Chapter 5: Humiliation and Destruction

Introduction

Chiastic Structure

We are clued into what God is doing and in the midst of Aramaic chiasm there is now penultimate climax through the destruction of the King. Whereas previously the King is humbled and bows down before Daniel’s God. Now, the king who has forgotten already the lessons of his father is quickly judged and thus the picture placed in the broader panorama is that of one in which the God of heaven and earth shall not be mocked. YHWH, raises up leaders for His purposes and destroy rulers and nations for His own purposes. Ultimately God will be all-in-all!

(insert key theme slide)

What is the transition we see taking place?

We see in this section the rise and fall of the second prominent ruler of Babylon during Daniel’s life in captivity. Prominence is key for it was not Belshazzar’s true father who was is immediate and co-regent, but that of Nabonidus.

How to Read Daniel (Time-Lapse from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar)

Time-lapse from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar. From Babylonian sources, we know that a significant time lapse occurs between the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (562 BC) and the time Belshazzar rules in Babylon. In between, Babylon had been ruled by Amel-Marduk (562–560 BC), Labashi-Marduk (560–556 BC), Neriglissar (556 BC), and finally Nabonidus (556–539 BC). Indeed, according to Babylonian king lists, Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. For many years, the mention of Belshazzar in the book of Daniel was thought to be a historical error.

That is, until we received more information.

About seventy-five years ago, ancient cuneiform tablets were discovered that mentioned a king named Bel-shar-usur, the son of Nabonidus. Nabonidus was an idiosyncratic ruler of Babylon. While Marduk was the chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon, Nabonidus’s family was from a region that worshiped the moon god Sin. Indeed, Nabonidus worshiped Sin and ignored the worship of Marduk, which brought the anger of the powerful Marduk priesthood and the people. Nabonidus eventually relocated his palace to an oasis in what today is Saudi Arabia (Tayma) and ruled from there. He then set his son, our Belshazzar, as his coregent, on the throne in Babylon. Thus, it is Belshazzar, not Nabonidus, who was the recipient of the message written on the wall.

Speaking of Nabonidus, we should take a look at the so-called Prayer of Nabonidus often brought into discussions of the historical reliability of the book of Daniel. Later (see chap. 6) we will take a closer look at the message of Daniel 4, where we will read about how King Nebuchadnezzar suffers a seven-year period of madness in which he will act and think like an animal. Four fragments of an original text were discovered at Qumran and published in 1956 that contain a strikingly similar story to that found in Daniel 4 but with a significant difference noted in the next paragraph. The fragments, dated to between 75–50 BC but perhaps a copy of an earlier story, talk about a Babylonian king who suffered from a seven-year madness where he “became comparable [with the beasts].” A Jewish diviner then interprets the cause of the madness as the king’s worship of idols. The resolution comes when the king states: “Then I prayed before God, and [as for] my offense—he forgave it.” (Notice that the king is the first-person speaker of the prayer like Nebuchadnezzar is the first-person speaker in Daniel 4.)

This story, while having remarkable correspondence with Daniel 4, is different in that the beast-like king is Nabonidus in the Qumran text and Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. What we make of the relationship between these two texts depends on a host of factors.

Perhaps the Nabonidus story is the earliest version of the story of a king becoming animal-like, and the author of Daniel changed the name to Nebuchadnezzar because that king played such a significant role as the king who destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its leading citizens. After all, the historical Nabonidus was known to make some decisions that would have been considered bizarre by others. Strangely for his time, he worshiped only one god, the moon god, even neglecting the support of the main god of the Babylonians, Marduk.

On the other hand, perhaps the story moved the other way, with the Nebuchadnezzar story first and the name of the king being changed to Nabonidus. A third possibility strikes me as extremely unlikely, which is that they both experienced the same strange mental illness.

The bottom line is that we can’t know for sure the exact relationship between these two ancient texts.

The primary importance here is that of an intentional contrast between a Babylonian King that YHWH decides to bring low and then repents, but the present story enumerates a king in his likely hour of dissolution—ultimately and conclusively—being judged by the One He mocked.

