Daniel 5:30

In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Benson Commentary

Daniel 5:30-31. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain — He and all his nobles were slain together, in the midst of their feasting and revelling, as Herodotus, lib. 1., and Xenophon, inform us. The latter relates the story thus, Cyropæd., lib. 7. — “That two deserters, Gadatas and Gobryas, having assisted some of the Persian army to kill the guards, and seize upon the palace, they entered into the room where the king was, whom they found standing up in a posture of defence; but they soon despatched him, and those that were with him.” It seems not improbable, likewise, that they burned the houses of the city, or at least the advanced buildings, in their progress, and forced the citizens to quit them in the greatest consternation; for they came upon them with such surprise, that, according to Herodotus, “they had passed through the gates, which were left open in this riotous night, and had taken the extreme parts of the city, before those who inhabited the middle parts knew of the capture,” lib. 1. p. 77. Thus the prophecy of Jeremiah was accomplished, that Babylon should be taken at the time of a public feast, while her princes and great men, &c., should be drunken, and should sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake: see notes on Jeremiah 51:32; Jeremiah 51:39; Jeremiah 51:57. Respecting the method practised by Cyrus to surprise the city, by draining that part of the Euphrates which ran through it, together with many other curious particulars relating to Babylon, see notes on Isaiah 13. And Darius the Median took the kingdom — This Darius is said to be one of the seed of the Medes, Daniel 9:1, and is supposed, by the most judicious chronologers, to be the same with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages; him Cyrus made king of the Chaldeans, as being his uncle by the mother’s side, and his partner in carrying on the war against the Babylonians; and left him the palace of the king of Babylon, to live there whenever he pleased, as Xenophon relates, Cyropæd., lib. 8. As Darius succeeded to the empire through Cyrus’s permission, or appointment, and was dependant upon him for it, Ptolemy’s canon supposes Cyrus to be the immediate successor of Nabonnedus, or Belshazzar, and allots nine years to his reign; whereas Xenophon reckons two of these years to Darius, and seven to Cyrus. The Chaldee phrase, rendered here took the kingdom, is translated, possessed the kingdom, Daniel 7:18, and means the same with succeeding in the kingdom. — Lowth.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

5:18-31 Daniel reads Belshazzar's doom. He had not taken warning by the judgments upon Nebuchadnezzar. And he had insulted God. Sinners are pleased with gods that neither see, nor hear, nor know; but they will be judged by One to whom all things are open. Daniel reads the sentence written on the wall. All this may well be applied to the doom of every sinner. At death, the sinner's days are numbered and finished; after death is the judgment, when he will be weighed in the balance, and found wanting; and after judgment the sinner will be cut asunder, and given as a prey to the devil and his angels. While these things were passing in the palace, it is considered that the army of Cyrus entered the city; and when Belshazzar was slain, a general submission followed. Soon will every impenitent sinner find the writing of God's word brought to pass upon him, whether he is weighed in the balance of the law as a self-righteous Pharisee, or in that of the gospel as a painted hypocrite.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain - On the taking of Babylon, and the consequences, see the notes at Isaiah 13:17-22; Isaiah 45:1-2. The account which Xenophon ("Cyrop." vii. s.) gives of the taking of Babylon. and of the death of the king - though without mentioning his name, agrees so well with the statement here, that it may be regarded as a strong confirmation of its correctness. After describing the preparation made to take the city by draining off the waters of the Euphrates, so as to leave the channel dry beneath the walls for the amy of Cyrus, and after recording the charge which Cyrus gave to his generals Gadatas and Gobryas, he adds, "And indeed those who were with Gobryas said that it would not be wonderful if the gates of the palace should be found open, "as the whole city that night seemed to be given up to revelry" ὥς ἐν κώμῳ γὰρ δοκεῖ ἡ πόλις πᾶσα εἶναι τῇδε τῇ νυκτί hōs en kōmō gar dokei hē polis pasa einai tēde tē nukti.

He then says that as they passed on, after entering the city, "of those whom they encountered, part being smitten died, part fled again back, and part raised a clamor. But those who were with Gobryas also raised a clamor as if they also joined in the revelry, and going as fast as they could, they came soon to the palace of the king. But those who were with Gobryas and Gadatas being arrayed, found the gates of the palace closed, but those who were appointed to go against the guard of the palace fell upon them when drinking before a great light, and were quickly engaged with them in hostile combat. Then a cry arose, and they who were within having asked the cause of the tumult, the king commanded them to see what the affair was, and some of them rushing out opened the gates. As they who were with Gadatas saw the gates open, they rushed in, and pursuing those who attempted to return, and smiting them, they came to the king, and they found him standing with a drawn sabre - ἀκινάκην akinakēn And those who were with Gadatas and Gobryas overpowered him, ἐχειροῦντο echeirounto - and those who were with him were slain - one opposing, and one fleeing, and one seeking his safety in the best way he could. And Cyrus sent certain of his horsemen away, and commanded that they should put to death those whom they found out of their dwellings, but that those who were in their houses, and could speak the Syriac language, should be suffered to remain, but that whosoever should be found without should be put to death.

