regno hominum, et quem velit imponat in illo.

First, with respect to the text; verbally, it is “he put,” and thus some translate, “he placed his own heart among the brutes,” which makes a tolerable sense; but others rather refer this to God, who placed his heart among beasts, and we know how often the noun substantive is defective in Hebrew and Chaldee; hence we may translate it verbally, Nebuchadnezzar himself placed his own heart, that is, assimilated his own senses to the brutes, so as to differ in no respect from them. It may also mean, God placed his heart among the brutes, that is, infatuated him so, as to render him like them. Others take the word שוי, shevi, absolutely; but it ought rather to be explained actively. Again, some translate the next clause, “Made him taste the grass, like a brute;” and others, that the grass supported him. The number is changed, but there is no doubt about the sense; for if we read, “The herb of the field supported him,” the expression will be indefinite, similar to many others previously noticed; but if any one prefers using the plural number, the sense will be equally suitable; for “the herbs of the field gave him nourishment.”

This verse does not need any long explanation, since Daniel only repeats what he had formerly written: His grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, although not changed into a wild beast, was driven from the common society of men, and his whole body was deformed, whilst he abhorred the habits of men and preferred to dwell with the brutes. This was a horrible prodigy, especially in so great a monarch; and it was an example worthy of being handed down by posterity even to a thousand generations, had the monarchy endured so long. But his grandson quickly forgot this event, and thus he is deservedly convicted of the basest slothfulness. This is the reason why Daniel repeats the history again, He was driven, says he, from the children of men; his heart was placed among the beasts, meaning he was deprived of reason and judgment. We know this to be the principal difference between men and brutes — men understand and reason, but brutes are carried away by their senses. God, therefore, set forth a memorable example in despoiling this king of his reason and intelligence, His dwelling, says he, was with the wild asses; formerly he had dwelt in a palace, conspicuous throughout the world at large, from whom all the people of the East sought their laws. Since he was habitually worshipped as a god, this was a horrible judgment, since he afterwards dwelt among wild beasts, and like a bull received his sustenance from the grass of the field, when he had previously reveled in every delicacy, and was accustomed to luxurious habits, and to the whole wealth of a kingdom; especially, when we know how luxuriously the Orientals indulged themselves. Babylon was the mother of all indulgences, and when the king’s condition was thus changed, no one could be ignorant of its cause — not mere chance or accident:, but the rare and singular judgment of God!

He afterwards adds what he had formerly said, His body was moistened by the dews of heaven, until he acknowledged God to reign supreme in the kingdom of men Here again the end of the punishment is expressed — that Nebuchadnezzar might feel himself to have been created king by divine power, and to shew how earthly kings could not stand unless God propped them up by his hand and influence. They think themselves placed beyond the changes of fortune, and although they verbally boast of reigning by the grace of God, yet they despise every deity and transfer the glory of the divinity to themselves! We gather from these words that this is the folly of all kings. For if Nebuchadnezzar had been persuaded of God’s appointment of kings, of their dependence upon his will, and of their fall or stability according to his decree, he had not needed this punishment, as these words clearly imply, tie excluded God, then, from the government of the world; but this is common with all earthly kings, as I have lately stated. All indeed will profess something, but the Holy Spirit does not regard those false protestations, as they are called. Hence in the character of King Nebuchadnezzar we have set before us, as in a glass, the drunken confidence of all kings, in supposing themselves to stand by their own power, and to free themselves from the authority of God, as if he were not seated as a judge in heaven, Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, ought to be humbled, until he acknowledged God’s reign upon earth, since the common opinion fixed him up in heaven, as if contented with his own ease, and careless of the affairs of the human race. At length it is added, and whom he wills, he exalts, or sets up. What has been said obscurely is better expressed, since Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged, by being severely punished and subdued, the reign of God on the earth. For when earthly kings see themselves surrounded by guards, powerful in riches, and able to collect mighty armies by their nod; when they see they inspire universal terror, they think God deprived of his rights, and are unable to conceive any change; as it is said in the Psalms of all the proud, (Psalm 10:4,) and as Isaiah says to the same purport, Even should a blast pass by, or a deluge overwhelm the whole earth, yet evil shall not touch us. (Isaiah 28:15.) As if they had said, although God should thunder from heaven, yet we shall be safe from all disaster and disturbance. Kings persuade themselves of this. Hence they begin to acknowledge God as king of the earth, when they feel themselves in his hand and at his disposal, to east down those whom he has raised up, and to exalt the lowly and abject, as we have already seen. This clause of the verse, then, is an explanation of the former sentence. It now follows:

Daniel 5:22

22. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

22. Et tu filius ejus Beltsazar, non humiliasti cor tuum: qua propter Verbally — but it means, “since.” — Calvin. totum hoc cognoveras.

Daniel here shews why he, related what we have hitherto heard concerning King Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment; for Belshazzar ought to have been so affected by that domestic example, as to submit himself to God. We may believe, indeed, that his father Evil-Merodach had forgotten his punishments, since he would not have conducted himself so petulantly against God, nor trampled on true and sincere piety; for God spared the wretched tyrant who restrained himself within the bounds of moderation. But as to his grandfather Belshazzar, he was altogether intolerable; hence God stretched forth his hand. The Prophet now teaches this. Thou art his son, says he. This circumstance urges upon him with greater force the duty of not seeking an example in foreign nations, since he acknowledged himself to have sufficient at home of what was both necessary and useful. He enlarges upon his crime in another way, by saying, Yet thou didst know this Men are accustomed to shield themselves under their ignorance with the view of extenuating the guilt of their crimes, but those who sin knowingly and willfully are without the slightest excuse. The Prophet therefore convinces the king of manifest obstinacy; as if he had said, You have provoked God’s anger on purpose; since he ought to have been aware of the horrible judgment awaiting all the proud, when he had such a remarkable and singular proof of it in his grandfather, which he ought to have kept constantly before his eyes. It follows, —

Daniel 5:23

23. But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

23. Et contra Dominum coeli to extulisti, et vasa domus ejus, That is, of his temple. — Calvin. protulerunt in conspectum tuum: et tu, et proceres tui, uxores tuae, Or, thy wife. — Calvin. et concubinae tuae vinum bibistis in illis: et deos argenti, hoc est, argenteos, et aureos, aeneos, ferreos, ligneos, et la-pideos, qui non vident, et non audiunt, et non intelligunt, laudasti: et Deum, cui est in manu ejus anima tua, That is, in whose hand is thy life. — Calvin. et eujus In whose power are all things. — Calvin. omnia tua, non honorasti.

The Prophet continues his own sentence, and confirms what I have said, namely, King Belshazzar was intractable and willfully blind to God’s judgment. For thou hast raised thyself, says he, against the Lord of heaven. If he had raised himself thus insolently against men, his sin would be worthy of punishment; but when he had provoked God on purpose, this arrogance neither could nor ought to be borne. Again, therefore, the Prophet increases the guilt of the king’s pride by saying, he raised himself against the King of heaven He also expresses the manner of his doing so, by commanding the vessels of the temple to be brought to sight; he drank from them This profanation was an indecent sacrilege, but Belshazzar was not content with that indignity; he used these vessels for luxury and foul debauchery, abusing them in the company of concubines and abandoned women; and added a yet greater reproach against God, in praising his gods of silver and gold, brass and iron, wood and stone, which cannot feel. This had not been said previously; but since Daniel here sustains the character of a teacher, he does not relate the events so shortly as at first. When he said at the beginning of this chapter, Belshazzar celebrated that impure banquet, he spoke historically; but he now executes, as I have said, the office of a teacher. Thou, says he, hast praised the gods made of corruptible material, who neither see, nor hear, nor understand; but thou hast defrauded the living God of his honor, in whose hand is thy life, on which thou dependest, and whence all in which thou boastest proceeds. Because thou hast so despised the living God, who had been so gracious unto thee, this ingratitude was both base and shameful. We see, therefore, how severely the Prophet reproves the impious tyrant of sacrilege, and mad rashness, and foul ingratitude towards God. I pass over these things lightly, since they have been treated elsewhere. It now follows, —

Daniel 5:24

24. Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

24. Tunc a conspectu ejus missa est particula manus, Some translate, “the palm,” but they understand a hand separate from the body — that portion of a hand, that is, a hand as if cut off from the body, was sent from God’s presence, says he. — Calvin. et scriptura haec notata fuit.

Some stress must be laid upon the adverb באדין, badin, “at that time,” because God’s wrath, or at least its denunciation, was now ripe. Daniel, therefore, shews how very patiently God had borne with King Belshazzar in not instantly talking up arms and inflicting punishment; but he now begins to come forth as a judge, and to ascend his judgment seat; for the haughtiness was now desperate, and the impiety no longer tolerable. We observe with what emphasis the word then is used; as if he had said, Thou canst not complain of the swiftness of the penalty, as if God had exacted it before the time. Thou canst not here complain of God’s swiftness in punishing thee; for think and consider in how many ways, and for how long a time, thou hast provoked his anger. And with ‘regard to thy last crime, thou certainly hadst arrived at the height of impiety, when that hand appeared to thee. God, therefore, now drags thee to punishment in proper time, since he has hitherto borne with thee and thy sins. After this forbearance, what remains to prevent his destroying thee, because thou hast so proudly insulted him, and art utterly hardened, without the slightest hope of amendment.

He says also, from himself; for Belshazzar need not inquire whence the hand proceeded, it came from the presence of God; that is, This hand is a witness to the wrath of heaven; do not consider it as a specter which will vanish away, but see in this appearance a proof of God’s displeasure at thy wickedness; and because thou hast arrived at thy last extremity, thy punishment is also ready for thee. And this writing, says he, has been marked; as if he had said, The eyes of King Belshazzar were not deceived, since this was really God’s hand, being sent from his sight as a certain testimony of his wrath. He afterwards adds, —

Daniel 5:25-28

25. And this is the writing that was written, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

25. Et haec est scriptura quae notata est, Or, engraved. — Calvin. Mene, Mene, numera-tum est, numeratum est, Tekel, appensum est, Some translate, number, number, weigh. — Calvin. Upharsin, et dividentes.

26. This is the interpretation of the thing: Mene; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

26. Haec interpretatio est ser-monis: Mene, numeravit Deus regnum tuum et complevit. Or, finished. — Calvin.

27. Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

27. Tekel, appende, vel, appensum est, appensus es in trutina, Or, in a balance. — Calvin. et inventus es deficiens.

28. Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

28. Peres pro upharsin, divisum est regnum tuum, et datum Medis et Persis.

Daniel here explains these four verses which were written upon the wall. The king could not read them, either through stupor, or because God blunted all his senses, and blinded his eyes, as was formerly said. The same thing must be said of the magi and the soothsayers, for they could have read, had they not been rendered blind. First of all, Daniel recites the four words, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsn, and then adds their interpretation. He repeats the word Mene twice. Some conjecture this to apply to the numbering of the years of the king’s life, and also to the time of his reign; but the guess seems to be without any foundation. I think the word is used twice for the sake of confirmation; as if the Prophet meant the number to be completed, since men usually allow calculations to be liable to error. To impress upon Belshazzar that his ‘life and kingdom were at stake, God affirms the number to be complete, meaning, not a moment of time can be added to the boundary already determined. So also Daniel himself interprets it: God, says he, has numbered thy kingdom; implying, God has appointed and prescribed a fixed end to thy kingdom; hence it must necessarily come to an end, since its period is fulfilled.

Although God here addresses but one king by the writing set before his eyes, we may still gather this general instruction — God has prescribed a certain time for all kingdoms. (Job 14:5.) The Scripture bears the same witness concerning the life of each of us. If God has prescribed to each of us the length of his life, surely this applies more forcibly to public empires, of so much greater importance. Hence we may know how not only kings live and die according to God’s pleasure, but even empires are changed, as we have formerly said. He fixes alike their origin and their destiny. Hence we may seek consolation, when we see tyrants rushing on so impetuously, and indulging their lust and cruelty without moderation. When, therefore, they rush on, as if they would mingle heaven and earth, let us remember this instruction, Their years are numbered! God knows how long they are to rage; He is not deceived; He knows whether it is useful to the Church and his elect, for tyrants to prevail for a time. By and bye he will surely restrain them, but since he determined the number of their days from the beginning, the time of his vengeance is not yet quite at hand, while he allows them a little longer to abuse without restraint the power and the sway which he had divinely granted them.

The exposition of the word Tekel, to weigh, now follows: — Since thou hast been weighed in the balance, or scale, and found wanting Here Daniel shews God so moderating his judgments, as if he was carrying a balance in his hand. The emblem is taken from the custom of mankind; for men know the use of the balance for accurate measurement. So also God is said to treat all things by weight and measure, since he does nothing with confusion, but uses moderation; and, according to ordinary language, nothing is more or less than it should be. (Wisdom 11:21.) For this reason, Daniel says God weighed Belshazzar in a balance, since he did not make haste to inflict punishment, but exacted it with justice according to his own uniform rule of government. Since he was found deficient, that is, was found light and without weight. As if he had said, Thou thinkest thy dignity must be spared, since all men revere thee; thou thinkest thyself worthy of honor; thou art deceived says he, for God judges otherwise; God does not use a common scale, but holds his own, and there art found deficient; that is, thou art found a man of no consequence, in any way. From these words there is no doubt that the tyrant was greatly exasperated, but as his last end was approaching, he ought to hear the voice of the herald. And God, without doubt, restrained his fierceness, that he should not rise up against Daniel.

The word פרס, Pheres, is added, for the word Phersin, meaning his kingdom was divided among the Medes and Persians. I have no doubt that by this word God signified the dispersion of the Monarchy which was at hand. When, therefore, he says Upharsin, and they shall divide, it signifies the instability of the Monarchy, since he wished to destroy or utterly abolish it. But the Prophet alludes very appositely to the division made between the Medes and Persians; and thus his disgrace was increased by the Babylonians being compelled to serve many masters. This is indeed a grave and serious disgrace, when a people has obtained a wide and extensive empire, to be afterwards conquered and subjected to the yoke of a single master; but when it suffers under two masters, then the indignity is greatly increased. So Daniel here shews how God’s wrath was complicated in the destruction of the monarch of Babylon, since it added to the severity of their punishment, to be subdued by both Medes and Persians. The city, indeed, was truly taken by the valor and industry of Cyrus; but since Cyrus admitted his father-in-law to the great honor of allowing him to partake of the royal authority, hence the Medes and Persians are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was properly no division of the kingdom. Cyrus afterwards engaged in other expeditions, as he was led away by his insatiable avarice and ambition. But Darius, as we shall afterwards see, died at the age of sixty years, dwelt quietly at home, and it is very well known that he was a Mede; and if we may believe the majority of historians, his sister, the mother of Cyrus, had been banished to Persia, in consequence of the oracle concerning the fortune and greatness of Cyrus. Since his grandfather had exposed him, he afterwards avenged the injury, yet, not so cruelly as to take his life,-for he desired him to retain some dignity, and hence appointed him a satrap. But his son afterwards reigned over the Medes, with the full permission of Cyrus, who next married his daughter; and thus, on account of this relationship, and through the influence of this new alliance, he wished to have him as a partner in the empire. In this sense, then, Daniel narrates the division of the Monarchy to be at hand, since the Medes and the Persians should divide it among them. It follows, —

Daniel 5:29

29. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

29. Tunc jussit Beltsazar, et vestierunt Danielem purpura, et torques aureus super collum ejus: Was placed. — Calvin. et clamabant coram ipso quod dominaretur tertius in regno.

This order of the king may excite surprise, since he had been so sharply reproved by the Prophet. He next seemed to have lost all spirit, for he had grown pale a hundred times, and would have devoted the holy Prophet of God to a thousand deaths! How happens it, then, that he ordered him to be adorned with royal apparel, and next to be proclaimed by his own herald the third person in the kingdom? Some think this was done because the laws of kings were sacred among the Babylonians; nay, their very words were held as binding, and whatever they proclaimed, they desired it to be esteemed firm and inviolable. They suppose King Belshazzar to have acted thus through ambition, that he might keep his promises. My opinion is, that he was at first utterly astonished, and through listening to the Prophet he became like a stock or a stone! I think he did so to consult his own ease and safety; otherwise he would have been contemptible to his nobles. To shew himself unmoved, he commands Daniel to be clothed in these robes, as if his threat had been perfectly harmless. He did not despise what the Prophet had said, but he wished to persuade his nobles and all his guests of his perfect indifference to God’s threats, as if he did not utter them for the purpose of executing them, but only of terrifying them all. Thus kings, when greatly terrified, are always exceedingly careful not to shew any sign of their timidity, since they think their authority would become materially weakened. To continue, therefore, his reverence among his subjects, he is desirous of appearing exceedingly careless and undisturbed; and I do not hesitate to pronounce this to have been the tyrant’s intention in ordering Daniel to be clad in purple and in royal magnificence.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, that as thou didst once send forth a proof of thy wrath against all the proud, so it may be useful to us in these days. May we be admonished by the punishment inflicted on this man, and thus learn to conduct ourselves with moderation and humility. May we not desire any greatness which can be displeasing to thee; and may we so remain in our station of life as to serve thee, and to extol and glorify thy sacred name, without being even separated from thee. Grant us also so to bear thy yoke in this world, and to suffer ourselves to be ruled by thee, that we may at length arrive at that happy rest and portion in thy heavenly kingdom, which thou hast prepared and procured for us, through the blood of thine only-begotten Son. — Amen.

