Strange Story: Daniel 5 A Hand Wrote on the Wall Part 2
Daniel 5:5
Translation
At that time
and because of the lampstand,
the fingers of a man’s hand came forth and wrote
on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace and the king saw the palm of the hand that wrote.
Paraphrase
At a very key moment while they were doing these things, and specifically because they were misusing the lampstand from God’s temple in Jerusalem, some small agents of power which seemed normal but could not be normal appeared unexpectedly and communicated in an irreversible manner on the place where the king’s victories were depicted. The king clearly saw that it was the disappearing, flat part of a hand which disperses things and understood this came from a powerful entity.
Why Was the Lampstand Singled Out?
According to BDB, the preposition used to describe the lampstand usually meant “before or because of.” From TWOT we learn that it means “something in front of” and comes from a verb which means “to receive.” When you receive something, you are (usually) facing the person giving it to you; they are in front of you. Also, if the idea of “behind, nearby or opposite” were intended, there are prepositions in Aramaic that communicate those things (Daniel 2:4 through the end of chapter 7 were written in Aramaic, which is a cousin language to Hebrew). Therefore I reject the attempts by various scholars to make it sound like it is talking about the writing being done on the wall “behind” the lampstand; that would make the preposition mean the opposite from what it actually means. Others say it was on the wall “opposite” the lampstand. That makes no sense because it was a very large hall. As long as one keeps thinking in terms of physical location this choice of words is perplexing because the original says the “fingers of a man’s hand wrote in front of the lampstand, or because of the lampstand.” From the perspective of the king or any other viewer, the writing was happening behind the lampstand with the lampstand between them and the wall. But the text says it wrote, “in front of the lampstand or because of the lampstand.”
However, if we stop thinking about physical locations and take the other common meaning of the word, which was “because of,” this phrase makes perfect sense. The hand came and wrote on the wall “because of” what they had done with the lampstand. Remember that the author used the same word (before or because of) earlier in the story indicating that the king drank in front of the nobles, so as to lead them more quickly into heavy drinking, and he also did so because of his nobles, i.e. because they were freaking out with fear. In this verse about the hand that wrote on the wall, the meaning “because of” fits, while that of “before” does not.
The lampstand did not burn candles, it burned oil, olive oil. Oil always represented God’s Spirit. Any dishonoring of the lampstand was seen as a dishonoring of God’s Spirit. The disrespect to the mixing bowls and sprinkling bowls would pale in comparison to any kind of disrespect to the lampstand.
So what did they do to the lampstand?
Most people think Belshazzar used the lampstand as – get ready for this – a lampstand! They say that large halls like that were often lacking in light. However, I think the lighting situation was decided before the feast began, and they were used to making do with what we would consider poor lighting.
I see a far more meaningful possibility. They had been drinking right? They were purposefully defiling articles from the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, right? The lampstand was made to hold a liquid (oil) in seven small cups shaped like almond flowers, right? What would stop an arrogant, drunken king who was bent on proving the weakness of a certain god from pouring wine into one of the almond-blossom cups of that god’s lampstand and tipping the lampstand so he could drink from it? If there were no response, wouldn’t that be the greatest proof of all that the god of the Jews had no power with which to respond to even the most blatant defilement?
Indeed it seemed to be a confirmation of that very thing, until God responded.
What is the Significance the Fingers or Palm of the Hand?
In many cultures of ancient times, the hand was usually a symbol for agency. It was the means by which someone accomplished something. Therefore it was a sign of strength in action.
We should not get hung up on the fact that at first the king saw one thing and then he saw something different. Instead we should see that in each case it was only part of the hand. The use of “fingers” and “the palm” work together to convey a shared message and then “the palm” also communicates a separate truth.
