Original Meaning

The Profanation of the Holy Vessels (5:1–4)

KING Belshazzar makes a sudden and unanticipated appearance in the narrative. He is not introduced; he springs into the action. No one today doubts that the last king of Babylon had a son named Belshazzar, who ruled as coregent during the last days of the empire. Skepticism remains,4 however, on some of the details, most notably the narrative’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as his “father” (v. 2). Indeed, though not impossible, it is unlikely that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar in the narrow, biological sense. Historical records indicate that Nabonidus, himself not a biological descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, was Belshazzar’s father. It is more likely that “father” is used here in the sense of “predecessor.”5

In the story itself, we learn little about Belshazzar from straightforward description; his character is revealed through his actions and speeches. He throws a huge banquet for one thousand of his nobles. The description of this boisterous party reminds us of the opening of the book of Esther, where Xerxes’ banquet provided the setting for the first story of that book. That banquet, according to Karen Jobes6 and others, was intended to unite the leaders of the empire on the eve of Xerxes’ attempted conquest of Greece. The broader textual and historical setting of Daniel 5 suggests that a similar political-military purpose was at work in Belshazzar’s mind.

In a word, the Persians are knocking at the door of the Babylonian empire. Indeed, as the end of the story indicates, they will take the city of Babylon the very next day. Extrabiblical sources, both cuneiform and Greek (Herodotus and Xenophon), give us more information about the events leading up to the fall of Babylon on October 12, 539 B.C.7

The final victory may have been a surprise attack on Babylon. Indeed, Herodotus and Xenophon indicate that the final raid on Babylon took place during a nighttime banquet. But even if the final raid was sudden, it could not have been unanticipated. The Babylonian Chronicle indicates that just a couple of days earlier, Cyrus the Persian had defeated Nabonidus and the Babylonian army near Sippar (approximately fifty miles from Babylon). Nabonidus had fled the scene, though not to the capital.

Belshazzar must have known that an attack would come sooner or later. It was in this context that the banquet described in our chapter took place. Was it to rally and encourage the leaders? To give them a diversion in the face of the onslaught? To feast today for tomorrow we die? Perhaps a bit of all three, but we are safe to assume that tension permeated the air in the Babylonian capital at this time.

Wine flowed abundantly at the banquet. The king and his nobles drank deeply together. The text does not emphasize the drinking, however, to provide a moral lesson on the dangers of thinking under the influence of alcohol. No, the focus shifts to the holy goblets that Nebuchadnezzar had removed from the temple. These precious temple vessels are about to be profaned by being pressed into common use. We do not know much about how they were used in the rituals of the temple, but we do know that they were not intended for a raucous party. Belshazzar’s impiety portends dire consequences.

We cannot be certain what was going on in Belshazzar’s mind at this time. But surely he did not just run out of his everyday goblets and called for the spares. He surely had a particular propaganda purpose in mind. But what? He may have been making claims to power by comparing himself to his “father” Nebuchadnezzar.8 He trifles with Nebuchadnezzar’s war booty, a booty that Nebuchadnezzar himself apparently thought too precious actually to use.9Perhaps in the midst of the present crisis Belshazzar is claiming more power than Nebuchadnezzar, a boast vain enough in itself.

But the challenge Belshazzar presents goes even further in his mind. Perhaps the challenge is leveled against Yahweh himself. Miller points out that Daniel had predicted the Persian victory over Babylonia during Belshazzar’s reign (8:1–4, 15–20), and already by the time of Isaiah God’s prophets were indicating such an end to the one-time oppressors (Isa. 44:28; 45:1); but how likely is it that Belshazzar is familiar with Isaiah’s prophecy?10 While some scholars argue that Belshazzar probably offended many foreign religious cults that night, our text indicates that Yahweh is the sole focus. In the final analysis, it does not matter what was going on in Belshazzar’s mind; his very act is like spitting in the eye of God.