Lecturer Twenty-Seventh.

Daniel 5:30-31

30. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

30. In ilia nocte occisus fiut Beltsazar rex Chaldaeorum.

31. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

31. Et Darius Medus accepit reg num, cum natus esset annos sexaginta et duos.

Here Daniel shortly relates how his prophecy was fulfilled that very night. As we have before explained it, a customary feast-day had occurred which the Babylonians celebrated annually, and on this occasion the city was betrayed by two satraps, whom Xenophon calls Gobryas and Gadatas. On this passage the Rabbis display both their impudence and ignorance; as, according to their usual habit, they babble with audacity about what they do not understand. They say the king was stabbed, because one of his guards heard the Prophet’s voice, and wished to execute that heavenly judgment; as if the sentence of God depended upon the will of a single heathen! We must pass by these puerile trifles and cling to the truth of history; for Belshazzar was seized in his own banqueting-room, when he was grossly intoxicated, with his nobles and concubines. Meanwhile, we must observe God’s wonderful kindness towards the Prophet. He was not in the slightest danger, as the rest were. He was clad in purple, and scarcely an hour had passed when the Medes and Persians entered the city. He could scarcely have escaped in the tumult, unless God had covered him with the shadow of his hand. We see, then, how God takes care of his own, and snatches us from the greatest dangers, as if he were bringing us from the tomb. There is no doubt that the holy Prophet was much agitated amidst the tumult, for he was not without sensibility. The Latin is “stipes:” the French, “une souche de bols;” literally, a log or block of wood. — Ed. But he ought to be thus exercised to cause him to acknowledge God as the faithful guardian of his life, and to apply himself more diligently to his worship, since he saw nothing preferable to casting all his cares upon him!

Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and thus held in the highest honor and estimation, it is not surprising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus was content with his own power and with the praise and fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Astyages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers had informed him how an offspring should be born of her who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them undecided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he was unmarried at the capture of Babylon; for his uncle, and perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he reigned over the Chaldeans. It now follows, —

CHAPTER 6

Daniel 6:1-2

1. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

1. Placuit coram Dario, et praefecit super regnum praesides provinciarum centum et viginti, qui essent in toto regno.

2. And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.

2. Et super illos essent, atque ut essent super eos, satrapae tres, quorum Daniel unus esset: et ut praesides provinciarum illis redderent rationem: et rex non pateretur damnum.

CHAPTER 5

Da 5:1-31. Belshazzar's Impious Feast; the Handwriting on the Wall Interpreted by Daniel of the Doom of Babylon and Its King.

1. Belshazzar--Rawlinson, from the Assyrian inscriptions, has explained the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and the heathen historians of Babylon, Berosus and Abydenus, who say the last king (Nabonidus) surrendered in Borsippa, after Babylon was taken, and had an honorable abode in Caramania assigned to him. Belshazzar was joint king with his father (called Minus in the inscriptions), but subordinate to him; hence the Babylonian account suppresses the facts which cast discredit on Babylon, namely, that Belshazzar shut himself up in that city and fell at its capture; while it records the surrender of the principal king in Borsippa (see my Introduction to Daniel). The heathen Xenophon's description of Belshazzar accords with Daniel's; he calls him "impious," and illustrates his cruelty by mentioning that he killed one of his nobles, merely because, in hunting, the noble struck down the game before him; and unmanned a courtier, Gadates, at a banquet, because one of the king's concubines praised him as handsome. Daniel shows none of the sympathy for him which he had for Nebuchadnezzar. Xenophon confirms Daniel as to Belshazzar's end. Winer explains the "shazzar" in the name as meaning "fire."

made ... feast--heaven-sent infatuation when his city was at the time being besieged by Cyrus. The fortifications and abundant provisions in the city made the king despise the besiegers. It was a festival day among the Babylonians [Xenophon].

drank ... before the thousand--The king, on this extraordinary occasion, departed from his usual way of feasting apart from his nobles (compare Es 1:3).

2. whiles he tasted the wine--While under the effects of wine, men will do what they dare not do when sober.

his father Nebuchadnezzar--that is, his forefather. So "Jesus ... the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Mt 1:1). Daniel does not say that the other kings mentioned in other writers did not reign between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, namely, Evil-merodach (Jr 52:31), Neriglissar, his brother-in-law, and Laborasoarchod (nine months). Berosus makes Nabonidus, the last king, to have been one of the people, raised to the throne by an insurrection. As the inscriptions show that Belshazzar was distinct from, and joint king with, him, this is not at variance with Daniel, whose statement that Belshazzar was son (grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar is corroborated by Jeremiah (Jr 27:7). Their joint, yet independent, testimony, as contemporaries, and having the best means of information, is more trustworthy than any of the heathen historians, if there were a discrepancy. Evil-merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar (according to Berosus), reigned but a short time (one or two years), having, in consequence of his bad government, been dethroned by a plot of Neriglissar, his sister's husband; hence Daniel does not mention him. At the elevation of Nabonidus as supreme king, Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was doubtless suffered to be subordinate king and successor, in order to conciliate the legitimate party. Thus the seeming discrepancy becomes a confirmation of genuineness when cleared up, for the real harmony must have been undesigned.

wives ... concubines--not usually present at feasts in the East, where women of the harem are kept in strict seclusion. Hence Vashti's refusal to appear at Ahasuerus' feast (Es 1:9-12). But the Babylonian court, in its reckless excesses, seems not to have been so strict as the Persian. Xenophon [Cyropædia, 5.2,28] confirms Daniel, representing a feast of Belshazzar where the concubines are present. At the beginning "the lords" (Da 5:1), for whom the feast was made, alone seem to have been present; but as the revelry advanced, the women were introduced. Two classes of them are mentioned, those to whom belonged the privileges of "wives," and those strictly concubines (2Sa 5:13; 1Ki 11:3; So 6:8).

3. This act was not one of necessity, or for honor's sake, but in reckless profanity.

4. praised--sang and shouted praises to "gods," which being of gold, "are their own witnesses" (Is 44:9), confuting the folly of those who fancy such to be gods.

5. In the same hour--that the cause of God's visitation might be palpable, namely, the profanation of His vessels and His holy name.

fingers of ... hand--God admonishes him, not by a dream (as Nebuchadnezzar had been warned), or by a voice, but by "fingers coming forth," the invisibility of Him who moved them heightening the awful impressiveness of the scene, the hand of the Unseen One attesting his doom before the eyes of himself and his guilty fellow revellers.

against the candlestick--the candelabra; where the mystic characters would be best seen. Barnes makes it the candlestick taken from the temple of Jerusalem, the nearness of the writing to it intimating that the rebuke was directed against the sacrilege.

upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace--Written in cuneiform letters on slabs on the walls, and on the very bricks, are found the perpetually recurring recital of titles, victories, and exploits, to remind the spectator at every point of the regal greatness. It is significant, that on the same wall on which the king was accustomed to read the flattering legends of his own magnificence, he beholds the mysterious inscription which foretells his fall (compare Pr 16:18; Ac 12:21-23).

part of the hand--the anterior part, namely, the fingers.

6. countenance--literally, "brightness," that is, his bright look.

joints of his loins--"the vertebræ of his back" [Gesenius].

7. He calls for the magicians, who more than once had been detected in imposture. He neglects God, and Daniel, whose fame as an interpreter was then well-established. The world wishes to be deceived and shuts its eyes against the light [Calvin]. The Hebrews think the words were Chaldee, but in the old Hebrew character (like that now in the Samaritan Pentateuch).

third ruler--The first place was given to the king; the second, to the son of the king, or of the queen; the third, to the chief of the satraps.

8. The words were in such a character as to be illegible to the Chaldees, God reserving this honor to Daniel.

10. queen--the queen mother, or grandmother, Nitocris, had not been present till now. She was wife either of Nebuchadnezzar or of Evil merodach; hence her acquaintance with the services of Daniel. She completed the great works which the former had begun. Hence Herodotus attributes them to her alone. This accounts for the deference paid to her by Belshazzar. (See on Da 4:36). Compare similar rank given to the queen mother among the Hebrews (1Ki 15:13).

11. spirit of the holy gods--She remembers and repeats Nebuchadnezzar's language (Da 4:8, 9, 18). As Daniel was probably, according to Oriental custom, deprived of the office to which Nebuchadnezzar had promoted him, as "master of the magicians" (Da 4:9), at the king's death, Belshazzar might easily be ignorant of his services.

the king ... thy father the king ... thy father--The repetition marks with emphatic gravity both the excellencies of Daniel, and the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, whom Belshazzar is bound to reverence as his father, had sought counsel from him in similar circumstances.

13. the captivity of Judah--the captive Jews residing in Babylon.

17. Not inconsistent with Da 5:29. For here he declares his interpretation of the words is not from the desire of reward. The honors in Da 5:29 were doubtless urged on him, without his wish, in such a way that he could not with propriety refuse them. Had he refused them after announcing the doom of the kingdom, he might have been suspected of cowardice or treason.

18. God gave--It was not his own birth or talents which gave him the vast empire, as he thought. To make him unlearn his proud thought was the object of God's visitation on him.

majesty--in the eyes of his subjects.

glory--from his victories.

honour--from the enlargement and decoration of the city.

19. A purely absolute monarchy (Jr 27:7).

21. heart was made like ... beasts--literally, "he made his heart like the beasts," that is, he desired to dwell with them.

22. Thou hast erred not through ignorance, but through deliberate contempt of God, notwithstanding that thou hadst before thine eyes the striking warning given in thy grandfather's case.

23. whose are all thy ways--(Jr 10:23).

24. Then--When thou liftedst up thyself against the Lord.

the part of the hand--the fore part, the fingers.

was ... sent from him--that is, from God.

25. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin--literally, "numbered, weighed, and dividers."

26. God hath fixed the number of years of thine empire, and that number is now complete.

27. weighed in the balances--The Egyptians thought that Osiris weighed the actions of the dead in a literal balance. The Babylonians may have had the same notion, which would give a peculiar appropriateness to the image here used.

found wanting--too light before God, the weigher of actions (1Sa 2:3; Psa 62:9). Like spurious gold or silver (Jr 6:30).

28. Peres--the explanation of "dividers" (Da 5:25), the active participle plural there being used for the passive participle singular, "dividers" for "divided." The word "Peres" alludes to the similar word "Persia."

divided--namely, among the Medes and Persians [Maurer]; or, "severed" from thee [Grotius].

29. Belshazzar ... clothed Daniel with scarlet--To come from the presence of a prince in a dress presented to the wearer as a distinction is still held a great honor in the East. Daniel was thus restored to a similar rank to what he had held under Nebuchadnezzar (Da 2:48). Godly fidelity which might be expected to bring down vengeance, as in this case, is often rewarded even in this life. The king, having promised, was ashamed before his courtiers to break his word. He perhaps also affected to despise the prophecy of his doom, as an idle threat. As to Daniel's reasons for now accepting what at first he had declined, compare Note, see on Da 5:17. The insignia of honor would be witnesses for God's glory to the world of his having by God's aid interpreted the mystic characters. The cause of his elevation too would secure the favor of the new dynasty (Da 6:2) for both himself and his captive countrymen. As the capture of the city by Cyrus was not till near daylight, there was no want of time in that eventful night for accomplishing all that is here recorded. The capture of the city so immediately after the prophecy of it (following Belshazzar's sacrilege), marked most emphatically to the whole world the connection between Babylon's sin and its punishment.

30. Herodotus and Xenophon confirm Daniel as to the suddenness of the event. Cyrus diverted the Euphrates into a new channel and, guided by two deserters, marched by the dry bed into the city, while the Babylonians were carousing at an annual feast to the gods. See also Is 21:5; 44:27; Jr 50:38, 39; 51:36. As to Belshazzar's being slain, compare Is 14:18-20; 21:2-9; Jr 50:29-35; 51:57.

31. Darius the Median--that is, Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, 569-536 B.C. Though Koresh, or Cyrus, was leader of the assault, yet all was done in the name of Darius; therefore, he alone is mentioned here; but Da 6:28 shows Daniel was not ignorant of Cyrus' share in the capture of Babylon. Is 13:17; 21:2, confirm Daniel in making the Medes the leading nation in destroying Babylon. So also Jr 51:11, 28. Herodotus, on the other hand, omits mentioning Darius, as that king, being weak and sensual, gave up all the authority to his energetic nephew, Cyrus [Xenophon, Cyropædia, 1.5; 8.7].

threescore and two years old--This agrees with Xenophon [Cyropædia, 8.5,19], as to Cyaxares II.

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, Jer 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, Jer 27:11 : "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.

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.

And praised the gods of gold - They had gods of all sorts, and of all metals; with wooden gods, and stone gods, beside!

Fingers of a man's hand - The fingers were collected about the style or pen as in the act of writing.

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, Dan 5:7 : "The king cried."

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

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

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.

Nebuchadnezzar thy father - See the note on Dan 5:1 (note).

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

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.

Nebuchadnezzar thy father - Or grandfather, as the margin reads, Dan 5:2. See the notes on Dan 5:1 (note).

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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; מנא mene signifies Numeration; תקל tekel, Weighing; and פרש peres, Division. And so the Arabic translates them mokeeson, measured; mewzonon, weighed; 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 ו vau and plural termination, ין in, in Peres.

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

In that night was Belshazzar - slain - Xenophon says, he was dispatched 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.

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 honor of taking the city.

Daniel speaks nothing of the war that raged between the Babylonians and the Medes; but Isaiah speaks particularly of it, chap. 13, 14, 45, Isa 46:1-13, Isa 47:1-15.; and so does Jeremiah, chap. 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.

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.

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

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

Came forth fingers - The likeness of a man's hand.

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

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.

From him - From that God whom thou hast despised.

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.

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

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.

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

1 BElshazzar , the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

His name is from Riches and Power, they were wont, when they were promoted, to take new names, which also were significant, as this is. Belshazzar, Bel hath or gives power and riches, this they attributed to the honour of their Idol, which belongs only to the God of Heaven. There is much contest among the learned who this Belshatsar was, let us mind the Scripture and not trust to heathen Historians, in the second verse here he is called the Son of Nebuchadnezzar, his Father, so verse the 11 twice, and ver. 13.18, 22. if he were his Son then was he called also Merodach or Evilmerodach. Yet he might be called his Son though his Grand-Son, under these three was the Captivity, Ier. 27.7. Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, and Belshazzar.

After the manner of the East who shewed their magnificence this way, and pleased the Epicurean Palates of his Nobles herein, it being no small piece of policy with some Princes to oblige their grandees by Balls and Compotations, this I believe: Yet I conceive also, this Feast was Anniversary for the honour of their Idol Bel, as Herodotus testifieth. But this is prodigious that he should carouse when the City was besieged, and ready to be taken by Darius the Mede, for saith the Text he drank Wine before the 1000, these Bacchanalian Feasts have often proved fatal and Tragical, Es[illegible: 1 letter]h. 1.

Marginal references: Jer. 51.39.

2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels , which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines might drink therein.

This King having the Wine, liked it so well, that he resolved to make a merry day of it, and in order to it, sent for the Vessels of Gods Temple▪ which he did in scorn▪ and contempt, triumphing thereby over God and his People, but this sport lasted not long▪ they had more honour for the Vessels of their own Idols, which they kept sacred, and untoucht; therefore the Prophet upbraids them with this insolent profaneness, for the Concubines also drank of them.

Marginal references: Chald. [illegible: 1 span] fort[illegible: 1 letter].

4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone .

At the same time insulting against the great God of heaven and earth, the name of God is never more profaned then [illegible: 1 letter]mong Drunkards and Epicures.

5 ¶ In the same hour came forth fingers of a mans hand , and wrote over against the candlestick, upon the plaister of the wall of the kings palace; and the king saw the part of the [illegible: 1 letter]and that wrote .

By this it did appear what was the cause of the Kings punishment and ruine, namely his reproaching of God and profaning the holy Vessels.

The likeness of a mans hand, which Rab▪ Solomon saith was managed by the Angel Gabriel, it is clear [illegible: 1 letter]t was immediately from God: This was a plainer testimony then that of his fathers dream, for hereof were above a thousand witnesses besides his Conscience that shook him, a thousand more.

By this it appears how the Feast continued far in the [illegible: 1 letter]ight in which night Babylon was taken and Belshazzar slain, verse 30.

God intended it for him, and that he should see it with his own Eyes, and it should not be brought him by report which affords ground of doubting, but here was undeniable proof, and conviction, the visible hand of God was here, and it was also for terror to him, and spoiled his draughts of Wine and was a cooler to their jollities.

6 Then the kings countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him , so that the joynts of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another .

His chearful countenance was turned to paleness, fear and horror, had quite blasted the Majesty of his face, like an Eclipse of the Sun.

So soon can the terrors of God shake the loftiest Cedars; it is like an Earthquake in the bowels: Thus can God terrifie the Tyrants of the Earth, that he who hath the Heart of a Lion shall utterly melt away. Thus can the Lord spoil the mad mirth of drunken Atheists in a moment, when they are in their cups, oh how valiant are they as the King of Syria, 1 King. 20.16, 19, &c.

