Have you seen Lelgee's home page? No! Then click here! Lots of interesting stuff on Revelation, Daniel, and other apocalyptic themes.
Email: <lelgee@voicenet.com>Copyright © L. L. Griffith, 1971, 1996. ISBN 0-929554-06-X. This document may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that this copyright notice is reproduced on each copy made.
Chapter Five relates the event of Belshazzar's feast and the sight of a hand's writing upon the wall. Dated to 538 B.C., it introduces the final act done by the last remaining 'branch' of the Great Babylonian royal family "tree." That 'branch' is the Chaldean "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, upon whom the judgment of God now falls. His realm - the dominion along with its lordship - has declined according to the Word of God - so that the "tree" may be hewn down in order to be replaced in the course of time by the dominion "which shall never be destroyed but shall last for ever."
[In the period after Nebuchadnezzar's death, there were over 20 years of palace intrigues. The Chaldean priests are no longer in a position where they are able to provide any firm support to the legitimate house of the kingdom. What is left of their armies is engaged in protection of the northern and western borders from attack. In the city of Babylon though, the priests are still in a position to be troublesome to Daniel.]
Nebuchadnezzar's legitimate heirs consequently have been weak rulers. His son and immediate heir, Amal-Marduk, is briefly mentioned in Jeremiah's prophecy at 52:31-34, and in the book of II Kings 25:27, under the name of Evil-Merodach. Amal-Marduk ruled from 562-560 B.C. He ruled just under three years in all before he was assassinated. The throne, it appears, was put under a regent's care - Nabonidus - during the minority of Nebuchadnezzar's other legal heirs and of the contesting for the throne.
From 559 to 538 B.C. was a period of political unrest with quarrels and coups between factions within the realm. Profane history adds the names of Nergilissar II, Labash Marduk II, and Nabonidus to the list of the throne's aspirants. These men may have had some claim to the throne; but all "branches" were being cut off from any lasting inheritance in accordance with the word of God to Nebuchadnezzar via his dream.
Whatever the outward nature of the struggles for the throne, Belshazzar (who was the apparent last surviving legitimate heir) was set upon the throne during the days of the fulfillment of the 70 years of the captivity. He is the last Chaldean 'branch' of the Great Babylonian royal family "tree" to be cut off. Daniel's prophecy does not reveal the names of any other 'branches' of the "tree" which were hewn down before this event. The strokes of the heavenly decree's hewing had left only Belshazzar.
Since the deportation of Jewish captives by the king's army in 605 B.C., seventy years have almost passed, and so the reign of Belshazzar abruptly ends in the first night of 538 B.C.
The event recorded in Daniel 5 climaxes in one particular day; this same day is the occasion of a "great feast." It has been conjectured that the date of the feast probably was the anniversary of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, but the event has no national religious significance to Babylon. The Nabunaid Chronicle states that Nabonidus, Belshazzar's father and co-regent, was king of Tema, and in his absences the New Year's Festival was not held. Belshazzar's feast was made, probably at his father's last return, to praise the superiority of the Babylonian gods who had made possible his throne, (which makes the capture of Jerusalem totally irrelevant). It was a great feast day indeed, as planned for Belshazzar's lords.
But the king had not been prepared for the best remembered event of the day: The appearance of a hand, writing upon the wall. Neither, it seems, had he been informed well in the past years of things done by the preceding kings in regard to the Jewish nation. The chapter reveals his frightful timidity, and his wilful ignorance of Israel's God, and his general ignorance of Hebrew prophecies regarding the surrounding nations. But he knew what glorious things had happened to Nebuchadnezzar.
The queen (Daniel 5:10) who appears before Belshazzar in the banquet house seems to be, according to profane history, both the king's relative and a Chaldean priestess, who was well familiar with the history of the wise men. Obviously the "nobles" around the younger king were not so knowledgeable as she.
On her advice Daniel is therefore summoned and brought before the king.
In the interpretation of the hand's writing upon the wall of the banquet house, the Scripture records again make the point concerning the righteous rulership required of a king.
The information concerning the reason for Nebuchadnezzar's strong and lengthy reign is repeated for the king, Belshazzar.
