Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

A Wicked King Found Wanting

Joshua Lamb

702: Hermeneutics

November 24, 2015

Introduction

Daniel is a unique character in the Bible. He stood against rulers as Moses did. He prophesied like Isaiah and Jeremiah did. He was taken captive like Joseph. Yet Daniel was never called to be the mediator, the prophet, or the savior as these men were. He was, in a way, normal. Daniel was the son of upper-class parents in Jerusalem who suddenly found himself taken captive and dragged across the known world to the foreign city of Babylon during the first deportation of the Jews in 605 B.C.¹ It is hard to read his story without wondering what Daniel’s secret was. What did he know and experience that allowed him to face such dangers, seemingly, without flinching? This paper will examine the ending court scene of Daniel 5:17-28 where Daniel confronts King Belshazzar of the Babylonians. It will seek to bring out the meanings of the overarching comparison in the text between King Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson, King Belshazzar – with an eye to the literary and historical context as it serves the underlying theological meanings.

Orientation

The book of Daniel begins in 605 B.C. as Nebuchadnezzar orders the first deportation of Jews to Babylon. Some of the ablest young men, including Daniel, are chosen to be eunuchs to the king, employed in the service of his harem. The book is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, the passage under consideration being in the middle of the Aramaic section. The book can be thought of as addressing three main audiences: the first group of exiles, later groups of exiles, and post-exilic Jews upon their return to Jerusalem after the 70 years captivity². A central theme of Daniel is the utmost reign of Jehovah over the whole earth, so the section written in Aramaic would have been of particular interest to exiled Jews during the time of captivity. It was the declaration that Jehovah was sovereign, even when circumstances were not the ideal. Jews were far from the promised land, but He was still there.

This passage in Daniel breaks into the middle of a discourse section that begins between Daniel and King Belshazzar in the Babylonian court. Belshazzar the “king” was regent of Babylon under Nabonidus, who had left to oversee what is now modern day Saudi Arabia, leaving his son in charge³. Belshazzar has just hosted a party which has involved gross immoralities and idolatrous worship (Daniel 5:2). In the middle of this party, a hand appeared and wrote on the wall, causing Belshazzar to be struck with fear and to call together his wise men to interpret the meaning (Daniel 5:7). In verse 13, Daniel appears in the court and Belshazzar speaks to him. Daniel responds in verse 17, which is the start of our examination.

Nebuchadnezzar Raised (verses 17-19)

Upon entering the court, Daniel received an offer of gifts. He defers the offer in order to show the impartiality of the message that he is about to deliver⁴. As Daniel begins his response to the king he omits a reverent customary greeting to the king, such as “O king, live forever!”. Although Daniel has refused gifts before, his addresses to King Nebuchadnezzar have a clearly different tone than the one presented here. Daniel addressed Nebuchadnezzar with greetings such as “…Peace be multiplied unto you” (Daniel 4:1), but it appears that he does not have this level of respect for Belshazzar. In narrative interpretation, it is important to identify scenes, characters and plotlines⁵. We know from previous verses in this chapter that Daniel is painted as a protagonist in this scene who will deliver the news to a clear antagonist, King Belshazzar. While the king has not been responsible for acting against Daniel personally, he has nevertheless sinned against Daniel’s God.

After the introductory preface in verse 17, Daniel launches immediately into the prophetic message he is to bear. The form of this interpretation can be identified as a “court contest”, which pits a prophet of the Lord against a ruler or other adversary, as seen in books such as Genesis and Esther⁶. Unlike other accounts of dream or sign interpretation, the sign itself is not revealed prior to the explanation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the writing on the wall did not come by the typical medium of a private dream, but was etched in public for all to see. This shift in typical order emphasizes the urgency of the interpretation that Daniel is about to bring before the king. The start of his prophetic discourse is introduced by the “O thou king”. God here is referred to as the “most high” (עִלָּי) God which will be important in the next verse, but here indicates God’s superiority over the gods of Babylon⁷. According to Lange’s Commentary, the positioning of the vocative is unique because it places Belshazzar in direct relation with the address that will soon follow⁸. In summary, Daniel has an urgent message for the king, and the content of that message will directly relate to him.