Marginal references: Chald. [illegible: 1 span].; Chald. [illegible: 1 word] it.; Or, [illegible: 1 word] ▪; Chald. [illegible: 1 word], or [illegible: 1 word]

7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the footh-sayers : And the king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

To [illegible: 1 letter]ead the hand writing with promise of Scarlet Clothing. Gold chaines and Hono[illegible: 1 letter]rs. This is the old Trade, and the last refuge this poor Heathen Prince had, which yet sailed him, for how can the devil help when God is against him, 1 Sam. 28.16▪ &c. moreover he had his Fathers experience▪ chap. 2.27. chap. 4.7. Twice he tryed them, and they could do nothing and yet he will go to the Devils Oracle. Men naturally leave God and go to refuges of lyes, and God gives them up to strong delusions to believe their lies.

Marginal references: Chald. [illegible: 1 word] mig[illegible: 2 letters].; Or, [illegible: 1 word]

8 Then came in all the kings wise men, but they could not read the writing , nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.

The Rabbies say, it was not the Chaldee character, though the words were Chaldee, but the old Hebrew, Cananiti[illegible: 1 letter]h, Phoenician, and Samaritan Letters; or else because only the initial Letters, M. T. P. were written. But God reserved this honour for Daniel, and to him that he might have all the glory. Besides this interpretation was figurative, about weighing in a balance.

9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed, and his lords were astonied .

The second time because his hopes in his wisemen made him ashamed, and God would give him so much grief as he had pleasure in his luxury, his Lords astonied. These were associates in sinning, and therefore must share in his consternation: so far were they from comforting of him.

Marginal references: [illegible: 2 letters]ald. bright [illegible: 3 letters].

10 ¶ Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting house , and the queen spake and said, O king live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed.

The Women in those Courts had always an apartment by themselves and this being Queen mother, and aged, did not mingle herself with the Kings Wives, and Concubines but withdrew herself from those pleasures in banqueting, yet brake rule in coming in now upon this solemn occasion and fright.

Marginal references: [illegible: 2 letters]ald. bright [illegible: 2 letters] Gr. form.

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, astrologers, Chaldeans, and sooth-sayers;

This man was Daniel, but how come the King not to think of him. Daniel possibly was out of his place, by his own resignation, or his Enemies malicious contrivance, and was willing to withdraw himself from the Court, and from the company of the Soothsayers, and would not be reckoned one of them.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 2.48.; [illegible: 1 word]. 4.8, 9,; [illegible: 1 word] grand [illegible: 3 letters].; [illegible: 1 word] grand [illegible: 3 letters].; [illegible: 3 letters]p. 4.9.

13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king, and the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry.

Though he was in high esteem for his skill in the dayes of Nebuchadnezzar, who had him in high honour, for the Spirit of God in him, yet he being dead, and other Kings coming on that had never tryed his abilities, nor known his merits as it was in Iosephs case, Exod. 1.8. Hereby he came to be neglected, and despised, as those words seem to import, ver. 13. Art thou that Daniel of the Captivity of the Children of Iudah, &c.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] grand [illegible: 3 letters].

14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

I have even heard of thee that the Spirit of the gods is in thee.

16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing: and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.

These things were spoken to before, verse 7.8.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 letter]hald. inter [illegible: 3 letters].

17 ¶ Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thy self, and give thy rewards to another , yet I will read the writing unto the King, and make known to him the interpretation.

Did not Daniel receive gifts and honours from Nebuchadnezzar, on the like occasion? Answ. He was then young, and the Captivity was to be long, and he by his place could be helpful to his poor brethren, but now the time of the captivity was near expired, and Babylon in distress, by invasion and siege, and that night King, City and Kingdom lost, and there the time was different, and the case also. Moreover Daniel would not receive a reward for so sad a message.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 letter]ee. as ch. 2.6.

18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour .

This the Prophet repeats, to put Baltazar in mind how God dealt with his father, for it is good for Kings to read over the story of their Ancestors, and take warning, and to take example, in the first they are sea marks in the second Landmarks.

Marginal references: Chald. the kingdom, &c. so Gr.

19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would, he set up, and whom he would he put down .

He ruled arbitrarily, and had power of Life and Death, he did what he would, his will was a Law. And this lifted up his Heart in pride, and hardened it as Pharaohs, for which being incorrigible, he was deposed from his Kingly Throne, as in the next verse.

20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardned in pride: he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him .

Which was opened before, all this Daniel minds him of to rub up his memory, that he might have the fuller blow in the application, ver. 22. for the aggravation of his crime.

Marginal references: chap. 4.30.; Or, to deal proudly.; Chald. made to come down.

22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knowest all this :

Sins against knowledge, experience, and example, have the highest aggravation. Thy Father was punished for his pride most dreadfully, and thou knewest it, and behold thou art worse then he. God punisheth others for example and warning to us, that we may hear and fear, and do no more wickedly, but thou O King Belshazzar art more wicked then thy Father; he was restored, but thou art utterly destroyed. And now he goes on to tell for what.

23 But hast lifted up thy self against the LORD of heaven , and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines have drunk wine in them, and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.

He instanceth in three or four things. 1. They have brought the Vessels of his house before thee to drink Wine in them, to profane them in your Idolatrous Feast, and ye have all polluted them with your filthy blasphemous mouths. Concu [illegible: 1 letter]ines and all. 2. Ye have praised the Idol gods of Mettal, Wood, and Stone, which cannot hear, nor see, nor know. 3. And hast not glorified the true God in whose hands thy breath is, and all thy wayes. Yea thou hast highly dishonoured, and affronted and reproached him.

Marginal references: Job 12.10.; Prov. 20.24.

24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him, and this writing was written.

Mene, Mene, T[illegible: 1 letter]kel, Vpharsin.

25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN .

It is called part of the hand, because the hand appeared parted from the rest of the body.

26 This is the interpretation of the thing; MENE , God hath numbred thy kingdom, and finished it.

MENE, MENE, he hath numbred, or it is numbred, it is numbred, these words are doubled for the greater confirmation, to note that the number of his sins, and of his dayes both of Life and reign are full. It relates to the number of the 70 years Captivity now compleated, or to the 70 years for the overthrow of the Babyloni[illegible: 1 letter]h Empire, or the Translation of it to the Medes and Persi[illegible: 2 letters]s, foretold, Isaiah 13. and 14. Ier. 50. and in the dream, Dan. 2.32.

27 TEKEL , thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting .

Thou art weighed in a hanging balance, alluding to the weighing of goods exactly in scales, and God is said to weigh the mountains in scales, it shews his just proceeding, God is not hasty in punishing, but will give just allowance in weighing, he will hold the scales he will do it fairly before all the World.

Thou dost not hold weight, but comest short vastly. There is no weight nor worth in thee: Thou hast made light of God in his Honour, People, Vessels: and the Lord makes light of thee, thou art reprobate Silver, false coine; thou art of no value.

28 PERES , thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Separated, divided, broken. Phars. signifies two things, broken off, and Persian, noting that, First this Kingdom was broken from Belshazzar and his Line, and Family. Secondly, That it was given from the Chaldeans to the Persians. Then it was divided between the Medes and Persians, for Cyrus took Babylon, he was Persian, after that he gave p[illegible: 1 letter]rt of it to Darius, his Son-in-law, and he was a Mede, and so were [illegible: 1 letter]s it were Partners. So this vast Empire that was one, sole, intire thing under Belshazzar, becomes now as it were two divided 'twixt the Medes and Persians, which thing is curious to observe, from this word Phars, Pharsin, Peres, which signifies not only dividing but Persian, as Pliny testifies, with the Chaldeans, the Persians in Scripture, are called Elamites.

Marginal references: Chald. Madai and Paras.

29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom .

Though it were a sad unwelcome message to him, yet he would be as good as his word, and performed his promise: For his Princes were witnesses to it, and the Word of those Kings was counted sacred, besides it was a great thing that Daniel had unfolded, all were convinced of it as well as the King. Quest. But how comes Daniel to accept that now, which he seemed to refuse before, ver. 17. Answ. He refused before least he should seem to Prophesie for reward, which was dishonourable, now it is as it were forc't upon him, for the King commanded it, and there is as much danger and crime with some in refusing a favour, as boldness in begging.

30 ¶ In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain .

Which the Heathen Histories do also confirm. This shews the severity of Gods judgment against the highest offenders, Psal. 2. and 110. and 149. Hos. 10.7. It also confirms the truth of Gods threatnings, and of the hand writing as Daniel interpreted. Some are sad instances of Gods veracity.

Marginal references: Chald. the Chaldean, so Gr.

31 And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old .

There were two of this name one called the Mede, another Darius called Persian. This in the Text was he that with Cyrus besieged, and took Babylon: he gave himself the name Darius, being before called Nabonnedus, he was chief in the siege, and first in the quarrel against the Chaldees.

Marginal references: Chald. he as the son of, &c.; Or, now.

Dan 5:1

The verses describe the progress of Belshazzar’s magnifying himself against the living Do, whereby the judgment threatened came upon him and his kingdom. A great feast, which the king gave to his officers of state and to his wives, furnished the occasion for this.

The name of the king, בּלשׁאצּר, contains in it the two component parts of the name which Daniel had received (Dan 1:7), but without the interposed E, whereby it is distinguished from it. This distinction is not to be overlooked, although the lxx have done so, and have written the two names, as if they were identical, Balta'sar. The meaning of the name is as yet unknown. לחם, meal-time, the festival. The invitation to a thousand officers of state corresponds to the magnificence of Oriental kings. According to Ctesias (Athen. Deipnos. iv. 146), 15, 000 men dined daily from the table of the Persian king (cf. Est 1:4). To account for this large number of guests, it is not necessary to suppose that during the siege of Babylon by Cyrus a multitude of great officers from all parts of the kingdom had fled for refuge to Babylon. The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand. The words, he drank wine before the thousand (great officers), are not, with Hävernick, to be explained of drinking first, or of preceding them in drinking, or of drinking a toast to them, but are to be understood according to the Oriental custom, by which at great festivals the king sat at a separate table on an elevated place, so that he had the guests before him or opposite to him. The drinking of wine is particularly noticed as the immediate occasion of the wickedness which followed.

Dan 5:2 חמרא בּטעם, while he tasted the wine, i.e., when the wine was relished by him; thus “in the wanton madness of one excited by wine, Pro 20:1” (Hitz.). From these words it appears that Belshazzar commanded the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem to be brought, not, as Hävernick thinks, for the purpose of seeking, in his anxiety on account of the siege of the city, the favour of the God of the Jews, but to insult this God in the presence of his own gods. The supposition of anxiety on account of the siege does not at all harmonize with the celebration of so riotous a festival. Besides, the vessels are not brought for the purpose of making libations in order to propitiate the God to whom they were consecrated, but, according to the obvious statement of the text, only to drink out of them from the madness of lust. וישׁתּון, that they may drink;  before the imperf. expresses the design of the bringing of the vessels. ב שׁתה, to drink out of, as Gen 44:5; Amo 6:6. שׁגלן, the wives of the king; cf. Neh 2:6 with Psa 45:10. לחנן, concubines; this word stands in the Targg. for the Hebr. פּלּגשׁ. The lxx have here, and also at Dan 5:23, omitted mention of the women, according to the custom of the Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans (cf. Herod. Ch. 5:18; Corn. Nep. proem. §6); but Xenophon (Cyr. v. 2. 28) and Curtius (v. 1. 38) expressly declare that among the Babylonians the wives also were present at festivals.

Dan 5:3 היכלא denotes the holy place of the temple, the inner apartment of the temple, as at 1Ki 6:3; Eze 41:1. אשׁתּיו for שׁתיו, with  אprosthet., cf. Winer, chald. Gr. §23, 1.

Dan 5:4

In this verse the expression they drank wine is repeated for the purpose of making manifest the connection between the drinking and the praising of the gods. The wickedness lay in this, that they drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of Israel to glorify (שׁבּח, to praise by the singing of songs) their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place “Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods” (Hävernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (Dan 5:23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated (see under Dan 1:2); the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel. And it was not a spirit of hostility aroused against the Jews which gave occasion, as Kranichfeld has well remarked, to this celebration of the victory of his god; but, as the narrative informs us, it was the reckless madness of the drunken king and of his drunken guests (cf. Dan 5:2) during the festival which led them to think of the God of the Jews, whom they supposed they had subdued along with His people, although He had by repeated miracles forced the heathen world-rulers to recognise His omnipotence (cf. Dan 2:47; 3:32f., 4:14 [Dan 4:17], 31 [34], 34 [37]). In the disregard of these revelations consisted, as Daniel represents to Belshazzar (cf. Dan 5:18), the dishonour done to the Lord of heaven, although these vessels of the sanctuary might have been profaned merely by using them as common drinking vessels, or they might have been used also in religious libations as vessels consecrated to the gods, of which the text makes no mention, although the singing of songs to the praise of the gods along with the drinking makes the offering of libations very probable. The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula  וinto two classes: gold and silver - brass, iron, wood and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the vanity of these gods.The warning signs, the astonishment of Belshazzar, the inability of the wise men to give counsel, and the advice of the queen. Dan 5:4

Unexpectedly and suddenly the wanton mad revelry of the king and his guests was brought to a close amid terror by means of a warning sign. The king saw the finger of a man’s hand writing on the plaster of the wall of the festival chamber, and he was so alarmed that his whole body shook. The בּהּ־שׁעתא places the sign in immediate connection with the drinking and the praising of the gods. The translation, in the self-same hour, is already shown to be inadmissible (see under Dan 3:6). The Kethiv נפקוּ (came forth) is not to be rejected as the indefinite determination of the subject, because the subject follows after it; the Keri נפקה is to be rejected, because, though it suits the gender, it does not in respect of number accord with the subject following. The king does not see the whole hand, but only ידא פּס, the end of the hand, that is, the fingers which write. This immediately awakened the thought that the writing was by a supernatural being, and alarmed the king out of his intoxication. The fingers wrote on the plaster of the wall over against the candlestick which stood on the table at which the king sat, and which reflected its light perceptibly on the white wall opposite, so that the fingers writing could be distinctly seen. The feast had been prolonged into the darkness of the night, and the wall of the chamber was not wainscotted, but only plastered with lime, as such chambers are found in the palaces of Nimrud and Khorsabad covered over only with mortar (cf. Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon).

Dan 5:6 מלכּא (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted. The plur. זיוהי has an intensive signification: the colour of the countenance. Regarding זיו, see under Dan 4:33. The suffix to שׁנוהי is to be taken in the signification of the dative, since שׁנא in the Peal occurs only intransitively. The connection of an intransitive verb with the suff. accus. is an inaccuracy for which שׁוּבני, Eze 47:7, and perhaps also עשׂיתיני, Eze 29:3, afford analogies; cf. Ewald’s Lehrb. §315 b. In Dan 5:9, where the matter is repeated, the harshness is avoided, and עלוהי is used to express the change of colour yet more strongly. The meaning is: “the king changed colour as to his countenance, became pale from terror, and was so unmanned by fear and alarm, that his body lost its firmness and vigour.” The bands or ligaments of his thighs (חרץ, equivalent to the Hebr. חלצים) were loosed, i.e., lost the strength to hold his body, and his knees smote one against another. ארכּוּבא with  אprosth., for רכוּבא, in the Targg. means the knee. The alarm was heightened by a bad conscience, which roused itself and filled him with dark forebodings. Immediately the king commanded the magicians to be brought, and promised a great reward to him who would read and interpret the mysterious writing.

Dan 5:7-8

Since there are in this verse only three classes of wise men named as ordered to come to the king, to whom he promised the reward for the reading and the interpretation of the writing, and in Dan 5:8 it is first stated that all the king’s wise men came, the probability, is, that at first the king commanded only the three classes named in Dan 5:7 to be brought to him. On this probability Kranichfeld founds the supposition that the king purposely, or with intention, summoned only the three classes named to avoid Daniel, whom he did not wish to consult, from his heathen religious fear of the God of the Jews. But this supposition is altogether untenable. For, first, it does not follow from Dan 8:27 that under Belshazzar Daniel was president over all the wise men, but only that he was in the king’s service. Then, in the event of Daniel’s yet retaining the place assigned to him by Nebuchadnezzar, his non-appearance could not be explained on the supposition that Belshazzar called only three classes of the wise men, because the supposition that מלכּא חכּימי כּל (all the king’s wise men) in Dan 5:8 forms a contrast to the three classes named in Dan 5:7 is not sustained by the language here used. But if by “all the wise men of the king,” Dan 5:8, we are to understand the whole body of the wise men of all the classes, and that they appeared before the king, then they must all have been called at the first, since no supplementary calling of the two classes not named in Dan 5:7 is mentioned. Besides this, the words, “the king spake to the wise men of Babylon,” make it probable that all the classes, without the exception of the two, were called. Moreover it is most improbable that in the case before us, where the matter concerned the reading of a writing, the חרטמּים, the magicians Schriftkenner, should not have been called merely to avoid Daniel, who was their רב (president) (Daniel 4:6 [Dan 4:9]). Finally, it is psychologically altogether very improbable, that in the great agitation of fear which had filled him at the sight of the hand writing, Belshazzar should have reflected at all on this, that Daniel would announce to him misfortune or the vengeance of the God of the Jews. Such a reflection might perhaps arise on quiet deliberation, but not in the midst of agitating heart-anguish.

