Introduction
A New King on the Throne
Nebuchadnezzar had died, and Belshazzar was now ruling Babylon. Until the late 19th century, the only record of Belshazzar was found in the Book of Daniel and related works. Other sources identified Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon, leading some scholars to believe Belshazzar was a fictional character made up by the book’s author.
However, since then, significant evidence has proven that Belshazzar did exist and was indeed Nabonidus’s son and co-ruler. Thirty-seven archival texts from the first fourteen years of Nabonidus’s reign confirm Belshazzar’s historical existence. Nabonidus spent most of his 17-year reign in Tema, Arabia (about 500 miles south of Babylon), likely for religious reasons. During these long absences, Belshazzar, as the crown prince, governed the empire.
The author of Daniel was aware of Nabonidus (as seen in the phrase “the third highest ruler in the kingdom” in Daniel 5:7, 16, 29) but didn’t mention him directly since he wasn’t involved in the events described. For practical purposes, Belshazzar was the king that the people knew and served. While Belshazzar might not have been the official king, the Jews in Babylon considered him their de facto ruler. The Jews were familiar with co-regencies in Judah, as a result, they would have recognized Belshazzar as king.
An Error in the Scriptures?
The Question
Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar’s father six times in the chapter (Daniel 5:2, 11[three times], 13, 18) and Belshazzar is called Nebuchadnezzar’s son once (Daniel 5:22). Considering the relationship between Belshazzar and Nabonidus, father and son respectively, how can these statements be explained?
Proposed Answers
Several explanations have been suggested. One view proposes that, since only six or seven years passed between Nebuchadnezzar’s death and Nabonidus’s accession, Nabonidus might have married one of Nebuchadnezzar’s widows who already had a son. In ancient times, kings often inherited their predecessor’s harem and sometimes adopted their children to strengthen their own claim to the throne. Since Nabonidus was not from Nebuchadnezzar’s family, he may have taken an offspring of the former king to legitimize his rule.
A simpler explanation is that the terms “father” and “son” mean “predecessor” and “successor.” In the Assyrian “Black Obelisk” of Shalmaneser III, Jehu is called the “son of Omri” even though he was not Omri’s descendant. “Son” is used here and in other texts to mean “successor.” In Semitic languages, the term “son” has various meanings. There are seven ways “father” was used in Nebuchadnezzar’s time and twelve meanings for “son.” Within those meanings, “Father” could mean one’s immediate father, grandfather, ancestor, or predecessor. Similarly, “son” could refer to a direct child, a grandson, a descendant, or a successor. For a biblical example, Jesus was called the “son of David” (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 20:30–31; 21:9), even though David was His ancestor, not His direct parent. Israelites also referred to themselves as “sons of Jacob” (Malachi 3:6) and called Abraham their “father” (John 8:53), indicating ancestry rather than direct parentage. The NLT translates the Aramaic word for father to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s predecessor.
Another scholar suggests that Nabonidus might have married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, making Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, others support this idea with strong evidence. Although any of these explanations could be valid, this one seems the most likely. The emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nabonidus is because the story involves only Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Belshazzar should have learned humility and submission to Israel’s God from Nebuchadnezzar’s experiences, not Nabonidus’.
It is also worth noting that knowledge of Belshazzar had faded by the time of Herodotus (5th century BC) and Xenophon (4th century BC). Shea argues that if the book had been written in the 2nd century BC, the name “Nabonidus” would likely have been used instead of the forgotten “Belshazzar.” Belshazzar being at center stage in this chapter helps support and early view for the writing of Daniel and as a consequence strengthens the belief that Daniel prophesied with one-hundred percent accuracy the rise and fall of the Babylonian, Mede-Persian, and Greek empires before they took place instead of them being much later after the events surrounding these kingdoms had become history.
Moving On
The author’s precise knowledge of these events suggests a firsthand account from someone who lived through them. While the miraculous handwriting and Daniel’s interpretation require faith, the historical details surrounding the events are backed by evidence.