But Belshazzar goes even further in his sacrilege. He is not only committing blasphemy, he combines it with idolatry. Here is where his profanation surpasses that of Nebuchadnezzar. He uses God’s holy goblets to toast the lifeless idols of his own religion. He spits in God’s eye, as it were, and then he goes over to a statue that he himself has created (v. 4) and expects that lifeless hunk to protect him from what is to come.

The manner in which the narrative describes Belshazzar’s affirmation of idolatry shows how ridiculous it is. Belshazzar’s gods are of the same material as the goblets from Yahweh’s temple. The latter are important, holy, and precious, but they are not God himself. Those objects made out of precious metals are not objects of worship, but Belshazzar’s perverted religion puts their material cousins at the heart of his confidence and hope for the future.

Bridging Contexts

DANIEL 5 shares the same basic genre as the preceding four chapters (see comments on Dan. 1). It is history with a theological and didactic purpose and so our description can be nuanced by referring to it as theological (or prophetic) history or didactic history. The latter term would indicate that this is a history that illustrates certain important moral lessons. We have earlier commented on the wisdom-like nature of these opening chapters of Daniel, thus justifying our use of this material as a guide to our behavior.

We have also seen that these chapters dealing with history have the feel of a story rather than, say, a documentary. The latter would focus on a disclosure of the facts, an emphasis on what really happened; the former tells the account in a literarily satisfying manner. It selects events and shapes its presentation to support an important theological and/or ethical message. We are caught up in the intrigue, the suspense, the drama of the scene. We are drawn to change our beliefs, our attitudes, and our actions. History and story are not mutually exclusive categories.26 True, a substance of a story can be make-believe, but it can also be from real life.

Our point is that Daniel 5 is properly described as history, but it is more than brute fact history. Indeed, it is the genre of text that compels us to understand this chapter as more than a simple report of what happened in the past. A proper reception of the story invites us to look for important theological and ethical principles that are still relevant for today (see below). As we take these principles and consider their appropriateness for today, we will do so through the prism of the New Testament, noting that there is always the possibility of discontinuity between the Old Testament story and our own situation.

The reticent narrator. Daniel 5 illustrates clearly an important characteristic that runs throughout the theological history of the Old Testament. Old Testament history with infrequent exceptions (e.g., Ezra 7–10; Neh. 1–7; 11–13) tells its story through the eyes of an unnamed narrator. In literary studies, this style is called third-person omniscient narration. That is, the narrator describes the action, reports speech, and interprets the significance of the events to us, the readers. He is a storyteller, who can move from one side of a battle to another, from the internal workings of one mind to another. In some Old Testament stories, he even tells us what passes through the mind of God.

Daniel 5 is not given to us from the perspective of Daniel, the character, but rather through the eyes of this unnamed narrator. While this form of narration is common in literature, literary scholars have pointed out that in the Bible it gives us the impression that we receive the story from a divine perspective.27 Thus, this form of narration gives us a high level of confidence in the story. We trust this narrator.

We may further characterize our narrator in a way that helps us interpret the story and also gives us guidelines as we seek to bridge the horizon from the ancient world to the modern. In a word, the narrator of biblical stories is reticent. That is, he is spare in his commentary. As we read Daniel 5, we do not get much background description or explicit statement of motivations. We are thus left with a number of questions, as we have noted above: Why is Belshazzar holding a banquet? Who is the queen? Why couldn’t the Babylonian wise men read the inscription? Why is Daniel upset with Belshazzar in a way that he was not with Nebuchadnezzar?

The reticence of the narrator invites our involvement as readers. It peaks our interest and gets us thinking deeply about what is going on. It is not that the story does not give us any clues. The narrator shows us rather than explicitly tells us important information about the plot and characters. He describes the action and, in this chapter, narrates the characters’ speeches in a way to shape our reaction.

As interpreters, it is our task to read between the lines without reading into the story elements that are not there—a fine line to walk, to be sure. However, our reading in the gaps must be justified by what is presented in the text itself; otherwise, our interpretation should be discounted as just so much eisegesis.