The strange circumstance that, according to Dan 5:7, the king already promised a reward to the wise men, which presupposes that they were already present, and then that for the first time their presence is mentioned in Dan 5:8, is occasioned by this, that in Dan 5:7 the appearing of the wise men is not expressly mentioned, but is naturally presupposed, and that the first two clauses of the eighth verse are simply placed together, and are not united to each other by a causal nexus. The meaning of the statement in Dan 5:7 and Dan 5:8 is this: The king calls aloud, commanding the astrologers, etc., to be brought to him; and when the wise men of Babylon came to him, he said to each of them, Whoever reads the writing, etc. But all the king’s wise men, when they had come, were unable to read the writing. As to the names of the wise men in Dan 5:7, see under Dan 2:2. יקרה for יקרא, from קרא, to read. As a reward, the king promises a purple robe, a gold chain for the neck, and the highest office in the kingdom. A robe of purple was the sign of rank worn by the high officers of state among the Persians, - cf. Est 8:15 with Xenophon, Anab. i. 5. 8, - and among the Selucidae, 1 Macc. 10:20; and was also among the Medes the princely garb, Xen. Anab. i. 3. 2, ii. 4. 6. ארגּון, Hebr. ארגּמן, purple, is a word of Aryan origin, from the Sanscrit râga, red colour, with the formative syllables man and vat; cf. Gesen. Thes. Addid. p. 111f. וגו' דּי והמנוּכא does not depend on ילבּשׁ, but forms a clause by itself: and a chain of gold shall be about his neck. For the Kethiv המנוּכא the Keri substitutes the Targum. and Syr. form המניכא (Dan 5:7, Dan 5:16, and Dan 5:29), i.e., The Greek μανιάκης, from the Sansc. mani, jewel, pearl, with the frequent formative syllable ka in the Zend, whence the Chaldee word is derived; it signifies neck- or arm-band, here the former. The golden neck-chain (στρεπτὸς χρύσεος) was an ornament worn by the Persians of rank, and was given by kings as a mark of favour even to kings, e.g., Cambyses and the younger Cyrus; cf. Herod. iii. 20; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 27, 5. 8, 8. 29.

It is not quite certain what the princely situation is which was promised to the interpreter of the writing, since the meaning of תּלתּי is not quite clear. That it is not the ordinale of the number third, is, since Hävernick, now generally acknowledged, because for tertius in Aram. תּליתי is used, which occurs also in Dan 2:39. Hävernick therefore regards תּלתּי, for which תּלתּא is found in Dan 5:16 and Dan 5:29, as an adjective formation which indicates a descent or occupation, and is here used as a nomen officii corresponding to the Hebr. שׁלישׁי. Gesenius and Dietrich regard תּלתּי as only the singular form for תּליתי, and תּלתּא as the stat. abs. of תּלת, third rank. Hitzig would change תּלתּי into תּלתּי, and regard תּלתּא as a singular formed from תּלתּאין, as triumvir from triumvirorum, and would interpret it by τρίτος αὐτός, the third (selbst-dritt): as one of three he shall rule in the kingdom, according to Dan 6:3. Finally, Kranichfeld takes תּלתּי to be a fem. verbal formation according to the analogy of ארמית, אחרי, in the sense of three-ruler-wise, and תּלתּא for a noun formed from תּלתא, triumvir. Almost all these explanations amount to this, that the statements here regard the government of a triumvirate as it was regulated by the Median king Darius, Dan 6:3 (2); and this appears also to be the meaning of the words as one may literally explain תּלתּי and תּלתּא. Regarding the Keri עלּין see under Dan 4:4, and regarding פּשׁרא, under Dan 4:15.

As all the wise men were unable to read the writing, it has been thought that it was in a foreign language different from the usual language of Babylon, the knowledge of which could not legitimately be expected to be possessed by the native wise men; and since, according to Dan 5:17, Dan 5:24., Daniel at once showed his acquaintance with the writing in question, it has from this been concluded that already the old Babylonians had handwriting corresponding to the later Syro-Palmyrenian inscriptions, while among the Hebrews to the time of the Exile the essentially Old-Phoenician writing, which is found on the so-called Samaritan coins and in the Samaritan Scriptures, was the peculiar national style of writing (Kran.). But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldean wise men should not have known these old Semitic characters, even although at that time they had ceased to be in current use among the Babylonians in their common writing. Then, from the circumstance that Daniel could at once read the writing, it does not follow that it was the well-known Old-Hebrew writing of his fatherland. “The characters employed in the writing,” as Hengstenberg has rightly observed (Beitr. i. p. 122), “must have been altogether unusual so as not to be deciphered but by divine illumination.” Yet we must not, with M. Geier and others, assume that the writing was visible only to the king and Daniel. This contradicts the text, according to which the Chaldean wise men, and without doubt all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.

Dan 5:9

By this not only was the astonishment of the king heightened, but the officers of state also were put into confusion. “In משׁתּבּשׁין lies not merely the idea of consternation, but of confusion, of great commotion in the assembly” (Hitzig). The whole company was thrown into confusion. The magnates spoke without intelligence, and were perplexed about the matter.

Not only was the tumult that arose from the loud confused talk of the king and the nobles heard by those who were there present, but the queen-mother, who was living in the palace, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, also heard it and went into the banqueting hall. As soon as she perceived the cause of the commotion, she directed the attention of her royal son to Daniel, who in the days of his father Nebuchadnezzar had already, as an interpreter of dreams and of mysteries, shown that the spirit of the holy gods dwelt in him (Dan 5:10-12).

Dan 5:10

By מלכּתא interpreters rightly understand the mother of the reigning king, the widow of his father Nebuchadnezzar, since according to Dan 5:2. The wives of the king were present at the festival, and the queen came before the king as only a mother could do. Among the Israelites also the mother of the reigning king was held in high respect; cf. 1Ki 15:13; 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:15; Jer 13:18; Jer 29:2. מלּין לקבל, by reason of the words, not: because of the affair, to which neither the plur. מלּי nor the gen. רברבנוהי agrees. Instead of the Kethiv עללת the Keri has עלּת, the later form. The queen-mother begins in an assuring manner, since she can give an advice which is fitted to allay the embarrassment.

Dan 5:11

Her judgment concerning Daniel is that of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4:5-6 (Dan 4:8, Dan 4:9); and that she states it in the same words leads to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was her husband. The מלכּא אבוּך at the end of this verse may be an emphatic repetition of the foregoing אבוּך נב מלכּא (Maur., Hitz.), but in that case מלכּא would perhaps stand first. מלכּא is better interpreted by Ros., v. Leng., Klief., and others as the vocative: thy father, O king, by which the words make a greater impression.

Dan 5:12

The remarkable endowments of Daniel are again stated (according to Dan 5:11) to give weight to the advice that he should be called in. The words from מפשּׁר [interpreting] to פטרין [doubts] are an explanatory parenthetical clause, after which the following verb, according to rule, joins itself to שׂכלתנוּ. In the parenthetical clause the nomen actonis אחויה [showing] is used instead of the participle, whereby the representation of the continued capability lying in the participle is transferred to that of each separate instance; literally, interpreting dreams, the explanation of mysteries and dissolving knots. The allusion of פטרין משׁרא to קטרי חר משׁתּרין, Dan 5:6, is only apparent, certainly is not aimed at, since the former of these expressions has an entirely different meaning. Knots stands figuratively for involved complicated problems. That Daniel did not at first appear along with the wise men, but was only called after the queen had advised it, is to be explained on this simple ground, that he was no longer president over the magicians, but on the occasion of a new king ascending the throne had lost that situation, and been put into another office (cf. Dan 8:27). The words of the queen do not prove that Belshazzar was not acquainted with Daniel, but only show that he had forgotten the service rendered by him to Nebuchadnezzar; for according to Dan 5:13 he was well acquainted with the personal circumstances of Daniel.Daniel is summoned, reminds the king of his sin, and reads and interprets the writing.

The counsel of the queen was followed, and without delay Daniel was brought in. העל, cf. העלּוּ Dan 5:15, is Hebr. Hophal of על = עלל, to go in, as הוּסף, Dan 4:33. The question of the king: Art thou Daniel ... ? did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel. The address shows that Belshazzar was acquainted with Daniel’s origin, of which the queen had said nothing, but that he had had no official intercourse with him. It shows also that Daniel was no longer the president of the magicians at the king’s court (Dan 2:48.).

Dan 5:14 cf. Dan 5:11. It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with אלהין (of the gods).

Dan 5:15

The asyndeton אשׁפיּא is in apposition to חכּימיּא as explanatory of it: the wise men, namely the conjurers, who are mentioned instar omnium. דּי with the imperf. following is not the relative particle, but the conjunction that before the clause expressive of design, and the infinitive clause dependent on the clause of design going before: that you may read the writing to make known to me the interpretation. מלּתא is not the mysterious writing = word, discourse, but the writing with its wonderful origin; thus, the matter of which he wishes to know the meaning.

Dan 5:16-17

The Kethiv תּוּכל, Dan 5:16, is the Hebr. Hophal, as Dan 2:10; the Keri תכּוּל the formation usual in the Chaldee, found at Dan 3:29. Regarding the reward to Daniel, see under Dan 5:7. Daniel declines (Dan 5:17) the distinction and the place of honour promised for the interpretation, not because the former might be dangerous to him and the latter only temporary, as Hitzig supposes; for he had no reason for such a fear, when he spoke “as one conveying information who had just seen the writing, and had read it and understood its import,” for the interpretation, threatening ruin and death to the king, could bring no special danger to him either on the part of Belshazzar or on that of his successor. Much rather Daniel rejected the gift and the distinction promised, to avoid, as a divinely enlightened seer, every appearance of self-interest in the presence of such a king, and to show to the king ad his high officers of state that he was not determined by a regard to earthly advantage, and would unhesitatingly declare the truth, whether it might be pleasing or displeasing to the king. But before he read and interpreted the writing, he reminded the king of the punishment his father Nebuchadnezzar had brought upon himself on account of his haughty pride against God (Dan 5:18-21), and then showed him how he, the son, had done wickedly toward God, the Lord of his life (Dan 5:22, Dan 5:23), and finally explained to him that on this account this sign had been given by God (Dan 5:24).

Dan 5:18-21

The address, Thou, O king, is here an absolute clause, and is not resumed till Dan 5:22. By this address all that follows regarding Nebuchadnezzar is placed in definite relation to Belshazzar. The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar’s power in Dan 5:18 and Dan 5:19 has undeniably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father in power and majesty. Regarding וגו עממיּא, see under Dan 3:4, and with regard to the Kethiv זאעין, with the Keri יעין, see under Dan 3:3. מחא is not from מחא, to strike (Theodot., Vulg.), but the Aphel of חיא (to live), the particip. of which is מחי in Deu 32:39, contracted from מחיא, here the part. מחא, in which the Jod is compensated by the lengthening of the vowel a4. Accordingly, there is no ground for giving the preference, with Buxt., Ges., Hitz., and others, to the variant מחא, which accommodates itself to the usual Targum. form. The last clause in Dan 5:19 reminds us of 1Sa 2:6-7. In Dan 5:20 and Dan 5:21 Daniel brings to the remembrance of Belshazzar the divine judgment that fell upon Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4). רם is not the passive part., but the perf. act. with an intransitive signification; cf. Winer, §22, 4. תּקף, strong, to be and to become firm, here, as the Hebr. חזק, Exo 7:13, of obduracy. העדּיו, 3rd pers. plur. imper., instead of the passive: they took away, for it was taken away, he lost it; see under Dan 3:4, and Winer, §49, 3. שׁוּי is also to be thus interpreted, since in its impersonal use the singular is equivalent to the plur.; cf. Winer. There is no reason for changing (with v. Leng. and Hitz.) the form into shewiy, part. Piel. The change of construction depends on the rhetorical form of the address, which explains also the naming of the ערדין, wild asses, as untractable beasts, instead of בּרא חיות (beasts of the field), Dan 4:20 (23). Regarding the Kethiv עליה, see under Dan 4:14; and for the subject, cf. Dan 4:22 (25), 29 (32).

Dan 5:22-24

Daniel now turns to Belshazzar. The words: forasmuch as thou, i.e., since thou truly knowest all this, place it beyond a doubt that Belshazzar knew these incidents in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and thus that he was his son, since his grandson (daughter’s son) could scarcely at that time have been so old as that the forgetfulness of that divine judgment could have been charged against him as a sin. In the דּי קבל כּל, just because thou knowest it, there is implied that, notwithstanding his knowledge of the matter, he did not avoid that which heightened his culpability. In Dan 5:23 Daniel tells him how he had sinned against the God of heaven, viz., by desecrating (see Dan 5:2 and Dan 5:3) the vessels of the temple of the God of Israel. And to show the greatness of this sin, he points to the great contrast that there is between the gods formed of dead material and the living God, on whom depend the life and fortune of men. The former Belshazzar praised, the latter he had not honoured - a Litotes for had dishonoured. The description of the gods is dependent on Deu 4:28, cf. with the fuller account Psa 115:5., Psa 135:15., and reminds us of the description of the government of the true God in Job 12:10; Num 16:22, and Jer 10:23. ארחת, ways, i.e., The destinies. - To punish Belshazzar for this wickedness, God had sent the hand which wrote the mysterious words (Dan 5:24 cf. with Dan 5:5).

Dan 5:25-28

Daniel now read the writing (Dan 5:25), and gave its interpretation (Dan 5:26-28). The writing bears the mysterious character of the oracle. פּרס, תּקל, מנא (Dan 5:28) are partic. Piel, and the forms תּקל and פּרס, instead of תּקיל and פּריס, are chosen on account of their symphony with מנא. פּרסין is generally regarded as partic. plur., but that would be פּרסין; it much rather appears to be a noun form, and plur. of פּרס = Hebr. פּרס (cf. פּרסיהן, Zec 11:16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments, for פרס signifies to divide, to break in pieces, not only in the Hebr. (cf. Lev 11:4; Isa 58:7; Psa 69:32), but also in the Chald., 2Ki 4:39 (Targ.), although in the Targg. The meaning to spread out prevails. In all the three words there lies a double sense, which is brought out in the interpretation. מנא, for the sake of the impression, or perhaps only of the parallelism, is twice given, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two words. In the numbering lies the determination and the completion, or the conclusion of a manner, a space of time. Daniel accordingly interprets מנא thus: God has numbered (מנה for מנא, perf. act.) thy kingdom, i.e., its duration or its days, והשׁלמהּ, and has finished it, i.e., its duration is so counted out that it is full, that it now comes to an end. In תּקל there lies the double sense that the word תּקל, to weigh, accords with the Niphal of קלל, to be light, to be found light (cf. תּקל, Gen 16:4). The interpretation presents this double meaning: Thou art weighed in the balances (תּקלתּא) and art found too light (like the תּקל). חסּיר, wanting in necessary weight, i.e., deficient in moral worth. תּקלתּא, a perf. formed from the partic. Piel; cf. Winer, §13, 2. As to the figure of the balance, cf. Job 31:6; Psa 62:10 (9).

For פּרסין (Dan 5:25) Daniel uses in the interpretation the sing. פּרס, which, after the analogy of תּקל, may be regarded as partic. Piel, and he interprets it accordingly, so that he brings out, along with the meaning lying in the word, also the allusion to פּרס, Persian: thy kingdom is divided, or broken into pieces, and given to the Medes and Persians. The meaning is not that the kingdom was to be divided into two equal parts, and the one part given to the Medes and the other to the Persians; but פרס is to divide into pieces, to destroy, to dissolve the kingdom. This shall be effected by the Medes and Persians, and was so brought about when the Persian Cyrus with the united power of the Medes and Persians destroyed Babylon, and thus put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, whereby the kingdom was transferred first to the Median Darius (Daniel 6:1 [Dan 5:31]), and after him to the Persian Cyrus. In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies, as already remarked in the Introduction, a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative, and with it of the whole book; for the hegemony of the Medes was of a very short duration, and after its overthrow by the Persians the form of expression used is always “Persians and Medes,” as is found in the book of Esther.

Dan 5:29-30 Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing.

Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading and interpreting the writing. והלבּשׁוּ is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe, - this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. Dan 2:49), - but: and they clothed him. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to Dan 5:30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar’s successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel’s interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel’s elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by Dan 6:2 (1).

Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.”Non mirum, si Baltasar audiens tristia, solverit praemium quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura quae dixerat, aut dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.” - Jerome.

The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (Dan 5:17), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.

Dan 5:31

With the death of Belshazzar that very night the interpretation given by Daniel began to be fulfilled, and this fulfilment afforded a certainty that the remaining parts of it would also sooner or later be accomplished. That this did not take place immediately, we have already shown in our preliminary remarks to this chapter.

Daniel in the Den of Lions

Darius, the king of the Medes, had it in view to place Daniel as chief officer over the whole of his realm, and thereby he awakened against Daniel (vv. 1-6 [Hebrew_Bible_5:31]) the envy of the high officers of state. In order to frustrate the king’s intention and to set Daniel aside, they procured an edict from Darius, which forbade for the space of thirty days, on the pain of death, prayer to be offered to any god or man, except to the king (vv. 7-10 [Hebrew_Bible_6:6]). Daniel, however, notwithstanding this, continued, according to his usual custom, to open the windows of his upper room, and there to pray to God three times a day. His conduct was watched, and he was accused of violating the king’s edict, and thus he brought upon himself the threatened punishment of being thrown into the den of lions (vv. 11-18 [Dan 6:10]). But he remained uninjured among the lions; whereupon the king on the following morning caused him to be brought out of the dean, and his malicious accusers to be thrown into it (vv. 19-25 Hebrew_Bible_6:18]), and then by an edict he commanded his subjects to reverence the God of Daniel, who did wonders (vv. 26-28 [Hebrew_Bible_6:25]). As a consequence of this, Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian (v. 29 [Hebrew_Bible_6:28]).

