Deeper Commentary

Dan 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand- Belshazzar was the effective king of Babylon whilst Nabonidus was in north Africa. Belshazzar means "Bel Protect the King", and he clearly believed that Bel would protect Babylon even with the Medes approaching- and he believed this to the extent of recklessly feasting with the Medes outside the gates. Again, we find the historical accounts in Daniel to be deconstructions of the supposed power of the Babylonian gods, who are revealed as powerless before Yahweh's purpose; just as the dream of Dan. 2 had depicted. The feast was likely an annual religious festival, and Cyrus / Darius planned the attack at precisely that time. Again, we see the victory as being a victory specifically against the guardian gods of Babylon. The destruction of Babylon whilst feasting was specifically foretold (Is. 21:4,5; Jer. 50:24; 51:39,57).

Quite possibly this feast was to celebrate his coronation. The usage of the temple vessels may even have been an intentional mocking of Jeremiah's prophecy that these would return to Zion after 70 years. He was exalting his gods over Yahweh.

Dan 5:2 Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels-

"While he tasted..." is really 'under the power of [the wine]'. It refers to the command given by the king in Dan. 3:10, 29; 4:6; 6:26. The wine is commanding him, rather than he being in command. Yet still he is condemned for the behaviour arising from it, because even drunken behaviour was seen by God in this case as a fair reflection of the true state of his heart.

This was a conscious act of blasphemy. The God of Israel had foretold in Dan. 2 that Babylon would be taken over by another empire; and Jeremiah had made it clear in the previous generation that although Babylon would take Jerusalem, Babylon would also fall to her enemies (Jer. 50:28 etc.). Belshazzar seems to have been aware of this, and with enemy armies outside the gates, he trusts in his god to preserve him and mocks Yahweh. He was turning the table of Yahweh into the table of Bel and the gods supposed to preserve Babylon. In essence we commit the same sin if we turn the Lord's table into our table, in glorification of our own religion and worldview.

Which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them- The miserable critics point out that Belshazzar's father was the usurper Nabuna'id [Nabonidus]. But "father" simply means 'ancestor' in practice, and could refer to Nebuchadnezzar as his grandfather (as in Gen. 28:13; 32:9), which he could have been, if Nabuna'id had Belshazzar through one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters. Indeed this would appear a likely and logical way for Nabuna'id to enforce his claim to the throne and establish his dynasty. That Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by Jer. 17:27: "All the nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar) and his son, and his son's son until the very time of his land come". But father-son relationships were presented at the time in a far less specific sense than the terms are used today.

Drinking from the temple vessels was an act of blasphemy that warranted death, according to the law of his father / ancestor Nebuchadnezzar: "Any people, nation, or language that utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins” (Dan. 3:29). His praising “the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (Dan. 5:4) clearly alludes to all the metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan. 2 which were to be destroyed.  Babylon fell because of their attitude to the temple: "Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the Lord has raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for His device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of His temple" (Jer. 50:28).

Nebuchadnezzar had desecrated the temple but it seems he was forgiven and humbled himself before Yahweh. Belshazzar didn't continue that spirit but continued to desecrate the temple through his blasphemous use of the temple vessels. And this clearly enough triggered his destruction, and that of Babylon.

Dan 5:3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of God’s house which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them- "The temple of God's house" means not generally 'the temple' ["God's house"] but specifically the holy and most holy place. There would not have been many "golden vessels" there; just those used for pouring out the blood on the day of atonement. They would therefore have passed these vessels between them all, as they all drunk from them (:23), rather like a mock communion service. It was very deep blasphemy. It seems that the golden candlestick from the holy place was also present (:5). They were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.

Dan 5:4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone- They were imitating the worship of Yahweh (see on :3), and replacing Him with their gods. The golden vessels were now see as part of the paraphernalia of the worship of their golden gods. Gold, silver, brass, iron and a little stone all feature in the vision of Dan. 2. In Dan. 3, Nebuchadnezzar tried to say that the vision was wrong and he as the golden head was going to be the entire image. So here, they were saying that their gods of those same metals were the true gods and that the image was really just a composite of their gods, with the king of Babylon as the eternal head of it.

