Daniel 5:1-12

Belshazzar’s Feast

5:1 King Belshazzar made a great festival for a thousand of his lords, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand.

2 Under the influence of the wine, Belshazzar commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 So they brought in the vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

The Writing on the Wall

5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace, next to the lampstand. The king was watching the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s face turned pale, and his thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners; and the king said to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king the interpretation. 9 Then King Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face turned pale, and his lords were perplexed.

10 The queen, when she heard the discussion of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall. The queen said, “O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face grow pale. 11 There is a man in your kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, 12 because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation.” (Daniel 5:1-12, NRSV)

On April 25, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated from April 13, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One); they are repeated here with editing and supplement:

A third occasion arises for which Daniel’s interpretive ability will be in demand. “King Belshazzar made a great festival for a thousand of his lords,” says the narrator, “and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand” (Dan. 5:1). “Under the influence of the wine,” we are told, “Belshazzar commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father (yh9Ubx3, ’ ^a vûhî ) Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them” (v. 2). According to Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay, Belshazzar was the “son of Nabonidus, the last Neo-Babylonian ruler [and] was only viceroy during his father’s absences” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Dan. 5:1). So in fact, Nebuchadnezzar was his grandfather, so perhaps the Aramaic term bxa (’av) can mean “grandfather” as does its Hebrew equivalent bxA (’āv) in Genesis 28:13, referring to Abraham as Isaac’s “father” (NRSV, TNIV, AV/KJV; cf. William L. Holladay, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. bxA, ’āv). The Lexicon does show that the plural form–perhaps because it is Jewish Aramaic–can mean “forefathers” or “ancestors” (Dan. 2:23 NRSV; cf. the Lexicon, s. v. bxa, ’av). As noted in Monday’s comments, according to Lawrence M. Wills, it was not Nebuchadnezzar but Nabonidus–Belshazzar’s real father–who was absent from the Babylonian capital for several years.

Nebuchadnezzar was never absent from office for any extended period, but the king’s temporary absence here likely suggests that the model for this story [i.e. the second dream interpreted by Daniel] is not Nebuchadnezzar but Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king (556-539 BCE). He [i.e., Nabonidus] spent ten years at Teima, in the Arabian peninsula, allowing his son Belshazzar to reign as viceroy in his stead (see ch. 5). The ‘Prayer of Nabonidus’ (4Q242) from Qumran presents Nabonidus’s first-person account of being cured by an unnamed Jewish seer after an affliction of seven years. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Dan. 4:1-34 NJPS 1985, 1999 = Heb. = Dan. 4:4-37 NRSV)

Perhaps it was Belshazzar’s father’s absence that permitted the extravagance of the huge festival, with “a thousand of his lords” present. In all likelihood, many of them shared the wine. “Women attend the banquet,” says Pamela J. Milne, “in contrast to Esth. 1:9. Some biblical texts speak of two classes of women in royal harems (see 1 Kings 11:3; Song 6:8), wives, queenly consorts (see Neh. 2:6; Ps. 45:9) and concubines, lower rank women in the harem” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1^st ed., on Dan. 5:2). While this must have been some party, the focus of the story is the sacrilegious use of the Jerusalem temple vessels. In response to Belshazzar’s command, “they brought in the vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them” (v. 3). According to Amy-Jill Levine, “Lacking a statue of Israel’s God to symbolize their conquest, the Babylonians took ritual vessels (1:2; Ezra 5:14; 6:5)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Dan. 5:2). “They drank the wine,” says the narrator, “and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (v. 4). “The scene,” says Levine, “is one of sacrilegious debauchery; the Greek historians Xenophon and Herodotus also describe such dissipation at the time of Babylon’s fall” (ibid., on v. 4). According to Wills, “Babylonian and Persian royal feasts were notorious for their excess; cf. Esth. ch. 1. It is the sacrilege of drinking from the Temple vessels, however, especially by the concubines, that is most emphasized.” Wills adds that, “according to rabbinic tradition (b. Meg. 11b-12a), Belshazzar was celebrating because he thought that the prediction of the demise of the Babylonian kingdom after seventy years (Jer. 25:22; cf. Dan. ch. 9) had been proven wrong. He had miscalculated, however, by one year” (op. cit., on Dan. 5:1-2).