Déjà vu all over again. As we turn our attention to chapter 5 for principles that remain relevant for our contemporary situation, we again are struck by the repetition of themes from earlier chapters. Belshazzar’s first and final episode in the stories of Daniel is marked by his arrogance, blasphemy, and idolatry.

(1) Arrogance. Pride was an issue in the preceding chapters, especially chapter 4. There we observed how Nebuchadnezzar, even though warned, succumbed to a promotion of himself, even above God. He looked at Babylon and gave himself the praise. As a result, God humbled him by reducing him to an animal-like state until he acknowledged God’s superiority, at which time he was reinstated to his former human glory.

Belshazzar has not learned from his predecessor’s example. He too exalts himself above God. The story illustrates his attitude by narrating his misuse of the holy temple vessels, and Daniel articulates this divine evaluation in his prophetic rebuke (vv. 22–23) even before lowering the boom of judgment on him. God humbles Belshazzar as well, but in this case there is no restoration. He is killed for his sin.

(2) Blasphemy. While repeating his predecessor’s sin of arrogance, Belshazzar takes it to a new level of offense against Yahweh. He expresses his superiority not by taking inordinate pride in his own achievements, but by profaning the things associated with God. True, by virtue of their theft from the temple and their being handled by nonpriestly, non-Israelite hands, the vessels have already been profaned; but because of the use Belshazzar makes of them, he supersedes previous denigration of God’s holy objects.

As we commented above, we do not know Belshazzar’s motivation in bringing out the up-to-this-point unused temple vessels. On the level of conscious intention, was he tweaking the memory of his great royal predecessor or was he directly and knowingly attacking God himself? Possibly both, but even apart from a conscious intention for the latter, the reality of the situation was that he was making common use of extremely holy objects, an attack on God himself.

Blasphemy is the act of dishonoring God through speech or actions, and Belshazzar does both here, by misusing objects associated with the worship of God and, in doing so, praising false gods (see next section on “Idolatry”). To be sure, it is not simply the fact that these goblets are holding alcohol, because the Bible is clear that there is nothing inherently evil about alcohol. But these goblets were only to be used in the worship of God, not for state banquets. Apparently even Nebuchadnezzar understood that. In essence, Belshazzar spit in the face of God.

(3) Idolatry. In regard to Belshazzar’s blasphemous actions, we must remember that this Babylonian king would have acknowledged the existence and divine status of the Israelites’ God. His action would not have been performed with a modern belief that the worship of God was a primitive superstition. No, Belshazzar would have acknowledged Yahweh as a legitimate deity, probably a minor deity of a minor and now disgraced people. But he also surely believed that his own native deities were much more powerful. After all, Babylonia had conquered Judah. Clearly Marduk, Sin, and the other chief Babylonian deities dominated Yahweh in the pantheon.

We see a similar attitude expressed by the Philistines during the childhood of Samuel. In 1 Samuel 4 we read about the Philistine defeat of the Israelite army under the leadership of Eli’s two wicked sons, Hophni and Phinehas. These latter two men had thought to stem the military success of the Philistines by bringing the ark into the war camp. From their actions and speech, it is clear that they did not do this out of actual faith, but were treating the ark as a kind of magical box or relic.

As a result of their lack of faith, God allowed the Philistines to defeat the Israelites and capture the ark. It was now time for the Philistines to learn their lesson about the power of Yahweh. In 1 Samuel 5 the Philistines act like any other Near Eastern victor (including Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 1) by taking the ark and placing it in the temple of their chief god, Dagon. This process acknowledges Yahweh’s divine status while demonstrating his subservient position to Dagon.

The next day, however, the Philistines enter the temple to discover Dagon’s statue fallen flat on its face before the ark. It is as if Dagon was worshiping Yahweh! They then hoist the idol back on its feet, but when they return the next day, Dagon has fallen again, this time with a broken head and hands (like a dismembered military casualty). Then after an outbreak of tumors on the people of Ashdod, they get the message and make plans to return the ark to Israel.

