Belshazzar is shaking in his boots. A hand has appeared out of the darkness and has written something on the wall of the banqueting hall where Belshazzar and his nobles were having a grand party.
He “screams out” in alarm and urgency and the verb here is a participle, used with a to-be verb to imply a continuous action: he “was screaming and kept on screasming” for his advisors.
7 The king called loudly to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king declared to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.
“Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation” is the request of the king. This is the common futile pattern of secular leaders seeking secular wisdom. Assemble the best of the (secular) best while rejecting those who fear and acknowledge God and possess a genuine understanding of His revelation. Instead, rely on these secular “experts” to explain things that ultimately originated with God.
Again, there is a promise of riches: “shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck…” Clothing someone in purple meant giving him royal authority (cf. Esth. 8:15). The necklace of gold would have had symbolic as well as monetary value.
Daniel would later reluctantly receive this honor (Dan. 5:29) but had little use for it because he possessed the true riches of God.
This offer of being third ruler remained a puzzle for hundreds of years. If Belshazzar was king, why wouldn’t he offer Daniel the position as second ruler, as Pharaoh offered Joseph (Gen. 41:40-44) and Ahasuerus offered Mordecai (Esther 10:3)? Again, the Nabonidus Cylinder reveals that Belshazzar shared a co-regency with Nabonidus, his father; thus he could only legitimately offer the prized person “third ruler.”
But, as in every case in the book of Daniel, the king’s advisors could not help him. They “could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation.” Tom Constable wittily observes, “Scholars have wearied themselves trying to figure out how Daniel got his interpretation from these three apparently Aramaic words. They have been as unsuccessful as Belshazzar’s original wise men were.”
The verse mentions two deficiencies of the wise men. They were unable to 1) read the writing; 2) make known its interpretation. Their inability to “read” the writing could mean either the text itself was incomprehensible or it could not be understood.
The Lord had said through Isaiah, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate” (quoted in 1 Corinthians 1:19). He definitely frustrated these wise men.
Andy Woods identifies several reasons why these wise men could not read or interpret the message.
Various aspects of the message may have served to conceal its meaning:
- Language – The language the message was written in. Daniel’s interpretation (Dan. 5:25-28) implies the message was written in Aramaic.
- Characters – The form or style of characters (letters) used to write the message. Were the characters of an unfamiliar or specialized form known to Daniel but not the wise men?
- Arrangement – The arrangement of the characters forming the message. Were the letters placed in an unusual order such as an anagram?
- Encipherment – Were the characters of the message encoded using a cabalistic method such as atbash?
- Additional Revelation – Was the message sufficient on its own, once decoded, to be understood? Or was additional information needed to make sense of the fragmentary writing? As mentioned previously, by this time Daniel had additional revelation from God regarding aspects of Babylon’s fall that may not have been known to the wise men.
Whatever impediments they may have had in interpreting this message, Daniel, as always, had one major advantage: direct revelation from the Most High God. Daniel had additional information provided prior to the events of this night (through study of the OT prophets) and possibly received additional direct revelation at the very moment he was called upon to interpret its meaning.
Daniel’s explanation of the words making up the message seems to indicate the writing was in Aramaic. If the message was in Aramaic—and assuming it was rendered using characters familiar to readers of that time—the words on their own proved insufficient to give the interpretation. Special revelation allowed Daniel to go beyond the words themselves and their arrangement to deliver the full meaning of the message.
Charles Feinberg gives an example: “A small child could read ‘H2O’ with no trouble, but he probably could not understand that it signifies water. So it was with these wise men; they could read what the words said, but they could not explain what they meant” (Charles Feinberg, A Commentary on Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, p. 67).
Even if the wise men were able to read the individual letters and identify the words, the words themselves convey a fragmentary idea—not the full meaning Daniel is able to attribute to them.
Again, the key is revelation directly from God through the mouth of His prophet, Daniel. Once again, the wisdom of this world is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).
Perhaps the eyes of the wise men were judicially blinded by God (Job 12:17-25; Isa. 19:3, 12-13; 29:10-12; 44:25; Jere. 50:35-36; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 1:20). Of course, all idolators, like their idols are blind (Isa. 6:9-10). And Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:3-4).
Whatever the case, the words of Isaiah were fulfilled in the inability of the wise men to provide the answers the king of Babylon sought that night. Isaiah 47:12-13:
12 Stand fast in your enchantments
and your many sorceries,
with which you have labored from your youth;
perhaps you may be able to succeed;
perhaps you may inspire terror.
13 You are wearied with your many counsels;
let them stand forth and save you,
those who divide the heavens,
who gaze at the stars,
who at the new moons make known
what shall come upon you.
The Most High had confronted this young king with his arrogance, idolatry and blasphemy. He would not stand by and allow His holy vessels to be profaned in front of all these people. So Belshazzar faced the judgment of God.
Tremper Longman III writes:
We do not have to look too far to see contemporary misuses of God’s Word that look eerily similar to Belshazzar’s profanation of the holy vessels. Not everyone who practices a postmodern approach to the Bible is guilty of profanation … however, it is wrong simply to assume the validity of the culture that we happen to live in without submitting it to a biblical critique. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of the reverse, submitting the Bible to a postmodern critique.