Historical Transition

In the broader world, the shift of power is occurring and by chapter’s end, the new world ruler is that of the might Medo-Persian King Darius I. In Ch. 7-8 we will see that the last of the Aramaic section and reentry of the Hebrew are both addressing visions during the reign of Belshazzar, while 9 onward will address Darius. Whatever the significance of this, in the background of especially this change in world powers is the fact that the seventy years of judgment time have lapsed in the background from roughly 606/605 B.C. to 539 B.C. at the formal end of Nabonidus.

How to Read Daniel (Time-Lapse from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar)

Time-lapse from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar. From Babylonian sources, we know that a significant time lapse occurs between the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (562 BC) and the time Belshazzar rules in Babylon. In between, Babylon had been ruled by Amel-Marduk (562–560 BC), Labashi-Marduk (560–556 BC), Neriglissar (556 BC), and finally Nabonidus (556–539 BC).

Read the Text

Daniel 5 (LEB)

Belshazzar the king made a great festival for a thousand of his lords, and in the presence of the thousand lords he was drinking wine. When he tasted the wine, Belshazzar commanded that they bring the vessels of gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar his predecessor had taken from the temple that was in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines may drink from them. Then they brought in the vessels of gold that they took from the temple, the house of God that was in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines drank from them. They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Immediately human fingers appeared and they wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the palace of the king, and the king was watching the palm of the hand that was writing. Then his face changed and his thoughts terrified him, and his hip joints gave way and his knees knocked together. The king cried aloud to bring in the conjurers, the astrologers and the diviners; the king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, “Any man that can read this writing and can tell me its explanation will be clothed in purple and will have a necklace of gold hung around his neck and he will rule as third in authority in the kingdom.” Then all the wise men of the king came in, but they were not able to read the writing or to make known its explanation. Then the king, Belshazzar, became greatly terrified, and his facial features changed upon him, and his lords were perplexed.

Because of the words of the king and his lords, the queen [mother] came into the banqueting hall and the queen spoke up and said, “O king, live forever, and let not your thoughts terrify you and do not let your facial expressions grow pale. There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. And in the days of your predecessor, enlightenment and insight and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods was found in him; and, O king, Nebuchadnezzar your predecessor appointed him as chief of the magicians, the conjurers, the astrologers, and the diviners. Your predecessor the king did this because there was found in him an excellent spirit and understanding and insight for interpreting dreams and explaining riddles and solving riddles; that is, in Daniel whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now, let Daniel be called and he will tell the explanation.”

Then Daniel was brought in before the king, and the king spoke and said to Daniel, “You are Daniel who are one of the exiles of Judah whom my predecessor, the king, brought from Judah. And I have heard that a spirit of the gods is in you and enlightenment and insight and excellent wisdom was found in you. And now the wise men and the conjurers were brought in before me so that they could read this writing in order to make its explanation known to me, but they were not able to disclose the explanation of the matter. But I have heard concerning you that you are able to produce interpretations and to solve riddles; now if you are able to read the writing and to make known its explanation to me, you will be clothed in purple and a necklace of gold will be placed around your neck and you will rule as third in command in the kingdom.”

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself or your rewards give to another; nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and I will make known to him the explanation. O king, the Most High God gave the kingdom and the greatness and the glory and the majesty to Nebuchadnezzar your predecessor. And because of the greatness that he gave to him, all the peoples, the nations and languages trembled and feared before him; whomever he wanted he killed, and whomever he wanted he let live, and whomever he wanted he honored, and whomever he wanted he humbled. But when his heart became arrogant and his spirit became hard so as to act proudly, he was deposed from the throne of his kingdom and the glory was taken away from him. And he was driven away from human society and his mind was made like the animals and his dwelling was with the wild asses; and he was given grass like oxen to eat, and with the dew of heaven his body was bathed, until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdom of humankind, and whoever he wants he sets over it.