Daniel then begins by describing the “backstory” of the message he is bringing, which will serve as the foundation for the first narrative cycle. Daniel describes what God has given to “thy father” king Nebuchadnezzar (Belshazzar is biologically the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar but in Biblical idiom it is common to still use “father”⁹). God had given to Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom, majesty, and honor. He was placed in a position that held much respect and power, and it is God who placed him in this position. John Calvin notes that in other places in Scripture (Romans 13:1) it is clear that God is the one who grants all power to human beings¹⁰.

Verse 19 then adds a fuller explanation to this power which was granted by God. This is clearly a narrative peak in the discourse as indicated by the use of a repeated participle construction, represented in the KJV by “whom he would” (צָבֵא֙ הֲוָ֣ה). There are then four participle terms used along with this. They each portray facets of his power, which together create the narrative effect of intensifying one point – Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful man. Knowing this intensive effect of parallel ideas, we are able to read the English with a deeper sense of the force of Daniel’s words: Whom Nebuchadnezzar wished…he killed (קָטֵ֗ל), whom he wished…he caused to stay alive (מַחֵ֔א), whom he wished…he caused to be exalted (מָרִ֔ים), whom he wished…he humbled (מַשְׁפִּֽיל). This causes almost a fever pitch to be raised by verse 19, with a crystal clear message – Nebuchadnezzar was a man of unparalleled power. People of all nations and languages feared and trembled before this king. Commentators agree that this message would also connote that Belshazzar was not half the man his grandfather was¹¹¹². Daniel was telling Belshazzar that his grandfather was very great and he was placed into his power solely by God. This king was great, but there was one who was even greater. Nebuchadnezzar was so mighty – but he had recognized there was one who was “most high”.

Nebuchadnezzar Humbled (verses 20-21)

In verse 20 a contrast is introduced. “But when his heart was lifted up”. Nebuchadnezzar lifted up his heart and his spirit grow strong in presumption. And this pride caused him to be deposed from the throne. There is significance in that a Hebrew word for “humility” (מַשְׁפִּֽיל) which will be used multiple times in this passage, has now in this singular instance been replaced with (הָנְחַת֙). Nebuchadnezzar was not merely humbled in his kingship he was deposed from it in a one-time action. The king was given the power to do as he wished, but the King Most High did as he wished. The same heart that was so lifted up is also the same heart that was made like the beasts. This statement is a retelling of what Daniel directly prophesied to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:25 before he counseled the king in 4:27 to avoid this fate by “doing righteousness”. This counsel had gone unheeded, which led Nebuchadnezzar to fall headfirst into the fate that was described to him. There is a clear narrative contrast hear that takes the peak of verse 19 in describing Nebuchadnezzar’s glory and matching it with the valley of Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation. The point of this contrast is to place emphasis on the last portion of verse 21 – “till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.” At the end of the verse, God is identified with (משׁל), rendered “sovereign”. This is a substantive adjective – God is not appointed as the ruler (as Nebuchadnezzar was), He is the ruler. The lesson of the peak and the valley is the same – God is the one who rules over the kingdom of men. As powerful as Nebuchadnezzar was, God was more so. God was uniquely the one whose rule was never an appointment, rather it was a description of His being.

While this section of Daniel is narrative, it also borrows features from other genres and employs literary devices used in poetry, such as the intensifying parallel discussed earlier. As noted above, the “type” of this discourse can be broadly categorized as a court confrontation, which is similar to a judgment speech. These discourses typically feature a commissioning of a messenger, a summons to hear, an accusation, and an announcement¹³. Using this as a guide, Daniel has just given to Belshazzar the “summons to hear” which will now be followed in verse 22 with the accusation.