“Immediately,” says the narrator, “the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing” what Gold and Holladay call “a message of doom” (v. 5a and Gold and Holladay, op. cit., on v. 5). The fingers “began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace, next to the lampstand” (v. 5b). Wills compares “the finger of God that brings the plagues in Exod. 8:19, or writes the ten commandments in Exod. 31:18” (op. cit., on v. 5). Milne notes “the swiftness of response” here and compares it to “the speed of punishment in 5:30” (op. cit., on v. 30). “The king was watching the hand as it wrote,” we are told” (v. 5c), and as he watched “the king’s face turned pale, and his thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together” (v. 6). Belshazzar “cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners; and the king said to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom” (v. 7). “Like Nebuchadnezzar,” says Levine, “Belshazzar summons Babylon’s wise men; those familiar with the previous chapters can anticipate the magician’s failure and Daniel’s success.” On the words, “rank third,” she says, “after the king and crown prince (see 2:48)” (op. cit., on v. 7). But these wise men were all stymied: “Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king the interpretation” (v. 8, cf. 2:4-11; 4:7 [NRSV = Aram. 4:4]). Belshazzar, it appears, reacts with horror. “Then King Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face turned pale and his lords were perplexed” (v. 9).

At this point, “the queen,” probably the “queen mother” (so Gold and Holladay, op. cit., on vv. 10-11; Wills, op. cit., on v. 10), “when she heard the discussion of the king and his lords, came into the banquet hall” (v. 10a). Her ability to enter at will, though apparently not invited earlier, would support the identification of her as the queen mother. “Like Ashpenaz (1:9) and Arioch (2:25,” says Levine, “the queen–the only woman to speak in the book–recognizes Daniel’s worth” (op. cit., on vv. 10-12). According to Milne, revised by John J. Collins, “the queen [is] usually regarded as queen mother rather than queen consort because of her position of influence and power, her use of your father, King Nebuchadnezzar (v. 11), and her knowledge of Daniel’s high position in Nebuchadnezzar’s court; see 2:48; 4:9; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 10:13; 24:12” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Dan. 5:10). According to Levine, “the account may reflect knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s wife who, according to Herodotus, had exceptional wisdom and political ability” (loc. cit.).

In any event, the queen follows protocol. “O king, live forever!” she says. “Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face grow pale” (v. 10b). And she recalls Daniel’s earlier dream interpretations. “There is a man in your kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods” (v. 11a, b). The queen recount’s Daniel’s résumé, so to speak. “Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar” (vv. 11c, 12a). “Now let Daniel be called,” she says, “and he will give the interpretation” (v. 12b).

W. Sibley Towner comments on this story:

Like chapter 4, this is indeed a story about the sovereignty of the God of Israel and his power to act even outside the land of Israel. It is through his mediation that God’s power to effect his sovereign purposes over the earthly sovereignty of Belshazzar is demonstrated. (Daniel, Interpretation, a Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 76, on Dan. 5)

Towner continues by quoting others (Hartman and Di Lella) about “the element of ‘sacrilegious insolence”:

In chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar repented of his insolence and pride; in chapter 5 Belshazzar does not. As far as we are told, he persists to the end in believing that the gods of gold and silver, bronz, iron, wood, and stone are somehow efficacious and that the profane and idolatrous use of sacred things is of some significance before them. (ibid., p. 77).