“But you his successor, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart even though you knew all this. And now you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven, and the vessels of his temple you have brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have been drinking wine from them, and you have praised the gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood, and stone that do not see and do not hear and do not know, but the God who holds your life in his hand and all of your ways come from him, you have not honored. So then the palm of the hand was sent out from his presence and this writing was inscribed.

“Now this was the writing that was inscribed: ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel and Parsin.’

“This is the explanation of the matter: ‘Mene’—God has numbered your kingdom and brought an end to it.

“ ‘Tekel’—you have been weighed on scales and you have been found wanting.

“ ‘Peres’—your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.’ ”

Then Belshazzar commanded, and they clothed Daniel with purple and placed a necklace of gold around his neck, and they made a proclamation concerning him that he would be the third ruler in authority in the kingdom. That same night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old.

Replay the Text

The Feast

Daniel (Context)

Hypothesis #1—Last bash before doom arrives. This drunken orgy occurs just before the fall of Babylon. It is quite possible that they got drunk knowing that “the handwriting was on the wall” metaphorically before it was there literally! Cyrus had already defeated Nabonidus one or two days earlier fifty miles away at Sippar, and so perhaps these men knew the end was near. Thus they lived up to the saying: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” (Isa 22:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:32).

• Hypothesis #2—To rally and encourage the leaders for the battle to come. According to this hypothesis the banquet was meant to rally the troops (that is, their leaders) before the coming battle. Belshazzar felt confident given Babylon’s well-fortified wall that he could hold out. The temple vessels were reminders of previous victories, in this case the one at Jerusalem. This reminder served to encourage his officials.

• Hypothesis #3—To declare Belshazzar sole king. Belshazzar may have also used this occasion to declare himself sole king upon the defeat of his father. If that were the case, then calling him king in this chapter naturally follows. This view, however, does not explain why Belshazzar is called king years earlier in Dan 7:1.

• Hypothesis #4—A religious festivity. Another reconstruction leans on the traditions given by Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon. Herodotus (1.191.6) says Babylon was taken by surprise while rejoicing during religious festivities when “they were dancing and celebrating a holiday which happened to fall then.” According to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5.15), this was “a certain festival [that] had come round in Babylon, during which all Babylon was accustomed to drink and revel all night long.” This could explain Belshazzar’s drunken party in Daniel 5.

Babylon was taken on the sixteenth of Tishri. In Harran, where Belshazzar’s grandmother Adad-guppi had been a worshiper and perhaps priestess of the moon god Sin, the Akitu festival of the moon god Sin began on the seventeenth of Tishri. Thus this could be a religious celebration of Sin’s Akitu festival a few days early. However, there are problems with this view. It assumes without solid evidence that Nabonidus imposed elements of Harran Sin worship in Babylon in accord with the tradition of his mother since Babylon itself did not have a festivity on this date. There are other problems in reconciling the Greek historians with the contemporary cuneiform accounts. Herodotus (1.191.3–5) and Xenophon (7.5.16) say Cyrus laid siege to Babylon, draining the river to capture the city. However, this may be legend, since contemporary cuneiform accounts explicitly say no battle occurred and is silent on draining the river. Draining the river would have been a major engineering feat that Cyrus would be expected to boast about. P.-A. Beaulieu, in The Reign of Nabonidus, gives a full discussion of the problems of reconciling sources here.

How to Read Daniel (Belshazzar’s Party (Dan 5:1–4))

We do have examples of ancient Near Eastern kings throwing banquets on the eve of a battle as a way of rallying leaders to build up their confidence for the coming conflict. Reading Esther 1, for example, in the light of comments by the Greek historian Herodotus helps us realize that Xerxes’s lavish banquet was just such a pep rally before he set out on a campaign against the Greeks.

If Belshazzar’s party was thrown as the Persian armies, after defeating the rest of the known world at the time, were bearing down on Babylon, we can imagine that Belshazzar was already on edge, perhaps helping to explain the heavy drinking. But his call for the “gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem” (Dan 5:3) would have taken on even more significance in light of the impending threat.

