Daniel 5:1

This chapter relates the events of the last night of the Babylonian empire. The first thing that the Christian student confronts in the study of this chapter is a barrage of assertions by critical commentators that the events here recorded are "unhistorical." This should produce no uneasiness whatever upon the part of believers. The events here reported are unassailable; and this may be viewed as the only accurate report of that final fatal night of the power of Babylon.

The contradictory, inaccurate, and confusing secular records of the sixth century B.C. have, of course, been made the grounds of denying the historical accuracy of this chapter. The key fact to remember, however, is that there are numerous ancient writers who have mentioned the fall of Babylon, including: Berosus, Abydenus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Josephus, and that, "They contradict each other!"[1] Josephus contradicts Berosus; Herodotus and Zenophon agree with Daniel in vital points; statements by Berosus and Abydenus are known to be unhistorical, etc., etc. The point of this is simply that the extra-Biblical records of events related to this chapter are an unqualified can of worms. There is no single author of that remote period who could be trusted above the simple and straightforward record we have before us in this chapter. Moreover, there has never been a single charge against the Book of Daniel that could not be paralleled by as many or more charges of inaccuracy against any other author in human history who treated the subject discussed here. Daniel is far more trustworthy than any other writer whose works have come down to us.

"The historical credibility of this narrative is established, because opponents of its genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that the Biblical account is fiction, any situation that can be comprehended as accounting for it in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and the times of the Maccabees."[2]

The words of Young on this subject are: "The fifth chapter of Daniel, though it has often been attacked as inaccurate in its statements, is nevertheless noteworthy for its accuracy."[3] In the text we shall note a number of passages once alleged to be inaccurate which are now known to be exactly true.

The summary of the chapter is: the king's insolent deed (Daniel 5:1-4); the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5-9); the queen-mother's suggestion (Daniel 5:10-12); the king's request (Daniel 5:13-16); Daniel's admonition to the king (Daniel 5:17-24); Daniel's interpretation of the handwriting (Daniel 5:25-28); and the sequel (Daniel 5:29-6:1).

Daniel 5:1-4

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, or iron, of wood, and of stone.

The date of this remarkable banquet was the night in which Babylon fell, usually given in the history books as in 538 B.C. A Babylonian text (presumably of Herodotus) was cited by Millard, which gave the date of this event as October 12,539 B.C.[4]

"Belshazzar the king ..." It was at one time the arrogant assertion of Biblical enemies that there never was any such king as Belshazzar during the final years of Babylon. Andrews was boasting as recently as in 1924 that, "The statements of the historians and the evidence of the Inscriptions make it abundantly clear that at the time of the conquest the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus."[5] He even went on to say that it is "impossible" that Belshazzar could have been king at that time.

But, as has been the case so frequently, in the case of blatant and confident denials of God's Word, archeologists have excavated from the mud of Mesopotamia dramatic and undeniable proof of the Bible's accuracy. "One of the cuneiform documents expressly states that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar."[6] It follows, of course, that if a man has been entrusted with the kingship and is exercising all of the authority and privileges of autocratic rule, then he should properly have been addressed as "king," exactly as in this chapter. That Nabonidus the "king's" father was still living, and that Belshazzar's true status was that of a sub-king while his father was either absent or incapacitated appears in Belshazzar's promise to make Daniel the "third ruler" in the kingdom, indicating that Belshazzar himself was the "second ruler" in the kingdom, under his father, the true king, Nabonidus. Thus the Book of Daniel fits the true facts of history perfectly.

Charges are also leveled against this passage because of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as "the father" of Belshazzar. This is no problem whatever. In the Hebrew usage of the term, the word father is often used for grandfather, as in Genesis 9:20-25, where Canaan, a grandson, is called Noah's son. Also, father is also used for ancester. Jeffery admitted that this usage of father in such a loose sense was common, but went on and called such an explanation "unsatisfactory."[7] "That this true explanation is indeed "unsatisfactory" to critics is of no concern at all to believers. Owens declared unequivocally that, "Daniel 5:2 refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's predecessor."[8]

"And drank wine before the thousand ..." (Daniel 5:1). Jeffery stated that this might mean either of two things: (1) the king, by drinking first, opened the drinking phase of the banquet, or (2) that he drank before the thousand in the sense of doing so in their presence.[9] It is our opinion that the king probably did both.

The critical allegation that Belshazzar's actions here "were very similar to those of Antiochus Epiphanes,"[10] is absolutely untrue. Antiochus robbed the treasury of the temple, but he did not do so for pleasure, as did Belshazzar here, but because he found himself in dire financial straits. Besides that, look at the rewards that Belshazzar heaped upon Daniel. We might go so far as to say that nothing in this passage is remotely suggestive of Antiochus Epiphanes. Frequent references to this alleged resemblance by critics is merely their device of trying to import such a likeness into the chapter. Keil and many other great scholars have exposed this error repeatedly.

Belshazzar's behavior here was incredibly arrogant and sinful. To begin with, he was not actually king in the full sense of that word. "Belshazzar here had insolently and arrogantly taken to himself a higher position and authority than were rightfully his. Many elected officials of church and state have done likewise."[11] "Gobryas, Cyrus' great general, was at that very moment making his way up the bed of the Euphrates, its waters diverted by a canal, leaving the gates of Babylon unguarded."[12]

The bringing of the women into the banquet hall, probably at a point in the feast when the drinking had begun, is a strong suggestion of the immorality and debauchery which usually attended such affairs. Keil tells us that both Herodotus and Xenophon confirm the fact of Babylon's fall upon the occasion of a drunken feast in Babylon.[13]