The Writing on the Wall Composed and Seen (5:1-12)
A Feast
Many years later King Belshazzar gave a great feast for 1,000 of his nobles, and he drank wine with them.
Belshazzar (Akkadian: Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning “Bel, protect the king”) held a massive banquet for a thousand of his nobles. Large and extravagant feasts like this were common in ancient times. Two examples of such feasting by leaders of the ancient world are a Persian king who fed fifteen thousand people daily and Alexander the Great, who hosted ten thousand guests at a wedding celebration. According to Esther 1:1–4, Xerxes I also held a gathering that lasted 180 days. The depiction of Babylonian court feasts in this passage aligns with historical accounts. While most historical evidence comes from Persian times, it’s likely that Babylonian customs were similar. Both Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon confirm that a banquet was taking place the night Babylon fell. This event occurred on October 12, 539 BC, roughly thirty years after the events in Daniel 4.
The NLT tells us that the king drank wine with his nobles though perhaps it should be understood as “before,” them. Normally, the king would be hidden from his guests, but Belshazzar chose to sit in full view and lead the drinking. The term “drank” comes from an Aramaic participle (šātēh), suggesting continuous drinking. Belshazzar’s behavior encouraged others to join, and it’s likely that he and his guests were soon intoxicated. With lowered inhibitions, the event may have turned into a drunken orgie. Verses 2–3 mention that women were present and also drank wine. Herodotus noted that wives and concubines attended Persian feasts of this type (Notice that Queen Vashti was called from an all ladies party for the entertainment of the King and his guests in Esther 1:10-11.), and the text suggests that this was also the practice in Babylon.
But why did Belshazzar hold this banquet? The Persian army was camped outside the city walls. The “Nabonidus Chronicle” records that the Babylonians had suffered a major defeat by the Persians just days earlier, and Nabonidus had fled. Babylon was the only stronghold left, and the situation looked dire.
Several reasons have been proposed for why Belshazzar hosted the feast under such circumstances:
- The feast might have been intended to boost morale and show confidence to the people. Belshazzar’s display could have conveyed assurance, as the city’s walls seemed impenetrable and the Euphrates River provided a steady water supply. Herodotus reported that Babylon had enough food stored to last for years.
- Another suggestion is that when Belshazzar received news of Nabonidus’s defeat at Sippar, fifty miles north, and his retreat (two days earlier), Belshazzar acted quickly to declare himself the primary ruler of the empire. The feast, then, could have been a coronation celebration. Having a thousand nobles at such a gathering would make sense for a coronation but not for a regular social event.
- It is also believed that the Babylonians might have been celebrating a regular festival that coincidentally fell on this date, and Herodotus supports this idea. It’s possible that an annual celebration was taking place, and the Persians took advantage of the timing. Holding a routine festival could have given the city’s people a sense of normalcy despite the chaos outside.
Whatever the reason for partying with a formidable enemy outside the city was, their intoxicating celebration led their king to make a foolish decision (Proverbs 20:1).
A Foolish Mistake
2 While Belshazzar was drinking the wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver cups that his predecessor,[a] Nebuchadnezzar, had taken from the Temple in Jerusalem. He wanted to drink from them with his nobles, his wives, and his concubines. 3 So they brought these gold cups taken from the Temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 While they drank from them they praised their idols made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.
The phrase “While Belshazzar was drinking the wine, he gave orders” can be translated more literally as “Belshazzar commanded during the tasting of the wine.” The term “tasting” (ṭĕʿēm) implies not just sampling the wine’s flavor but also feeling its effects—essentially, being “under the influence.” Intoxication is the most likely interpretation, noting that “superstition alone would normally prevent someone from using sacred objects for a common purpose.” The king must have lost his sense of decency to commit what would be seen as sacrilege, even with sacred items from another religion. It’s clear that Belshazzar was likely drunk, and his impaired judgment led to his actions. Even though the king was under the influence, the LORD will still hold him responsible for these actions later in the evening.