Belshazzar Sentenced (verses 22-23)

Daniel’s vivid recap of prior events will now be applied to the heart of this young ruler of Babylon in the form of an accusation. Daniel fires at Belshazzar in verse 22 “And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;”. The contrast that was set up in the earlier discourse was not accidental, but for the purpose of bringing the lesson of Nebuchadnezzar to bear upon the life of this young ruler. This statement makes clear that the humiliation of a former king was also a warning to those who would come. There was a metaphorical placard over the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar that said “Heed this all kings of the earth”. The humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar was not a private, individual event, but a public spectacle. It was a visible picture of God’s rule above man’s.

The lesson Belshazzar should have learned from his grandfather’s humiliation is inherent in the verse “hast not humbled thine heart”. The intention was that he would take this example and humble himself. It has been said that a quality of wisdom is the ability to learn from the failure of others.

In verse 23 Daniel paints another contrast before the king and the focus shifts from pride vs. humility to true vs. false worship. He addresses Belshazzar’s feast and rampant immorality. They have brought out the vessels of the temple of God and used them in their sinful indulgences while praising false gods. A key feature here is painting the utter inability of these false gods, which is common also in the Psalms (Psalm 115:4-8). These gods do not see, do not hear, and do not know. Instead of contrasting this with an opposite parallel, Daniel makes the comparison personal – Belshazzar has not honored the God who holds his breath and all his ways. Instead of a direct contrast (e.g. idols can’t hear, but God can hear) there is a near-far contrast (they can’t hear, but God holds your breath). This makes a more impactful statement than a basic comparison because it demonstrates the powerlessness of idols against the power of God, in a personal way.

In the span of a few hours, Belshazzar has experienced his knees shaking at the sight of the writing on the wall, the vivid retelling of God’s power in contrast to that of his uncle, the accusation that he has not followed this example, and now the narrowing of focus that this powerful God Most High holds Belshazzar’s very breath in His hands. As the contrasts (pride vs. humility, man’s power vs. God’s power, false gods vs. true gods) are painted, they continue to narrow the focus personally on Belshazzar. A picture is revealed of a sovereign God before whom he has not humbled himself and before whom he has no excuse to hide behind. Matthew Henry rightly notes, “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.¹⁴”

Belshazzar Condemned (verses 24-28)

Daniel then reviews the writing that was on the wall and moves into the last part of the discourse, which fits the final “announcement” portion of a judgement speech. In his own royal court, King Belshazzar has been tried by the ruler that is above all rulers. He has been tried guilty, and by his own conscience his mouth has been made silent. This speech of Daniel has been a monologue, there have been no interjections and interruptions from Belshazzar. It is now time for the gavel to land and the pronouncement of heaven to be given to the case of this earthly ruler.

Belshazzar hears Daniel utter the words of his sentencing: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Numbered, Numbered, Weighed, and Divided.

Mene is written twice in order to signify completion, and possibly expediency¹⁵. Belshazzar has been weighed in the balances. This beginning of the announcement portion is a different portion of this judgement speech, but it is not a break in the flow of the narrative. All of the narrative elements thus far have used stitching words (“lifted up”, “humbled”, “Most High God”) in relation to one another to keep the narrative driving forward on a central topic. As noted earlier, the overall discourse has closed distance (past events into present events, other people into Belshazzar himself) to zero in on the person of Belshazzar and level the accusation directly at him. This repeatedly mentioned “God Most High” was more powerful than his uncle, stronger than the idols he worshipped, held his very breath, and now – has completed weighing him in the balance. As Daniel interprets the meaning, God has numbered your kingdom and it is brought to an end. Although Belshazzar does not know it at the time, this is near-term prophecy, which will be fulfilled that very night as he is slain by the Medes (Daniel 5:30-31). John Brown of Haddington records that Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede marched this night across a channel whose gates had been left open due to the drunken revelry of the night, allowing the opportunity for Belshazzar to be killed¹⁶.

Tekel (weighed) is interpreted by Daniel to show that the result of this weighing is that Belshazzar has been found wanting (too light). This is a reference to moral worth, as is made clear by the content of the monologue leading up to this pronouncement as well as the scene of a morally bankrupt party.

