Genesis 4 relates the well known story of Cain killing his brother Abel. For punishment, Cain is condemned to wander the earth. But instead of doing that, he promptly gets married and puts down roots in a city he founds, which he names Enoch after his son. It is there that the various branches of endeavor that we call civilization originate.
The original artwork at left was completed in 2010 and is a 11"x12" mixed-media piece on masonite.
This phrase from the Bible is one of many that has entered into our general vocabulary. It usually refers to something that prophesies a coming doom. It appears in expected places such as the lyrics to Christian songs or the title of a study on Daniel by David Jeremiah. But it can also be found in gansta rap lyrics and, my favorite, the final lines in Paul Simon's The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sounds of silence.”
We are probably all familiar with the story in which King Belshazzar is having a large feast in his palace, using the stolen goblets from the Jerusalem Temple to drink from. At one point in the festivities, he sees a disembodied hand writing on the wall near a lamp. The main concern of the story from that point on is the proper interpretation of the writing.
Daniel 5:1-4
Verse 1 Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. Ironically, his name means “O Bel, protect the king,” which certainly did not happen. He is not listed in cuneiform records as being a king of Babylon, which caused Bible critics to label him as a fiction. More recently, records have been found showing that he was regent for his father Nabonidus while Nabonidus was ill.
Verses 2-4 This illustrates the danger of becoming drunk. The Persians were actually attacking cities near Babylon during the time Belshazzar was feasting. Do you remember the vessels mentioned in Daniel 1:2? Apparently Nebuchadnezzar felt they were too valuable or sacred to be used for a mere party. This new king is basically saying that he is more important than either that king or God himself.
Daniel 5:5-9
Verse 5 This palace has been excavated. The walls are covered with white gypsum, which would have made the writing easy to read. Apparently, the king was the only one who actually witnessed the act of writing itself. Levine points to a somewhat similar earlier situation when King Nebuchadnezzar was the first one to notice a fourth “man” in the fiery furnace with the three young Jewish men.
It would make sense that Belshazzar was the first one to see the writing since, as E.J. Young notes, “It was the custom at oriental feasts for the king to sit on a raised platform, apart from the guests (see v. 1, 'in front of the thousand'). Thus, he probably was facing in a different direction than the others.
The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery sees a similarity between two other occasions in which “the finger of God” wrote something: God writing the ten commandments on stone (Exodus 31:18) and Jesus driving out demons by 'the finger of God” (Luke 11:20). “In each case, finger imagery conveys the power and immediacy of God's action.” Tremper Longman adds Exodus 8:19 and Psalm 8:3 to this list of biblical passages.
Verses 6-9 “His legs [or knees] gave way” is literally “the joints of his hips were loosened.” Some have felt that this was another way of saying that he lost control of his bladder. Alternatively, DBI states, “In cases of fear, all references in Scripture [to knees] are associated with an act or will of God or the person of Jesus (cf. Ezek 7:17; 21:7; Dan 5:6; 10:10; Nahum 2:10; Lk 5:8).” G.V. Smith points to the adverb in v. 9 translated as 'very' or 'exceedingly.' “The adverb serves to heighten the degree of anger or pleasure of a person to an exalted level.”
As in previous stories in this book, the king calls in all his non-Jewish magicians, diviners, etc. But they are unable to understand the meaning of the words. A somewhat related story appears in Genesis 41:8. His promise of the third highest rank in the land if they can solve the puzzle makes sense in light of the fact earlier stated that Nabonidus was actually the king and Belshazzar filling in for him in his absence. In any case, the promise is an empty one, as Daniel knows, since Belshazzar will soon be deposed.
The first major question involves the inability of the magicians to understand the writing. Longman feels it may imply “that it was written in some sort of code, because it had been written in Aramaic, the common language of the day. Their inability cannot be the result of a simple inability to read the script, if it were written out in a normal manner. The text ultimately does not let us know.” But that does not stop scholars from speculating anyway:
Goldingay suggest that possibly the letters were written in peculiar cuneiforms or that the weights involved were actually abbreviated (as we might do with kg. or lb.).
Most other commentators identify the difficulty in the fact that Aramaic was written in scripta continua (without a break between words) and without vowel indications, as Hebrew was also written.
Then again, the problem may not have been in the reading of the words, but in their meaning. Hartman and DiLella say, “For the storyteller, the writing was apparently in regular Aramaic script, giving ordinary Aramaic words, but the message conveyed by the words was beyond the understanding of the pagan wise men; cf. the mysterious name of Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which the prophet inscribed 'in ordinary writing', but of which no one could grasp the significance until the prophet explained the meaning (Isa 8:1-4).”
The Jerusalem Bible note on this section even says that the words may reflect some old saying “the point of which eludes us.”
Daniel 5:10-16
Verses 10-12 There is no question as in the previous chapter as to why Daniel was not called right away; this was a new king who was not acquainted with him. Alternatively, he may have dismissed him from consideration because of his age (Daniel is about 80 years old at the time) or his prior association with Nebuchadnezzar. The queen who steps in at this point is probably the queen mother, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar (according to Josephus). She proves to be wiser than the king (similar to events in the Book of Esther), which was also the case with Nebuchadnezzar's wife according to Herodotus the ancient historian. Whoever she was, she reminds Belshazzar that Daniel was actually, according to Dan. 4:9, “the chief of the magicians.”
Verses 13-16 This is a repetition of the previous verses for the most part. Note that the king tries to put Daniel in his place. Even his praises start with “I have heard” which may have been pronounced with a sneer. The king also says, “If you can...” He himself is obviously not convinced.