Belshazzar then committed a great act of sacrilege against the God of Israel. About fifty years earlier, Nebuchadnezzar had taken gold and silver goblets from the temple in Jerusalem, keeping them as war trophies in a pagan temple. On this night, Belshazzar ordered these sacred vessels to be used at his banquet so that he, along with his nobles, wives, and concubines, could drink wine and offer toasts to Babylon’s gods. This act was a blatant insult to Yahweh, the God of Israel. It was customary to offer libations to gods after feasts, such a direct challenge to another deity was unusual.
In Daniel 5:3–4, the sacred goblets were brought in, and the guests blasphemously toasted Babylon’s gods, represented by idols made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. The Hebrew writer emphasizes these “gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and stone” because, to him, these materials were all that the pagan gods truly were. While Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father, was more devoted to the moon god, texts suggest that Belshazzar had a strong devotion to the other Babylonian gods and Marduk as supreme.
Why did Belshazzar specifically target the God of Israel rather than other foreign deities? Perhaps he simply remembered the beautiful goblets from Jerusalem and decided to use them, but this seems unlikely. There would have been many other occasions when these goblets could have been used, but they weren’t. Other conquered nations likely had similar sacred vessels that could have been chosen but were not. Some believe that items used in worship of other conquered people might have been called for and used during this feast too, though the text doesn’t mention them.
It is more likely that Belshazzar’s act was meant to show that Babylon’s gods were superior to those of other nations, including Israel’s God. This could have been a propaganda move to boost confidence among his people while the Medo-Persian army camped outside the city walls. By desecrating these objects, he was signaling that Babylon’s gods—and he, as their earthly representative—were strong enough to protect the city.
Daniel later indicates (5:22–24) that this was a deliberate act of defiance against Yahweh. Belshazzar knew how Yahweh had humbled Nebuchadnezzar, yet he still chose to challenge Him. By using the sacred goblets, Belshazzar essentially declared, “Yahweh, you may have humbled Nebuchadnezzar, but you will not defeat me!”
Furthermore, in the third year of Belshazzar’s reign, Daniel had prophesied Babylon’s fall to the Persians (Daniel 8:1–4, 15–20). Isaiah had also predicted, 150 years earlier, that Cyrus, the Persian king, would conquer Babylon (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). Belshazzar may have heard these prophecies and, in addition to challenging Yahweh out of pride, sought to defy the God who had foretold Babylon’s defeat.
A Frightening Warning
5 Suddenly, they saw the fingers of a human hand writing on the plaster wall of the king’s palace, near the lampstand. The king himself saw the hand as it wrote, 6 and his face turned pale with fright. His knees knocked together in fear and his legs gave way beneath him.
Suddenly, in the middle of Belshazzar’s blasphemous and drunken celebration, the mood in the room changed entirely. The revelry stopped, and a heavy silence fell. Belshazzar and his guests were shocked as “the fingers of a human hand appeared” and began writing on the wall. The scene was not the alcohol causing the king to see things for the writing was still visible when the wise men and Daniel arrived later, indicating that this event was a genuine act of God, not just a vision.
Belshazzar was focused on “the hand” as it wrote on the wall. The wall itself was made of plaster, or chalk, as described in the text. Archaeologist Koldewey, who led excavations in Babylon starting in 1899, noted that the throne room’s walls were coated with white gypsum, making any writing—and the hand itself—stand out clearly. The message was also written near a lampstand, illuminating the writing for all to see.
When the hand appeared and began writing its ominous message, Belshazzar was terrified. His face turned pale, likely as white as a ghost, and he was so frightened that his thoughts overwhelmed him. His guilty conscience probably led him to think, “I have offended God; today I die.” His fear was so intense that his knees started knocking together, and his legs gave out, indicating extreme panic.