Peres (divided) is the final statement that flows from Daniel’s lips and the last ring of the gavel. Not only will Belshazzar lose the kingdom, but the kingdom itself will be lost. The partying heir of a once powerful kingdom will now be the one with the name on the door as the whole house comes crashing down. The interpretation is that Babylon is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. Some may wrongly interpret this to mean that it would be divided among the Medes and the Persians, but as history testifies, it would be to the former and then to the latter¹⁷.

Conclusion

This courtroom confrontation comes in between the account of Daniel’s interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5 and his episode in the lion’s den under Darius in chapter 6. Throughout the book of Daniel, a clear statement is made that earthly rulers come and go, but God remains sovereign over them all. Whether Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, or Cyrus sit on an earthly throne, there is one who sits upon the throne in heaven.

There are clear contrasts made between pride and humility, the powerful true God and impotent false gods. In the middle of these contrasts, the lesson shines forth that God Most High is the one who deserves to be honored and worshipped. He is to be worshipped by men of low estate and kings themselves. He is Lord not only of Canaan but also of Babylon. He is the one who truly rules over the kingdom of men, and who numbers their steps. This passage demands a simple response – humility (5:19) and praise (5:23). The failure of Nebuchadnezzar was unfortunately also the failure of Belshazzar. Their pride caused them to praise things other than God.

There are shadows of Christ throughout this passage, as the one who glorifies the Father in heaven and the one who, in humility, honors God in all His ways. His kingdom will never be divided and taken away. Christ was never found wanting, and his weight is beyond measure. One day, the consummation of his kingdom will be complete.

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

Daniel 2:44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barry, John D., Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Douglas Mangum, and Matthew M. Whitehead. Faithlife Study Bible. Logos Bible Software, 2012.

Bilkes, Jerry. “Hermeneutics Lecture 9 - Prophecy,” October 30, 2015.

Brown, John. Brown’s Dictionary of Bible Characters. Edited by Geoffrey Stonier. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Heritage, 2007.

Calvin, John, and Thomas Myers. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume. Hendrickson, 1994.

Jr, Walter C. Kaiser. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2008.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Hendrickson, 1996.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Richard Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011.

Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Otto Zöckler, and James Strong. A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Daniel. Logos Bible Software, 2008.

Longman, Tremper III, ed. The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary. ILL edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2013.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. Vol. 18. The New American Commentary. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

¹. Walter C. Kaiser Jr, *The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology ↩

of the Old and New Testaments* (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan,
2008), 211.

². David A. Dorsey, *The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A ↩

Commentary on Genesis-Malachi* (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2004), 260–61.

³. Tremper III Longman, ed., *The Baker Illustrated Bible ↩

Dictionary*, ILL edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books,
2013), 185.

⁴. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, *Commentary on the Old ↩

Testament* (Hendrickson, 1996), 9:614.

⁵. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard Patterson, *Invitation to ↩

Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of
History, Literature, and Theology* (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Academic & Professional, 2011), 257.

⁶. Köstenberger and Patterson, *Invitation to Biblical ↩

Interpretation*, 338.

⁷. John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Logos Bible ↩

Software, 2012).

⁸. John Peter Lange et al., *A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: ↩

Daniel* (Logos Bible Software, 2008), 130.

⁹. John Brown, Brown’s Dictionary of Bible Characters, ed by. ↩

Geoffrey Stonier (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Heritage,
2007), 155.

¹⁰. John Calvin and Thomas Myers, *Commentary on the Book of the ↩

Prophet Daniel* (Logos Bible Software, 2010), 1:333.

¹¹. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary ↩

(Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 162.

¹². Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 9:614. ↩

¹³. Jerry Bilkes, “Hermeneutics Lecture 9 - Prophecy,” October 30, ↩

2015.

¹⁴. Matthew Henry, *Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: ↩

complete and unabridged in one volume* (Hendrickson, 1994), 1442.

¹⁵. Calvin and Myers, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, ↩

1:342.

¹⁶. Brown, Brown’s Dictionary of Bible Characters, 156. ↩

¹⁷. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. ↩