We note the changed order of the metals in :23: "the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone". Silver is placed before gold because the Babylonian empire has effectively been replaced by the Medes, the silver. These metals are all those of the image in Dan. 2, the implication being that the image was also an idol, and all those metals were to pass away. Although they were acting as if they wouldn't ever pass and those metals were under their control. They failed to learn from Nebuchadnezzar's history of making a golden image of himself to try to deny that those other metals would ever take over from him.

The Nabonidus Chronicle, in its entry for Nabonidus' 17th (and final) year describes the transfer of gods into the city of Babylon in order to by all means protect them from the onslaught of the Medo-Persians. The Chronicle records how afterwards, Cyrus ordered these gods to be returned to their home cities: "From the month of Kislimu to the month of Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had made come down to Babylon... returned to their sacred cities."

Dan 5:5 In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote opposite the lampstand- This candlestick may have been the one taken from the holy place of the Jerusalem temple; as noted on :3, they were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.

On the plaster of the wall of the king's palace- Literally, "the chalk"; and this was exactly how the palace walls unearthed in Nineveh appear to have been constructed.

And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote- "The palm". I will suggest on :8 that the hand covered the writing, and only Daniel could as it were make the Angelic hand move to reveal it (:24). This would explain the confusion between the palm and the fingers which wrote.

 

Dan 5:6 Then the king’s appearance changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his thighs were loosened, and his knees struck one against another- This is the picture of a man facing Divine judgment. We should all be there; the wonder is that for us, as Paul explains in Romans, we are there, but then saved from it by grace through Christ. And it is the picture of the middle eastern world, and indeed the whole planet, on the eve of Divine judgment (Lk. 21:25 "men's hearts failing them for fear...").

We have a powerful word picture of the king. The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in upon him. His colour changed, his thoughts visibly troubled him; his limbs gave way ['his loins were untied'] and his knees knocked together (Dan. 5:6 RSV). Literally, 'the knots of his loins were loosened / untied'. This is quite typical human reaction to extreme fear, experienced e.g. when men come under fire for the first time. I suggest the loosening of his loins meant that his bowels opened. He was reduced to a pathetic figure, he who had just been drunkenly blaspheming Yahweh's temple vessels. But the very same word for loosening / untying is found a few verses later, where Daniel is presented as the one who can untie knots, although the term is usually translated to the effect "solve problems" (Dan. 5:12,16). The irony is that the king's knots have already been untied... and by Daniel's God. The king calls for Daniel and says to him "I have heard that you can... solve problems (untie / loosen knots)" . Continence of the bowel, bladder and anus is controlled by the sphincter muscle. It is like a knot which closes off our urine and stool. The Greek word 'sphincter' means literally a knot. These things are a clear fulfilment of Is. 45:1 RSV: "Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed". This is incidental confirmation that Cyrus and "Darius" [unknown to secular history] were the same person. The opening of the city gates and the opening of the king of Babylon's bowels stand related. There is then an obvious irony in the way that the king, whose bowels have already been untied by his fear of the Divine word, then asks Daniel to open / untie the knot for him. But it has already happened. As so often, man subconsciously knows the truth of God's word even before it is explained to him. Just as Nebuchadnezzar surely understood the dream of himself as a tree that was to be cut down. The interpretation was obvious to him, surely, even before Daniel stated the obvious to him.

Dan 5:7 The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whoever shall read this writing, and show me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- It was the job description of the wise men to interpret such things; to offer them huge reward for doing their job indicates not only the king's desperation, but also the tacit recognition that usually they could not really accurately interpret such things. History was of course repeating, for this was the very scene of Dan. 2, when the image vision was interpreted as meaning that Babylon too must pass over to others. Belshazzar should have perceived the similarities, and called for Daniel immediately. Again we note the similarities with Joseph (Gen. 41:42), who would have been a great role model for Daniel. We too will find such role models in the Bible as we face our various life experiences. We note too the similarities with the situation in Dan. 2. Belshazzar demands the writing be both read and interpretted. It's possible that only the king saw what was written ["the king saw the hand that was writing"]; :8 notes that the wise men could neither read nor interpret the writing. Likewise Daniel both recalled and interpreted the vision of Dan. 2, and it seems the same is repeated here. He first read the writing (:25) and then interpreted it (:26). Again, circumstances repeat.