"These things they did. But Gadatas and Gobryas came up; and first they rendered thanks to the gods because they had taken vengeance on the impious king - ὅτι τετιμωρημένοι ἦσαν τὸν ἀνόσιον βασιλέα hoti tetimōrēmenoi ēsan ton anosion basilea. Then they kissed the hands and feet of Cyrus, weeping with joy and rejoicing. When it was day, and they who had the watch over the towers learned that the city was taken, and "that the king was dead" - τὸν βασιλέα τεθνηκότα ton basilea tethnēkota - they also surrendered the towers." These extracts from Xenophon abundantly confirm what is here said in Daniel respecting the death of the king, and will more than neutralize what is said by Berosus. See Intro. to the chapter, Section II.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

30. Herodotus and Xenophon confirm Daniel as to the suddenness of the event. Cyrus diverted the Euphrates into a new channel and, guided by two deserters, marched by the dry bed into the city, while the Babylonians were carousing at an annual feast to the gods. See also Isa 21:5; 44:27; Jer 50:38, 39; 51:36. As to Belshazzar's being slain, compare Isa 14:18-20; 21:2-9; Jer 50:29-35; 51:57.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Which the heathen histories do also confirm. This shows the severity of God’s judgment against the highest offenders, Psalm 2 Psa 90 Psa 149 Hosea 10:7. It also confirms the truth of God’s threatenings, and of the hand-writing, as Daniel interpreted. Some are sad instances of God’s veracity.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain. Not by a servant of his own, as Jacchiades; or by an eunuch, one of his guards, as Saadiah and Joseph ben Gorion (b); but by Gadales and Gobryas, who led Cyrus's army up the river Euphrates into the city of Babylon, its course being turned; the inhabitants of which being revelling and rioting, and the gates open, these men went up to the king's palace; the doors of which being opened by the king's orders to know what was the matter, they rushed in, and finding him standing up with his sword drawn in his own defence, they fell upon him, and slew him, and all about him, as Xenophon (c) relates; and this was the same night the feast was, and the handwriting was seen, read, and interpreted. This was after a reign of seventeen years; for so Josephus says (d), that Baltasar or Belshazzar, in whose reign Babylon was taken, reigned seventeen years; and so many years are assigned to him in Ptolemy's canon; though the Jewish chronicle (e) allows him but three years, very wrongly, no more of his reign being mentioned in Scripture: see Daniel 7:1. His death, according to Bishop Usher (f), Mr. Whiston (g), and Mr. Bedford (h), was in the year of the world 3466 A.M., and 538 B.C. Dean Prideaux (i) places it in 539 B.C.

(b) Hist. Heb. l. 1. c. 6. p. 26. (c) Cyropaedia, l. 7. sect. 22, 23. (d) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 4. (e) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 81. (f) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3466. (g) Chronological Tables, cent. 10. (h) Scripture Chronology, p. 711. (i) Connexion, &c. par. 1. p. 120.

Geneva Study Bible

In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 30. - In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain. The version of the LXX. is here very different, "And the interpretation came upon Belshazzar the king, and the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans, and given to the Medes and the Persians. There seems no possibility of connecting these two readings so that either should be shown to have come from the other. The Massoretic text, which is here supported by Theodotion and the Peshitta, is the shorter; but in this instance, as neither can have sprung from the other, Brevity has less probative force. If we look at the probability of the situation, we are compelled to accept the Septuagint reading. If the Massoretic reading had been the original, the dramatic completeness of the disaster, following with such rapidity on the back of the prophecy, would certainly have been preserved in every translation. Whereas the desire for this dramatic completeness might lead to the Massoretic verse being fabricated. Further, when we look at the events of the night, it seems impossible to place all of them in the short interval of one night. The feast had begun after sundown, for the lamps were lighted. It had already gone on some time ere Belshazzar thought of the vessels of the house of God. Then, in contempt of Jehovah, the guests sang praises to the gods of Babylon. it is after all this that the writing appears. There is next the calling of the wise men, who were in the vicinity of the palace. On their failure to explain the writing, the other wise men are summoned by proclamation; they assemble, essay the reading, and fail. The queen-mother comps - either is called, or, hearing the tumult, comes in herself - and tells Belshazzar of Daniel. Daniel is summoned, and reads the writing. Even if we maintain - although it does not seem the natural reading of the passage - that the proclamation of a reward to him who could read the writing followed immediately on the order to call in the astrologers and other wise men, still, it is difficult to imagine all the events, especially the summoning of all the wise men in Babylon by proclamation, and the finding out of Daniel and bringing him to the court, taking place in one night, and that in that very night was Belshazzar slain. On the other hand, the Septuagint makes no such demand on our belief. According to it, the prophecy was not so closely connected with its fulfilment. The feast recorded here may have taken place six, eight, or ten )ears before the actual fall of Babylon. We know that from his seventh year till some time between his eleventh and seventeenth year Nahunahid was in Tema. This feast might be the inauguration of Belshazzar's viceroyalty; in that case it would be nearly ten years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If that is so, the supposed contradiction between this verse and Daniel 8:1 vanishes. We need only look at the various theories of who Belshazzar was. Niebuhr assumes it as a second name for Evil-Merodach - a view for which Keil has some sympathy. Niebuhr ingeniously combines the statement from Berosus, that his reign was ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς. This, however, might mean a favour for the Jews, shown by the special honour given to Jehoiachin - a thing which would be readily regarded by the Babylonians as "lawless and outrageous." lie maintains that the change of dynasty implied in Babylon was the assumption of the supremacy by Astyages the Mede, who, according to Niebuhr, is Darius the Mede. After one year's personal reign, he placed Neriglissar on the throne. This view is definitely contradicted by the contract tables, which have no reference to a reign between Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar. The other theory is that he is Labasi-Marduk. This view is maintained by Delitzsch and Ebrard. All of them assume the murder of the king the very night of the feast - a thing which is in the teeth of probability, and not supported by the Septuagint reading. Daniel 5:30

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing.

Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading and interpreting the writing. והלבּשׁוּ is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe, - this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. Daniel 2:49), - but: and they clothed him. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to Daniel 5:30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar's successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel's interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel's elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by Daniel 6:2 (1).

Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.

(Note: "Non mirum, si Baltasar audiens tristia, solverit praemium quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura quae dixerat, aut dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum." - Jerome.)

The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (Daniel 5:17), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.