A Futile Attempt to Understand the Message
7 The king shouted for the enchanters, astrologers,[b] and fortune-tellers to be brought before him. He said to these wise men of Babylon, “Whoever can read this writing and tell me what it means will be dressed in purple robes of royal honor and will have a gold chain placed around his neck. He will become the third highest ruler in the kingdom!”
8 But when all the king’s wise men had come in, none of them could read the writing or tell him what it meant. 9 So the king grew even more alarmed, and his face turned pale. His nobles, too, were shaken.
The phrase “called out” is a participle used to indicate ongoing action, often paired with the verb “to be.” The Aramaic text adds that the king called out “with strength” (which the NIV does not translate), meaning he shouted loudly (as the NLT describes). Belshazzar was urgently calling for his “wise men”—the enchanters, astrologers, and diviners.
When the wise men arrived, the king offered them a three-part reward if they could interpret the writing. The interpreter would receive a purple robe and a gold necklace, both symbols of high rank. These items likely belonged to the king and were marks of royalty. Purple was the royal color in antiquity and that during the Persian period, gold chains were worn only by high-ranking individuals and had to be given by the king himself.
The interpreter would also be made “the third highest ruler in the kingdom.” The term “third” comes from the Aramaic word taltî, which most likely means that the interpreter would be promoted to the third-highest position in the kingdom, as most translations indicate. The one who could solve the mystery would be third in power, only behind Belshazzar and Nabonidus; his father.
This reward was appropriate given the circumstances. The king had received a divine message, likely from the God he had just blasphemed. The Persian armies were at Babylon’s gates, and the Babylonian forces had already suffered defeats. In desperation, the king was willing to offer whatever he could to anyone who could interpret the message. The third-highest position was the best he could offer.
Verses 8–9 explain that Belshazzar’s wise men arrived but could not “read the writing or tell the king what it meant.” This failure made the king even more frightened, and his face grew even paler. The nobles were also confused, not knowing what to do.
One might wonder why these counselors, along with the king and his nobles, couldn’t read the writing since it was written in Aramaic, a language well-known in Babylon. Jewish tradition suggests the letters were written vertically instead of horizontally, making them hard to read. Also, Aramaic did not include vowels, so even if the letters were understood, the meaning could still be unclear. It’s likely that while the words were readable, they didn’t convey an understandable meaning.
Finally, Some Wise Advice
10 But when the queen mother heard what was happening, she hurried to the banquet hall. She said to Belshazzar, “Long live the king! Don’t be so pale and frightened. 11 There is a man in your kingdom who has within him the spirit of the holy gods. During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, this man was found to have insight, understanding, and wisdom like that of the gods. Your predecessor, the king—your predecessor King Nebuchadnezzar—made him chief over all the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and fortune-tellers of Babylon. 12 This man Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar, has exceptional ability and is filled with divine knowledge and understanding. He can interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.”
The queen eventually heard about the situation and rushed to the banquet hall. The news of the mysterious handwriting had reached her somewhere else in the palace.
This queen was not Belshazzar’s wife, as the text clearly states that his wives were already present. She must have held a prestigious position, as she entered the hall without an invitation and took control of the situation. Most scholars, following the first-century historian Josephus, believe she was the queen mother, either Nebuchadnezzar’s or Nabonidus’s wife. If she was Nebuchadnezzar’s wife, she could have been Belshazzar’s grandmother, unless Nabonidus had married Nebuchadnezzar’s widow and adopted her son, Belshazzar. It’s more likely she was Nabonidus’s wife and Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, possibly the famous Nitocris. She seemed to have detailed knowledge about Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and Daniel’s role in his court, which would not have been familiar to a younger wife of Belshazzar.
In verse 5:11, the queen reminded Belshazzar of Daniel, highlighting his abilities. She described him as having the “spirit of the holy gods,” meaning he possessed great wisdom, as if the gods themselves had granted it to him. She also mentioned Daniel’s “insight,” “intelligence,” and “wisdom,” noting that he was so wise that Nebuchadnezzar had made him chief over all the wise men of Babylon.
