Deeper ReflectionBelshazzar “held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles”, “drinking
wine” together (v.1). At this point, the Neo-Babylonian empire was
under threat from the Persian army (cf. Dan 5:31). Holding such a
lavish feast, “especially in the face of an enemy army…is probably meant to
underline the king’s careless hubris”
55 .Belshazzar ignored with indifference not just a political danger, but also a
spiritual danger. When he “tasted wine” – “under the influence of”
56 wine ‒
he gave orders to bring “the gold and silver vessels” which Nebuchadnezzar
had taken from the temple of God to be used for drinking wine (vv.2-3).
This incurred the wrath of the holy God immediately: “Suddenly the fingers
of a man’s hand emerged…” (v.5). When Nebuchadnezzar took these holy
vessels from God’s temple (Dan 1:2), there was no such response from God.
When Belshazzar was drinking wine with these holy vessels, he “praised the
gods of gold and silver…” (v.4). Such a sacrilegious act was no different from
Nebuchadnezzar’s act of putting these same holy vessels in “the house of his
god” (Dan 1:2). But the same holy God just let it go.God is not inconsistent. The two contrasting divine responses to two similar
sacrilegious acts point to the
sovereign holiness of God. God in His anger
struck a Levite dead for touching the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7). But
this did not happen when the uncircumcised Philistines captured the ark
with their unclean hands (1 Sam 4:10-11). God is
always holy, but He can
act in any way, at any time in His
sovereign freedom. Such sovereign acts
of God are His holy acts.
54 Hebrews 12:29
55 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Apollos, IVP, 2002), 128
56 John E. Goldingay, 100, Notes 2.a-a