This act would have been an attempt, feeble perhaps, at trying to bolster their confidence by remembering Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over another nation and its god. The king led the participants of the party in using these sacred goblets for profane purposes as they toasted their own pagan gods. Interestingly, the narrator describes these false gods worshiped by the Babylonians as “gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone” (Dan 5:4), reminding us that they were idol worshipers.

The golden cups from which Belshazzar and the others were drinking were part of the temple ritual that was used to praise the true and living God, but here they are being used to praise gods made of the same or even inferior materials to the goblets themselves. We are reminded of the type of ridicule that the prophets Isaiah (Is 44:6–23) and Jeremiah (Jer 10:1–10) heaped on the practice of worshiping lifeless idols.

Whatever the case, the sad irony that those vessels which are profane in origin having been set apart for God’s use are reduced to profane use again for demonic and idolatrous use. In the end, this would prove a fatal error in judgement, irrespective of the judgement.

Therefore, it begs to ask the question, similar to the zeal Jesus had for His Father’s house, which was to be a ‘house of Prayer unto the nations.’ What golden calf, idolatrous practices have crept into the American church—even conservative churches?

Short-term memory

The dating and timing is yet, another interesting facet of this story plot which we addressed above. In light of this, what are the key editorial considerations you believe Daniel is trying to relay to his readers?

God’s Pronouncement

One commentator argues that Belshazzar is:

How to Read Daniel

In a persuasive article, A. Wolters (“Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 [1991], 117–22) examines the Aramaic of this verse and determines that the last clause is better understood as “wetting his pants.”

The king who saw this handwriting and for whatever means God had employed, has a distinct intimate quality which necessarily arrests the reader and frightens the kind into a frenzy. What should we make of this and where else in Scripture to we see this sort of language of God’s finger alluded to?

English Standard Version (Chapter 8)

Exodus 8:19

19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 31:18

18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deuteronomy 9:10

10 And the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the LORD had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly.

Luke 11:20

20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

A Thoughtful Queen

In another carefully crafted court narrative we have the reintroduction of Daniel as he is about to rise into prominence having obviously lost his relevance in the royal court—yet—it is telling that his influence had not been completely lost. The evidence of Daniel’s fame is important here as we see how the wisdom of God stands the test of time in another similar and simultaneously different set of events which—unlike previously—cast Daniel into the front and center by way of an invitation and not a royal decree soon to lead to death for all the sages of Babylon.

Daniel’s Interpretation

How to Read Daniel (The Queen Mother’s Call for Daniel (Dan 5:10–12))

Daniel meets Belshazzar’s request with disdain. He has no love or respect for this king, and so he refuses the reward. He also compares him with Nebuchadnezzar in a way that puts Belshazzar in a very bad light.

Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful world ruler. Interestingly, and in keeping with the book’s theme that God is in charge, he says that his power was God’s gift. God gave him “sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor” (Dan 5:18). Daniel tells him about the episode in Nebuchadnezzar’s life recounted in Daniel 4 when Nebuchadnezzar’s pride got to him and God reduced him to an animal-like status to remind him that God, not he, was sovereign.

Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself before God, but Belshazzar did not, just the opposite! Rather than honoring God, he blasphemed him by using the temple goblets to praise false gods. Thus, God “sent the hand that wrote the inscription” (Dan 5:24). Daniel appears only too happy to interpret the ominous message of the writing for this prideful king.

He begins by reading it: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN

Here are three different words, the first repeated twice, perhaps for emphasis. He then provides an interpretation, and it turns out that the words are related to Hebrew/Semitic verbs.

MENE comes from a verb that means “to count” or “to number,” and according to Daniel’s interpretation, “God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end” (Dan 5:26).

TEKEL comes from a verb that means “to weigh” and here is taken in the sense of “evaluation”: “You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Dan 5:27).

PERES comes from a verb that means “to divide” and is taken here to mean that Belshazzar’s Babylon will be split and given to two Iranian powers, the Medes and the Persians, who have been brought together under Cyrus the Great’s leadership.

