Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. (Daniel 5:2)
Some understand these words to imply that Belshazzar was drunk when he gave the order to bring in the sacred vessels from Jerusalem. Others explain the phrase to mean that this command was given after the meal, at the moment the wine began to circulate. They point to classical Greek statements which declare that the Persians had the custom of drinking wine after the meal. However, it was uncommon for an Oriental to desecrate holy objects of other religions; hence it would appear unnatural that Belshazzar would have given the order as long as he was in command of his reason (see PK 523).
Vessels.
The Temple vessels had been carried away from Jerusalem on three occasions:
(1) a portion of them at the time Nebuchadnezzar took captives from Jerusalem in 605 (Dan. 1:1, 2);
(2) most of the remaining vessels of precious metal when King Jehoiachin went into captivity in 597 (2 Kings 24:12, 13); and
(3) the rest of the metal objects, mostly of bronze, when the Temple was destroyed in 586 (2 Kings 25:13-17).
His father.
It seems that Belshazzar was a grandson of the great king (see PK 522); his mother was probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (see p. 806). The word “father” must be understood to mean “grandfather” or “ancestor,” as in many other passages of the Bible (see on 1 Chron. 2:7). For the descent of Belshazzar from Nebuchadnezzar, see Additional Note at the end of this chapter. Of itself, the expression “his father” could also be understood in the sense of “his predecessor.” An example of such usage is found in an Assyrian inscription which calls the Israelite king, Jehu, “a son of Omri,” although the two had no blood relationship whatsoever. Actually Jehu was the exterminator of the whole house of Omri (2 Kings 9; 10).
His wives, and his concubines.
The two Aramaic words translated “wives” and “concubines” are synonyms, both meaning “concubines.” One may have represented a higher class than the other. It has been suggested that the one class of concubines may have consisted of women from respectable homes, or even the homes of nobility, and the other, women bought for money or captured in war. Although women took part in the banquet, as we learn from this passage, it appears that the “queen” was not found among the riotous drinkers. After the appearance of the handwriting on the wall she is described as entering the banqueting hall (v. 10). The LXX makes no reference to the participation of women in the sacrilegious rioting. Some think this is because, according to the custom of the Greeks, wives took no part in such festivals.