Page 150 - Daniel

Nebuchadnezzar accountable. 19
This is demonstrated and supported by Nebuchadnezzar’s experience

of insanity when, as Daniel expressed it, “he was brought down from his
kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him” (v. 20). Daniel then
itemized in detail the characteristics of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity—how
he lived with the wild animals, ate grass like the ox, and was wet with
dew. All of this proved that God was greater than Nebuchadnezzar and

held him responsible for his authority. Only when Nebuchadnezzar was
properly humbled did God restore him to his glory and kingdom.
These facts were pertinent to Belshazzar’s situation because the king
knew all of this. The difference was that he had not humbled himself the

way Nebuchadnezzar had done. The contrast between the supreme
power of Nebuchadnezzar and the very limited power of Belshazzar is
also evident. Belshazzar was not even the first ruler in the kingdom, and
was humiliated by the fact that Babylon was besieged and had already
lost its power over the provinces surrounding the city.

Belshazzar’s situation and his knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s
humbling made all the more blasphemous his taking of the vessels
captured in Jerusalem and using them to drink wine in praising the gods
of Babylon. With eloquent scorn Daniel described the gods of Babylon

“which do not see or hear or know.” But the true God “in whose hand is
your breath” Belshazzar had not “honored” (v. 23). 20

Although the Scriptures do not say expressly, it is probable that
Daniel’s message to the king was heard by the entire company. It would
have been quite improper for the entire company to keep on talking,
especially in these dramatic circumstances, when Daniel was reporting
to the king. They would naturally want to hear what he had to say. One
can well imagine the tense moments as these ringing words reached
every ear in the vast hall in the deathly silence that greeted Daniel’s

prophetic utterance. Here was a man who did not fear man, but feared
only God. Daniel condemned in measured tones that which was
blasphemous in the sight of the holy God. There was, however, nothing
insolent or discourteous in Daniel’s address to Belshazzar, and the
charges were stated in a factual and objective way. Besides, the king was

in no position to dispute with Daniel, even though Daniel’s words
brought even greater fear and apprehension to his heart.
DANIEL’S INTERPRETATION OF THE WRITING (5:24–28)