From the historic statement of this chapter, that Darius the Mede took the Chaldean kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old (v. 1 [Hebrew_Bible_5:31]), taken in connection with the closing remark (v. 29 [Hebrew_Bible_6:28]) that it went well with Daniel during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian, it appears that the Chaldean kingdom, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, did not immediately pass into the hands of Cryus, but that between the last of the Chaldean kings who lost the kingdom and the reign of Cyrus the Persian, Darius, descended from a Median family, held the reins of government, and that not till after him did Cyrus mount the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, which had been subdued by the Medes and Persians. This Median Darius was a son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1), of the seed of the Medes; and according to Dan 11:1, the angel Gabriel stood by him in his first year, which can mean no more than that the Babylonian kingdom was not taken without divine assistance.

This Darius the Mede and his reign are not distinctly noticed by profane historians. Hence the modern critics have altogether denied his existence, or at least have called it in question, and have thence derived an argument against the historical veracity of the whole narrative.

According to Berosus and Abydenus (Fragmenta, see p. 163), Nabonnedus, the last Babylonian king, was, after the taking of Babylon, besieged by Cyrus in Borsippa, where he was taken prisoner, and then banished to Carmania. After this Cyrus reigned, as Alex. Polyhistor says, nine years over Babylon; while in the Fragments preserved by Eusebius in his Chron. Armen., to the statement that Cyrus conferred on him (i.e., nabonet), when he had obtained possession of Babylon, the margraviate of the province of Carmania, it is added, “Darius the king removed (him) a little out of the country.” Also in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, Nabonadius the Babylonian is at once followed by the list of Persian kings, beginning with Κῦρος, who reigned nine years.

When we compare with this the accounts given by the Greek historians, we find that Herodotus (i. 96-103, 106ff.) makes mention of a succession of Median kings: Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, and Astyages. The last named, who had no male descendants, had a daughter, Mandane, married to a Persian Cambyses. Cyrus sprung from this marriage. Astyages, moved with fear lest this son of his daughter should rob him of his throne, sought to put him to death, but his design was frustrated. When Cyrus had reached manhood, Harpagus, an officer of the court of Astyages, who out of revenge had formed a conspiracy against him, called upon him at the head of the Persians to take the kingdom from his grandfather Astyages. Cyrus obeyed, moved the Persians to revolt from the Medes, attacked Astyages at Pasargada, and took him prisoner, but acted kindly toward him till his death; after which he became king over the realm of the Medes and Persians, and as such destroyed first the Lydian, and then the Babylonian kingdom. He conquered the Babylonian king, Labynetus the younger, in battle, and then besieged Babylon; and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians he penetrated the city by damming off the water of the Euphrates, and took it. Polyaenus, Justin, and others follow in its details this very fabulous narrative, which is adorned with dreams and fictitious incidents. Ctesias also, who records traditions of the early history of Media altogether departing from Herodotus, and who names nine kings, yet agrees with Herodotus in this, that Cyrus overcame Astyages and dethroned him. Cf. The different accounts given by Greek writers regrading the overthrow of the Median dominion by the Persians in M. Duncker’s Ges. d. Alterh. ii. p. 634ff., 3rd ed.

Xenophon in the Cyropaedia reports somewhat otherwise regarding Cyrus. According to him, the Median king Astyages, son of Cyaxares I, gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, the Persia king, who was under the Median supremacy, and that Cyrus was born of this marriage (i. 2. 1). When Cyrus arrived at man’s estate Astyages died, and was succeeded on the Median throne by his son Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane (i. 5. 2). When, after this, the Lydian king Croesus concluded a covenant with the king of the Assyrians (Babylonians) having in view the overthrow of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus received the command of the united army of the Medes and Persians (iii. 3. 20ff.); and when, after a victorious battle, Cyaxares was unwilling to proceed further, Cyrus carried forward the war by his permission, and destroyed the hots of Croesus and the Assyrians, on hearing of which, Cyaxares, who had spent the night at a riotous banquet, fell into a passion, wrote a threatening letter to Cyrus, and ordered the Medes to be recalled (iv. 5. 18). But when they declared, on the statement given by Cyrus, their desire to remain with him (iv. 5. 18), Cyrus entered on the war against Babylon independently of Cyaxares (v. 3. 1). Having driven the Babylonian king back upon his capital, he sent a message to Cyaxares, desiring him to come that he might decide regarding the vanquished and regarding the continuance of the war (v. 5. 1). Inasmuch as all the Medes and the confederated nations adhered to Cyrus, Cyaxares was under the necessity of taking this step. He came to the camp of Cyrus, who exhibited to him his power by reviewing before him his whole host; he then treated him kindly, and supplied him richly from the stores of the plunder he had taken (v. 5. 1ff.). After this the war against Babylonia was carried on in such a way, that Cyaxares, sitting on the Median throne, presided over the councils of war, but Cyrus, as general, had the conduct of it (vi. 1. 6); and after he had conquered Sardes, taken Croesus the king prisoner (vii. 2. 1), and then vanquished Hither Asia, he returned to Babylon (vii. 4. 17), and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians took the city, whereupon the king of Babylon was slain (vii. 5. 15-33). After the conquest of Babylon the army regarded Cyrus as king, and he began to conduct his affairs as if he were king (vii. 5. 37); but he went however to Media, to present himself before Cyaxares. He brought presents to him, and showed him that there was a house and palace ready for him in Babylon, where he might reside when he went thither (viii. 5. 17f.). Cyaxares gave him his daughter to wife, and along with her, as her dowry, the whole of Media, for he had no son (viii. 5. 19). Cyrus now went first to Persian, and arranged that his father Cambyses should retain the sovereignty of it so long as he lived, and that then it should fall to him. He then returned to Media, and married the daughter of Cyaxares (viii. 5. 28). He next went to Babylon, and placed satraps over the subjugated peoples, etc. (viii. 6. 1), and so arranged that he spent the winter in Babylon, the spring in Susa, and the summer in Ecbatana (viii. 6. 22). Having reached an advanced old age, he came for the seventh time during his reign to Persia, and died there, after he had appointed his son Cambyses as his successor (viii. 7. 1ff.).

This narrative by Xenophon varies from that of Herodotus in the following principal points: - (1) According to Herodotus, the line of Median kings closes with Astyages, who had no son; Xenophon, on the contrary, speaks of Astyages as having been succeeded by his son Cyaxares on the throne. (2) According to Herodotus, Cyrus was related to the Median royal house only as being the son of the daughter of Astyages, and had a claim to the Median throne only as being the grandson of Astyages; Xenophon, on the other hand, says that he was related to the royal house of Media, not only as being the grandson of Astyages and nephew of Cyaxares II, but also as having received in marriage the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares, and along with her the dowry of the Median throne. (3) According to Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the conspiracy formed by Harpagus against Astyages, slew his grandfather in battle, and took forcible possession of the dominion over the Medes; on the contrary Xenophon relates that, though he was at variance with Cyaxares, he became again reconciled to him, and not only did not dethrone him, but permitted him to retain royal dignity even after the overthrow of Babylon, which was not brought about with his co-operation.

Of these discrepancies the first two form no special contradiction. Xenophon only communicates more of the tradition than Herodotus, who, according to his custom, makes mention only of the more celebrated of the rulers, passing by those that are less so,Solere Herodotum praetermissis mediocribus hominibus ex longa regum serie nonnisi unum alterumve memorare reliquis eminentiorem, et aliunde constat et ipsa Babyloniae historia docet, et qua unius Nitocris reginae mentionem injicit, reliquos reges omnes usque ad Labynetum, ne Nebucadnezare quidem excepto, silentio transti (i. 185-187). - Ges. Thes. p. 350. and closes the list of Median kings with Astyages. Accordingly, in not mentioning Cyaxares II, he not only overlooks the second relationship Cyrus sustained to the Median royal house, but also is led to refer the tradition that the last of the Median kings had no male descendant to Astyages. The third point only presents an actual contradiction between the statements of Herodotus and those of Xenophon, viz., that according to Herodotus, Cyrus by force of arms took the kingdom from his grandfather, overcame Astyages in a battle at Pasargada, and dethroned him; while according to Xenophon, the Median kingdom first fell to Cyrus by his command of the army, and then as the dowry of his wife. Shall we now on this point decide, with v. Leng., Hitzig, and others, in favour of Herodotus and against Xenophon, and erase Cyaxares II from the list not only of the Median kings, but wholly from the page of history, because Herodotus and Ctesias have not made mention of him? Has then Herodotus or Ctesias alone recorded historical facts, and that fully, and Xenophon in the Cyropaedia fabricated only a paedagogic romance destitute of historical veracity? All thorough investigators have testified to the very contrary, and Herodotus himself openly confesses (i. 95) that he gives only the sayings regarding Cyrus which appeared to him to be credible; and yet the narrative, as given by him, consists only of a series of popular traditions which in his time were in circulation among the Medes, between two and three hundred years after the events. Xenophon also has gathered the historic material for his Cyropaedia only from tradition, but from Persian tradition, in which, favoured by the reigning dynasty, the Cyrus-legend, interwoven with the end of the Median independence and the founding of the Persian sovereignty, is more fully transmitted than among the Medes, whose national recollections, after the extinction of their dynasty, were not fostered. If we may therefore expect more exact information in Xenophon than in Herodotus, yet it is imaginable that Xenophon transformed the narrative of the rebellion by Cyrus and his war against Cyaxares into that which he has recorded as to the relation he sustained towards Cyaxares, in order that he might wipe out this moral stain from the character of his hero. But this supposition would only gain probability under the presumption of what Hitzig maintains, if it were established: “If, in Cyrop. viii. 5. 19, the Median of his own free will gave up his country to Cyrus, Xenophon’s historical book shows, on the contrary, that the Persians snatched by violence the sovereignty from the Medes (Anab. iii. 4. 7, 11, 12);” but in the Anab. l.c. Xenophon does not say this, but (§8) only, ὅτε παρὰ Μήδων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανον Πέρσαι.Concerning the expression ἐλάμβανον τὴν ἀρχὴν , Dindorf remarks: “Verbum hoc Medos sponte Persarum imperio subjectos significat, quanquam reliqua narratio seditionem aliquam Larissensium arguere videatur. Igitur hic nihil est dissensionis inter Cyropaediam et Anabasin ... . Gravius est quod Xenophon statim in simili narratione posuit, ὅτε ἀπώλεσαν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ Περσῶν Μῆδοι. Sed ibidem scriptor incolarum fidem antestatur.” Thus the philologists are in their judgment of the matter opposed to the modern critics.

Thus, supposing the statement that the cities of Larissa and Mespila were besieged by the Persia king at the time when the Persians gained the supremacy over the Medes were historically true, and Xenophon communicated here not a mere fabulam ab incolis narratam, yet Xenophon would not be found contradicting his Cyropaedia, since, as Kran. has well observed, “it can be nothing surprising that among a people accustomed to a native royal dynasty, however well founded Cyrus’ claim in other respects might be, manifold commotions and insurrections should arise, which needed to be forcibly suppressed, so that thus the kingdom could be at the same time spoken of as conquered.”

Add to this the decisive fact, that the account given by Herod. of Cyrus and the overthrow of Astyages, of which even Duncker, p. 649, remarks, that in its prompting motive “it awakens great doubts,” is in open contradiction with all the well-established facts of Medo-Persian history. “All authentic reports testify that in the formation of Medo-Persia the Medes and the Persians are separated in a peculiar way, and yet bound to each other as kindred races. If Herod. is right, if Astyages was always attempting to take Cyrus’ life, if Cyrus took the kingdom from Astyages by force, then such a relation between the 'Medes and Persians’ (as it always occurs in the O.T.) would have been inconceivable; the Medes would not have stood to the Persians in any other relation than did the other subjugated peoples, e.g., the Babylonians” (Klief.). On the other hand, the account gives by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.” If, according to Xen., Cyrus conquered Babylon by the permission of Cyaxares, and after its overthrow not only offered him a “residence” there (Hitzig), but went to Media, presented himself before Cyaxares, and showed him that he had appointed for him in Babylon, in order that when he went thither εἰς οἰκεῖα κατάγεσθαι, i.e., in order that when, according to Eastern custom, he changed his residence he might have a royal palace there, so, according to Daniel, Darius did not overthrow the Chaldean kingdom, but received it (Dan 6:1), and was made king (המלך, Dan 9:1), namely, by Cyrus, who, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, was to overthrow Babylon, and, according to Daniel 6:29, succeeded Darius on the throne. The statement, also, that Darius was about sixty-two years old when he ascended the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, harmonizes with the report given by Xenophon, that when Cyaxares gave his daughter to Cyrus, he gave him along with her the kingdom of Media, because he had no male heir, and was so far advance din years that he could not hope to have now any son. Finally, even in respect of character the Cyaxares of Xen. resembles the Darius of Daniel. As the former describes the conduct of Cyrus while he revelled in sensual pleasures, so Darius is induced by his nobles to issue an edict without obtaining any clear knowledge as to its motive, and allows himself to be forced to put it into execution, however sorrowful he might be on account of its relation to Daniel.

After all this, there can be no reason to doubt the reign of Darius the Mede. But how long it lasted cannot be determined either from the book of Daniel, in which (Dan 9:1) only the first year of his reign is named, or from any other direct sources. Ptolemy, in his Canon, places after Nabonadius the reign of Cyrus the Persian for nine years. With this, the words of Xenophon, τὸ ἕβδομον ἐπὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀρχῆς, which by supplying ἔτος after ἕβδομον are understood of even years’ reign, are combined, and thence it is concluded that Cyaxares reigned two years. But the supplement of ἔτος is not warranted by the context. The supposition, however, that Darius reigned for two years over Babylon is correct. For the Babylonian kingdom was destroyed sixty-eight years after the commencement of the Exile. Since, then, the seventy years of the Exile were completed in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (2Ch 36:22.; Ezr 1:1), it follows that Cyrus became king two years after the overthrow of Babylon, and thus after Darius had reigned two years. See at Dan 9:1-2.

From the shortness of the reign of Darius, united with the circumstance that Cyrus destroyed Babylon and put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, it is easy to explain how the brief and not very independent reign of Darius might be quite passed by, not only by Herodotus and Ctesias, and all later Greek historians, but also by Berosus. Although Cyrus only as commander-in-chief of the army of Cyaxares had with a Medo-Persian host taken Babylon, yet the tradition might speak of the conquering Persian as the lord of the Chaldean kingdom, without taking at all into account the Median chief king, whom in a brief time Cyrus the conqueror succeeded on the throne. In the later tradition of the Persians,“In the Babylonian tradition,” Kranichfeld well remarks, “the memorable catastrophe of the overthrow of Babylon would, at all events, be joined to the warlike operations of Cyrus the conquering Persian, who, according to Xenoph., conducted himself in Babylon as a king (cf. Cyrop. vii. 5. 37), and it might be very indifferent to the question for whom he specially undertook the siege. The Persian tradition had in the national interest a reason for ignoring altogether the brief Median feudal sovereignty over Babylon, which, besides, was only brought about by the successful war of a Persian prince.” from which all the historians known to us, with the exception of Berosus, have constructed their narrative, the Median rule over the Chaldean kingdom naturally sinks down into an insignificant place in relation to the independent government of the conqueror Cyrus and his people which was so soon to follow. The absence of all notice by Berosus, Herod., and Ctesias of the short Median reign can furnish no substantial ground for calling in question the statements of Xen. regarding Cyaxares, and of Daniel regarding the Median Darius, although all other witnesses for this were altogether of no force, which is indeed asserted, but has been proved by no one.Of these witnesses the notice by Abydenus (Chron. Armen., Euseb.) already mentioned, p. 164, bears in its aphoristic brevity, “Darius the king removed him out of the land,” altogether the stamp of an historical tradition, and can be understood only of Darius the Mede, since Eusebius has joined it to the report regarding the dethroning of the last Babylonian king by Cyrus. Also, the often-quoted lines of Aeschylus, Pers. 762-765, are in the simplest manner explained historically if by the work which the first Mede began and the second completed, and which yet brought all the glory to the third, viz., Cyrus, is understood the taking of Babylon; according to which Astyages is the first, Cyaxares II the second, and Cyrus the third, and Aeschylus agrees with Xenophon. Other interpretations, e.g., of Phraortes and Cyaxares I, agree with no single report. Finally, the Darics also give evidence for Darius the Mede, since of all explanations of the name of this gold coin (the Daric) its derivation from a king Darius is the most probable; and so also do the statements of the rhetorician Harpocration, the scholiast to Aristophanis Ecclesiaz. 589, and of Suidas, that the Δαρεικοί did not derive their name, as most suppose, from Darius the father of Xerxes, but from another and an older king (Darius), according to the declaration of Herodot. iv. 166, that Darius first struck this coin, which is not outweighed by his scanty knowledge of the more ancient history of the Medes and Persians.