By having just part of a hand (the fingers or the palm) visible as it wrote, God was sending the message that He only needed a small part of His power to overthrow king Belshazzar and prove that the gods Bel and Nebo were powerless. This would remind any Jew of the other time that God’s finger wrote on something – it was God’s finger that wrote the summary of the Former Covenant on two stone tablets. It would also remind them of the plague of gnats and the response of Pharaoh’s magicians: “this is the finger of God” (Ex 8:19). In Egypt there were (and still are) images of Pharaoh carved in many places with his arm raised up and a whip in his hand. It communicated, “Don’t mess with Pharaoh; he has a strong arm and he is not afraid to use it. If you oppose him, he will come down on you hard.” But his own magicians recognized that even the “finger of God” was more powerful than Pharaoh’s arm. God does not need to show us all His power; a small portion of it will do.
The root word from which the word “palm” comes is a word meaning first of all “to disappear or disperse,” then by implication “something flat which could disperse things,” e.g. the flat part of the hand, i.e. the palm of the hand. The question is not “What did he see?” but rather “What did it mean?” The use of the word “palm” emphasized the fact that God was “dispersing” or sending a message. If a truly powerful God sends a message, you should heed it and take action accordingly – in this case repentance.
The Plaster of the Wall of the King’s Palace
Many royal palaces of ancient times had walls that were covered with either smooth plaster that could be painted on, or with alabaster stone that could be carved in bas relief, or both. These paintings and carvings were depictions of the exploits and conquests of the king whose palace they adorned.
It appears that “the finger of God” wrote the message that demonstrated His power right over top of something that tried to make this king and his father look unconquerable. In doing so it surely must have blasted away or burned away what was there before it, making it possible to easily read what had been written by God’s finger. Once again the statement about it being written on plaster was not about the physical characteristics of the surface (e.g. smoothness or color), but rather the significance of the surface. The location of the message shouted, “You think you are powerful, but everyone will soon know the truth.”
Was this the same palace and the same banquet hall that King Nebuchadnezzar had used? We don’t know. If so, it is likely that some of the depictions on the walls had been updated to show the exploits of Nabuna’id and Belshazzar. Were all of Nebuchadnezzar’s exploits replaced? We don’t know. If Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem had been replaced, my guess is that God chose to blast away and write on the part of the wall that depicted Belshazzar’s greatest exploit. If the fall of Jerusalem was still on one of the walls, I would expect that God’s finger would destroy and write on the part of the wall that had told of that victory by the Babylonians. Remember that the preposition used in the text seems to express the idea of “because” – (“because of the lampstand”), therefore God could have chosen to write on any part of the wall that He wanted to change.
Back then the written word was much less common than it is today. Something written down had a sense of permanence, and something engraved or inscribed on stone was more permanent than writing it on papyrus or leather. All the kings of ancient times thought that their exploits could not be taken away from them; carving them in stone or painting them on a wall made those exploits seem irrevocable. King Belshazzar never dreamed that one of the exploits on the wall of his banquet hall could be removed and replaced without his permission.
Daniel 5:6
Translation
Then the brightness of the king’s face changed, his thoughts terrified him so that the joints of his hips were loosened, and his knees knocked this one against that one.
Paraphrase
Then his face went white and the realization of what had just happened terrified him so much that he could hardly stand because he was swaying so much, and his knees knocked together violently.
Belshazzar’s Terror and the Experts’ Confusion
Belshazzar was terrified because God had responded. However, he also wanted to know the meaning of the message written on the wall. Notice that, in the biblical narrative, we are not yet given the words of the message, that will come later. So as usual, the king called for his enchanters, astrologers and diviners so they could tell him what the message meant. He promised them special honor including the authority of the third-highest ruler in the kingdom. Why the third highest? Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, shared the kingship as co-regents so this new administer would be the next in line after the two of them. But it was a hollow promise. Many present that night wondered how many more hours this kingdom would last.
But the expert interpreters of dreams and riddles did not have a clue about how to interpret this one. Various times when God sent a message to a monarch, He baffled those who were supposed to be good at interpreting such messages.
The fact that the expert interpreters were baffled is amazing and points to God’s direct intervention. We are talking about a culture in which people were accustomed to telling the king what they thought he wanted to hear. They were not beyond making something up in order to keep the king happy. And the king usually liked to be flattered.