As the NIV footnote also indicates there may be a double-entendre here since these three words can also be taken as nouns that refer to money: mina, shekel, and a half, moving from more expensive to less, showing perhaps the diminished power of Babylon.

The definite meaning while interesting is ultimately proven to be more an indicator: God is in control and he will continue to determine how world leaders will rule—their beginning and end, rise and fall—and will as quickly diminish as He did establish.

English Standard Version (Chapter 16)

Proverbs 16:18

18  Pride goes before destruction,

and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 18:12

12  Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty,

but humility comes before honor.

What does this indicate to us about rulers through history and for today? What can we learn?

Daniel as the Second Joseph:

On biblical allusions: refer to intentionally evoking another context. Broadly speaking, scriptural allusion could include anything from direct quotation or paraphrase to loose, subtle, broad reference. Usually “quotation” is reserved for intentional sustained verbal repetition versus “allusion,” which refers to intentional reference to donor context by paraphrase or with less verbal correspondence. Usually “echo” refers to a more subtle parallel than allusion. Allusion includes intentionality versus echo which may or may not be purposeful. Biblical scholars often use a sliding scale from more to less parallel in receptor contexts: quotation, paraphrase, allusion, echo, trace. Quotations, paraphrases, and allusions may or may not be marked, but echoes and traces cannot be marked. In general, literary allusions may be considered “a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts.” The dual activating force of allusions gets at their residual effects especially within the emerging canonical consciousness of the Scriptures. The residual effects of dual activation of allusions may be seen most clearly in cases of interpretive networks. (Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 889.)

Networks: The same author describes networks as those interconnected themes which allude to one another within the different exegetical contexts themselves (i.e., the donor text has a theme which a receptor text borrow from by way of an allusion, both having their own interpretive contexts, but sharing ideas which must be understood in each individual context and yet the later contexts—or receptors—often elaborate the theme further). A wonderful example of this is following Jesus coming “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” in Matt. 2:14 which is an quotation back to Hos. 11:1-4 which in turn is a possible allusion back to Ex. 4:21-23 & Deut. 1:31; 8:5.

The Lexham English Bible (Chapter 4)

21 And Yahweh said to Moses, “When you go to return to Egypt, see all of the wonders that I have put in your hand, and do them before Pharaoh, and I myself will harden his heart, and he will not release the people. 22 And you must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says Yahweh, “Israel is my son, my firstborn.” 23 And I said to you, “Release my son and let him serve me,” but you refused to release him. Look, I am about to kill your son, your firstborn.’ ”

The Lexham English Bible (Chapter 1)

and just as he did in the wilderness when you saw that Yahweh your God carried you, just as someone carries his son, all along the way that you traveled until ⌊you reached⌋ this place.’

The Lexham English Bible (Chapter 8)

5 And you should know with your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so Yahweh your God is disciplining you.

(Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 889.)

One of the key indicators we have of an allusion is when either a passage of Scripture is cited directly or aspects of previously revealed Scripture are hinted at through common themes, language, or even more broadly in historical conditions. Such is the case in the life of Daniel when in many overt and discrete ways, Daniel seems to be alluding to the life of Daniel in a manner akin to how we see our Lord Jesus’ life depicting the echoes of the Hebrew Scriptures. In this sense, we have in Daniel a bridge between a picture of Christ (the type or foreshadowment) and the thing itself (the substance).

With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology (Joseph and Daniel)

The raw material of the correspondences between Joseph and Daniel are as shown in table 10.1.

Because of the number of and level of detail in these parallels, they cannot be regarded as accidental. Later biblical authors like Daniel were evidently familiar with the Scriptures available to them, and they apparently interpreted their own lives in the light of the Scriptures. Knowing the Joseph story, Daniel noticed the similarities and found the details worth recording.

