Introduction to Chapter 5

In this chapter, Daniel says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father. In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son. Let’s recall what we had to say in our introduction about these questions:

Belshazzar was once thought to be merely a figment of Daniel’s very active imagination.

Then an inscription was found in which Belshazzar was mentioned by name and was said to have been left in charge when the Persians invaded just like Daniel 5 says happened.

By the time of the Greek historian Herodotus (called the father of history), writing about 100 years later, the name of Belshazzar had been completely forgotten except for the mention in the book of Daniel.

The story of Herodotus provides a good example of the bias of historians against the scripture. You have probably heard that the three big pyramids at Giza were built as tombs for Pharaoh’s from the 4th dynasty. How do we know this? After all, no pharaoh has ever been found in one of these pyramids, and no evidence of any royal burial has ever been found. The answer is that some tour guide told Herodotus that this was the case and historians have been repeating it ever since with no other evidence. What if the Bible had said this instead? Would historians have accepted it so readily as the true explanation? I doubt it.

If Daniel had been written in the second century as the liberals suggest then how did the author know about Belshazzar?

To a truly unbiased historian, this mention would be enough evidence to prove the early date for the book of Daniel. But the historians in our universities are hardly unbiased. They will obtain a naturalistic answer no matter what amount of evidence they have to disregard. (I don’t mind their bias as much as I mind their claim that the bias does not exist. I have a bias toward believing God and his word, but I also readily admit that bias.)

QUESTION 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in Daniel 5 and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter when Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus?

The Hebrew use of “father” and “son” can simply mean “ancestor” and “descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.

This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar.

Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.

A second explanation is that “by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.”

This may have been the usage in Jeremiah 27:7.

All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.

QUESTION 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon when his father was the actual king?

Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon.

One commentator has written:

Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy.

Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found which imply that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about!

The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in Daniel 5 indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king.

Just the opposite is true, however!

Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first!

How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this?

One modern scholar has written:

We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538.

Perhaps we already know!

QUESTION 3: Why not just call him the “son of Nabonidus” since that is what he actually was?

Nabonidus was a very unpopular king. This may explain why he was absent from the city of Babylon for 14 years.

Also, inscriptions have been found that show Nabonidus claimed to have authority from Nebuchadnezzar to administer his kingdom. Thus, it is quite likely that his sons were required to be addressed as sons of Nebuchadnezzar to stress this connection. (Belshazzar and his mother both refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter.)

This is not unlike presidents who like to stress their connections with Lincoln, FDR, JFK, or Ronald Reagan.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.