Here is an example: In that part of the world in ancient times, if a king of wanted to go to war, he would call a priest to come and “read” the liver of a sheep. They would slaughter the sheep, cut open the liver, and the priest would pretend to see things in that liver and then tell the king what he saw. If he told the king that the liver said not to go to war, the king would have another liver read the next day to see if the message had changed, and the next day and the next. The priest knew that the king really wanted to go to war so he would eventually give the king what he wanted – the promise that the gods would be with him and grant him success. But when the true God, the creator of the universe sent them a message, they could not even make something up. In this case the experts were incapable of inventing some interpretation that might calm the king even temporarily.
The fact that all his experts could not discern the meaning of the message troubled him even more because maybe, just maybe, this god of the Jews is different than the gods of any other religion.
The queen had heard the astonished cries of those in attendance and she came into the banquet hall to see what was going on (5:10). I find it interesting that the queen was not present, although the king’s other wives and the concubines were present. I think there is a possibility that she was a secret worshipper of the Jewish God, or at least she had been impressed by Daniel and respected him. It seems to me that she wanted nothing to do with what she knew would go on that night during this feast.
She reminded the king that there was a man in his kingdom who had the gifts of wisdom and insight and had been appointed chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. She said that Daniel was known to be able to interpret dreams, show [the solution of] riddles and open up difficulties. She was confident that the king would receive the interpretation of the writing on the wall if he called for Daniel.
Notice that Daniel was referred to twice by the queen using his Hebrew name, Daniel, which means EL (GOD) IS MY JUDGE, although she did mention that Nebuchadnezzar called him by a Chaldean name (5:10-12). In this way the story continues to remind us that Daniel always kept in mind that God was his judge and therefore he should obey only God.
When Daniel was called in, he took the opportunity to remind them of Nebuchadnezzar’s lack of humility and how God had taught him humility by making him like an animal (5:18-21). In the end, Nebuchadnezzar had acknowledged the God of Israel. But Nebuchadnezzar’s imitator, Belshazzar, was not humble at all and Daniel called him out for showing great disrespect for the God of Israel (5:22-24). So God sent a message warning the king of impending doom. I believe that whenever we see such warnings, they are demonstrations of God’s mercy and grace because, by telling him what would come, he was granting the king one last chance to repent. Even though the message was presented in statements that sound like absolutes, the fact that it was a warning implies the chance to repent.
Why Does the Text Say that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s Father?
The narrator of the event says Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar; Daniel and the queen say the same thing and even Belshazzar makes the same claim. But the best extrabiblical evidence we have indicates that Belshazzar was not even related to Nebuchadnezzar.
So, can we reconcile the two?
Yes, I think we can. In this case I think the Bible is simply trying to communicate something other than historical facts. In general I think we should not be quick to discount the biblical record. It has been proven over and over again to be the oldest, most extensive, most accurate record of ancient history in that part of the world available to us. But in this case, it seems to me that the use of the word “father” is intended to communicate something different than what we usually think of when we hear that word.
I think the idea being communicated by the word “father” is that of “predecessor.” The word “father” also means “grandfather or ancestor,” which are similar to “predecessor.” A father was intended to teach his son a trade and how to live in society. The son was often considered to be a replica or continuation of his father. Belshazzar, the king, was saying in verse 13 that his predecessor had brought back the captives from Israel, and he likewise, was a powerful ruler and mighty military leader capable of taking many people captive. It is likely that King Belshazzar had been speaking of Nebuchadnezzar as his father for years in an attempt to get out from under the dark shadow of his actual father. Daniel and the queen used the connection to Nebuchadnezzar in order to make a very different point; they were both highlighting the fact that Belshazzar was arrogant like Nebuchadnezzar had been. It was hoped that their use of the comparison to Nebuchadnezzar would remind the king that he needed to repent as his predecessor had done.
I believe the spiritual lesson being taught was more important than historical accuracy and the connection between the two was spiritual, not familial. Daniel made clear that Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall was a direct consequence of having become too proud (5:20) and that his humiliation lasted “until he acknowledged that the most high God rules over the kingdoms of men” (5:21). Belshazzar should have taken notice.