Belshazzar made the mistake of treating the “holy” as “unholy.”
Compare Leviticus 8:10-11 and 2 Chronicles 7:16 (“masah – to anoint; masiyah – the anointed one”). The Hebrew transliteration for consecrate is qadas meaning to be clean, “pronounce” clean (ceremonially or morally); to consecrate to God, “declare” as holy, “treat” as holy, signifies an act or state in which people or things are set aside and “reserved” exclusively for God.
“Notice that v.2 says silver and gold, but v.3 only says gold. Perhaps because God is only going to hold the ‘gold empire’ responsible for this blasphemy?”
We, too, are “holy vessels” in the “house” of the Lord (2 Timothy 2:20-21). See Ephesians 1:1, 4 and 2 Corinthians 1:21-22. The lexical form of the word translated saints (Ephesians 1:1) and holy (Ephesians 1:4) is hagios meaning ‘holy, sacred, separated from “ordinary” or “common usage” and “devoted” to God. Something holy is that which been brought into relationship with God… and designated by Him as having a “sacred purpose” or special significance… “marked” as holy, classified as belonging to God… sacred, hallowed, consecrated.
Satan has no greater agenda than attempting to “desecrate” what God “consecrates.”
His methods are many, but one of his specialties is reflected in Daniel 5:23.
“It was not culturally customary for wives and concubines to be at the men’s party (e.g., Esther 1 – Vashti’s party), so this was most likely a drunken orgy.
“Satan rejoices when he can use God’s holy vessels to toast an unholy cause.”
God does not overlook Satan’s “mistreatment” of holy “vessels” any more than He “overlooked” Belshazzar’s. Read Daniel 5:5-10. See verse 12. The phrase ‘solve difficult problems’ is literally ‘“loosening of knots.”’
Look ahead to Daniel 5:26–30.
A generalized translation of the handwriting on the wall might be:
Mene: “I Am”
Tekel: “I know”
Peres: “I act”
Vessels that have been “treated as unholy” can be “treated as holy again.” See 2 Timothy 2:20-21 and Ezra 1:2, 7-8; 8:28-29.
Without looking at your notes or your Bible, see if you can recall and write the primary subject matter of Daniel 1-4. Give yourself time to reflect, and I believe you’ll remember. If absolutely necessary, take a quick glimpse back at the chapters – but hopefully only for a hint
Daniel 1: “youth, beauty and wisdom sought and captured among nobility; Daniel and friends refuse Babylon’s temptations”
Daniel 2: “Nebuchadnezzar dreams about a statue; Daniel interprets”
Daniel 3: “Nebuchadnezzar builds his own statue; Hannah, Mishael and Azariah refuse to bow”
Daniel 4: “Nebuchadnezzar dreams about a tree; God disciplines; Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges”
Session 5 introduced a new ruler on the Babylonian scene. What is his name?
(See Daniel 5:1) “Belshazzar”
Independent historical accounts clocked Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon while scripture recorded its final ruler as Belshazzar. Who was right? “Scripture (unless both because he went by two names)”
★ Nabonidus ‘was absent from Babylon for 10 of his 17 years,’ indicating why Belshazzar was appointed co-regent and ‘exercised kingly authority even though Nabonidus actually held the throne.’
How does 1 Corinthians 1: 18-25 lend support to the previous statement [that ‘the secular recordings of history will have to bow down to the preeminence of God’s Word’]?
“God‘s foolishness is wiser than man’s wisdom which He will destroy and replace with His wisdom.”
‘Suddenly, the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the “plaster” of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace.’
Now, apply the concept to your own personal relationship with God through his word. Describe what the sufficiency of scripture means to you.
“For any life question I might have, the answer is in there somewhere, I just need to dive in and start seeking it.”
How does 2 Peter 1:3-4 lend support to Grudem’s definition of the sufficiency of scripture?
“It says the same thing.”
What Scripture-supporting mystery do you personally wish would be discovered?
“What ever became of the Ark of the Covenant. I know it didn’t melt Nazis and end up in government storage, but I’d love to see it turn up.”
Dearest Rachel –
As this particular section marks the beginning of a new week of study, I thought I’d include your notes and comments from the video you and your friends watched introducing the topic. Given that your responses on the study proper were fairly minimal (granted, you weren’t given that many questions to answer, to begin with), it’s just as well. It doesn’t help that the initial topic is one of archaeology, rather than philosophy, thereby minimizing the chance of your answers having much to do with your own opinions and observations.
Besides, you offered a few comments on the video that were worth noting and pondering; you had an eye for a few details I never considered before. While we understand, on an intellectual level, that every word in the Bible means something, we’ve come to expect – through the use of multiple translations, and their varying uses of formal (word-for-word) vs. dynamic (thought-for-thought) equivalence – that there is some flexibility in translating from the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. But here, you spotted something about how the drinking vessels being used at the party were described; how the gold ones were given particular significance, and whether that might have been a deliberate reference to the judgment about to be meted out on the “golden” kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. I don’t think I ever would have spotted that.
Likewise, while there may have been cultural differences between the “golden” and “silver” kingdoms of Babylonia and Persia, the segregation of sexes at formal parties would probably not have been one of them; just the fact that they are kingdoms suggests a certain patriarchal nature to a degree that, for all our fussing about marginalization, we don’t experience today. As a result, you concluded that this affair (pun not originally intended, but let’s roll with it) was, let’s just say, less than a proper celebration.
With that being said, while you didn’t bring this up, it’s probably just as well that it was a mixed-sex celebration, if for no other reason than that it was the queen mother who gave Belshazzar the suggestion that he bring Daniel (who was either not invited to this party, or would likely have refused to attend in any event) in to interpret the writing on the wall. Although, given your interpretation of the kind of party it was, that gives an added layer of wrongness to the whole situation; no wonder the Lord decided to ring down the curtain on it all, wouldn’t you agree?
At least, as you point out early in your notes, all those vessels contaminated by their use at such an occasion are not beyond cleansing; and like them, we can be cleaned up for continued use in His service (unlike Belshazzar’s – or even Nabonidus’ – kingdom).
Letters to Rachel 