 

Dan 5:8 Then came in all the king’s wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor reveal to the king the interpretation- As noted on :7, this is a conscious repetition of the scene in Dan. 2. But Belshazzar failed to respond appropriately. Perhaps they couldn't read the writing because the Angelic hand was covering it, and only Daniel had the power to remove that hand (:24). They could not read the writing perhaps because they couldn't see it. It was only the king who saw the Angelic hand and what was written. Only Daniel knew and saw the writing. Indeed it could  be understood that the king here is seeing a dream, as in Dan. 2; and as with Nebuchadnezzar, his dream is but his own premonitions of his own inevitable fall.

Dan 5:9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his appearance was changed, and his lords were perplexed- Lk. 21:25 appears to allude here. The king was on the eve of God's judgment, and he knew it. Why be so worried about what could have been shrugged off as an optical illusion? He was after all quite drunk. We see in this matter evidence enough that even the most hardened blasphemers have a conscience, somewhere deep down. This should encourage us to never consider anyone not worth witnessing to. There is a gap in every heart and psyche which only the gospel of God's Kingdom can satisfy. We were wired that way. The description is that of Nebuchadnezzar when he realized that the three Jewish friends were being preserved in the fire by an Angel (Dan. 3:24), and of Nebuchadnezzar when he saw the revelation of his own downfall (Dan. 4:5). The historical incidents in Daniel all share such points of commonality, to demonstrate the same Divine hand in the affairs of men. He works according to a similar imprint and hallmark. And that continues to this day. It is why we can look back upon our lives and see that they make sense. "Appearance" is the same original word translated "brightness"; Nebuchadnezzar's appearance was likewise changed but he repented, and it changed back to how it previously was (Dan. 4:36). But Belshazzar would not repent. He failed to learn from history. The same word is used of the bright appearance of the image in Dan. 2:31, which was to be changed and brought to nothing. Time and again, we see the basic truth of that image revealed in the immediate history of those times.

Dan 5:10 Now the queen because of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: the queen spoke and said, O king, live forever; don’t let your thoughts trouble you, nor let your appearance be changed- This may refer to the king's mother, the queen mother, hence she is mentioned separately to his wives in :2,3. As noted on :2, this would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, who would therefore have remembered Daniel's interpretations.

Dan 5:11 There is a man in your kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. The king Nebuchadnezzar your father, the king, I say, your father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers- The history of Daniel and his interpretations was therefore well known, although Belshazzar had put it out of his mind, even though he knew Daniel and employed him as one of his workers (Dan. 8:1,27 "In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, I Daniel...  I Daniel, fainted, and was sick for some days; then I rose up, and did the king’s business"). We too can put inconvenient truth far from our minds instead of recalling it to mind and being humbled by it unto repentance. We note her laboured emphasis of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was his ancestor, which may have been counted on the basis that she was a daughter or granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. She was aware of Nebuchadnezzar's repentance and perhaps hoped that Belshazzar would likewise humble himself.

Dan 5:12 Because an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, the interpreting of dreams, and revealing of strange messages, solving of problems and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation- Daniel was still working for Belshazzar and was therefore known (Dan. 8:1,27). The way he is spoken of as being somewhat distant and unknown therefore suggests he had been ousted from the ranks of the dream interpreters, or had removed himself from them, and was working for the king in a different capacity. We too may need to remove ourselves from situations where we are in a conflict of conscience, even if it means a loss of power and kudos. "Solving of problems" is literally 'untying of knots', see on :6.

Dan 5:13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel, Are you that Daniel, who are of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah?-

"Brought in before the king" is yet another connection with the Joseph story. Time and again, Daniel was nudged to see the similarities, so that he might act like faithful Joseph.

We must remember that Belshazzar knew Daniel and employed him (Dan. 8:1,27). "Are you that Daniel...?" doesn't have to mean that Belshazzar didn't know or recognize him; it is similar to Saul enquiring who David was after the victory over Goliath (1 Sam. 17:55,56), and David enquiring who Bathsheba was, when she was his next door neighbour and wife of his loyal friend Uriah (2 Sam. 11:3). To enquire who someone was must be read as a Semitic literary device, and not literally. The idea was in all these examples: 'I want you to do something for me and serve me as I ask you'.