In verse 5:12, the queen said Daniel had a “keen mind,” which literally means “an extraordinary spirit.” The term likely refers to the special gift from God that allowed Daniel to understand and interpret mysteries. The phrase “solve difficult problems” literally means “loosen knots,” symbolizing the ability to unravel complicated issues. The queen called him by his Hebrew name, “Daniel,” suggesting she knew him well.
It seems that Belshazzar did not personally know Daniel. This might be because Nebuchadnezzar had been dead for twenty-three years, and Daniel no longer held a prominent position under the new regime. As Leupold notes, when new rulers took over, they often dismissed old officials. Daniel likely retired from public life after Nebuchadnezzar’s death and was around sixty at that time; he was now almost eighty. Belshazzar probably had different advisors and friends and may not have known of Daniel. He might have simply forgotten about him, or his memory could have been clouded by alcohol.
The Writing on the Wall Explained (5:13-29)
A Plea for Wisdom
So Daniel was brought in before the king. The king asked him, “Are you Daniel, one of the exiles brought from Judah by my predecessor, King Nebuchadnezzar? 14 I have heard that you have the spirit of the gods within you and that you are filled with insight, understanding, and wisdom. 15 My wise men and enchanters have tried to read the words on the wall and tell me their meaning, but they cannot do it. 16 I am told that you can give interpretations and solve difficult problems. If you can read these words and tell me their meaning, you will be clothed in purple robes of royal honor, and you will have a gold chain placed around your neck. You will become the third highest ruler in the kingdom.”
Belshazzar mentioned that Daniel was a Jewish exile, but it’s unclear why. He might have been trying to intimidate Daniel by reminding him of his status as a captive, or he could have been clarifying Daniel’s identity. Some scholars suggest Belshazzar used Daniel’s Hebrew name instead of his Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, because it was too similar to his own.
Belshazzar told Daniel that he had heard about his connection with the gods, saying that he possessed “the spirit of the gods” and had great wisdom. Unlike in Daniel 4:8, the word “holy” is left out before “gods.” This could be due to Belshazzar’s character and his fear of hearing Daniel’s interpretation since Daniel worshipped the God Belshazzar had just insulted.
A Warning that Went Unheeded
17 Daniel answered the king, “Keep your gifts or give them to someone else, but I will tell you what the writing means. 18 Your Majesty, the Most High God gave sovereignty, majesty, glory, and honor to your predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar. 19 He made him so great that people of all races and nations and languages trembled before him in fear. He killed those he wanted to kill and spared those he wanted to spare. He honored those he wanted to honor and disgraced those he wanted to disgrace. 20 But when his heart and mind were puffed up with arrogance, he was brought down from his royal throne and stripped of his glory. 21 He was driven from human society. He was given the mind of a wild animal, and he lived among the wild donkeys. He ate grass like a cow, and he was drenched with the dew of heaven, until he learned that the Most High God rules over the kingdoms of the world and appoints anyone he desires to rule over them.
Daniel refused the king’s gifts, not out of pride, but to show that God’s messages were not for sale and to avoid any obligation to the king. Despite this, he agreed to interpret the writing.
Before doing so, Daniel sternly rebuked Belshazzar. He reminded him of what happened to Nebuchadnezzar when he became arrogant and ignored God’s authority (5:18–21). He condemned Belshazzar for deliberately defying the Most High God (5:22–24).
22 “You are his successor,[c] O Belshazzar, and you knew all this, yet you have not humbled yourself. 23 For you have proudly defied the Lord of heaven and have had these cups from his Temple brought before you. You and your nobles and your wives and concubines have been drinking wine from them while praising gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood, and stone—gods that neither see nor hear nor know anything at all. But you have not honored the God who gives you the breath of life and controls your destiny! 24 So God has sent this hand to write this message.