It is true that the ark of the covenant was a more potent symbol of God’s presence and military might than the vessels, but it is also not clear whether the ark was in existence at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In any case, the vessels of the temple were capable of serving as symbols of God’s presence. Like the Philistines, Belshazzar too promoted his gods at the expense of the true God. He drank toasts to Marduk, Sin, and the others with the goblets reserved for the worship of the only true God. Belshazzar was indeed an idolater—following in the footsteps of his father, who was also an idolater (cf. Dan. 2 and 3).

The repetition of earlier sins does lead us to ask the question: Why is Belshazzar’s fate different from that of Nebuchadnezzar? The episode, while not explicitly answering our question, does lead us to an answer as we read the gaps.

Judgment and repentance. We must understand the fate that differentiates Belshazzar in Daniel 5 from Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4. Though a proud man and an idolater, Nebuchadnezzar fares well in the book of Daniel. He is treated with respect by the prophet, and though put in his place, survives to tell about it. Belshazzar, on the other hand, does not fare as well. Indeed, he suffers a humiliating defeat and dies at the hands of his enemies. When the hand begins writing on the wall, Belshazzar’s fate is sealed. He is synonymous with God’s sure and quick judgment in this book. He offends God; God sentences him. The prophet confronts him with God’s sentence of death, and it is immediately carried out.

But what is the difference between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar? Why does one live and one die? In the final analysis, the answer lies in the sovereign decision of God. Nebuchadnezzar offended God as deeply as Belshazzar, but the prophet was there rooting for him to turn back. When he did, God restored him. Daniel does not hold out hope for Belshazzar; he delivers an unconditional message of judgment. Thus, there is no repentance and no restoration.

In a word, here we have the interplay of divine sovereignty and human responsibility presented in such a way that we cannot easily sort them out. Surely, Belshazzar should have repented, but Daniel, speaking for God, does not give him a chance. Why? Were his sins, for some unexplainable reason, so much greater? Was the example of history, that is, the previous experience of Nebuchadnezzar, sufficient to leave Belshazzar without excuse? The latter has enough of a textual justification to lead us to further exploration.

Hearing the Word of God. Daniel’s judgment speech begins with a reminiscence of Nebuchadnezzar (5:18–21). He was proud indeed, but when confronted by God, he acknowledged his subservience to him. In a word, he repented when confronted by God’s word and action. In verse 22, Daniel turns his attention to Belshazzar by proclaiming, “But you his son, O Belshazzar, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this.” It is the last clause that is telling here—Belshazzar knew what he was supposed to do, but failed to do so. It was not as if this was all new to him.

To be honest, we do not know how Belshazzar knew these things. It could have been the talk of the court for decades afterward. Perhaps the queen mother had talked to him before about Daniel and his God. Whatever the means of communication, Daniel tells us that Belshazzar heard in such a way that he was fully responsible for his present rebellious actions. He had not heeded the warnings, and now he was doomed.

Please notice, however, that even this strong textual clue does not resolve the issue of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Nebuchadnezzar is described as having more than one conversion experience in the preceding chapters. He praises Yahweh at the end of chapter 3 only to find himself rebelling against God in chapter 4, but nonetheless getting a second chance, so to speak. Why does Nebuchadnezzar get a second chance whereas Belshazzar does not even get a first? Again, the ultimate answer is bound up with our understanding of God’s sovereignty, as we will see in certain New Testament passages in the next section.

Contemporary Significance

“YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED!”

“The handwriting is on the wall!” These expressions are commonly used in twentieth-century English and are a modern legacy of Daniel 5. They both relate to what we have identified as the unique emphasis of the chapter, which is the awareness of the approach of certain judgment for one’s offenses.

Of course, as used today, the expressions often express a belief, not in God, but in the certain hand of fate. Checking the bleak financial papers of a failing institution might elicit such a remark, or perhaps looking at the face of a terminally ill patient approaching the last few days of life. These sentences express the certainty of a bleak end.