Dan 5:14 I have heard of you, that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you- The wise men all claimed that they could interpret dreams because they possessed "the spirit of the gods". But their failure meant that they were charlatans, or that in fact the gods of Babylon whom they were so strongly trusting in that evening were not in fact the true God. God so often leads men to situations where they are forced to jettison their myths and favoured beliefs, and accept His truth. But in the final analysis, Belshazzar still would not do this.

Dan 5:15 Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and tell me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing- As noted on :14, this was a tacit admission that the gods were not in fact in touch with Belshazzar and his courtiers. But as explained on :1 and :2, they were desperately trusting those gods to deliver them from the armies outside the city walls. God was nudging Belshazzar towards total repentance, but he resisted, although accepting the theoretical truth of Daniel's interpretation.

Dan 5:16 But I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations, and dissolve problems; now if you can read the writing, and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- As noted on :17, that kingdom was about to fall. All such rewards would be only for a few more hours at the most. Perhaps the "third ruler" meant being one of the three rulers of Dan. 2:49, who had once been comprised of Daniel's friends. It's as if the king was promising to return the Jews to the places from which they had been deposed. But such symbolic repentance was too little and too late now.

Dan 5:17 Then Daniel answered before the king, Let your gifts be to yourself, and give your rewards to another- Unlike the queen mother, Daniel noticeably doesn't address the king with the customary "O king, live for ever". He knew and believed Belshazzar's day to die had come. He had been so nervous in telling Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of the cut down tree; here he exudes confidence from the vision of God's word, even just a few words, which he saw inscribed on the wall, illuminated for all to see by the candlestick. We too can have every boldness and confidence in knowing the ultimate future of man's glory, according to God's word.

This was said not only because Daniel didn't want to again be in a position where his conscience to God would be hopelessly compromised. He knew from Dan. 2 and from the writing on the wall that the kingdom of Belshazzar was about to fall. To be made third ruler in that kingdom for just a few more moments was not what anyone wanted. Daniel would have been aware of Is. 13:15, which in the context of the fall of Babylon had warned: "he that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword". As it happened, the honours were forced upon Daniel, but God recognized that this was not Daniel's will. We too may find ourselves promoted to situations we would rather not be in, and God understands that. It is for us like Daniel to seek to remove ourselves from those situations as best we can.

Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king, and tell him the interpretation- The difference between reading and interpreting it would suggest that the writing was in an alphabet unknown to the king; perhaps it was in Hebrew. Perhaps the lack of vowel points made it impossible to read and understand; or quite likely the king was illiterate, as most monarchs were in those times.

Dan 5:18 As for you, O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty- To call Yahweh the most high was in direct criticism of the mockery of Yahweh and glorification of the Babylonian gods which had been going on. Daniel could well have been executed for this, but like Joseph and Samuel before him, he spoke forth God's truth as he had done in Dan. 2 and Dan. 4.

We note that Nebuchadnezzar is repeatedly called the father of Belshazzar (:22 especially). This wasn't strictly the case. But I suggested on Dan. 2 that the image prophecy had an initial possible fulfilment in the immediate dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, ending in Belshazzar. This would explain why Belshazzar is described as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar when he was a descendant but not his literal son. "Son" can legitimately be used of any descendant. We also note the opinion of several scholars that "Belshazzar" was Nebuchadnezzar's son Evil Merodach.

Dan 5:19 And because of the greatness that He gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he killed, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down- This is all the language of Yahweh Himself. But these possibilities were all given to Nebuchadnezzar by God. He had such power in order to make him later reflect that indeed, such Divine possibilities could only have been given him by God. Our experiences of exaltation are used likewise. We may reflect: 'How could I have ever... passed that exam, held that job down, done that or this'. The experiences are given so that we may realize that it was all of God, and be humbled; but if we fail to make that realization, then we end up proud and playing God. Nebuchadnezzar had raised up and abused / put down people; he had this same experience, and from his abasing he was lifted up. How we treat others is so often how God treats us. It is therefore imperative to forgive and seek to save others especially those who sin against us. For we too sin against others and against God...