This result is not rendered doubtful by the fact that Xenophon calls this Median king Κυαξάρης and describes him as the son of Astyages, while, on the contrary, Daniel calls him Darjawesch (Darius) the son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1). The name Κυαξάρης is the Median Uwakshatra, and means autocrat;  ̓Αστυάγης corresponds to the Median Ajisdahâka, the name of the Median dynasty, meaning the biting serpent (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, p. 175f.). דּריושׁ, Δαρεῖος, the Persian Dârjawusch, rightly explained by Herod. vi. 98 by the word ἐρξείης, means the keeper, ruler; and אחשׁורושׁ, Ahasverus, as the name of Xerxes, in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions Kschajârschâ, is certainly formed, however one may interpret the name, from Kschaja, kingdom, the title of the Persian rulers, like the Median “Astyages.” The names Cyaxares and Darjawesch are thus related to each other, and are the paternal names of both dynasties, or the titles of the rulers. Xenophon has communicated to us the Median name and title of the last king; Daniel gives, as it appears, the Persian name and title which Cyaxares, as king of the united Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom, received and bore.

The circumstances reported in this chapter occurred, according to the statement in v. 29 a, in the first of the two years’ reign of Darius over Babylon. The matter and object of this report are related to the events recorded in Daniel 3. As in that chapter Daniel’s companions are condemned to be cast into the fiery furnace on account of their transgression of the royal commandment enjoining them to fall down before the golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, so here in this chapter Daniel himself is cast into the den of lions because of his transgression of the command enjoining that prayer was to be offered to no other god, but to the king only. The motive of the accusation is, in the one case as in the other, envy on account of the high position which the Jews had reached in the kingdom, and the object of it was the driving of the foreigners from their influential offices. The wonderful deliverance also of the faithful worshippers of God from the death which threatened them, with the consequences of that deliverance, are alike in both cases. But along with these similarities there appear also differences altogether corresponding to the circumstances, which show that historical facts are here related to us, and not the products of a fiction formed for a purpose. In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar requires all the subjects of his kingdom to do homage to the image he had set up, and to worship the gods of his kingdom, and his command affords to the enemies of the Jews the wished-for opportunity of accusing the friends of Daniel of disobedience to the royal will. In Daniel 6, on the other hand, Darius is moved and induced by his great officers of state, whose design was to set Daniel aside, to issue the edict there mentioned, and he is greatly troubled when he sees the application of the edict to the case of Daniel. The character of Darius is fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. The latter was a king distinguished by energy and activity, a perfect autocrat; the former, a weak prince and wanting in energy, who allowed himself to be guided and governed by his state officers. The command of Nebuchadnezzar to do homage to his gods is the simple consequence of the supremacy of the ungodly world-power; the edict extorted from Darius, on the contrary, is a deification of the world-power for the purpose of oppressing the true servants of God. The former command only places the gods of the world-power above the living God of heaven and earth; the latter edict seeks wholly to set aside the recognition of this God, if only for a time, by forbidding prayer to be offered to Him. This tyranny of the servants of the world-power is more intolerable than the tyranny of the world-ruler.

Thus the history recorded in this chapter shows, on the one side, how the ungodly world-power in its progressive development assumes an aspect continually more hostile toward the kingdom of God, and how with the decrease of its power of action its hatred against the true servants of God increases; and it shows, on the other side, how the Almighty God not only protects His worshippers against all the intrigues and machinations of the enemy, but also requites the adversaries according to their deeds. Daniel was protected against the rage of the lions, while his enemies were torn by them to pieces as soon as they were cast into the den.

This miracle of divine power is so vexatious to the modern critics, that Bleek, v. Leng., Hitzig, and others have spared no pains to overthrow the historical trustworthiness of the narrative, and represent it as a fiction written with a design. Not only does the prohibition to offer any petition to any god or man except to the king for a month “not find its equal in absurdity,” but the typology (Daniel an antitype of Joseph!) as well as the relation to Daniel 3 betray the fiction. Darius, it is true, does not show himself to be the type of Antiochus Epiphanes, also the command, Dan 6:26 and Dan 6:27, puts no restraint in reality on those concerned; but by the prohibition, Dan 6:7, the free exercise of their religion is undoubtedly attacked, and such hostility against the faith found its realization for the first time only and everywhere in the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes. Consequently, according to Hitzig, “the prohibition here is reflected from that of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:41-50), and exaggerates it even to a caricature of it, for the purpose of placing clearly in the light the hatefulness of such tyranny.”

On the contrary, the advocates of the genuineness of Daniel have conclusively shown that the prohibition referred to, Dan 6:7, corresponds altogether to the religious views the Medo-Persians, while on the other hand it is out and out in contradiction to the circumstances of the times of the Maccabees. Thus, that the edict did not contemplate the removal or the uprooting of all religious worship except praying to the king, is clearly manifest not only in this, that the prohibition was to be enforced for one month only, but also in the intention which the magnates had in their eye, of thereby effecting certainly the overthrow of Daniel. The religious restraint which was thus laid upon the Jews for a month is very different from the continual rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish worship of God. Again, not only is the character of Darius and his relation to Daniel, as the opponents themselves must confess, such as not to furnish a type in which Antiochus Epiphanes may be recognised, but the enemies of Daniel do not really become types of this tyrant; for they seek his overthrow not from religious antipathy, but, moved only by vulgar envy, they seek to cast him down from his lofty position in the state. Thus also in this respect the historical point of view of the hostility to Daniel as representing Judaism, is fundamentally different from that of the war waged by Antiochus against Judaism, so that this narrative is destitute of every characteristic mark of the Seleucidan-Maccabee aera. Cf. The further representation of this difference by Kranichfeld, p. 229ff. - The views of Hitzig will be met in our exposition.

Belshazzar's Feast; The Hand-writing on the Wall. (b. c. 538.)

1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. 2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. 3 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 princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. 4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. 5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6 Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. 8 Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. 9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

We have here Belshazzar the king very gay, but all of a sudden very gloomy, and in straits in the fulness of his sufficiency. See how he affronts God, and God affrights him; and wait what will be the issue of this contest; and whether he that hardened his heart against God prospered.

I. See how the king affronted God, and put contempt upon him. He made a great feast, or banquet of wine; probably it was some anniversary solemnity, in honour of his birth-day or coronation-day, or in honour of some of their idols. Historians say that Cyrus, who was now with his army besieging Babylon, knew of this feast, and presuming that they then would be off their guard, somno vinoque sepulti—buried in sleep and wine, took that opportunity to attack the city, and so with the more ease made himself master of it. Belshazzar upon this occasion invited a thousand of his lords to come and drink with him. Perhaps they were such as had signalized themselves in defense of the city against the besiegers; or these were his great council of war, with whom, when they had well drunk, he would advise what was further to be done. And they were to look upon it as a great favour that he drank wine before them, for it was the pride of those eastern kings to be seldom seen. He drank wine before them, for he made this feast, as Ahasuerus did, to show the honour of his majesty. Now in this sumptuous feast, 1. He put an affront upon the providence of God and bade defiance to his judgments. His city was now besieged; a powerful enemy was at his gates; his life and kingdom lay at stake. In all this the hand of the Lord had gone out against him, and by it he called him to weeping, and mourning, and girding with sackcloth. God's voice cried in the city, as Jonah to Nineveh, Yet forty days, or fewer, and Babylon shall be destroyed. He should therefore, like the king of Nineveh, have proclaimed a fast; but, as one resolved to walk contrary to God, he proclaims a feast, and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine, as if he dared the Almighty to do his worst, Isa. xxii. 12, 13. To show how little fear he had of being forced to surrender, for want of provisions, he spent thus extravagantly. Note, Security and sensuality are sad presages of approaching ruin. Those that will not be warned by judgments of God may expect to be wounded by them. 2. He put an affront upon the temple of God, and bade defiance to his sanctuary, v. 2. While he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the vessels of the temple, that they might drink in them. When he tasted how rich and fine the wine was, "O," said he, "it is a pity but we should have holy vessels to drink such delicious wine as this in," which was looked upon as a piece of wit, and, to carry on the humour, the vessels of the temple were immediately sent for. Nay, there seems to have been something more in it than a frolic, and that it was done in a malicious despite to the God of Israel. The heart of his people was very much upon these sacred vessels, as appears from Jer. xxvii. 16, 18. Their principal care, at their return, was about these, Ezra i. 7. Now, we may suppose, they had an expectation of their deliverance approaching, reckoning the seventy years of their captivity near a period; and some of them might perhaps have given out some words to that purport, that shortly they should have the vessels of the sanctuary restored to them, in defiance of which Belshazzar here proclaims them to be his own, will keep them in store no longer, but will make use of them among his own plate. Note, That mirth is sinful indeed, and fills the measure of men's iniquity apace, which profanes sacred things and jests with them. This ripened Babylon for ruin—that no songs would serve them but the songs of Zion (Ps. cxxxvii. 3), no vessels but the vessels of the sanctuary. Let those who thus sacrilegiously alienate what is dedicated to God and his honour know that he will not be mocked. 3. He put an affront upon God himself, and bade defiance to his deity; for they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, v. 4. They gave that glory to images, the work of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, which is due to the true and living God only. They praised them either with sacrifices offered to them or with songs sung in honour of them. When their heads were giddy, and their hearts merry, with wine, they were in the fittest frame to praise the gods of gold and silver, wood and stone; for one would think that men in their senses, who had the command of a clear and sober thought, could not be guilty of so gross an absurdity; they must be intoxicated ere they could be so infatuated. Drunken worshippers, who are not men, but beasts, are the most proper for the service of dunghill deities, that are not gods, but devils. They have erred through wine, Isa. xxvii. 7. They drank wine, and praised their idol-gods, as if they had been the founders of their feast and the givers of all good things to them. Or, when they were drinking wine, they praised their gods by drinking healths to them; and the king drank wine before them (v. 1), that is, he began the health, first to this god, and then to the other, till they went through the bead-roll or farrago of them, those of wood and stone not excepted. Note, Immorality and impiety, vice and profaneness, strengthen the hands and advance the interests one of another. Drunken frolics were an introduction to idolatry, and then idolatrous healths were a shoeing-horn to further drunkenness.

II. See how God affrighted the king, and struck a terror upon him. Belshazzar and his lords are in the midst of their revels, the cups going round apace, and all upon the merry pin, drinking confusion, it may be, to Cyrus and his army, and roaring out huzzas, in confidence of the speedy raising of the siege; but the hour had come when that must be fulfilled which had been long ago said of the king of Babylon, when his city should be besieged by the Persians and Medes, Isa. xxi. 2-4. The night of my pleasures has he turned into fear to me. The mirth of this ball at court must be spoiled, and a damp cast upon their jollity, though the king himself be master of the revels; immediately, when God speaks the word, we have him and all his guests in the utmost confusion, and the end of their mirth is heaviness. 1. There appear the fingers of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall, before the king's face (v. 5), "the angel Gabriel," say the rabbin, "directing these fingers and writing by them." "That divine hand" (says a rabbi of our own, Dr. Lightfoot) "that had written the two tables for a law to his people now writes the doom of Babel and Belshazzar upon the wall." Here was nothing sent to frighten them which made a noise, or threatened their lives, no claps of thunder nor flashes of lightning, no destroying angel with his sword drawn in his hand, only a pen in the hand, writing upon the wall, over-against the candlestick, where they might all see it by the light of their own candle. Note, God's written word is sufficient to put the proudest boldest sinners into a fright, when he is pleased to give it the setting on. The king saw the part of the hand that wrote, but saw not the person whose hand it was, which made the thing more frightful. Note, What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures and the book of the scriptures (Lo, these are parts of his ways, Job xxvi. 14), may serve to possess us with awful thoughts concerning that of God which we do not see. If this be the finger of God, what is his arm made bare? And what is he? 2. The king is immediately seized with a panic fear (v. 6): His countenance was changed (his colour went and came); the joints of his loins were loosed, so that he had no strength in them, but was struck with a pain in his back, as is usual in a great fright; his knees smote one against another, so violently did he tremble like an aspen leaf. But what was the matter? Why is he in such a fright? He perceives not what is written, and how does he know but it may be some happy presage of deliverance to him and to his kingdom? But the business was his thoughts troubled him; his own guilty conscience flew in his face, and told him that he had no reason to expect any good news from Heaven, and that the hand of an angel could write nothing but terror to him. He that knew himself liable to the justice of God immediately concluded this to be an arrest in his name, a summons to appear before him. Note, God can soon awaken the most secure and make the heart of the stoutest sinner to tremble; and there needs no more to do it than to let loose his own thoughts upon him; they will soon play the tyrant, and give him trouble enough. 3. The wise men of Babylon are immediately called in, to see what they can make of this writing upon the wall, v. 7. The king cried aloud, as one in haste, as one in earnest, to bring the whole college of magicians, to try if they can read this writing, and show the interpretation of it; for the king and all his lords cannot pretend to it, it is out of their sphere. The study of divine revelation (such as they had, or thought they had) and converse with the world of spirits were by the heathen confined to one profession, and no other meddled with it; but what is written to us by the finger of God is legible to all; whoever will may read the mind of God in the scriptures. To engage these wise men to exert the utmost of their skill in this matter, and provoke them to an emulation in the attempt, he promised that whoever would give him a satisfactory account of this writing should be dignified with the highest honours of the court. He knew what these pretenders to wisdom aimed at, and what would please them, and therefore promised them a scarlet robe and a gold chain, glorious things in the eyes of those that know no better. Nay, he should be primus par regni—chief minister of state, the third ruler in the kingdom, next to the king and his heir apparent. 4. The king is disappointed in his expectations from them; they can none of them read the writing, much less interpret it (v. 8), which increases the king's confusion, v. 9. He likes the thing yet worse and worse, and fears that mischief is towards him. His lords also, that had been partners with him in his jollity, are now sharers with him in his terrors; they also were astonished at their wits' end; and neither their numbers nor their refreshment by wine would serve to keep up their spirits. The reason why the wise men could not read the writing was not because it was written in any language or characters unknown to them, but God either cast a mist before their eyes or put such confusion upon their spirits that they could not read it, that the honour of expounding this mystical writing might be reserved for Daniel. Note, The terror of an awakened convinced conscience may justly be increased by the utter insufficiency of all creatures to give it ease or satisfaction.

Daniel Brought before Belshazzar. (b. c. 538.)

10 Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: 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, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; 12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. 13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? 14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. 15 And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing: 16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. 17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: 19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: 21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. 22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; 23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified: 24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. 25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. 27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. 28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. 29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

Here is, I. The information given to the king, by the queen-mother, concerning Daniel, how fit he was to be consulted in this difficult case. It is supposed that this queen was the widow of Evil-Merodach, and was that famous Nitocris whom Herodotus mentions as a woman of extraordinary prudence. She was not present at the feast, as the king's wives and concubines were (v. 2); it was not agreeable to her age and gravity to keep a merry night. But, tidings of the fright which the king and his lords were put into being brought to her apartment, she came herself to the banqueting-house, to recommend to the king a physician for his melancholy. She entreated him not to be discouraged by the insufficiency of his wise men to solve this riddle, for that there was a man in his kingdom that had more than once helped his grandfather at such a dead lift, and, no doubt, could help him, v. 11, 12. She could not undertake to read the writing herself, but directed him to one that could; let Daniel be called now, who should have been called first. Now observe, 1. The high character she gives of Daniel: He is a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, who has something in him more than human, not only the spirit of a man, which, in all, is the candle of the Lord, but a divine spirit. According to the language of her country and religion, she could not give a higher encomium of any man; she speaks honourably of him as a man that had, (1.) An admirably good head: Light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. Such an insight had he into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired; he had knowledge and understanding beyond all the other wise men for interpreting dreams, explaining enigmas or hard sentences, untying knots, and resolving doubts. Solomon had a wonderful sagacity of this kind; but it should seem that in these things Daniel had more of an immediate divine direction. Behold, a greater than Solomon himself is here. Yet what was the wisdom of them both compared with the treasures of wisdom hidden in Christ? (2.) He had an admirably good heart: An excellent spirit was found in him, which was a great ornament to his wisdom and knowledge, and qualified him to receive that gift; for God gives to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy. He was of a humble, holy, heavenly spirit, had a devout and gracious spirit, a spirit of zeal for the glory of God and the good of men. This was indeed an excellent spirit. 2. The account she gives of the respect that Nebuchadnezzar had for him; he was much in his favour, and was preferred by him: "The king thy father" (that is, thy grandfather, but even to many generations Nebuchadnezzar might well be called the father of that royal family, for he it was that raised it to such a pitch of grandeur), "the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the magicians." Perhaps Belshazzar had sometimes, in his pride, spoken slightly of Nebuchadnezzar, and his politics, and the methods of his government, and the ministers he employed, and thought himself wiser than he; and therefore his mother harps upon that. "The king, I say, thy father, to whose good management all thou hast owing, he pronounced him chief of, and gave him dominion over, all the wise men of Babylon, and named him Belteshazzar, according to the name of his god, thinking thereby to put honour upon him;" but Daniel, by constantly making use of his Jewish name himself (which he resolved to keep, in token of his faithful adherence to his religion), had worn out that name; only the queen-dowager remembered it, otherwise he was generally called Daniel. Note, It is a very good office to revive the remembrance of the good services of worthy men, who are themselves modest, and willing that they should be forgotten. 3. The motion she makes concerning him: Let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. By this it appears that Daniel was now forgotten at court. Belshazzar was a stranger to him, knew not that he had such a jewel in his kingdom. With the new king there came in a new ministry, and the old one was laid aside. Note, There are a great many valuable men, and such as might be made very useful, that lie long buried in obscurity, and some that have done eminent services that live to be overlooked and taken no notice of; but, whatever men are, God is not unrighteous to forget the services done to his kingdom. Daniel, being turned out of his place, lived privately, and sought not any opportunity to come into notice again; yet he lived near the court and within call, though Babylon was now besieged, that he might be ready, if there were occasion, to do any good office, by what interest he had among the great ones, for the children of his people. But Providence so ordered it that now, just at the fall of that monarchy, he should by the queen's means be brought to court again, that he might lie there ready for preferment in the ensuing government. Thus do the righteous shine forth out of obscurity, and before honour is humility.