1 John 5:1-12

Faith Conquers the World

5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, 4 for whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith. 5 Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Testimony concerning the Son of God

6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree. 9 If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. 10 Those who believe in the Son of God have the testimony in their hearts. Those who do not believe in God have made him a liar by not believing in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:1-12, NRSV)

On May 21, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 27, 2007 (Tuesday after Christmas, the Feast of St. John, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 27, 2005, (the Feast of St. John, Year Two), when comments were repeated with adaptation from Wednesday, April 13, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the third Sunday after Easter). The comments are repeated again here:

John begins by repeating themes of believing “that Jesus is the Christ,” of being “born of God” and loving “the parent” (i.e. God the Father), and so loving “the child” (Jesus the Son) (1 Jn. 5:1). “By this we know that we love the children of God,” he says, “when we love God and obey his commandments” (v. 2). John explains: “For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments” (v. 3a). The “world” has been mentioned earlier, but now John reminds us that “his [i.e., God’s] commandments are not burdensome, for whatever is born of God conquers the world” (vv. 3b, 4a). In turn, John defines this “conquering” of the world. “And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith” (v. 4b). “Who is it that conquers the world,” asks John, “but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (v. 5).

With this reference to Jesus, John moves on from the “faith . . . that conquers the world” to testimony about the Son of God. “This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth” (v. 6). C. H. Dodd points out that the Epistle here refers to the Gospel of John. 1 John 5:6 refers to Jesus’ coming “by water and blood,” and adds reference to the Spirit (Johannine Epistles, The Moffatt Commentary, 1946, p. 128). He refers to John 1:32-34:

And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:32-34 NRSV)

Dodd comments:

Here we have a ‘witness’ to the fact of the Incarnation, the witness of John the Baptist; but that witness rests on a prior witness of God Himself, in the descent of the Spirit (for the Baptist did not recognize Christ until the divine sign was given). It is in accord with this that our author says that the Spirit is the witness, and (he adds) a witness to be accepted, because the Spirit is truth (cf. John xvi. 13). In history, the descent of the Spirit was evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus. In the present experience of the Church, the activity of the Spirit is evidence of His power to baptize with the Spirit, and therefore of His divine Sonship. (ibid., p. 129)

John continues: “There are three that testify:^a the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree” (vv.. 7-8). The NRSV text note a to verse 7 explains that the words, “There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:” are found in “a few other authorities (with variations).” The fact is that most of the oldest and best witnesses to the New Testament text do not include these words, though on the basis of later manuscripts, they are included in 1 John 5:7-8 of the Authorized (King James) Version (1 Jn. 5:7-8). The editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (3rd ed.), Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, use an upper case “A” to indicate that they are “virtually certain” that these words were not in the original manuscript of First John. Fortunately, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on this one passage. But the cross-reference here to John’s Gospel, and the elaboration of these ideas is significant. According to Pheme Perkins, “One who came by water and blood [v. 6] refers to the death of Jesus as atonement for sin (1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Jn. 1:29). The witnesses, water, blood, and Spirit, are evident in John’s account of Jesus’ death (Jn. 19:34-35; for the water as Spirit, see Jn. 7:38-39)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Jn. 5:6-8). “If we receive human testimony,” says John, “the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son” (v. 9).

John as much as says we really must accept this divine testimony to Jesus as the Son of God, and respond with faith. “Those who believe in the Son of God have the testimony in their hearts” (v. 10a). And he spells out the alternative. “Those who do not believe in God have made him a liar by not believing in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son” (v. 10b). Accepting this testimony and believing–having faith–in Jesus as the Son of God is the key to “eternal life.” “And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (v. 11). One’s relation to the Son is crucial: “Whoever has the Son has life,” says John; “whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 Jn. 5:12; cf. Jn. 3:36). Perkins says, “The true faith is based not only on human testimony (1:1-4; Jn. 1:;;;;;;7-8) but God’s testimony as well (cf. Jn. 5:31-38)” (op. cit., on vv. 9-12).

Luke 4:38-44

Healings at Simon’s House (Mt 8.14-17; Mk 1.29-34)

38 After leaving the synagogue he entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked him about her. 39 Then he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. Immediately she got up and began to serve them.

40 As the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them. 41 Demons also came out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.