One glaring example may be found in a recent interpretation of Psalm 24. (D. J. A. Clines, A World Established on Water: Psalm 24. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1993, 79-90). This essay’s purpose is to demonstrate an approach to the text as well as to discuss Psalm 24. The author proclaims the postmodern dictum that texts have no determinate meaning. There is no presence, divine or authorial, to rein in our interpretation. We, as readers, can ascribe whatever meaning we like to the text. He promotes the idea that Biblical interpreters should simply cut the cloth of the text to fit the needs of the audience who is paying for our skills. Nonetheless, with a move that seems to fit uneasily with his idea that the text itself has no meaning, he argues that Psalm 24 presents a view of God and war that he finds repulsive and argues that we must read “against the grain” of the apparent meaning of this text. Belshazzar takes the holy vessels of God and mocks God by drinking and toasting his idols; is Clines’ treatment of the Bible far removed from this act? (emphasis added) (Tremper Longman, Daniel, p. 154).
Was the message intended to be understood? Polaski notes several examples of inscriptions that were meant to be seen but not necessarily read. Inscriptions were power-plays and intended to send a message, even to people that could not read the message (657). Often inscriptions were about more than recording an event. They were a guarantee the event happened or would happen. Thus, the judgement on Babylon certain is “written in stone” quite literally.
As Tom Constable says, “The night of revelry became a night of revelation.”
The fact that none of his wise men could interpret what was written alarmed Belshazzar even more, and it puzzled his nobles.
9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.
This verse forms an inclusio with verse 6, where the king’s fear and color were noted. Verse 9 also mentions a perplexed look shared by the thousand lords as their leader’s mind and body pulsed and flushed with fear.
The word “perplexed” has the idea of “be bewildered, be baffled” and likely contains the connotation of fear and dread. Normally confident in their own abilities and the resources of their counselors, these gifted and powerful secular men have come to the end of their resources.
Fortunately, the queen mother came to the rescue. Andy Woods comments: “Here we see a frequent theme in Scripture: when leading men are out-of-step with God resulting in troublesome circumstances, a woman brings a stabilizing perspective.” (Consider Deborah, Abigail) Duguid notes that this would have “been humiliating in an ancient cultural context” (Iain M. Duguid, Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 80).
The banquet hall was in confusion. Belshazzar was shaking in sheer terror. The wise men were quaking, because they might be put to death due to their inability to interpret the handwriting on the wall (cf. Daniel 2:5). And the nobles were faking it, trying to stay cool, calm, and collected.
Fortunately the queen mother was nearby and could hear the frightened voices.
10 The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall, and the queen declared, “O king, live forever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change. 11 There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father–your father the king–made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, 12 because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.”
Some take the queen of Daniel 5 as the Babylonian queen Nitocris. But there is a lack of consensus as to whose queen Nitocris was. She has been variously identified as: the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, the wife of Evil-Merodach, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and wife of Nabonidus and the mother of Nabonidus. Whether Nitocris or not, this queen is likely either the wife, mother, or grandmother of Belshazzar.
Presumably the queen mother, often a significant political figure in an ancient court. In the OT, cf. 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 11:1-3; 24:13; Jere. 13:18; as “senior counsellor to king and people,” she could “provide a stabilizing, moderating influence in the political system” and “could circumscribe royal power to some extent and could represent the interests of people or court before the king” (N.-E. A. Andreasen, “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 [1983] 191, 194).
Although she had not been present at the beginning of the festivities, as queen mother she had approved access to the king at any time. “Such queen mothers enjoyed rare authority which exceeded even that of the chief wife or queen of the reigning monarch” (Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, p. 225).
It seems that all that can be said with certainty concerning Nitrocris is she was a Babylonian queen whose identity remains uncertain.
However, her message to Belshazzar was quite certain. Knowing how alarmed he was (v. 10), she introduces him to “a man in your knowledge in whom is the spirt of the holy gods.” Whether Belshazzar knew about Daniel or not, he had forgotten about him.
Since Daniel 8:1, 27 record Daniel serving in the administration in the third year of King Belshazzar, Belshazzar had either forgotten about him or had made no use of Daniel’s capabilities and skills…until now.
This woman proceeded to do for Belshazzar what Arioch had done for Nebuchadnezzar, namely, to bring Daniel to the king’s attention (cf. 2:25). The implication of her speech is that Belshazzar ought to have known to whom he should turn when in need of divine illumination—and he would have known, if only he were more like Nebuchadnezzar.
Without explicitly mentioning Daniel’s name, the queen gave a brief history of Daniel’s relationship with Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5:11; cf. 2:48). Given her seeming first-hand knowledge of these interactions with Nebuchadnezzar could mean that Nitocris was Nebuchadnezzar’s wife. Her description of Daniel in 5:11 was meant to stir the king’s desire to see him before she actually names him in verse 12.
Not only in her estimation did Daniel have the “spirit of the holy gods” in him, but “In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father–your father the king–made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers,”
The words of the queen do fall short of acknowledging the God of Israel praised by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:37). After witnessing the results of divine intervention, unbelievers generally interpret the hand of God within the confines of their own pagan world view
Grace Still Amazes 