II. The introducing of Daniel to the king, and his request to him to read and expound the writing. Daniel was brought in before the king, v. 13. He was now nearly 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 conducted in, as a stranger, by the master of the ceremonies. Note, 1. The king asks, with an air of haughtiness: Art thou that Daniel who art of the children of the captivity? Being a Jew, and a captive, he was loth to be beholden to him if he could help it. 2. He tells him what an encomium he had heard of him (v. 14), that the spirit of the gods was in him; and he had sent for him to try whether he deserved so high a character or no. 3. He acknowledges that all the wise men of Babylon were baffled; they could not read this writing, nor show the interpretation, v. 16. But, 4. He promises him the same rewards that he had promised them if he would do it, v. 16. It was strange that the magicians, when now, and in Nebuchadnezzar's time, once and again, they were nonplussed, did not attempt something to save their credit; if they had with a good assurance said, "This is the meaning of such a dream, such a writing," who could disprove them? But God so ordered it that they had nothing at all to say, as, when Christ was born, the heathen oracles were struck dumb.

III. The interpretation which Daniel gave of these mystic characters, which was so far from easing the king of his fears that we may suppose it increased them rather. Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar was young; and therefore he seems to take a greater liberty of dealing plainly and roundly with him than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. In reproving any man, especially great men, there is need of wisdom to consider all circumstances; for they are the reproofs of instruction that are the way of life. In Daniel's discourse here,

1. He undertakes to read the writing which gave them this alarm, and to show them the interpretation of it, v. 17. He slights the offer he made him of rewards, is not pleased that it was mentioned, for he is not one of those that divine for money; what gratuities Nebuchadnezzar gave him afterwards he gladly accepted, but he scorned to bargain for them, or to read the writing to the king for and in consideration of such and such honours promised him. No: "Let thy gifts be to thyself, for they will not be long thine, and give thy fee to another, to any of the wise men whom thou wouldst have most wished to earn it; I value it not." Daniel sees his kingdom now at its last gasp, and therefore looks with contempt upon his gifts and rewards. And thus should we despise all the gifts and rewards that this world can give did we see, as we may by faith, its final period hastening on. Let it give its perishing gifts to another; there are better gifts which we have our eyes and hearts upon; but let us do our duty in the world, do it all the real service we can, read God's writing to it in a profession of religion, and by an agreeable conversation make known the interpretation of it, and then trust God for his gifts, his rewards, in comparison with which all the world can give is mere trash and trifles.

2. He largely recounts to the king God's dealings with his father Nebuchadnezzar, which were intended for instruction and warning to him, v. 18, 21. This is not intended for a flourish or an amusement, but is a necessary preliminary to the interpretation of the writing. Note, That we may understand aright what God is doing with us, it is of use to us to review what he has done with others.

(1.) He describes the great dignity and power to which the divine Providence had advanced Nebuchadnezzar, v. 18, 19. He had a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour, for aught we know, above what any heathen prince ever had before him; he thought that he got his glory by his own extraordinary conduct and courage, and ascribed his successes to a projecting active genius of his own; but Daniel tells him who now enjoyed what he had laboured for that it was the most high God, the God of gods and Lord of kings (as Nebuchadnezzar himself had called him), that gave him that kingdom, that vast dominion, that majesty wherewith he presided in the affairs of it, and that glory and honour which by his prosperous management he acquired. Note, Whatever degree of outward prosperity any arrive at, they must own that it is of God's giving, not their own getting. Let it never be said, My might, and the power of my hand, have gotten me this wealth, this preferment; but let it always be remembered that it is God that gives men power to get wealth, and gives success to their endeavours. Now the power which God gave to Nebuchadnezzar is here described to be very great in respect both of ability and of authority. [1.] His ability was so strong that it was irresistible; such was the majesty that God gave him, so numerous were the forces he had at command, and such an admirable dexterity he had at commanding them, that, which way soever his sword turned, it prospered. He could captivate and subdue nations by threatening them, without striking a stroke, for all people trembled and feared before him, and would compound with him for their lives upon any terms. See what force is, and what the fear of it does. It is that by which the brutal part of the world, even of the world of mankind, both governs and is governed. [2.] His authority was so absolute that it was uncontrollable. The power which was allowed him, which descended upon him, or which, at least, he assumed, was without contradiction, was absolute and despotic, none shared with him either in the legislative or in the executive part of it. In dispensing punishments he condemned or acquitted at pleasure: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he saved alive, though both were equally innocent or equally guilty. The jus vitæ et necis—the power of life and death was entirely in his hand. In dispensing rewards he granted or denied preferment at pleasure: Whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down, merely for a humour, and without giving a reason so much as to himself; but it is all ex mero motu—of his own good pleasure, and stat pro ratione voluntas—his will stands for a reason. Such was the constitution of the eastern monarchies, such the manner of their kings.

(2.) He sets before him the sins which Nebuchadnezzar had been guilty of, whereby he had provoked God against him. [1.] He behaved insultingly towards those that were under him, and grew tyrannical and oppressive. The description given of his power intimates his abuse of his power, and that he was directed in what he did by humour and passion, not by reason and equity; so that he often condemned the innocent and acquitted the guilty, both which are an abomination to the Lord. He deposed men of merit and preferred unworthy men, to the great detriment of the public, and for this he was accountable to the most high God, that gave him his power. Note, It is a very hard and rare thing for men to have an absolute arbitrary power, and not to make an ill use of it. Camden has a distich of Giraldus, wherein he speaks of it as a rare instance, concerning our king Henry II of England, that never any man had so much power and did so little hurt with it. Glorior hoc uno, quod nunquam vidimus unum, Nec potuisse magis, nec nocuisse minus— Of him I can say, exulting, that with the same power to do harm no one was ever more inoffensive. But that was not all. [2.] He behaved insolently towards the God above him, and grew proud and haughty (v. 20): His heart was lifted up, and there his sin and ruin began; his mind was hardened in pride, hardened against the commands of God and his judgments; he was willful and obstinate, and neither the word of God nor his rod made any lasting impression upon him. Note, Pride is a sin that hardens the heart in all other sins and renders the means of repentance and reformation ineffectual.

(3.) He reminds him of the judgments of God that were brought upon him for his pride and obstinacy, how he was deprived of his reason, and so deposed from his kingly throne (v. 20), driven from among men, to dwell with the wild asses, v. 21. He that would not govern his subjects by rules of reason had not reason sufficient for the government himself. Note, Justly does God deprive men of their reason when they become unreasonable and will not use it, and of their power when they become oppressive and use it ill. He continued like a brute till he knew and embraced that first principle of religion, That the most high God rules. And it is rather by religion than reason that man is distinguished from, and dignified above, the beasts; and it is more his honour to be a subject to the supreme Creator than to be lord of the inferior creatures. Note, Kings must know, or shall be made to know, that the most high God rules in their kingdoms (that is an imperium in imperio—an empire within an empire, not to be excepted against), and that he appoints over them whomsoever he will. As he makes heirs, so he makes princes.

3. In God's name, he exhibits articles of impeachment against Belshazzar. Before he reads him his doom, from the hand-writing on the wall, he shows him his crime, that God may be justified when he speaks, and clear when he judges. Now that which he lays to his charge is, (1.) That he had not taken warning by the judgments of God upon his father (v. 22): Thou his son, O Belshazzar! hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this. Note, It is a great offence to God if our hearts be not humbled before him to comply both with his precepts and with his providences, humbled by repentance, obedience, and patience; nay, he expects from the greatest of men that their hearts should be humbled before him, by an acknowledgment that, great as they are, to him they are accountable. And it is a great aggravation of the unhumbledness of our hearts when we know enough to humble them but do not consider and improve it, particularly when we know how others have been broken that would not bend, how others have fallen that would not stoop, and yet we continue stiff and inflexible. It makes the sin of children the more heinous if they tread in the steps of their parents' wickedness, though they have seen how dearly it has cost them, and how pernicious the consequences of it have been. Do we know this, do we know all this, and yet are we not humbled? (2.) That he had affronted God more impudently than Nebuchadnezzar himself had done, witness the revels of this very night, in the midst of which he was seized with this horror (v. 23): "Thou hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven, hast swelled with rage against him, and taken up arms against his crown and dignity, in this particular instance, that thou hast profaned the vessels of his house, and made the utensils of his sanctuary instruments of thy iniquity, and, in an actual designed contempt of him, hast praised the gods of silver and gold, which see not, nor hear, nor know anything, as if they were to be preferred before the God that sees, and hears, and knows every thing." Sinners that are resolved to go on in sin are well enough pleased with gods that neither see, nor hear, nor know, for then they may sin securely; but they will find, to their confusion, that though those are the gods they choose those are not the gods they must be judged by, but one to whom all things are naked and open. (3.) That he had not answered the end of his creation and maintenance: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. This is a general charge, which stands good against us all; let us consider how we shall answer it. Observe, [1.] Our dependence upon God as our creator, preserver, benefactor, owner, and ruler; not only from his hand our breath was at first, but in his hand our breath is still; it is he that holds our souls in life, and, if he take away our breath, we die. Our times being in his hand, so is our breath, by which our times are measured. In him we live, and move, and have our being; we live by him, live upon him, and cannot live without him. The way of man is not in himself, not at his own command, at his own disposal, but his are all our ways; for our hearts are in his hand, and so are the hearts of all men, even of kings, who seem to act most as free-agents. [2.] Our duty to God, in consideration of this dependence; we ought to glorify him, to devote ourselves to his honour and employ ourselves in his service, to make it our care to please him and our business to praise him. [3.] Our default in this duty, notwithstanding that dependence; we have not done it; for we have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God. This is the indictment against Belshazzar; there needs no proof, it is made good by the notorious evidence of the fact, and his own conscience cannot but plead guilty to it. And therefore,

4. He now proceeds to read the sentence, as he found it written upon the wall: "Then" (says Daniel) "when thou hast come to such a height of impiety as thus to trample upon the most sacred things, then when thou wast in the midst of thy sacrilegious idolatrous feast, then was the part of the hand, the writing fingers, sent from him, from that God whom thou didst so daringly affront, and who had borne so long with thee, but would bear no longer; he sent them, and this writing, thou now seest, was written, v. 24. It is he that now writes bitter things against thee, and makes thee to possess thy iniquities," Job xiii. 26. Note, As the sin of sinners is written in the book of God's omniscience, so the doom of sinners is written in the book of God's law; and the day is coming when those books shall be opened, and they shall be judged by them. Now the writing was, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, v. 25. It is well that we have an authentic exposition of these words annexed, else we could make little of them, so concise are they; the signification of them is, He has numbered, he has weighed, and they divide. The Chaldean wise men, because they knew not that there is but one God only, could not understand who this He should be, and for that reason (some think) the writing puzzled them. (1.) Mene; that is repeated, for the thing is certain—Mene, mene; that signifies, both in Hebrew and Chaldee, He has numbered and finished, which Daniel explains thus (v. 26): "God has numbered thy kingdom, the years and days of the continuance of it; these were numbered in the counsel of God, and now they are finished; the term has expired for and during which thou wast to hold it, and now it must be surrendered. Here is an end of thy kingdom." (2.) Tekel; that signifies, in Chaldee, Thou art weighed, and, in Hebrew, Thou art too light. So Dr. Lightfoot. For this king and his actions are weighed in the just and unerring balances of divine equity. God does as perfectly know his true character as the goldsmith knows the weight of that which he has weighed in the nicest scales. God does not give judgment against him till he has first pondered his actions, and considered the merits of his case. "But thou art found wanting, unworthy to have such a trust lodged in thee, a vain, light, empty man, a man of no weight or consideration." (3.) Upharsin, which should be rendered, and Pharsin, or Peres. Parsin, in Hebrew, signifies the Persians; Paresin, in Chaldee, signifies dividing; Daniel puts both together (v. 28): "Thy kingdom is divided, is rent from thee, and given to the Medes and Persians, as a prey to be divided among them." Now this may, without any force, be applied to the doom of sinners. Mene, Tekel, Peres, may easily be made to signify death, judgment, and hell. At death, the sinner's days are numbered and finished; after death the judgment, when he will be weighed in the balance and found wanting; and after judgment the sinner will be cut asunder, and given as a prey to the devil and his angels. Daniel does not here give Belshazzar such advice and encouragement to repent as he had given Nebuchadnezzar, because he saw the decree had gone forth and he would not be allowed any space to repent.

One would have thought that Belshazzar would be exasperated against Daniel, and, seeing his own case desperate, would be in a rage against him. But he was so far convicted by his own conscience of the reasonableness of all he said that he objected nothing against it; but, on the contrary, gave Daniel the reward he promised him, put on him the scarlet gown and the gold chain, and proclaimed him the third ruler in the kingdom (v. 29), because he would be as good as his word, and because it was not Daniel's fault if the exposition of the hand-writing was not such as he desired. Note, Many show great respect to God's prophets who yet have no regard to his word. Daniel did not value these titles and ensigns of honour, yet would not refuse them, because they were tokens of his prince's good-will: but we have reason to think that he received them with a smile, foreseeing how soon they would all wither with him that bestowed them. They were like Jonah's gourd, which came up in a night and perished in a night, and therefore it was folly for him to be exceedingly glad of them.

Daniel Deals Plainly with Belshazzar; Interpreting of the Writing on the Wall. (b. c.  538.)

30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. 31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Here is, 1. The death of the king. Reason enough he had to tremble, for he was just falling into the hands of the king of terrors, v. 30. In that night, when his heart was merry with wine, the besiegers broke into the city, aimed at the palace; there they found the king, and gave him his death's wound. He could not find any place so secret as to conceal him, or so strong as to protect him. Heathen writers speak of Cyrus's taking Babylon by surprise, with the assistance of two deserters that showed him the best way into the city. And it was foretold what a consternation it would be to the court, Jer. li. 11, 39. Note, Death comes as a snare upon those whose hearts are overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. 2. The transferring of the kingdom into other hands. From the head of gold we now descend to the breast and arms of silver. Darius the Mede took the kingdom in partnership with, and by the consent of, Cyrus, who had conquered it, v. 31. They were partners in war and conquest, and so they were in dominion, ch. vi. 28. Notice is taken of his age, that he was now sixty-two years old, for which reason Cyrus, who was his nephew, gave him the precedency. Some observe that being now sixty-two years old, in the last year of the captivity, he was born in the eighth year of it, and that was the year when Jeconiah was carried captive and all the nobles, &c. See 2 Kings xxiv. 13-15. Just at that time when the most fatal stroke was given was a prince born that in process of time should avenge Jerusalem upon Babylon, and heal the wound that was now given. Thus deep are the counsels of God concerning his people, thus kind are his designs towards them.

CHAP. V.

Ver. 1. Belſhazzar the King] Son to Evilmerodach, grandſon to Nebuchadnezzar, whoſe line failed in this King, according to Jer. 27.7. Of Evilmerodach Daniel ſaith nothing: becauſe nothing remarkable fell out in his time, but what was before related, 2 King. 25.27. See there.

Made a great feaſt] Of this feaſt, ſee Jer. 25.26. Herodos. l. 1. Xenoph. lib. 7. It was made, ſay ſome, upon occaſion of a yearly ſolemnity, which continued five dayes together, wherein the ſervants bare ſway in every family, having a maſter of miſrule over them. Cyrus took this opportunity, ſaith Xenophon, and made himſelf maſter of the City: Nota hic Baltaſaris miram vecordiam, ſaith one: that is, take notice of Belſhazzars ſtrange ſtupidity and ſecurity; that having ſuch a formidable enemy before the City, he ſhould thus revel and bezel: but he did it, perhaps, to ſhew his valour, and how little he cared for the Perſians, who ſhewed themſelves ſoon after to be no contemptible perſons. Certain it is, that he minded nothing leſs at his feaſt then the deliverance of Gods poor people, which now he was in working. Now were the ſeventy years exactly ended: now therefore was Iſrael to be diſmiſſed, and it was done. The Rabbines have a tradition, that Belſhazzar ſeeing the ſeventy years ſpoken of by Jeremy expired, and the Jews,Lyra. by the coming on of another Monarch not delivered, kept this feaſt in contempt of that prophecy and people.

To a thouſand of his Lords] Who 'tis like, were all drunk for company: what wonder then that a land ſo ſick of drink ſpewed them all out? Lords and loſels were grown deſperate drunkards, ripe for ruine. Here were a thouſand Princes, but not one faithful Counſellor, to better adviſe this feſtival King (as he is called) wholly given over to diſſolute luſts. Who can tell whether it were not now with him as afterwards with Vitellius the Emperour, when his enemy was at hand,Tacitu[illegible: 1 letter]. Vitellius trepidus, dein temulentus, to put away the fear of death, he made himſelf drunk?

Ver. 2. Belſhazzar whileſt he taſted the wine] And was maſtered by it;Jam temulentus. Vulg. being now in his cups, as they ſay, and well whittled, ſwallowed up of wine, as the Prophet expreſſeth it, Eſay 28.7. Aben-Ezra rendreth it, in conſilio vini, doing as the wine adviſed him.