In the Bible, of course, it is not fate that writes MENE MENE TEKEL PARSIN on the wall, it is God himself. Our story connects God with a gruesome judgment on a sinful individual. It raises the issue of God’s judgment in one’s life and beyond.

Where is the judgment of God? To what extent can we look at the failures and deaths of people around us today and say with confidence, “There is the judgment of God”? Does God judge people today as he judged Belshazzar in the story of Daniel 5?

The Germans are defeated in 1945 and Hitler kills himself in a bunker in Berlin. Is this the judgment of God? An atom bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. Is this the judgment of God? An epidemic rips through the gay community. Is this the judgment of God? An abortion clinic is bombed in Atlanta. Is this the judgment of God? A child molester is beaten up in New Jersey. Is this the judgment of God? A country singer’s plane crashes off the coast of California. Is this the judgment of God? A Christian missionary dies in Pakistan at a young age. Surely this can’t be the judgment of God, can it?

Is there a contrast between an Old Testament God of judgment and condemnation and a New Testament God of grace and mercy? By no means, the New Testament teaches that God, in Jesus, judges evil and condemns the wicked (John 8:26; 12:31). God is still judge in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:8).28

But there is also clear and strong teaching that God’s followers are not in a position to judge others. Perhaps the most well-known teaching in this regard is found in Matthew 7:1–2: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Paul echoes this understanding as he also emphasizes God’s role as judge in Romans 2:1–4:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

God judges, indeed, but we cannot know with certainty when suffering and death is God’s judgment and when it is not. Therefore, we must keep our mouths shut. We must never point to a person who suffers and say, “Behold God’s judgment!”

What is the difference between Daniel and us, or for that matter between Daniel’s condemnation of Belshazzar and the three friends’ condemnation of Job? The difference is that Daniel was a recipient of divine revelation and as a result his words are not his own interpretation of the situation, but rather God’s own words. Daniel is a mouthpiece for God’s sentence on Belshazzar’s life. No one today plays the same role as Daniel did in the Babylonian court. No one today has a direct pipeline to God’s mind. Even Paul, in connection with the present status of the Jewish people, could state, “How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Rom. 11:33).

As the book of Job teaches, not all suffering is the result of an individual’s sin. That was the mistake made by his three friends. They knew that sin had its consequences and godly living had its consequences. Sin led to suffering and righteousness led to success in life. But they believed that that was the whole equation. Thus, if you observed a person suffering, that person must be under God’s judgment for his or her sins. The reader knows better than any of the three friends. Because of the first two chapters, we know with certainty that Job was right in his assertions that he was innocent. He was not suffering for his sins.

Certainly the disciples of Jesus were quick to judge. As they looked at a blind man, they gave the knee-jerk reaction, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned … but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (v. 3).

The disciples’ question seems so cruel today. How could they see God’s judgment so automatically and dogmatically in this man’s blindness? But are we any different today? How many look at a person infected with AIDS and don’t even ask the question as they mutter quietly, “The judgment of God.” Is this any less cruel or any less deserving of Christ’s anger? AIDS is no more or less God’s judgment for sins than cancer or the common cold. Of course, they are the result of sin. There would be no disease at all without it, but that a person has AIDS is not the special judgment of God for his or her sins, even if one contracted that disease through intravenous drug use or homosexual activity.

Our role is not to judge. Rather, it is to offer the good news of repentance and restoration. Daniel, a recipient of God’s direct revelation, had the authority to withhold the good news of repentance and restoration from Belshazzar, but not so us. Today we do not say to anyone, “You are condemned; you are beyond God’s mercy.” If we do, we condemn ourselves, because our sin is no better than anyone else’s from God’s perspective. Note James 2:8–11:

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

If our role is not to judge, then what is it? The world is full of trouble, evil, chaos. What are we to do about it? We are to offer words of life, not condemnation. We are to play the role of Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar, not Daniel before Belshazzar.