Jesus Preaches in the Synagogues (Mt 4.23-25; Mk 1.35-39)

42 At daybreak he departed and went into a deserted place. And the crowds were looking for him; and when they reached him, they wanted to prevent him from leaving them. 43 But he said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.” 44 So he continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:38-44, NRSV)

On September 27, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two), comments were repeated from April 25, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with revision and supplement from April 13, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), that were repeated on September 30, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two). The revised comments are repeated here:

This reading from Luke’s Gospel continues in parallel to Mark (Mk. 1:29-39; Lk. 4:38-44; cf. Mt. 8:14-17 and the tables included with yesterday’s comments. Also, for parallel accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke, see the separate file, Peter’s Mother in Law. Matthew’s brief parallels to the healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law and the healing of many others that evening are presented later, after the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), the healing of a leper (Mt. 8:1-4; cf. Mk. 1:40-45; Lk. 5:12-16), and the healing of the Centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5-13; cf. Lk. 7:1-10). Mark and Luke report Jesus’ departure from Capernaum (Mk. 1:35-38; Lk. 4:42-43), after which, Matthew rejoins them for a brief description of the first preaching tour in Galilee (Mt. 4:23; Mk. 1:39; Lk. 4:44).

Luke locates the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in “Simon’s [i.e. Peter’s] house, but omits Mark’s reference to Andrew, James and John (Lk. 4:38a; cf. Mk. 1:29). The “fever” mentioned by Mark (purevsousa, puresousa, ‘suffering with a fever,’ cf. F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1965, s.v. purevssw, pyressō) in Luke is called a “high fever” (sunecomevnh puretw:/ megavlw/, synechomenē pyretō megalō, ‘having/suffering with a high fever,’ Lk. 4:38b; cf. Mk. 1:30). Luke is more precise, perhaps, though substituting the noun “fever” (puretovV, pyretos) for the verb “suffering with a fever” (purevssw, pyressō) doesn’t necessarily make the language more “medical.” Where Mark reports that Jesus healed her as he “took her by the hand and lifted her up,” Luke says that “he stood over her and rebuked ( ejpetivmhsen, epetimēsen) the fever” (v. 39). Matthew abbreviates this account to about half the length of Mark’s account (Mt. 8:14-15; cf. Mk. 1:20-31). He says that Jesus “touched her hand and the fever (puretovV, pyretos) left her” (Mt. 8:15).

Luke continues, following Mark’s summary of healings “at sunset” (Mk.1:32-34). “As the sun was setting,” says Luke, “all those who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them” (Lk. 4:40). Although he omits Mark’s initial reference to “those possessed with demons” (Mk. 1:32), and the reference to the gathering of “the whole city . . . at the door” (M,. 1:33), Luke does report that “Demons also came out of many, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God!’ ” (v. 41a), thus, in a way, proving Mark’s statement that Jesus “would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him” (Mk. 1:34b). In Luke, the rebuke comes after the shouting of the demons, when Jesus “rebuked ( ejpitimw:n, epetimōn) them and would not allow them to speak because they knew that he was the Messiah” (Lk. 4:41; cf. Mk. 1:34). At this point Matthew refers briefly to the healings (Mt. 8:16), but adds one of his “fulfillment of prophecy” quotations (v. 17, citing Isa. 53:4).

In Mark, as the story continues, Jesus leaves for a deserted place where “he prayed” (Mk. 1:35; cf. Lk. 4:42a, where Luke omits the reference to prayer). Mark reports that Simon and his companions found Jesus and told him, “Everyone is searching for you” (Mk. 1:36-37). Luke says that “the crowds were looking for him, and when they reached him, they wanted to prevent him from leaving them” (Lk. 4:42). Their desire to keep Jesus with them in Capernaum offers a sharp contrast to the attitude in Nazareth. But Jesus is compelled to press on with his mission to other cities. “But he said to them, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose’ ” (v. 43; cf. Mk. 1:38). And so we are told of Jesus’ first preaching tour in Galilee, reported briefly in Luke (Lk. 4:44), omitting Mark’s reference to “casting out demons” (Mk. 1:39), which, in Matthew’s summary report becomes “curing every disease and every sickness among the people” (Mt. 4:23). In this flurry of activity, we note that Jesus (and his followers, including us) is in a spiritual battle, but he responds with healing to those who seek him out; yet he knows that many others in “other cities also” need his ministry.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net