Dan 5:20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he became proud, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him- The hardening of Pharaoh's heart was from God. Here too, the psychological attitudes of Nebuchadnezzar were confirmed by God. The spirit of God works in this way, confirming our spirit. Which is why our spirit, our mind, our deepest inner heart, is so significant. For God confirms us in it. Pride is a hardening of the spirit or the heart / mind. "They took his glory from him" would confirm what we suggested on Dan. 4:32, that Nebuchadnezzar's own courtiers robbed him of his glory rather than nursing him through a psychological illness.

Dan 5:21 And he was driven from men, and his heart was made like an animal’s, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the sky; until he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and that He sets up over it whomsoever He will- The humiliation was "until" he recognized the truth of the Dan. 2 image vision. The implication is that he did 'know' or learn this. He was converted, in the end. But the prophecy of Dan. 4 had been that he would be in this humbled situation for a period of "seven times". We noted there that "times" is undefined; it could have referred to seven days, periods of time, weeks or years. In this sense God's time periods are open ended and capable of redefinition. And of course Nebuchadnezzar didn't have to repent; repentance had to be from the heart, of his choice. The "seven times" prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar could have been falsified by his refusal to repent, and we will see something similar in later time periods in Daniel regarding Israel's repentance, especially in the prophecy of the sevens in Dan. 9. This is how we can have a sense of excitement with God as we read His words and consider the open ended possibilities which stretch before us.

Dan 5:22 You, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this- We are intended to learn from the experiences of others, both contemporary with us and as recorded in the Bible. As noted on Mt. 21:32, the Jews of the Lord's day were held guilty for not repenting when they saw the example of prostitutes and tax collectors repenting. We may not be humbled ourselves as Nebuchadnezzar was, but if we see others humbled, then we are expected to take the lesson and humble ourselves. The experiences of those around us are therefore not random, but brought into our lives by God so that we might learn from them. And we are held responsible for our response to them. This has very far reaching practical consequence, and gives an urgency and significance to social life of an altogether different dimension to what most experience. We note that Daniel scolds the king for his arrogance, and seems fearless in pronouncing his fall and almost laughing off the offer of being 'third ruler' in an empire that was literally about to fall. This contrasts with his nervousness to tell the same kind of message to Nebuchadnezzar. It is the kind of confidence he had as a young man explaining the Daniel 2 image to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps this is an example of the ebb and flow of faith and confidence in every believer. Or it could be that Daniel was so persuaded of the truth of the message that he fearlessly states that truth, knowing the empire was literally about to fall.

Dan 5:23 But have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which don’t see, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand your breath is, and whose are all your ways, you have not glorified- Realizing the basic truths about our nature, that we are not our own, that our fragile breath is in God's hands, with nothing inherently immortal within us, and that our ways are "His" in that they are known to Him... will lead us to humility and repentance. All true theology must have its issue in practice. "The God, in whose hand your breath (spirit) is" was language which pointed to how the same Angelic hand had written on the wall.

Dan 5:24 Then was the part of the hand sent from before him, and this writing was inscribed- I have explained on :5 and :8 that the hand wrote the words and then the palm of that Angelic hand covered the words. Only Daniel had the power to remove that Angelic hand. Note that this was an inscription; and the idea of an inscription is that it is for public view. It was inscribed on the wall next to the candlestick, so it was as it were illuminated. It's hard to see what other significance there is in the mention of the candlestick. Surely the idea was that the courtiers and all present should have accepted the message and surrendered to the Medes and Persians they knew were besieging them. Just as Zedekiah should have surrendered to the Babylonians besieging him. But they failed to learn the lesson from the circumstances repeating their own history, and likewise pride stopped them from repenting and surrendering. And so their city fell and their king likewise fell.