Commanded to bring the golden and ſilver veſſels] Being intoxicate he caſteth off all care of God and man, and falleth into the ſins of ſacriledge and blaſphemy.

Which his Father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the Temple] And ſhould have reſtored them thither again. We read that when Genſericus had ſpoiled and plundered Rome, he took the veſſels of gold and ſilver which Titus had brought from the Temple in Jeruſalem, and carried them with him to Carthage, The life of Juſtin by Mr. the Clark. 79. and carried them to Constantinople. But the good Emperor Juſtinian would not receive them into his treaſury, but ſent them again to Jeruſalem, to be diſpoſed of for the good of the Church, according to the diſcretion of the Chriſtian Biſhops who lived there.

Ver. 3. Then they brought the golden veſſels] Made and appointed for a better uſe; as were likewiſe much of our Church-lands, veſſels and utenſils, concerning wich a learned man thus complaineth, Poſſidebant Papiſtae, poſſident jam Rapiſtae; Luther cryed out earneſtly againſt this abuſe in Germany, Knox in Scotland, Calvin at Genevah; I ſee, ſaid he to the Senat there in a Sermon, that we have taken the purſe from Judas and given it to the devil: neither can I endure ſuch ſacriledge, which I know God in the end will puniſh moſt ſeverely. Belſhazzar paid dear for his bowſing in the boules of the Sanctuary.

And the King and his Princes—drank in them] As if they had been ſwine-troughs. This was to out-ſin his father and grandfather, who yet were none of the beſt.

Ver. 4▪ They drank wine] To the honour of their goddeſſe Shac: for ſo theſe feaſt-dayes were called [non-Latin text not transcribed], being like the Roman Saturnalia.

And praiſed the gods of ſilver and of gold] As if theſe their dunghill-deities had maſtered and ſpoiled the God of Iſrael, who either would not or could not defend his temple and people, from falling into the power of their invincible conquerour. This was blaſphemy in an high degree: and therefore preſently puniſhed by God.

Ver. 5. In the ſame hour came forth fingers of a mans hand] Taken off from the arm. This ſtrange ſigne marr'd all the mirth immediately, making good the Proverb, Ʋbi uber, ibi tuber, ubi mil, ibi fael. Lege Dei aeternâ ſancitum eſt ut illicita voluptas pariat ultric[illegible: 1 letter]s conſcientiae ſu[illegible: 1 letter]ias & ſupplicia, juxta illud Apocal. 18.7. Carnal mirth goeth out in a ſnuffe.

Ʋpon the plaiſter of the wall] When the wrath of God is revealed from heaven againſt unrighteouſneſſe, he would have it to be well noted and noticed by all.

Ver. 6. Then the Kings countenance was changed] How ſoon is carnal joy extinct, the gallantry of it checkt with troubles and terrours! how ſuddainly is it put out as the fire of thornes! Pſal. 118.12. Eccleſ. 7.6. Surely as lightening is followed with rending and roaring: and as comets, when their exhaled matter is waſted, vaniſh and fill the ayre with peſtilent vapours: ſo is it here.

So that the joynts of his loyns were looſed] If a bare citation to judgment were ſo terrible to this jolly Prince, what ſhall the judgment it ſelf be? Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord, &c.

And hiis knees ſmote one againſt another] The writing on the wall he could neither read nor underſtand: but his conſcience had written bitter things againſt him, which being now held to the fire of Gods wrath become legible, as things written with the juyce of an onion are, when brought to the fire. The wounds alſo of an accuſing conſcience pierce the members of the body, Prov. 17.22. The mark that God ſet upon Cain was, in likelyhood, the perpetual trembling of his hands and whole body.Luctant. Tullus Hostilius, who profanely derided the devotions of his predeceſſour Numa, had deſervedly for his gods Pavorem and Pallorem. Caracalla, after the murther of his brother Geta was ſo haunted with the furies of his own evil conſcience, that he forbad any ſo much as to name him on pain of death, and was well-nigh mad: ſo was Theodoricus the Tyrant, upon the ſight of the fiſhes head ſet before him, wherein he thought he ſaw the face of Symmachus whom he had wrongfully ſlain. The like befel our Richard the third after the murther of his two innocent Nephews; and Charles the ninth of France after the Maſſacre at Paris.

Ver. 7. The King cryed aloud to bring in the Aſtrologers] Daniel ſeemeth not to have been in any requeſt in the dayes of this diſſolute Prince: Neither was there any Courtier that would mention him, or mind the King of him till the old Queen came in. Such Combibones are unfit comforters: many of them, likely, were by this time, buckt with wine, and then laid out to to be ſunn'd, and ſcorn'd.

Shall be cloathed with ſcarlet, &c.] A troubled heart will give any thing for releaſe, as Cain, Spira, &c.

And ſhall be the third ruler in the Kingdom] i. e. Next to my ſelf and the Queen-Mother. Thus he promiſeth to another a third place, who could not promiſe to himſelf any place. Spirat ſuperbiam miſer.

Ver. 8. But they could not read the writing] Ʋtpote coe[illegible: 1 letter]itate & ſtupore perculſi, they could not ſo read it, as to make any good ſenſe of it. It may be the initial letters only were ſet down, or elſe without pricks, or in a ſtrange Character, the Samaritan, or ſome other. The honour of the work was reſerved for a better man.

Ver. 9. Then was King Belſhazzar greatly troubled] In the midſt of his feaſt he was thus damped and caſt into his dumps; according to that of Amos, chap. 8. ver. 10. I will turn your feaſts into mourning, and all your ſongs into lamentation. Yet find we not in him any ſign of true remorſe. Whoredom and wine and new wine had even taken away his heart, Hoſ. 4.11. robb'd him of himſelf, and laid a beaſt in the room.

Ver. 10. Now the Queen] The Queen-Mother, whom Heredotus calleth Nicochris, and greatly commendeth for her wiſdom and ability of ſpeech, which in a woman is a comely ornament, Prov. 31.26. 1. She was not at this riotous feaſt, which is an argument of her temperance. 2. She prudently inſinuateth into the King by the ordinary ſalutation, O King live for ever. 3. She adviſeth him to bear up, and not to be over-troubled. 4. She maketh honourable mention of Daniel, cujus virtutum ſola est admiratrix, and perſwaded the King to make uſe of him, by her own experience. We uſe to ſay that womens wits are beſt at a pinch. Moſt ſure it is that women have proved ſometimes more prompt for counſel then men, Judg. 13.23. and ſome we may find, who, beſide their ſex, have little of a woman in them. See 2 Sam. 20.16. Herodotus maketh this Nicochris as famous as Semiramis.

Ver. 11. There is a man in thy Kingdom] Once famous for his Oracles, and highly promoted by thy grandfather Nebuchadnezzar. Thus this old Queen ſpeaketh of ancient things. She was not therefore Belſhazzars wife (as Porphyry ſcoffingly objected) but his mother at leaſt, if not his grandmother.

In whom is the spirits] See on ver. 10.

The King, I ſay, thy father] This was a check to Belſhazzar, for neglecting ſo worthy a perſon as Daniel, whom his grandfather had ſo highly honoured.

Ver. 12. Foraſmuch as an excellent spirit, &c.] Very excellent is the grace of the Spirit in godly hearts, Coloſ. 1.29. neither can natural conſcience do leſſe then ſtoop and ſtrike ſail to the image of God, in whomſoever.

And diſſolving of doubtis] Chald. knots, that is, perplexed and obſcure ſpeeches and ſentences.

Now let Daniel be called] Who will not obtrude himſelf, nor like the marry gold open and ſhut with the Sun; but, as the violet which grows low and hang[illegible: 1 letter] the head downward, hiding it ſelf alſo with its own leaves: ſo Daniel, were it not that the fragrant ſmel of his many virtues betrayed him to the world, would chuſe to live and dye in his ſelf-contenting ſecrecy.

Ver. 13. Then was Daniel brought in] Wiſe men are never found to be unneceſſarily forth-putting, or over-forward to expreſſe themſelves. They know Qui benè la[illegible: 1 letter]uit benè vixit; & qui benè tacuit, benè dixit: and when they muſt ſpeak, uſe as few words as may be, and as direct to the point.

Art thou that Daniel] Daniel had deſerved of the Babylonian State to have been better known of Belſhazzar, and better reſpected. But this is the worlds wages.

Which art of the children of the Captivity of Judah, &c.] What needed all this? he never learned it ſurely of his Queen-mother. She had ſpoken all good of Daniel, and inminded the King of another both office and name. He only takes notice of Daniel's captive condition, and vaunts of his grandfathers victory: moving this inſolent and unſeaſonable queſtion in tanta neceſſitate & conſilii inopia, Art thou that Daniel? &c.

Ver. 14. I have even heard of thee that the Spirit, &c.] This ſilly and ſhallow Prince hath nothing to ſay but what was put before into his mouth by his wiſer grandmother: Only what ſhe diſcreetly concealed, viz. that Daniel was one of the Captives, &c. hoc unum commemorat glorioſus Rex, that he blures out,Oecolamp. in a way of upbraiding.

Ver. 15. But they could not ſhew the interpretation of the thing] They could not read nor interpret it. Such as ſeek to Sorcerers are worthy to loſe their labour, as a puniſhment of their folly. Suidas teſtifieth that the Citizens of Alexandria in Egypt deviſed and decreed, that Aſtrologers ſhould pay a certain tribute to the State out of their gettings, and that it ſhould be called The fools tribute, becauſe none but fools and light fellows would repair to ſuch for direction.

Ver. 16. And I have heard of thee] As far off as he maketh it, Belſhazzar could not be ſo ignorant of Daniel, as he would ſeem to be, ſith he underſtood punctually the dreams, honours, and troubles of his grandfather, ver. 22. But this he took for a piece of his ſilly glory, to make it very ſtrange, as if he had never heard of Daniel till now.

Ver. 17. Let thy gifts be to thy ſelf] Honours, Pleaſures, Riches, Hac tria pro trino numine Mundus habet, Bus as Moſes, by the force of his faith, overcame them all, Heb. 11.24, 25, 26, 27. ſo did Daniel here; throwing off the offers of them, and anſwering the Kings proud ſpeech with a grave Invective which he beginneth ſomewhat abruptly▪ not without indignation, as having to deal with a wicked and deſperate man, rejected of God. Miniſters muſt carry in them a retired majeſty (ſaith One) toward the perſons of wicked men, 2 Kings 3.14.

Ver. 18 O thou King, the moſt High God gave Nebuchadnezzar] See here the neceſſary and profitable uſe of hiſtory, which hath its name, ſaith Plato, [non-Latin text not transcribed], from ſtopping the flux and overflow of impiety in others; Exemplo alterius qui ſapit, ille ſapit. Domeſtical examples are moſt prevalent: as, not to profit by them is a great provocation, and yet too too common, Pſal. 49.14. Lamech was nothing bettered by Cain's puniſhment, but the contrary. Jude inveyeth againſt ſuch as made no uſe of Sodoms ruine: this was a juſt preſage and deſert of their own. And kingdom, and majeſty, and glory, and honour] His offences were much increaſed by theſe many obligations.

Ver. 19. Whom he would he ſlew] De facto loquitur, non de jure: See the like, 1 Sam. 8.10, 11, &c. Lib. 5. cap. 11. See the Notes there. Lactantius telleth of a certain tyrant, qui lucem vivis, terram mortuis denegabat, who would never let his ſubjects reſt alive or dead.

Ver. 20. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardend in pride] Pride is of an hardening property, cauſeth men to commit ſin with an high hand, as Pharaoh. The increaſe of the ſpleen is the decreaſe of the body: ſo is pride of the ſoul, and overturneth the whole man. Evagrius noteth it for a ſpecial commendation of Mauritius the Emperour, that he was not puffed up with his preferments.

Ver. 21. And he was driven] See on chap. 4.22. Lege hiſtoriam, ne fias hiſtoria.

Ver. 22. And thou his ſon O Belſhazzar, hast not humbled thy heart] It was no ſmall aggravation of his ſins not to be warned, and now he ſhall heare of it on both cares. The putting out of the French Kings eyes (which promiſed before with his eyes to ſee one of Gods true ſervants burned) who ſeeth not to be the ſtroak of Gods hand?Act. & Mon. fol. 1914. Then his ſon Francis, not regarding his fathers ſtripe, would needs yet proceed in burning the ſame man. And did not the ſame God give him ſuch a blow on the ear, that it coſt him his life?

Ver. 23. But haſt lifted up thy ſelf aginſt the Lord of heaven] As did alſo Pharaoh, Senacherib, Herod, Acts 12. whoſe acts were ſet forth with falſe and flattering praiſes by Nicolas Damaſcenus, as Joſephus complaineth: but ſo are not Balſhazzar's by holy Daniel, Antiq. lib. 16. cap 11. who yet is, almoſt, his only Hiſtoriographer.

And whoſe are all thy wayes] Chald. thy whole journy.

Ver. 24. Then wat the part of the hand] Completâ peccati menſurâ, non differture poena, when ſin is once ripe, puniſhment is ready. The bottle of wickedneſſe when once full with thoſe bitter waters, will ſoon ſink to the bottom.

Ver. 25. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Ʋpharſin] Theſe words ſignify, He hath perfectly numbred, he hath weighed, and it falleth in pieces: They were the Samaritan Characters,Weem[illegible: 1 letter]e. ſaith One; therefore the Babylonians could not read them, nor could the Jewes underſtand them, though they knew the characters, becauſe they underſtood not the Chalde[illegible: 1 letter] tongue as Daniel did. See on ver. 8.

Ver. 26. Mene, God hath numbred thy kingdom] He hath caſt up thy reckonings, taken account of thy mal-adminiſtration, and calleth for ſatisfaction. So he dealt with Pharaoh King of Egypt; Cum duplicarentur lateres, venit Moſes, when the tale of bricks was doubled, then came Moſes: and when the four hundred or the four hundred and thirty years of their Captivity in Egypt were exacty expired, the ſame night were the firſt-born ſlain. So the tyranny of the Roman Emperours was numbred at the end of three hundred years after Chriſt, when they, ſounding the triumph before the victory, had fooliſhy engaven upon pillars of marble theſe bubbles of words, Nomine Chriſtianorum deleto qui Remp. evertebant, We have utterly rooted out the name of Chriſtians thoſe traytours to the Commonwealth. So, laſtly, God hath numbred the Popes kingdom, and well-nigh finiſhed it. Let him look to the year 1666. Tis plain, Satan ſhall be tyed up a thouſand years: 666 is the number of the beaſt; Antichriſt ſhall ſo long reign; theſe two together make the juſt number.

Jupiter ipſe duas aequato examine lances Sulline[illegible: 1 letter]. Virg. Ver. 27. Tekel, Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting] As the former was a term taken from creditours, ſo this from light coyn; deprehenſus et minus habere, thou art not currant. Others may think thee weighty enough and worthy, but God pondereth the hearts, Prov. 22.2. and findeth thee fit to be refuſed, ut nummus reprobu[illegible: 1 letter].

Ver. 28. Peres, thy kingdome is divided and given to the Medes] This had been long before prophecyed of Iſa. 13.17. yea Gen. 9.25. And now Chams poſterity felt his fathers curſe. Nimrod the founder of Babylon came of Cham: Madai or the Medes were of Japhet, and Elam or the Perſians, of Sem. Gods forbearances are no quittances. Let all wicked ones look to it. What is Mene but death? Tekel but Judgement? Peres but hell or utter ſeparation from God, and all to be paſſed thorough by their poor ſouls, if timely courſe be not taken? Hear this all ye drunkards, who glory in drinking the three Outs, &c.

Ver. 29. Then commanded Belſhazzar, and they cloathed Daniel] No nay but they would do it, and he at length admitted it: partly, that he might not ſeem to ſlight the Kings courteſy and to be diſaffected: and partly, that thereby he might be the better known to the Perſians, for the comfort of Gods poor people.

And put a chain of gold about his neck and made a proclamation, &c.] All this the King commanded to be done, out of an admiration of Daniel's divine wiſdom, and that he might be dicti ſui dominus as good as his word. But not a word hear we of his repentance, ſuch was his ſtupidity: nor doth Daniel exhort him to it, becauſe he ſaw him to be paſt feeling, and knew that the decree was gone forth.

Ver. 30. In that night was Belſhazzar—ſlain] By Gaddatha and Gobrya two of Cyrus his Commanders who had been wronged by Belſhazzar, Xenoph. Cyrop. lib. 7. (as Xenophon alſo teſtifieth) and now took revenge on him, after that they had betrayed the City, and brought in Cyrus his army. So fell that famous Babylon—fuit Ilium & ingon[illegible: 1 letter] Gloria Teuerorum.

Ver. 31. And Darius] Called by C[illegible: 2 letters]ſias [non-Latin text not transcribed], which comes near to Dariaves, as the Chalde[illegible: 1 letter] here calleth him. He is thought to be the ſame with Cyaxares ſon of Aſtyages, and uncle to Cyrus.

Being about threeſcore and two years old] Born the ſame year, ſay the Rabbins,Sedar Olam. wherein Nebuchadnezzar beſieged Jeruſalem and deſtroyed it. So Auſtin was born the ſame day is Afrike, that Pelagius was in Wales (ſay Chronologers) by a wiſe and watchful providence of God for the good of his Church.