Belshazzar the king made a great feast for his one thousand nobles; and each one drank in the order of his age. It should be known that this man was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as readers commonly imagine; but according to Berosus, who wrote the history of the Chaldeans, and also Josephus, who follows Berosus, after Nebuchadnezzar’s reign of forty-three years, a son named Evil-merodach succeeded to his throne. It was concerning this king that Jeremiah wrote that in the first year of his reign he raised the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and took him out of his prison.^[1] Josephus likewise reports that after the death of Evil-merodach, his son^[2] Neriglissar succeeded to his father’s throne; after whom in turn came his son Labosordach.^[3] On the latter’s death, his son, Belshazzar,^[4] obtained the kingdom, and it is of him that the Scripture now makes mention. After he had been killed by Darius, king of the Medes, who was the maternal uncle of Cyrus, king of the Persians, the empire of the Chaldeans was destroyed by Cyrus the Persian. It was these two kingdoms^[5] that Isaiah in chapter 21 addresses as a charioteer of a vehicle drawn by a camel and an ass. Indeed, Xenophon also writes the same thing in connection with the childhood of Cyrus the Great; likewise Pompeius Trogus and many others who have written up the history of the barbarians. Some authorities think that this Darius was the Astyages mentioned in the Greek writings, while others think it was Astyages’ son, and that he was called by the other name among the barbarians. And each one of the princes who had been invited drank in the order of his own age. Or else, as other translators have rendered it, The king himself was drinking in the presence of all the princes whom he had invited.

This man was the son of Nebuchadnezzar but did not directly succeed him. . . . After Nebuchadnezzar, then, Evil-merodach ruled, and after him Belshazzar.^[1] The most divine Daniel, however, omitted mention of the former man, since he was composing not history pure and simple but prophecy—hence his not recording everything done by Nebuchadnezzar, either, but only those things of which mention was required with a view to bringing benefit. So since also in the time of Belshazzar God gave evidence of a wonderful miracle capable of instilling reverence and dread not only in the people of that time but also in those of any later time and of leading them to the true religion, he did not think it right to conceal in silence such a great act of kindness, judging it instead a holy thing to put it in writing and leave for everyone a record of the teaching.

The Hebrews hand down some such story as this: that up until the seventieth year, on which Jeremiah had said that the captivity of the Jewish people would be released, Belshazzar had esteemed God’s promise to be of no effect; therefore he turned the failure of the promise into an occasion of joy and arranged a great banquet, scoffing somewhat at the expectation of the Jews and at the vessels of the temple of God. Punishment, however, immediately ensued. And as to the fact that the author calls Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, he does not make any mistake in the eyes of those who are acquainted with the holy Scripture’s manner of speaking, for in the Scripture all progenitors and ancestors are called fathers. This factor also should be borne in mind, that he was not sober when he did these things, but rather when he was intoxicated and forgetful of the punishment that had come on his progenitor, Nebuchadnezzar. ^[1] TASTING WINE. ISHO‘DAD OF MERV: The words at the taste^[1] of the wine, [Belshazzar] said, that is, after he became drunk and unreasonable as a consequence of tasting wine. ^[2]

Under the influence of wine, he commanded that they bring the vessels from the sanctuary and did not hesitate in showing them to his lords and concubines and other guests, as he intended to use them for a profane symposium. His father had taken those vessels from the temple of Jerusalem, when Nebuchadnezzar had conquered the city and had destroyed it; nonetheless he had set them in a decent place and had preserved them with holy devotion. [Belshazzar] went beyond any limit.

In other words, intoxication confused his thinking, and intemperance gave rise to this insane action against God: the vessels consecrated to the worship of God, which his father Nebuchadnezzar had seized when God surrendered them but had honored in the way he thought fit and had kept from human use, this man presumed to use like ordinary vessels, not only giving the order but giving effect to the order.

[God] showed that His true servants and friends are those who walk before Him in fear and reverence and do His will, since virtuous deeds and purity of conscience are things holy [and beloved] of God. But when people repudiate His paths, the Lord repudiates them, casts them away from His face and takes from them His grace. For why was the sentence against Baltasar issued so swiftly and why did it strike him down, as it were, by the form of a hand? Was it not because he acted with audacity toward the untouchable vessels of offering he seized from Jerusalem, drinking out of them, both he and his concubines? In the same manner, those who have consecrated their members to God but are so audacious as to use them once more for worldly deeds, the same perish, being smitten by an invisible blow.

The third kind of relative worship we give to objects dedicated to God, such as the holy Gospel and other books, for they have been written for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.^[1] Obviously, patens, chalices, censers, candlesticks and altars should all receive respect. Remember how Belshazzar made his people serve wine in sacred vessels and how God brought his kingdom to an end.