Dan 5:25 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN- This could be rendered: "There is counted a mina, a shekel, and two half minas"; for justification of the translation, see R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel p. 135. "Mene" is the word used for counting or numbering. This has more obvious connection with the interpretation of the words given in :26-28. The mina would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (a 60th part of a mina) to Belshazzar, who was found of little weight or account; and the two half minas would then refer to the Medes and Persians. Indeed the word "upharsin" in Aramaic sounds like "and the Persians". The repetition of the word "mene", "numbered", is another connection with the dream which Joseph interpreted for another king; it was stated twice because the fulfilment was so certain and would begin fulfilment immediately (Gen. 41:32). As noted on :26-28, the original text carries the implication that these things were immediately happening. But Belshazzar only theoretically accepted that, by still trying to promote Daniel within his already ended kingdom.

Some texts read just one "mene", and there is only one "mene" referred to in the interpretation in :26. The words refer to weights- a minah (60 shekels), a tsekel or one shekel, and upharsin, two half shekel pieces, referring initially to the Medes and Persians. This makes a total of 62 shekels- the age of Darius when he took the kingdom (:31).

The explanation of the handwriting on the wall is initially hard for readers to understand, because it is unclear whether the words are being read or interpreted. When we read that "Peres" means that the kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians, we are surely not to understand that that is what the word "Peres" means as a word. That surely is the interpretation. My suggestion is that the handwriting consisted of the nine letters mn'tqlprs, which can be read as three words of three consonant letters each. Daniel gives three interpretations of each word. Depending which vowels are placed in each word, different words [vocalizations] can be formed with different meanings. And this is the key to how Daniel arrives at the interpretations. He doesn't so much as give an interpretation, as with previous visions; he simply reads the writing. The words formed are themselves the message.

On the simplest level of meaning, the words are simply weights used in a balance or scale. We could vocalize them as in most English versions, 'mina, shekel, half-mina'. But if we vocalize as 'menah, teqal, peras' we have words which speak of God's evaluation: 'he has reckoned, he has weighed, he has assessed'. But if we vocalize as 'menah, tiqqal, paras', we have God's actions of judgment in response to His evaluation: 'he has paid out, you are too light, Persia!'. These three levels of interpretation all allude to scales and weights as a metaphor for God's judgment; to 'pay out' is the language of the balances and transaction. It is a legitimate alternative translation to "it is finished" (AV). This is made explicit in :27: "You are weighed in the balances and found wanting". A weight of 62 was required to equal the weights of a mina [60 shekels], a shekel and two half shekels. And that weight was Darius / Cyrus at 62 years old. "Many Babylonian weight-stones with a value of a mina, a shekel or a half-mina are now housed in archeological museums, some of them inscribed in Aramaic with the very words of our passage: mene, teqel, or peres". The idea of Divine judgment as scales was commonly understood; there are Egyptian paintings of souls being weighed in scales after death, in order to determine where and how they will spend the afterlife. And the prophets speak of the nations being weighed in the balances and not coming to much. Note that God weighs even pagan unbelievers in this detailed way.

It has been demonstrated that the date of the fall of Babylon comes immediately after the annual morning rising of the constellation Libra, which in Akkadian was called zibanitu, 'the scales'. The magicians of Babylon were well versed in the interpretation of the zodiac and stars. But they missed the obvious connection, because they couldn't read the writing on the wall. Yet again they are demonstrated as useless and the whole incident even pokes fun at them. And of course, the point is made that it is not the stars nor Libra that weigh nations, people and kings in the balances- it is the God of Heaven. This is a classic example of deconstruction.

The difficulty of the wise men in reading the text may simply have been that it was written in Hebrew with no breaks between the three words; and they didn't know which vowel points to add between the consonants, in order to vocalize it and read it aloud. Or perhaps only the king saw the hand that wrote; and quite likely he was illiterate.

Dan 5:26 This is the interpretation of it: MENE; God has numbered your kingdom, and brought it to an end-

In the interpretation of each of the weights, Daniel makes a word play, based around the similarity [paronomasia] with other words. In this case to the verb menah, to count or number.

As noted on :28, the original suggests that it has now imminently been ended, although Belshazzar's response in elevating Daniel reflects how he only accepted the truth of these words on a theoretical and not a personal level. Numbering is a figure for the final judgment (Job 31:4), the final taking of account; but the essence of judgment day is right now, before the God who weighs and numbers actions and lives as they happen.