With it is given the reason for the judgment which is about to fall upon the king. Belshazzar had known about Nebuchadnezzar's period of madness and its purported judgment from heaven, but the knowledge had not favorably impressed his mind. And he had not acknowledged the God of the heavens, nor did he, in this night of praise to his gods, glorify Him as his elder paternal ancestor had publicly done.
The judgment written for Belshazzar: MENE, MENE, TEKEL; and, PERES. Daniel's interpretation of the hand's writing, to Belshazzar, is:
Daniel then explains the judgment of God to Belshazzar:
..."O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honor.
...And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.
...But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.
...And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling [was] with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
...And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven.
...And they have brought the vessels of His house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know.
...And the God in whose hand thy breath [is], and whose [are] all thy ways, hast thou not glorified."
Presumably Daniel then withdrew from the king's presence; and the king's public proclamation was immediately made confirming Daniel as "the third ruler in the kingdom." This incident, by the way, indicates that the festive occasion was not an evening event as Bible commentators and modern party attenders are wont to suppose. Neither does the fact that the king is said to have been slain "in that night" imply that the "great feast" took place in an evening, nor does the text suggest that the king was dispatched to his final resting place immediately after Daniel had ceased the explanation of the heavenly Word.
As lords of the realm, - Amal-Marduk through Belshazzar, - theses rulers were "too light" in their rule, (i.e., without the good counsel needed to rule well). The whole kingdom, as it had existed under the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, (Daniel 2-4), is now shown to be completely finished.
Consequently, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, the rulership is about to be divided under two rulers for consolidation into another realm. The remaining Babylonian part is to be diverted through the remaining Median king to the Persian dynasty.
At this point in Daniel's prophecy the "matter" starts to become a little more complicated. I.e., "He that readeth Daniel, let him understand." The narration of Daniel's visions is not made in a clear chronological order, (which is the usual order preferred by the commentators and other lazy students who prefer a continuous historical flow to events). The past history of Israel is interspersed with details of the last end which is coming for Israel. The prophets Jeremiah and Daniel address the transformation of the earthly kingdoms to the spiritual nature in the rulership of the kingdom which the LORD shall set up in the last days. That being so, the righteous character demanded of the rulers required by God for a righteous rule upon the earth has never changed - He wants a holy people and holy rulers. Unfortunately, men corrupt His way upon the earth and change the goal of His purpose to suit their own covetous desires.
The corrupted way of life will not stand forever. In His great "day" the LORD will put all things under His own righteous rule. In the meantime the nations - Israel included - are under the guidance of the "watchers" and "the holy ones" of the heavens who are doing the will of the God in the heavens. At the appointed time the promised kingdom of the heavens will be restored to the righteous rule of the LORD's anointed king, and given to those whom He has called to be disciplined in righteousness for co-rule as king-priests with His king.
There will be many - the majority of people, in fact - who will never hear, listen, nor respond to the calling of the God of the heavens. Only a few will truly understand what is God's purpose and how all things will be brought about in the day of the LORD. One who has a reasonable grasp of Daniel's prophecy is well on the way toward understanding what things will come to pass then, and will be prepared to acknowledge Him as both the Most High God and as the LORD over the whole world during His great day's judgment.
The interpretation of the hand's writing on the wall does not appear to correspond with the interpretations of the dreams which Nebuchadnezzar was given. Certainly the interpretation of the hand's writing given to Belshazzar does not put the dividing of the dominion in "the right place" when compared to the interpretation of the great image given to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:39-45. Or so it seems.., until his dream of "the tree" of Daniel 4:5-17 is recalled.
The reader must, absolutely must, bear in mind that Daniel's first chapters hold the keys for an understanding of his later revelations - both short term and long term as to Israel, and as leading to "the time of the end," (Daniel 8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4,90. See the Introduction, under the subhead, Qets. There the text speaks of the final "day" of the LORD upon all the nations which have persecuted His people and destroyed the kingdom on earth.
It seems then rather strange that Daniel has told Belshazzar that his kingdom of the inferior rule shall be divided to the Medes and to the Persians, for surely Belshazzar knows that his dominion is threatened by the ongoing warfare round about it.