Therefore I summon you before God and Jesus Christ and his elect angels to guard that which you have received, not readily exposing to the public gaze the vessels of the Lord’s temple. . . . Unchaste eyes see nothing correctly. They fail to appreciate the beauty of the soul and only value that of the body. Hezekiah showed God’s treasure to the Assyrians,^[1] who ought never to have seen what they were sure to covet. The consequence was that Judea was torn by continual wars and that the very first things carried away to Babylon were these vessels of the Lord. We find Belshazzar at his feast and among his concubines (vice always glories in defiling what is noble) drinking out of these sacred cups.

As they drank from golden vessels, they were praising gods of wood and of stone. As long as the vessels had been in the idol temple of Babylon, God was not moved to wrath, for they had evidently consecrated the property of God to divine worship, even though they did so in accordance with their own depraved views of religion. But after they defiled holy things for the use of people, their punishment followed on the heels of their sacrilege. Moreover, they were praising their own gods and scoffing at the God of the Jews, on the ground that they were drinking from his vessels because of the victory their own gods had bestowed on them.

He puts it nicely when he says, At that same hour, just as we earlier read concerning Nebuchadnezzar, While the saying was yet in the king’s mouth. This was in order that the offender might recognize that his punishment was not inflicted on him for any other reason but his blasphemy.

Since, you see, he had sung the praises of the idols, deprived as they were of any power to move, and had scorned the God of all, the Lord of all gives him a lesson in his invisible and incorporeal nature by letting him see only fingers writing, the purpose being to instruct him that he would not even see them were it not that he personally had provided the occasion of need.

Forgetting about the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar, he was following after the ancient and ingrained error of his family, so that instead of summoning a prophet of God he summons the magicians and Chaldeans and soothsayers.

Now we have to consider the mere ornaments and trappings of office. Each has its proper dress for daily and for ceremonial use. In Egypt and Babylon, the purple robe and gold necklaces were marks of rank, just as provincial priests have their golden wreaths and their robes of state. . . . But there was a difference in the obligation. They were conferred on men who earned the king’s friendship, simply as a mark of honor. . . . Purple as such, then, was not yet a mark of high office among the barbarians, but of free birth. Joseph, who had been a slave, and Daniel, who had changed his status by captivity, attained citizenship of Egypt or Babylon by means of the garments that indicated free birth among the barbarians.

That means either that he is to be third in rank after the king, or else one of the three princes of the realm—for we elsewhere read of the tristatai.^[1]

From this it is clear that the Lord was concerned for the welfare of the others and did not take the king’s life on the spot, instead giving a glimpse of the writer’s fingers. But having startled him by this and instilled fear, he caused the wise men of the Chaldeans to be summoned and showed up their falsity and weakness while producing the need for Daniel’s wisdom so as through his tongue to accredit him and benefit the others, and with this happening to inflict punishment at that stage on the impious king.

Josephus says she was Belshazzar’s grandmother, whereas Origen says she was his mother. She therefore knew about previous events of which the king was ignorant. So much for Porphyry’s far-fetched [interpretation], who fancies that she was the king’s wife and makes fun of the fact that she knows more than her husband does.

Amid the king’s and his nobles’ words the queen entered the banqueting hall, that is, with them pondering what should be done and various people making various suggestions under pressure of fear, the queen entered. Now, in my view, this lady was his mother: the wives were attending the banquet along with the concubines, and drinking from the gold and silver vessels was himself and his nobles, his wives—that is, his spouses—and his concubines, partners of his not by law but in lust. Now, this lady entered after the hubbub, and being old she probably was not a party at that stage to the drunkenness and antics or dancing.

This was probably an introduction offered at that time to kings by their subjects; even to this day this custom prevails.

All the authorities except Symmachus, who adheres to the Chaldean original, render the spirit of God. And in the days of your father, wisdom and knowledge were found in him. . . . She calls Nebuchadnezzar his father, according to the custom of the Scriptures, even though, as we remarked before, he was actually his great-grandfather. But Daniel’s godly manner of life even among the barbarians is worthy of our imitation, for the very grandmother or mother of the king extolled him with such words of praise because of the greatness of his virtues.

Now, by alertness she referred to vigilance of soul, and by understanding to a grasp of hidden things and an insight into what escaped many. Your father King Nebuchadnezzar, she went on, made him chief of magicians, soothsayers, astrologers, and fortune tellers, adding the reason, because an extraordinary spirit was in him, that is, he has the surpassing grace of the Spirit.