Of course, Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar was not morally neutral. God did not direct him to let the king go along his own merry way of rebellion and arrogance. Daniel called him to task, but with a note of deep sadness at the suffering Nebuchadnezzar experienced as well as great hope of restoration.

Neither are we to be morally neutral as we live in a world of injustice, oppression, and licentiousness. We do not seek the destruction of godless people, rather, their redemption. After all, every one of us who today call ourselves Christians were without God. And even after becoming Christians, we still sin. We must never, ever condemn any other person without a full acknowledgment of the darkness of our own hearts and the destructive nature of many of our actions. We must take the log out of our own eyes before we can remove the speck from someone else’s (Matt. 7:5).

Unfortunately, I would hazard to guess that the Christian community, in the Western world at least, would be characterized by the watching world as narrow, intolerant, judgmental, and self-righteous rather than forgiving, compassionate, gracious, and redemptive. All of us who call on the name of Christ must do some serious soul-searching and repenting as we reach out to transform the world in our Lord’s name.

The sin of blasphemy. The world does need transformation. The arrogance, blasphemy, and idolatry that incarnated in the actions of Belshazzar can be found in abundance in our culture today. Previous chapters have given us the opportunity to describe contemporary manifestations of pride and idolatry, so we will use this section to speak briefly about blasphemy.

Above, we described blasphemy as an act of dishonoring God through speech or actions. Specifically we observed Belshazzar’s committing blasphemy through the misuse of objects associated with the worship of God—drinking from the holy temple vessels.

Today, it is true, we have no equivalent to the holy temple vessels. In Old Testament times God chose to make his presence known in special ways in certain locations. These special places—like the tabernacle and the temple—were symbolic of the great gulf that exists between a holy God and a sinful humanity. It was not possible to gain easy access into the temple. The holy place was supervised by a consecrated people, the priests, and certain rites and rituals, notably sacrifices, had to be observed in order to gain entrance into the presence of God.

In a word, there was a sharp and definite division between the holy and the profane. The temple vessels were associated with a sacred place and therefore were part of the realm of the sacred. Their profane use was therefore an abomination.

What parallels do we have today? At first sight, there appears to be none. After all, with the coming of Christ the division between holy and profane is completely done away with. This fact was anticipated in Zechariah’s prophecy in Zechariah 14:20–21:

On that day HOLY TO THE Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the Lord’s house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty.

Its fulfillment is vividly illustrated by the rending of the temple curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place (Matt. 27:51). Christ’s death and resurrection, it appears, moves us into a new era. No longer is anything holy….

Or is it the other way around? Indeed, that is what the Zechariah passage indicates. It is not that there is nothing holy, but that everything is holy. This makes sense, does it not, as we consider the difference with the Old Testament era? Whereas before Christ God made his presence known in a special way in a certain location, today we can meet God anywhere—in a church, a street, a car, our homes, a bar.

Such an understanding intensifies the concept of blasphemy. Blasphemy is not just defacing a church or a cross. It is a misuse of any part of God’s creation. An assault against a fellow human being is an act of blasphemy. After all, we are all created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; James 3:9). An angry word spoken against a fellow believer is an act of blasphemy. After all, Christians are all temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16). The destruction of the environment for selfish purposes is an act of blasphemy. The land, the air, the seas are each the creation of our holy God.

Again, when we fully understand blasphemy, we are staggered by the extent to which each and every one of us is implicated. The implication, however, should not come as a surprise. Like Belshazzar we “know all this.” Belshazzar knew from the example of his great predecessor Nebuchadnezzar. But where have we been told?

The world today is far better informed than in the days of Belshazzar. We have been warned and given clear directions about a proper relationship with God. God himself has given the people of the world a direct message through his Word.

This is a major component of the teaching of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31). The parable presents the plight of an unnamed rich man, suffering for his sins in hell. Lazarus, a beggar who suffered in life, was enjoying the afterlife in heaven. In response to the rich man’s request, Abraham does not allow Lazarus to slake his thirst. The rich man’s suffering incites him to beseech Abraham to allow Lazarus to go warn his still living brothers of the coming judgment. The ensuing interchange between Abraham and the rich man is revealing (Luke 16:29–31):

Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.”