The Assyrian Empire was inherited by Nebuchadnezzar but lost by the inferior rulers of the Chaldean branch after him. Great Babylon, the only part left after Belshazzar's death, is delivered to a Median prince, and through him to Persian rule. Like the rule of Nebuchadnezzar's heirs, the rule of Darius, the Mede, is not notably significant for the Jews in Babylon, but marks a position in transit during the seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem, because the work of restoration is frustrated all the days of Cyrus, the Persian, due to intrigues by the promised land's overlords and other problems within the Persian realm.
So in the vision of the "great image" it is after the third dominion, and wholly within the fourth dominions successive rulerships that any detailed division is noted. The dominion of the Promised Land breaks apart then, driven like chaff before the wind. What is the explanation for this discrepancy between the interpretations of the two visions and the commentaries? Since we are following the Bible's record of relevant events - Bible prophecy and Bible history - and not any profane history chosen to illustrate the "continuing Church age" philosophy or the "continuous historical" view, the very "good answer" must be found only in the Word of God.
Jeremiah records the word of God concerning the activities of the Medes and Media. It is Jeremiah who speaks of the events both immediate to, and following, the end of the seventy years of captivity.
It is Jeremiah who speaks concerning the judgment of all the nations who aided Babylon to desolate the promised land, to despoil the cities and to slay the people of God's choice. The Bible history, as prophecy about "the end" time, is located at 25:12-38. As "against the nations," it is found in Jeremiah 46 through 49; and as "against Babylon" (the city) "and against the land of Chaldea," it is found in Jeremiah 50 through 52.
In 538 B.C., it is Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:1) who "receives" a portion in the rulership of the kingdom of Great Babylon. The Persian dominance in the rulership is gained when Cyrus the Persian is given full strength in the power of the kingdom, according to 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 10:10-21. Under the benign Cyrus, the temple's restoration is begun.
Isaiah has very little to say about the portion of the Medes and Media, but what he says is a powerful statement concerning the "finish" for Israel. Read Isaiah 11:11; 13:17-22; 21:1-2; prophecy to be totally fulfilled in the "end of the (last) days"
Everything well considered, then, the interpretation of Belshazzar's hand writing serves to introduce yet another facet of truth concerning the last time when both the Medes and the Persians together are brought down against Babylon, when its ruler again is enabled by - and from heaven - to assume his last blasphemous position as a "head" of gold. An evaluation of the time element of the prophecy in both Jeremiah and Isaiah sustains a "last days" chronology to certain parts of the prophecy about the Medes and the Persians.
With the death of Belshazzar, the last heir to the Babylonian realm, the final 'branch' of Babylon's family 'tree' was cut off.
Chapter Five is primarily a record showing the manner in which the rulership of the first dominion of the Land is being transferred to the Persian kings near the end of the seventy years of the Jewish captivity.
The next few pages speak of things which have a bearing on understanding the remainder of Daniel's prophecy. The questions and ideas are presented for the reader's thoughtful consideration. While reasoned from the Scripture, the ideas presented by the author are not indelibly scriven with a pen of iron; faulty logic is sure to appear before perfect understanding arrives. The reader may decide for himself whether the ideas are reasonably presented.
Consider this: In Daniel's prior words to Nebuchadnezzar concerning "its stump," he said "And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule," 4:26. The "stump" of the kingdom's "roots" was to remain in the earth - "even with a band of iron and brass." Two points are made in the dream; one of immediate fulfillment, concerning the king's "seven times" of madness; the other of a future fulfillment, concerning the last - the end - dominion of the Land.
The commonly accepted "continuous historical" interpretation does not address the period of time during which the surrounding nations destroyed the Land; i.e., in the saying "Hew the tree down and destroy it. Yet leave the stump in the earth even with a band of iron and brass." The interpretation, post-dating the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70-73, is mostly a view of the deeds of the Imperial and the Roman Catholic empire, and the affairs of the Church - outside the Land - outside the dominion once ruled by Nebuchadnezzar. The interpretation, therefore, is totally unrelated to any history of the centuries of desolations which befell the Land after the power Rome was withdrawn from over the Land! Nor does the interpretation say anything about the time of the removal of the Gentile fetters, although Jeremiah's prophecy of the "seventy weeks" answers somewhat to the question.
