“The handwriting on the wall” has come into the English language as an idiom that means there are clear signs or indications that something bad or difficult is about to happen. It is an ominous warning. It is a signal that should provide us a warning not to continue on the path we are traveling.
Tim Challies, Canadian blogger, writes: “It seems that it was first used as an English idiom beginning in the eighteenth century. In 1720 we find Jonathan Swift writing: “A baited Banker thus desponds, / From his own Hand foresees his Fall; / They have his Soul who have his Bonds; / ‘Tis like the Writing on the Wall.” Since that time it has come into common use, though most people have little knowledge of its origins. A search of just one week’s news stories turns up hundreds of uses.
Daniel chapter 5 tells the story of the humbling of Belshazzar and the final defeat of Babylon. At a great feast, King Belshazzar commands that the temple vessels—which had been taken from Jerusalem in successive deportations—be used for wine and the praise of pagan gods (5:1-4). In response to this act, a hand appears at the feast and writes on the palace wall (v. 5), but none of the king’s men can decipher the message (vv. 7-8). The queen suggests Daniel as the most likely interpreter (vv. 10-12), and when he arrives, he rebukes Belshazzar for not heeding the lesson about humility that Nebuchadnezzar had learned (vv. 20-22). The writing on the wall is a message of judgment against Belshazzar and the Babylonian kingdom (vv. 24-28).
In this chapter we learn things about the nature of God and what our response to him should be, whether we are a prince or a pauper. Since God is a God of justice, we must humble ourselves before him.
Once again, the chapter forms a chiasm. That is, it is organized literarily like the Greek letter chi, which is formed like our letter “x.”
Daniel 5 begins and ends with Belshazzar. The opening verse reports a great feast (1), and the final verses report the king’s death (1′). The intervening sections explain why Belshazzar does not survive the night of the banquet. On two occasions in the story, he gives explicit commands, one for the temple vessels to be brought to the banquet (2) and the other for Daniel to be rewarded for his help (2′).
The drama picks up the pace once a hand appears and writes a message on the palace wall (3). In the literary arrangement of the chapter, the matching section (3′) records the interpretation of the cryptic writing. The wise men cannot discern the meaning (4) while Daniel can (4′). The verses in 4 are framed by an inclusio, for verses 6 and 9 both speak of the king’s alarm and change of color. In the center of the chiastic structure is the queen’s glowing endorsement of Daniel’s abilities (5). These are her only words in the story—and in the book as a whole—and their location in the narrative indicates their importance.
Daniel 5 is the final chapter of the narratives involving Babylon. (The events of chapter 6 take place under Medo-Persian rule.) In these chapters, only chapter 5 features a Babylonian king other than Nebuchadnezzar. However, the connection between the two kings in chapters 4-5 is evident—these two chapters are the center of the Aramaic chiasm (chs. 2-7) and each narrates God’s judgment on a Babylonian king: chapter 4 is the judgment of proud king Nebuchadnezzar and chapter 5 is the judgment of proud king Belshazzar. Obviously, pride is “an abomination” to God (Prov. 6:16). Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.
Nebuchadnezzar learned from his humiliating experience (Daneil 4). In the case of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, the humbling he should have learned from was not his own but that of his (grand)father, Nebuchadnezzar. But he did not. Instead, he would have to learn his lesson the hard way, through personal humiliation.
This story transpired many years after the events of chapter four. Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B. C., after forty-three years of reign, which included his seven years of insanity.
In the 40-plus-year period between chapters 4 and 5, Daniel received additional revelation as recorded in chapters 7 (the sequence of Gentile kingdoms represented as rapacious beasts) and 8 (the identities of the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms as Medo-Persian and Greece).
Besides revelation God had provided directly to Daniel, he was an avid student of Scripture and studied the writings of the contemporary prophet Jeremiah (Dan. 9:1). In addition, Daniel was undoubtedly acquainted with the predictions concerning Babylon and Medo-Persia made by other prophets such as Ezekiel and Isaiah.
As this chapter opens, Daniel, as a student of Jeremiah’s prophecies, would have already known:
- The kingdom of Medo-Persia would overthrow Babylon (Isa. 13:1, 17; 21:2, 9; 45:1; Jer. 50:9; Jer. 51:11, 28-31; Dan. 2:32, 39; 7:5; 8:3-8, 20-21.
- Cyrus would initiate the Jew’s release from Babylon and the temple’s reconstruction in Jerusalem (Isa. 44:27-28; 45:1-5). This, in turn, implies Cyrus would gain ascendancy over Babylon—the nation holding the Jews captive.
- The overthrow of Babylon would enable Jews to return to Israel (Jer. 50:4-5, 8, 19, 28; 51:45).
- The reign of Babylon would end with Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson (Jer. 27:6-7).
- The seventy years of servitude were nearing fulfillment (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10).
“Daniel believed God. He took God’s Word at face value. No mystical, allegorical, theoretical interpretation of the Scriptures for him! His method was down-to-earth, literal interpretation. So Daniel took Jeremiah’s prophecies at face value and he staked his life on them. No wonder he was so bold to speak up to the evil Belshazzar! He knew that Babylon’s day was done and that the city was doomed. The handwriting on the wall only ratified what he had known for a long time.”
Our chapter opens with Belshazzar throwing a grand party.
King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand. (Dan. 5:1)
As Nero is said to have fiddled while Rome burned, so Belshazzar feasted while Babylon fell.
Life in the magnificent city of Babylon, with its Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world, seemed normal on the night of October 12, 539 B.C. Just over a decade earlier, Cyrus the Great had conquered the Medes and formed the mighty Medo-Persian army, and now he leads his army to the doorstep of the Babylonians. But on the city’s agenda this night was a huge party thrown by the new kid on the block, the Babylonian king, Belshazzar. The party was likely thrown in honor of the god Bel. After all, that is who Belshazzar was named after.