Daniel explained that it was the Most High God, not Babylon’s idols, who had given Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom, power, and wealth. The people feared Nebuchadnezzar because of his authority. He had the power to kill, spare, promote, or humble anyone but all of this was because the Most High permitted it. Daniel emphasized how foolish Belshazzar’s pride was—unlike Nebuchadnezzar, he refused to submit to God’s authority.
Nebuchadnezzar received so much from God but became proud and refused to give God the glory. His “heart became arrogant and hardened with pride.” The NIV suggests his heart was hardened by pride, but the phrase likely means that because his heart was hardened, he acted arrogantly. Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and lived like an animal until he acknowledged God’s authority. This verse adds the detail that he lived with “wild donkeys.” Daniel’s retelling of this story highlighted the similarity between Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and Belshazzar’s, making the point clear to the king.
Daniel rebuked Belshazzar, emphasizing that, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who eventually humbled himself, Belshazzar had not. Belshazzar knew what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar but still chose to defy God. Belshazzar may have witnessed Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall firsthand since he was old enough to serve as a high official just two years after Nebuchadnezzar’s death. Belshazzar served as chief officer during the administration of King Neriglissar in 560 B.C. according to Babylonian historical texts. This means that the king was old enough to fill a high position in government only two years after Nebuchadnezzar’s death (562 B.C.). Given his position and proximity, he would have seen Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation, making his pride even more inexcusable.
Belshazzar’s blasphemy was especially serious because, despite knowing about God’s power, he still chose to insult Him by using sacred temple items to worship idols (5:23). Daniel pointed out how absurd this was—these idols were mere objects made of metal, wood, and stone, unable to see, hear, or understand. In contrast, the living God held Belshazzar’s very life and controlled his fate, yet Belshazzar refused to honor Him.
The Writing Explained
25 “This is the message that was written: Mene, mene, tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is what these words mean:
Daniel ended by telling Belshazzar that his blasphemous actions were why God sent the hand to write the inscription (5:24). Daniel’s bold words showed great courage, especially considering the king could have ordered his death.
Mene means ‘numbered’—God has numbered the days of your reign and has brought it to an end.
27 Tekel means ‘weighed’—you have been weighed on the balances and have not measured up.
28 Parsin[d] means ‘divided’—your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”
29 Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was dressed in purple robes, a gold chain was hung around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.
Daniel finally revealed the meaning of the words written on the wall: “mene, mene, tekel, parsin.” These words were short but significant.
The Meaning of the Words
Daniel explained that these words were Aramaic passive participles:
- “Mene” means “numbered.”
- “Tekel” means “weighed.”
- “Parsin” (or “Peres”) means “divided.”
The Message of the Words
The word “Mene” was repeated to emphasize that God’s decision was certain and would be fulfilled. The message read: “Numbered, numbered, weighed, and divided.” Although these words might have been familiar, their deeper meaning was a mystery that Daniel interpreted. The inscription was a divine judgment on Belshazzar’s reign, announcing that his rule and life were coming to an end.
- “Mene” indicated that God had numbered the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom and decided it was time for it to end.
- “Tekel” meant that Belshazzar had been weighed on God’s scales and found lacking. His moral failures and sins did not meet God’s standards of righteousness, and he had not repented or humbled himself before God.
- “Peres” (singular form of “Parsin”) indicated that the kingdom would be divided and destroyed. It didn’t mean that the kingdom would be split into equal parts for the Medes and Persians, but rather that it would be broken up and taken over. Belshazzar likely understood that this meant he would face death or imprisonment.
The word “Peres” also has the same consonants as the word for “Persians” in Aramaic. This may have been a wordplay hinting that the Persian army would be the one to conquer and divide the kingdom. This also shows that the writer of Daniel knew that the Medes and Persians were one unified power, not separate empires.
The Writing on the Wall Fulfilled (5:30-31)
Daniel 5:30-31
30 That very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian[e] king, was killed.[f]
31 [g]And Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.