We should not find this surprising. People generally tend to interpret the present in the light of the past. As I type these words, Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America, and, as with all politicians, he is regularly compared to those who held that office before him. Those who appreciate his agenda compare Obama to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, referring to the way that Obama carries forward the vision and accomplishments of FDR. Those who do not appreciate Obama have said he is a new Jimmy Carter, whom they view as an ineffectual failure. Politics are not my concern here; the point is that the past is regularly used to supply the categories with which we describe and interpret the present. Daniel seems to have done the same, and the Joseph narratives were particularly significant to his interpretation and presentation of the events of his own experience.

Table 10.1 Correspondences between Joseph and Daniel (insert slide)

With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology (Joseph and Daniel)

The comparisons with Joseph are not mere curiosities. Moses had prophesied that Yahweh would restore his people after judging them (e.g. Lev. 26:33–45), the latter prophets pointed to a new and better exodus (e.g. Isa. 11:15–16), and the Psalms sing Israel’s history to shape her vision of the future. In this context, the idea that Daniel presented himself as a new Joseph because he believed himself to be the forerunner of the new exodus is right at home.

Joseph advised his brothers on how to speak to Pharaoh (Gen. 46:31–34), and then oversaw the interactions between Pharaoh and his brothers and father (47:1–12). The book of Daniel does not go into these details, but, historically speaking, he was exiled in 605 BC (Dan. 1:1) and exalted over the wise men of Babylon three years later, with his three friends also receiving appointments to significant posts (2:1, 48–49). This would mean that when other Jews were deported to Babylon in 597 and 586 BC, they would enter a land where a man had been sent ahead of them, a brother Israelite able to intercede with the king on their behalf and oversee any interactions with him, just as Joseph had done with Pharaoh. Daniel was well known enough to be referenced at several points by his contemporary, Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3).

Reality of the Text

Key Reality

God’s faithfulness remains despite how bad things may appear to be. When rulers openly mock God, He can—and often will—choose to eliminate them through the means of other forces. God will always supersede the plans of man.

Christ Connection

-The way Christ is alluded to is most readily seen in the way Daniel is elevated to third ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5:7, 29) which God does to His own Son granting them authority over all things (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1: 20-23).

How do we live in light of this?

The Message of Daniel: His Kingdom Cannot Fail 3. Theological Witness

William Barclay tells a story about T. E. Lawrence, who was a close personal friend of Thomas Hardy, the poet, and who would frequently visit Hardy and his wife. During the time Lawrence was serving as an aircraftsman in the Royal Air Force he sometimes came to visit the Hardy home wearing his aircraftsman’s uniform. On one such occasion his visit overlapped with a visit of the Mayoress of Dorchester. The latter took it as an affront that she had to meet a common aircraftsman—she had no idea who the aircraftsman was. In French she told Mrs Hardy that never in all her born days had she had to sit down to tea with a private soldier. No one said anything—until T. E. Lawrence responded in perfect French: ‘I beg your pardon, Madame, but can I be of any use as an interpreter? Mrs Hardy knows no French.’ Someone she had disdained was the only one who could help her.

That is the case in Daniel 5: the only help for Belshazzar was a cast-off Jew whose God he despised. The same is true for you. You hear that in 1 Corinthians 1:22–24:

Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we [emphatic] preach Christ as the Crucified One—a scandal to Jews, foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

(Davis, Dale Ralph. 2013. The Message of Daniel: His Kingdom Cannot Fail. Edited by Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball. The Bible Speaks Today. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press).

Conclusion

The way into the text is our way out. We are led into Ch. 5 with a picture of transition from a ruler humbled before God and ultimately elevated in much the same way we see patterned elsewhere in Scripture and so we see another theme—the forgetfulness by the powerful of the ways of the one true God. The dismissal of God’s holiness and low regard for His position over all the rulers of the earth leads to newly appointed king’s rather sudden demise. In a word, “humble thyself or God will” is the sage wisdom of this text—the cost being the King’s life. The question we may ask of ourselves, why allow King Nebuchadnezzar the chance to repent, but not his son? While we cannot be certain, there is a principle at play, that to those whom much is entrusted God may choose to give more (Matt. 25: 14-20).