King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand. (Dan. 5:1)
Belshazzar, successor to Nebuchadnezzar, threw a “great feast” for a thousand lords, feasting and drinking before them. In the days of Esther, the Persian emperor Xerxes threw a big enough party, indeed (Esther 1:1-12), but the feast conjured by Belshazzar was greater far.
Doing these deeds “in front of” the crowds illustrate both his high privilege and also his arrogance. If he was concerned about building morale, he would have wanted to have a maximum number of people present. “Oriental despots took great pleasure,” says Warren Wiersbe, “in hosting great banquets and displaying their wealth and splendor (see Esther 1)” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1361).
He goes on to say: “This feast was a microcosm of the world system and focused on ‘the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life’ (1 John 2:16). ‘What shall we eat?’ and ‘What shall we drink?’ are the questions most people want answered as they go through life (Matt. 6:25-34), and they’re willing to follow anybody who will entertain and gratify their appetites” (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1361).
Just like in Daniel 4 God determined to humble another proud Babylonian king, so here the Most High takes the initiative to humble King Belshazzar. How will we respond when we are confronted, unsettled, and accosted, in the moments when our semblances of control vanish and we’re taken off guard by life in a fallen world? Will we repent like Nebuchadnezzar, or will we stubbornly proceed on our way or ignore God’s warnings by indulging in our own pleasures?
Now, for some time, there was doubt that a person named “Belshazzar” actually existed in history. For centuries there was no independent archaeological evidence for the existence of any king of Babylon named Belshazzar.
Two things we must always remember concerning archaeological evidence for the Bible. First, there is a massive amount of archaeological evidence already that does prove that the Bible is a historical, factual record. Second, there has never, ever been any archaeological discovery that contradicted the Bible in any way. Having said that, it is true that not every detail of the Bible has been independently proven yet. But remember that “absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.”
In this case we do have evidence that Belshazzar actually existed! In 1854 the Nebonidus Cylinder was discovered by Sir Austen Henry Layard and is now displayed in the British museum.

https://ferrelljenkins.blog/2012/02/12/
According to Ferrell Jenkins, several kings had ruled Babylon since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, none for very long.
Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C., just two years) was assassinated by Nergal-Sharezer, who ruled as king of Babylon for four years. Nothing about his reign is recorded in the Bible, but he is mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 and 13 from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (587 B.C.). At that time he served as one of the officials of Nebuchadnezzar.
After four years on the throne, Nergal-Sharezer was followed by his son, Labaši-Marduk, who ruled only 9 months.
Nabonidus, who is not named in the Bible, then came to the throne in 556 B.C. According to Wiseman the king,
… campaigned in Syria and N. Arabia, where he lived at Tema for 10 years while his son BELSHAZZAR acted as co-regent in Babylon. About 544 his people and the kings of Arabia, Egypt and the Medes being favourably disposed, Nabonidus returned to his capital…, but by this time the country was weak and divided. (New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.), 115).
Fant & Reddish provide this translation of the relevant portion of the Nabonidus Chronicle:
“As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life of long days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son my offspring, instill reverence for your great godhead (in) his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude” (Lost Treasures of the Bible, 233).
Nabonidus seems to be concerned that his son was irreligious (although Nabonidus was no better). Ironically, he prays to his god that Belshazzar would “be sated with a life of plentitude.” This was exactly his problem on this fateful night: indulging in an orgy of plentitude, satiating himself with wine and women.
Nabonidus and Belshazzar, father and son, thus functioned as co-regents, Belshazzar ruling in Babylon and Nabonidus in Tema. According to one account, Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to Belshazzar. — BAR 11:03 (May/June 1985).
Apparently Belshazzar was a “godless” young man, giving reverence to no one. His name probably meant, “May Bel protect the king,” but Belshazzar doesn’t seem to have been very religious. He was out to have a good time, making his desires preeminent. His own drive for pleasure was his god, his idol.
By the way, three factors indicate that this book was written by a contemporary to this scene.
First, the idea that Belshazzar was in charge of Babylon at this time was lost by the Maccabean era. “Shea comments that if the book had been written in the second century [as some liberal scholars believe], the name ‘Nabonidus’ probably would have been inserted rather than the then-forgotten ‘Belshazzar.’ How did the author come to possess such exact knowledge? The most logical explanation is that Daniel 5 contains a firsthand report by one who lived through the events” (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel in E. Ray Clendenen, Kenneth A. Mathews, and David S. Dockery, eds., The New American Commentary, p. 150)
Second, the offered reward of becoming “third ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5:8) posed a difficulty not understood in the Maccabean era down to the modern era. The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates the option of a co-regency, which would mean that the “third ruler in the kingdom” was the highest ranking that Belshazzar could offer to anyone, for he was “second ruler.”
Third, it also explains the absence of Nabonidus from Babylon. Daniel locates Belshazzar there and implies that Nabonidus was absent from the palace or city at that time, by not mentioning him. The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms this implication by noting that Nabonidus had fled from Sippar just two days earlier and had not yet returned to Babylon by the time it fell to the Persians.
Some would also argue that Daniel was mistaken in titling Belshazzar as “king” of Babylon. But as Nabonidus’ eldest son, Belshazzar was appointed coregent and directed the affairs of the city of Babylon in his father’s ten-year absence.
Since Belshazzar was second in the kingdom, serving as a co-regent along with his absent father, he could offer Daniel nothing greater than “third ruler in the kingdom.”
Even though Belshazzar is not literally Nebuchadnezzar’s direct son, he is as arrogant and pompous as Nebuchadnezzar. In the ancient languages, the term “son” was a very elastic term extending several generations. We will deal with this issue in more depth in the coming weeks.