Daniel, having become a receptacle of the divine Spirit, gives wise advice on everything, makes intelligent utterances on everything, clarifies riddles in dreams, removes the obscurity from what is hidden in some obscurity and by setting free what is held in bondage in secret recesses, as it were.

And lest any one should perhaps think that, as the Scripture says, God raised up the Holy Spirit of a young youth, the spirit in him was that of a person, not the Holy Spirit, let him read farther on, and he will find that Daniel received the Holy Spirit and therefore prophesied. Lastly, too, the king advanced him because he had the grace of the Spirit. For he speaks thus: Daniel, you are able, forasmuch as the Holy Spirit of God is in you. And farther on it is written: And Daniel was set over them, because an excellent Spirit was in him.^[1]

Why then, you ask, being so humble did Daniel not repel either the adoration that was paid him by the king or the offerings? This I will not say, for it is sufficient for me simply to mention the question, and the rest I leave to you, that at least in this way I may stir up your thoughts. . . . For that [Daniel] did not do this out of arrogance is evident from his saying, your gifts be to yourself.

We should follow the example of a man like Daniel, who despised the honor and gifts of a king and who without any reward even in that early day followed the Gospel injunction: Freely have you received, freely give.^[1] And besides, when one is announcing sad tidings, it is unbecoming for him willingly to accept gifts.

And in the Old Testament it may be found, in that grace many times came on unworthy persons that it might do good to others. . . . Nebuchadnezzar was very full of iniquity; yet to him [Daniel] revealed what was to follow after many generations. And again to the son of this last, though surpassing his father in iniquity, he signified the things to come, ordering a marvelous and great dispensation. Accordingly because then also the beginnings of the gospel were taking place, and it was requisite that the manifestation of its power should be abundant, many even of the unworthy used to receive gifts. However, from those miracles no gain accrued to them; rather, they are punished even more.

Do not think it was by relying on his own strength that your father subjected the whole world and brought under one kingdom the countless races of the nations speaking various tongues. It was, in fact, the Lord of all, maker of everything, wise governor of all things, who gave him the kingdom, and it was as a result of the divine decree that fear of your father possessed his subjects.

Thus [Daniel] sets forth the example of the king’s great-grandfather, in order to teach him the justice of God and make it clear that his great-grandson too was to suffer similar treatment because of his pride. Now if Nebuchadnezzar killed whomever he would and struck to death whomever he wished to; if he set on high those whom he would and brought low whomever he wished to, there is certainly no divine providence or scriptural injunction behind these honors and slayings, these acts of promotion and humiliation. But rather, such things ensue from the will of the people who do the slaying and promoting to honor and all the rest. If this is the case, the question arises as to how we are to understand the Scripture: The heart of a king reposes in the hand of God; he will incline it in whatever direction he wishes.^[1] Perhaps we might say that every saint is a king, for sin does not reign in his mortal body, and his heart therefore is kept safe, for he is in God’s hand.^[2] And whatever has once come into the hand of God the Father, according to the Gospel, no one is able to take it away. And whoever is taken away, it is understood that he never was in God’s hand at all.

He was deposed from the throne of his kingdom: just as he elevated those he wanted and humbled those he wanted, doing so not altogether by a right decision, so the King and Lord of all gave your father the kingdom as he wanted, but on perceiving him giving vent to an overweening sense of his own importance, running the kingdom in an arrogant and conceited manner, a victim of haughtiness, he deprived him of the royal throne and stripped him of the honor paid him by everyone. Instead of divesting him only of the kingdom, however, he drove him also from normal association, gave him over to insanity and derangement and caused him to live with wild asses and savage beasts, taking on the life of the animals whose ferocity he had imitated.

Because your great-grandfather, he says, lifted up his heart and hardened his spirit in pride, he therefore was put down from his royal throne and his glory was taken away, and so on.^[1] Therefore in your case also, because you knew these things about your relative and understood that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, you should not have lifted up your heart against the ruler of heaven and scoffed at his majesty and perpetrated the deeds that you did.

You have exalted yourself against God. . . . Certainly, he says, you were brought to such madness that you placed yourself above God and overcame your father in arrogance and luxury. Indeed, [Nebuchadnezzar] thought that nobody among humankind was equal to him, but you believed that the Lord of heaven was inferior to you.

He did well to instruct those present to worship not visible things but their Creator and Lord. At the same time he also convicts the king of conceit and teaches him that the highest heaven has for its creator the unseen God. You, he is saying, made your heart more elevated not than heaven but than the God of heaven, the Lord of all creation; if you were not guilty of such awful conceit, you would not have ordered the vessels of his house to be brought in.