The writer of Daniel briefly described a major event in history: the fall of the Babylonian Empire and the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire. That same night, the city fell, ending Babylon’s dominance, and Belshazzar was executed hours later. The Nabonidus Chronicle dates this event to the sixteenth of Tishri, likely October 12, 539 BC. The banquet may have taken place the night before, on October 11, 539 BC.
After Babylon’s fall, the Medes and Persians became the leading empire, and Darius the Mede, who was sixty-two, took control of Babylon. The term “took over” in Daniel 5:31 literally means “received.” This could mean: (1) God gave the kingdom to Darius, (2) Darius, a subordinate, received it from Cyrus, or (3) it was a simple transfer of power. The third explanation is probably correct.
Daniel didn’t provide much detail about Babylon’s fall, but historical sources like Herodotus and Xenophon do. Babylon’s walls were extensive, with two layers of double walls, the outer being seventeen miles long. The outer walls were about 25 feet wide and at least 40 feet high, making them difficult to breach. Herodotus and Xenophon wrote that the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates River, which flowed under the walls, into a marsh. When the water level dropped, the soldiers waded through the riverbed and entered the city. Xenophon added that the invasion occurred during a festival when the Babylonians were drunk, which was why the Persians chose that night to attack. Xenophon said that Gobryas, a commander under Cyrus, led the troops into the palace, where they found the king holding a dagger, apparently to take his own life. Gobryas was avenging his son’s murder by Belshazzar years earlier. The invaders captured and executed the king.
Two other sources, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder, offer more information. The Nabonidus Chronicle details Cyrus’s invasion and Nabonidus’s (Belshazzar’s father) flight after the fall of Sippar on the fourteenth of Tishri (October 10, 539 BC). On the sixteenth of Tishri (October 12, 539 BC), Cyrus’s commander (Gobryas, also called Ugbaru) entered Babylon without a fight. Cyrus himself arrived later, on the third of Arahshamnu (October 29, 539 BC), and was welcomed by the people. The Cyrus Cylinder confirms that Babylon was taken peacefully and that the citizens accepted Cyrus.
Both the above documents mention that Nabonidus had been unfaithful to Babylon’s gods and had brutally suppressed a rebellion shortly before Babylon fell. His son, Belshazzar, was likely unpopular. The people, including those taken captive by the Babylonians, welcomed Cyrus because he allowed them to return to their homelands. Given these circumstances, the peaceful transition described in Daniel is plausible.
Berosus, a third-century BC Babylonian priest and historian, also reported on Cyrus’s attack and Nabonidus’s defeat. Nabonidus fled to Borsippa, where he eventually surrendered, and was later exiled to Carmania rather than executed.
Truth for Today
This chapter in Daniel highlights several truths: (1) God’s sovereignty—Belshazzar challenged God’s power but could not match Him; (2) people can go so far in sin (like blasphemy) that they bring God’s judgment upon themselves; and (3) God’s faithfulness and the accuracy of His word, as seen in the fulfillment of prophecies predicting Babylon’s fall (Isaiah 21:1–10; Jeremiah 51:39, 57). God kept His word: “Babylon has fallen, has fallen!” (Isaiah 21:9).
Footnotes
- 5:2 Aramaic father; also in 5:11, 13, 18.
- 5:7 Or Chaldeans; also in 5:11.
- 5:22 Aramaic son.
- 5:28 Aramaic Peres, the singular of Parsin.
- 5:30a Or Chaldean.
- 5:30b The Persians and Medes conquered Babylon in October 539 B.c.
- 5:31 Verse 5:31 is numbered 6:1 in Aramaic text.
Subscribe today to receive all of our new resources straight to your inbox!
Did you find this post helpful? If so, would you mind sharing with others?
Related Resources
- Related Sermons
- Related Blog Posts
- Related Music and Media
- Related Products
Leave a Reply