“No, father Abraham,” he said, “but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.”

He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

The message to the rich man concerning his brothers is essentially the same as Daniel’s to Belshazzar: “They should have known!” They have the Word of God at their fingertips. They need to read and respond. And, of course, the message of the parable goes beyond the rich man and his brothers to us today. We should know…. We have no excuse.

However, 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; indeed, Christian scholars need to think through the implications of postmodernism for reading the Bible.29 Most exegesis, whether by evangelicals or others, simply operate with a modern-scientific worldview that is no more biblical than a postmodern one. 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.30 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 24.31 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’s treatment of the Bible far removed from this act?

1. See her discussion in Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty, 114–16, 138–39.

2. Though doubt is still entertained by some concerning the way Belshazzar is described in Dan. 5, cf. J. J. Collins, Daniel With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 68.

3. For more on the story as well as the actual documentation concerning Belshazzar’s role, see the excellent book by P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1989). An earlier helpful treatment from an apologetic point of view is M. J. Gruenthaner, “The Last King of Babylon,” CBQ 11 (1949): 406–25. For a more popular treatment, see A. Millard, “Daniel and Belshazzar in History,” BAR 11 (1985): 73–78.

4. See for instance, Collins, Daniel With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 68.

5. For a comprehensive discussion of his issue, consult Miller, Daniel, 149–50.

6. See K. Jobes, Esther (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming).

7. Goldingay, Daniel, 106–7.

8. So Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty, 124.

9. Though by having them removed from the temple and allowing nonpriestly hands touch them, he was guilty of profaning them himself.

10. Miller, Daniel, 154, makes this point and believes it is possible.

11. So A. Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 (1991): 117–22.

12. See Miller, Daniel, 155, citing R. Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon (London: Macmillan, 1914).

13. So Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 94.

14. Though Gruenthaner, “The Last King of Babylon,” 421, argues that the expression really means a high official, not specifically the third most powerful.

15. See Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 158–61; also see Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, 68–79.

16. See Collins, Daniel, 248.

17. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty, 124.

18. Calvin, Daniel I, 222.

19. Ibid., 223.

20. See Miller, Daniel, 165, where he argues, I think unnecessarily and unpersuasively, that they really are verbs, not nouns, and the strange forms may be explained by accents (see Collins, Daniel, 250–52; Goldingay, Daniel, 110–11, who both cite an earlier study by C. Clermont-Ganneau, “Mane, thecel, phares et le festin de Balthasar,” JA 8 [1886]: 36–67, and argue that the oracle had an earlier form and meaning, though Goldingay places the importance on the interpretation offered in the book by Daniel himself).

21. Towner, Daniel, 76.

22. Goldingay, Daniel, p. 111.

23. A. Wolters, “The Riddle of the Scales in Daniel 5,” HUCA 62 (1991): 155.

24. Ibid.

25. M. Hilton, “Babel Revisited—Daniel Chapter 5,” JSOT 66 (1995): 99–112.

26. See V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

27. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 114–30; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 99–101.

28. We should also bring into view the culmination of God’s judgment. Though we cannot see his judgment displayed consistently in the present world—the wicked sometimes prosper and the righteous sometimes perish—we know that an ultimate day of reckoning is coming. The Bible clearly teaches that those who rebel will receive what they deserve if they do not turn to Christ. This will become clearer in the last part of the book of Daniel, so we will develop the theme of judgment late

29. I have tried to take a first step in this regard in “Reading the Bible Postmodernly,” Mars Hill Review (forthcoming in Fall, 1998).

30. As done recently by C. Bartholomew, “Reading the Old Testament in Postmodern Times,” TynBul 49 (1998): 91–114.

31. D. J. A. Clines, “A World Established on Water (Psalm 24): Reader-Response, Deconstruction and Bespoke Criticism,” in The New Literary Criticism, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and D. J. A. Clines (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 79–90.