Now, [Daniel] did well and showed much wisdom in putting in parallel the idols and the God of all with a view to the benefit felt by the hearers; after emphasizing that the former neither see nor hear, instead of proceeding to say in regard to the God of all that he sees and hears and knows, he cited the more powerful fact of all, your life and your ways are in his hand, since providing life to others and in turn removing it at will is more important than having life. He brought out, then, that while the idols are deprived of life and all sensation, the Lord God of all is the source of all life and both gives it and takes it, governing as he wills. Nevertheless, [Daniel] is saying, despite his being of this stature, so great, with power of life and death, appointing kings and removing them, you not only did not sing his praises but rather even persisted in your drunken behavior, making fun of vessels dedicated to him.

The inscription of these three words on the wall simply meant Mane, Thecel, Phares; the first of which sounds forth the idea of number, and the second a weighing out and the third removal. And so there was a need not only for reading the inscription but also for interpreting what had been read, in order that it might be understood what these words were announcing. That is to say, that God had numbered [Belshazzar’s] kingdom and brought it to an end and that he had seized hold on him to weigh him in his judgment scales, and the sword would slay him before he should meet a natural death; and his empire would be divided among the Medes and Persians.

By interpretation, he refers to the meaning. Mane: God has measured your kingdom and brought it to an end, that is, he has seen you are unworthy of kingship, and he decided to leave you bereft of it. Thekel: he was weighed in the balance and found wanting. In this the prophet taught not only him but also us the lesson that nothing goes unweighed by God; instead, mercy and longsuffering are shown to people according to a certain measure and weight. Since, then, [Daniel] is saying, you exceeded the limit of lovingkindness, receive the divine sentence. Phares: your kingdom has been divided and has been given to the Medes and Persians.

Or else, it might be construed as having authority over a third part of the kingdom. At any rate, he received the royal insignia of necklace and purple, with the result that he appeared more notable to Darius, who was to be the successor in the royal power, and all the more honorable because of his notability. Nor was it strange that Belshazzar should have paid the promised reward on hearing sad tidings. For either he supposed that his predictions would take place in the distant future, or else he hoped he would obtain mercy by honoring the prophet of God. And if he did not obtain this reward, it was because his sacrilege toward God outweighed the honor he accorded to [a] man.

The vain king did not do that in order to give honor to Daniel for those sad omens, which he had announced to him by interpreting the writing, but he tried to catch his benevolence, as if he had understood that Daniel was extremely pleasing to God, and therefore he hoped that he would have dispelled his ruin, which the hand sent from above had signed, and Daniel himself had announced, through his intercession. But Belshazzar’s efforts were pointless: on that very night Belshazzar was killed and Babylon was destroyed, and was affected by every misfortune from the Medes and the Persians, as the prophets had already foretold a long time before, and the kingdom of the Chaldeans passed to the Medes, after Darius, king of the Persians and the Medes, had assumed power.

Now, it is necessary to inquire why on earth the God of all corrected Nebuchadnezzar and in turn restored him to his kingdom but forthwith deprived this man of both kingdom and life. On consideration, then, we find, first, that Nebuchadnezzar had not observed another person paying the penalty for impiety, and hence God’s just sentence granted him pardon, whereas this other man, though observing his father’s heavy penalty, gained nothing from it. The just judge was therefore within his rights in confining punishment of the former to a specified time, whereas he granted the latter no pardon. In particular, God foresees all future events and thus knows them clearly as if already in the past; so he knew ahead of time the repentance of the former and arranged for his fate accordingly, whereas he knew ahead of time the latter’s incorrigible impiety and put a stop to the increase in impiety with death.

Josephus writes in his tenth book of the Jewish Antiquities that when Babylon had been laid under siege by the Medes and Persians, that is, by Darius and Cyrus, Belshazzar, king of Babylon, fell into such forgetfulness of his own situation as to put on his celebrated banquet and drink from the vessels of the temple, and even while he was besieged he found leisure for banqueting. From this circumstance the historical account could arise, that he was captured and slaughtered on the same night, while everyone was either terrified by fear of the vision and its interpretation or else taken up with festivity and drunken banqueting. As for the fact that while Cyrus, king of the Persians, was the victor, and Darius was only king of the Medes, it was Darius who was recorded to have succeeded to the throne of Babylon; this was an arrangement occasioned by factors of age, family relationship and the territory ruled over. By this I mean that Darius was sixty-two years old and that, according to what we read, the kingdom of the Medes was more sizable than that of the Persians, and being Cyrus’s uncle, he naturally had a prior claim and ought to have been accounted as successor to the rule of Babylon.