The number of days of the Babylonian kingdom was therefore related to the behaviour of the king. Nebuchadnezzar could have lengthened the days of his "tranquility" by cutting off his sins, or perhaps he could have altogether avoided judgment by doing so. He didn't, and so his kingdom was removed, but was restored because he repented. Likewise, Belshazzar is criticized for not learning this lesson. The numbering of his days had it seems been cut short because of his acts of drunken blasphemy with the vessels of Yahweh's temple.

I suggested on Dan. 2 that the metals that followed Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold, could refer to the rulers / kings who followed him. The image was him and his dynasty, in the initial possible application. We may have something of that here. Mene, the 60 shekels, would have been Nebuchadnezzar. If indeed the text reads "Mene, mene" then there was a reference also to his immediate successors, Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar. Possibly the extra "mene" was inserted to develop the correspondence with the four kings schema of Dan. 2.  Tekel or tsekel, the one shekel, would have been the next ruler Labashi-Marduk; and uparsin, the two halves, would then have referred to the joint rule [co-regency] of Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

Dan 5:27 TEKEL; you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting- "Tekel" is the Hebrew "shekel", a weight. But in the interpretation of each of the weights, Daniel makes a word play, based around the similarity [paronomasia] with other words. In this case to the verb teqal, to measure, or, 'to make light', in the sense that a weight on a balance can make the weight on the other side of the balance 'light'. And so he reaches the interpretation that Belshazzar is 'light', he has been weighted and made light and thus "found wanting". We must take away the lesson that we are not to be found 'light' before God; we recall that the Hebrew idea of kabod, "glory", means literally 'weight'. We are to abound in the "weightier matters of the law" and not be the light, surface level chaff of this world that shall be blown away at judgment day.  As noted on :26 and :28, the original implies that this was the situation at that moment. There was no desperate plea from Belshazzar for mercy, no statement of repentance, but rather he continued with life as it had been by elevating Daniel within his already ended kingdom. And this is a cameo of so much human response before God's word. The final judgment of men is likened to a weighing in the balances (Job 31:4,6), but the essence of judgment is going on right now in this life. "We make the answer now".

Dan 5:28 PERES; your kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians-

The interpretation makes use of a double word play, in that 'Peres' sounds like the word for 'Persians' and also the verb peras, to divide. Uparsin, meaning 'two', would hint at there being two definitions of 'Peres'; one is that your kingdom has been broken up, and the second meaning was that it had been given to Media and Persia.

The original implies that this is imminently happening. But by elevating Daniel to third ruler in the kingdom, Belshazzar showed that he only theoretically acknowledged this truth, just as some terminally ill people deny the realities right up to the end. And so it is with us all; we have a tendency to think that God's urgent word is not true quite as stated, although on another level we may genuinely accept the truth of it. The division of the kingdom could refer to it being given to both Medes and Persians, but 'division' may more carry the sense of dividing it out, to others, just as required by the image vision of Dan. 2. We note that division is judgment; so often the enemies of Israel were judged by being divided against themselves. Those who make the Lord's house divided are effectively working out their own judgment / condemnation. The division of the kingdom perhaps also alludes to the divided state of the kingdoms of men presented in the image of Dan. 2.

Dan 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom- This response was surprising in that to give such bad news would typically have warranted immediate execution. Belshazzar humbled himself and tried to return Daniel to the three senior rulers, who had once been comprised of his Jewish friends (Dan. 2:49). But Belshazzar's humility and apparent repentance was too little and too late. To accept the truth of God's word is not of itself enough. The way he proclaimed Daniel to a third ruler in his kingdom was of itself a tacit reflection of his inability to accept that his kingdom had been ended and given to the Medes (:28). The gold chain, purple clothing which was the insignia of the kingdom and proclamation was all so bizarre to Daniel, who knew that at that moment, the kingdom was ended. All our exaltation in this life is similarly inappropriate and meaningless. For the end of all things is at hand, and the judge stands before the door. Or we could have here an example of how like Nebuchadnezzar, a man can accept the truth of God's word for him, but not personalize it. Hence the Angel insisting: "To you it is spoken". And this stands as a global challenge for all time- to personalize God's word, far beyond merely accepting that it is true and Divinely inspired. The chain of gold put on the reluctant Daniel would have encouraged him that he was indeed going through the experience of Joseph, and would personally be saved. See on :13.