Why would Daniel need to know anything at all about the deeds of the Imperial and the Roman Catholic empire, and the affairs of the Church? Why does anyone who is seeking to know what will be the end for Israel, and when the kingdom should be restored, need to know such a baggage of totally irrelevant history? There is no need to follow any other manner than that followed by Daniel. He sought to the Word of God through the holy prophets, and with prayer to God, to gain his knowledge of "the end.".
Beside this, the commonly accepted "continuous historical" interpretation identifies Rome and Greece as the "iron and brass" fetter of the dream, an incongruity to say the least, when considered, that Babylon's "stump" was the object of the fettering, and nothing else. Neither Rome nor Greece did remain in the Land during the whole duration in which the iron and brass fetters restrained the "stump" from further growth. The application of the "seven times" formula is further confounded when it known from traditional historical sources that Persia - not Rome - and then Greece - not Rome - 'banded' and 'fettered' the former Babylonian realm.
Also, the Scripture repeatedly says that the Babylonian king must recognize the rule of the Most High God before his "seven times" of madness abates; then his reason returns. The Scripture applies the "seven times" no other way. So, Islam after a fashion will come to recognize "Allah" in the end of time.
In the image of Daniel's prophecy only the iron element of the "band" reappears with the last things, but mixed with the clay pottery of the image's "feet." From the Scripture's words it might be imagined that Babylon's "stump" was to be surrounded by a band of iron and brass while a period of "seven times" past over the land - but how so?..
And note this peculiarity: Daniel did not speak at all about the duration of time in which the iron or the brass would fetter the Land when he presented the dream's meaning to Nebuchadnezzar.
Isn't that a remarkable omission? Has there not been a misreading of the things relevant to these visions of Nebuchadnezzar's head? An induced interpretation which the text will not support? ...IF the iron element does not represent Rome, and IF the iron element of the image indeed represents Persia instead, THEN the whole theory of the "continuous historical" interpretation is invalidated. This is a true tautology.
According to the calculations of the continuous historical school, their "seven times" (of 360 years) were passed by nearly 20 years ago. 1977 was the year of Iraq's (Babylon's) reemergence as a nation; 1970, the Persian nation reemerged amidst worldwide attention toward the Shah's coronation. The stump's bonds were fully removed. The image once more is seen, standing upon its beastly feet, with a man's heart. What nation is meant by the iron among the clay of the beast's feet, if not Persia (Iran) or Iraq?
The above questions are prompted by some things which are already known to Daniel, (hence the apparent 'disorder' in the chronological insertion of other things learned by him in the course of Belshazzar's reign). Daniel's book, basically in apparent chronological form, primarily follows the sequence of his questioning of "the matter" of Israel's restoration again to the Land as a kingdom.
Questions similar to these are posed by Daniel in the remainder of his book of prophecy. In the study we must be aware of the things pertaining to both the great image, and the things pertaining only to its shadow which is cast over the Land/earth, a shadow reaching - in its types - to the far distant (future) day of the LORD. And we must be careful not to confuse things ended in the past with things yet to end in the future.
At the same time it must be observed that when any image casts a shadow, there is a visible and actual point (a delimiter) where the "shadow" of the image is cast to its farthest point. Furthermore, a time comes when the image, its "feet" crushed into pieces by the heavenly "stone," and into dust which is taken away by the wind, will no more cast its shadow in any direction.
By placing trust in a lying interpretation, many Christians, including Christadelphians, are being mislead to misread the signs of the present times.The continuous historical school of interpretation is found to be based upon one thing only, hatred, albeit hatred of the entire Catholic religious system and its people. This position, like the old futurist view before it, was prevalent "early in the 19th century" and has been assiduously cultivated ever since by the same-tempered men who are not well prepared to preach the gospel of the kingdom -- with love of "thy neighbor" -- to all men without respect of persons.