Original Meaning

The Enigmatic Writing on the Wall (5:5–12)

THE ACTION OF this chapter moves quickly and with sudden surprises. Just as Belshazzar has appeared without introduction, so a hand suddenly appears without explanation. Of course, a disembodied hand writing a message on the wall of the palace needs no explanation to recognize a supernatural occurrence.

This hand is surely the hand of God. The faithful reader of the past and present has no doubts who is behind the writing, though to be sure, Belshazzar has no clue. As a polytheist, he could have seen the hand as controlled by any of a number of different divinities. Immediately, however, he suspects that the enigmatic writing has a message that intends calamity toward him. His reaction is shock and utter fright. He is in extreme distress, perhaps even implying by the last clause that he has lost control of his most basic bodily functions, which has undermined his posture of composure.11

The reference to the “fingers” of God should not surprise us. Though God has no body, his actions are frequently described metaphorically as the acts of his hand. Indeed, in three other notable Scripture references, God’s finger is at work. In response to the plagues, the Egyptian magicians remarked, “This is the finger of God” (Ex. 8:19). Exodus also describes the commandments as written by God’s finger on the stone tablets (31:18). Finally, the heavens themselves are “the work of [his] fingers” (Ps. 8:3).

The throne room of the kings of Babylon was excavated by Koldewey in 1899.12 Of course, the message recorded here has not been found, nor are the walls intact, but enough is left to show that the walls were coated with white gypsum, which means that the writing would be clear on the wall, especially considering the text’s note that the writing took place “near the lampstand.” The public nature of the writing as well as the fact that the wise men and finally Daniel also read the writing belie the idea that this is some sort of private vision or drunken hallucination.13

Belshazzar cannot make head nor tails of the writing, so he calls for the wise men. By now the reader of the book of Daniel cannot help but picture these men as incompetent fools, and they don’t disappoint our expectations. The king entices them with the promise of great reward, virtually offering them royalty. To be third in the kingdom means to rank only after himself and his father, Nabonidus.14 That a coregency is intended is underlined by the purple garment and the necklace, which surely denoted royal authority.

In spite of the reward, the wise men are baffled by the inscription. This means at the very least that they cannot interpret the significance of the inscription. It may also imply that it was written in some kind of code, because it has been written in Aramaic, the common language of the day. Their inability cannot be the result of a simple inability to read the script, if it were written out in a normal manner. The text ultimately does not let us know.

At this point, the queen whisks onto the stage without detailed introduction or explanation, again leading to speculation. Who is the queen? She has not been attending the party, but she enters at the moment of crisis, acting with authority and dignified confidence. We know that Belshazzar’s wives and concubines are already in attendance (v. 3). All the circumstantial evidence points to the queen mother, a figure of importance in many ancient Near Eastern societies. Ever since Josephus the queen here has been identified as the queen mother.

But whose mother? If Belshazzar’s mother, we do not know her name. If the mother of his father Nabonidus, then it is the venerated Adad-guppi, who lived to the ripe old age of 104; she may be the one who brought Nabonidus and his son to the throne.15 However, we know from historical sources that she died a few years before this moment. The queen therefore may have been Nebuchadnezzar’s wife, Nitocris, still exerting her influence more than two decades later. Herodotus, the Greek historian, celebrates her wisdom.16

Whoever she is, she has the solution to Belshazzar’s problem: “Get Daniel.” Daniel has come through in the past in similar situations. She chides Belshazzar for his panic, unbefitting a king, and for his ignorance of Daniel, who had played an important role in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. We can detect irritation in her voice concerning his demeaning of his illustrious royal predecessor. Indeed, Fewell argues that Daniel is not called immediately more out of disdain for his past association with Nebuchadnezzar than because of his age (around eighty at the time) and because of the twenty-three years that have passed since Nebuchadnezzar’s death.17 Whatever the explanation, the scene is set for Daniel’s grand entrance onto the scene.