Dan 5:30 In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldees was slain- It is hard to know whether this was by his courtiers, or as a result of the Medes entering Babylon. There may indeed be a gap of some years between the death of Belshazzar and Darius taking the kingdom (:31). Such gaps in history are found at other points in the Biblical narrative. We think of how in 1 Kings 14, Ahijah states to Jeroboam's wife that Abijah would die, Jeroboams dynasty would be overthrown, and Israel's kingdom ended. These things appear to all happen at the same time, when there were significant time periods between them. However, I have noted on :25-28 that the idea is that these things happened immediately, at that moment; and this leads me to support the traditional view that immediately, that night, the Medes took Babylon. This is also the implication of Jeremiah's prophecies, that in the night of her feasting, Babylon would fall. H.P. Mansfield gives relevant support for this: "Xenophon (Cyrop. 7:5) is quoted as stating: "But Cyrus, when he heard that there was to be such a feast in Babylon in which all the Babylonians would feast and revel through the whole night, on that night, as soon as it began to grow dark, taking many men, opened the dams into the river (i.e. he opened the dykes which had been made by Semiramis and her successors to confine the waters of the Euphrates to one channel), and allowed them to again flood the country, so that he could enter Babylon beneath its walls in the channel of the river". He quotes the address of Cyrus to his army: "Now let us go up against them. Many of them are asleep; many of them are intoxicated; and all of them are unfit for battle". Herodotus (Book 1:19) states: "it was a day of festivity among them; and whilst the citizens were engaged in dance and merriment, Babylon was for the first time, thus taken". Isaiah predicted that the gates of brass would no longer provide a defence, and that the "bars of iron would be cut asunder'" (Is. 45:2). Herodotus states that these brazen gates were situated along the banks of the river, but at the time of the attack, some of them had been left open, probably by some within the city who had come to terms with the Persians". But against this we must balance Dan. 6:28: "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian". Another option is that "the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius the Mede was Gobryas (or Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon".

Dan 5:31 Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old- "Darius the Mede" may be another name for Cyrus (so D.J. Wiseman), Cambyses the son of Cyrus (so Boutflower) or Gubaru, whom Cyrus appointed as governor of Babylon immediately the city fell (Whitcomb and several other prominent commentators, although this runs into difficulty at Dan. 9:1). "Darius" may well be a title [meaning 'subduer'] rather than a name. The Medes took Babylon by diverting the flow of the Euphrates and entering the city along the river bed; this is the historical basis for the imagery of the drying up of the Euphrates in the last days, so that Babylon falls(Rev. 16:15,16). The "kings of the east" of the last days therefore correspond to the hordes of various Arabian mercenaries who were used by the Medes as soldiers. We can already see the development of such groups in the Middle East today. See on :25 for the significance of the age 62.

If Darius was indeed Cyrus (see on :30), we recall that Isaiah's prophecies about him set him up as a potential Messiah figure. He could have been an initial fulfilment of the stone of Dan. 2, hitting the image on the feet of the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. Which [see on Dan. 2] was the initial possible fulfilment of the image. His kingdom could have morphed into a re-establishment of God's Kingdom in Judah. Indeed he urged the exiles to return and do this. But both Cyrus and the Jews failed in this, and so the kaleidoscope turned again, and other possible pictures of fulfilment came into view.

I suggested above that the mention of 62 connects with the number of shekels implied in mene [60 shekels], tsekel [1 shekel] and upharsin, two half shekels [1 shekel]. But the Rabbis calculate that the moment Darius took the kingdom was 62 years after Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jeconiah into captivity: "They were exiled in the days of Jehoiachin in the seventh year counting from the conquest of Jehoiakim, which is eight years after the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. There remained to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign thirty-seven years, for he reigned forty-five years, and twenty-three of Evil-merodach’s and the two years of Belshazzar that passed, totaling sixty-two". If that is legitimate, we marvel again at the hand of God in human history. Who would have known when Darius was born, a helpless baby, that God had this destiny mapped out for him?