Daniel 5:17-23
Verses 17-23 Daniel starts his reply in a rather dismissive manner himself. Why? The older we get, the more impatient we are or the more bluntly we feel we can talk. Also, he may have realized that Belshazzar would soon be in no position to reward him at all. Then he rehashes the events in the last chapter about Nebuchadnezzar's humbling. In vv. 22-23 he zeroes in on Belshazzar's actions as a contrast.
Daniel 5:24-30
Verses 24-28 And now we come to the proper interpretation of the terse message. Interpretation: mina (large weight related to “count”), shekel (1/60 of a mina, related to “weight”), and pares (½ parsin, interpreted as “divide”). This is like some other OT prophecies which depend on taking an ordinary object or word and through wordplay deriving a spiritual message (for example, see Amos 7:7-9; 8:1-3).
Chisholm summarizes it best: “At the surface level, the words meant literally 'a mina, a mina, a sheckel, and half-shekels.' These units of measure suggested an image of monetary weights being placed on a scale. As such, each word carried a double meaning. The term mene' sounded like the verb menah, meaning 'to number.' God had numbered the days of Belshazzar's reign, and the king's time was up (v. 26). The word teqel sounds like the verb tequal, meaning 'to weigh.' Belshazzar had been weighed on God's scales and found wanting (v. 27). The term upsarin (combining the conjunction 'and' and the plural of peres, 'half-shekel) sounded like the verb peras, 'to break in two.' Belshazzar's kingdom had been broken and would be handed over to the Medes and Persians (v. 28).”
In addition, Goldingay notes that menah can have the meaning of 'to appoint' or 'to destine.' And E.J. Young says, “We have a play upon words in which the basic idea of division in liked with the name of the conqueror [peres and Persia].”
Finally, various scholars have fancifully suggested that each of the weights stood for a subsequent ruler of Babylon, but they can't seem to agree on which kings those are or even how many kings are in mind. Similarly, The Jerusalem Bible suggests that perhaps the sequence of terms are “allusions to the decreasing influence of the three successive empires (Babylonians, 'Medes,' and Persians).”
Question: why is Belshazzar not given a chance to repent like Nebuchadnezzar? Could God/Daniel sense that it would do no good based on his treatment of the temple vessels? The key may be in verse 22: “You knew all this.” Those with more revelation will be judged more harshly.
Verse 29 We don't really know why the king went ahead and rewarded Daniel for such a dire prophecy? Perhaps (a) he couldn't go back on his word in the presence of others, (2) he was oblivious to its implications (still drunk), or (3) he thought that the prophecy could be reversed by bribing Daniel.
Verse 30 There is some historical verification of the ending to the story in that the historian Herodotus says Babylon was captured at nighttime while its leaders were enjoying a feast. And one last detail: The time of this event that Herodotus records happens to coincide with the annual rising of the constellation Libra, which is appropriate in its image of a scale for weighing. “This recalls the picture of God as the just judge who ably manages the affairs of the world, and who not only measures motives and actions but evaluates and controls each person's destiny.” (DBI)
Of all the themes I have traced throughout the Bible, this is perhaps the most unusual one. There are actually almost 100 references to hair in Scripture, and a fair number of these refer to trimming or cutting hair. But there also a few that deal with hair-pulling instead, and I would like to briefly review those.
II Samuel 18:6-9
As The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “A mark of Absalom's handsomeness was his profuse crop of hair – so profuse that cutting it was an annual festival, with scales on hand to assist gloating and to lend charisma to his celebrity status in the neighborhood (2 Sam 14:25-26).” Parenthetically, his hair weighed approximately 5 pounds.
Dale Davis comments on 14:25-26, “Our media and politics have operated on Absalom's approach for so long that we expect little else. Our times insist on style over substance, cosmetics over content, manner over matter.”
But Absalom's glory was to also be his downfall, as we read in II Samuel 18:6-9.When he goes into battle against David's forces under Joab, he passes through some thick woods where his long hair catches in an oak tree and leaves him dangling “between heaven and earth” while his mule proceeds on without him. Joab learns of this and has him executed while he is dangling from the tree.
There have been two suggestions made concerning the import of this event, both soundly rejected by Tsumura: (a) There is an association between Absalom's death and the ram caught in a thicket as a substitute for Abraham's sacrifice of his son (Genesis 22:13), and (b) It is a reference to the curse in Deuteronomy 21:23 on anyone hanging in a tree.
Ezra 9:1-4
This passage is summarized by Alden: “Ezra pulled out his hair [Anchor Bible reads, 'I pulled hair off my head and out of my beard'] as a gesture of disgust to show how horrified he was, because of the intermarriage between the people of Israel and their pagan neighbors.” The net effect, as Eskenazi summarizes: “His self-punishment produces remorse and generates support.”
In explaining Ezra's response, Clines notes, “The common ancient practice of shaving the head in mourning (cf. Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 47:5; Mic. 1:16) was forbidden to Israel because of its pagan associations (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Dt. 14:1), and was modified into pulling off some of the hair of head and beard.”
And Fensham says, “A great sin had been committed which ran contrary to the law of God. Ezra identified himself with this sin, although he and the exiles who had returned with him did not commit it. In a certain sense Ezra accepted his solidarity with his people. He became a mediator for them as Moses did after the golden bull was worshiped at Sinai.” We could add that he is thus a type of Christ Himself in that regard.
Nehemiah 13:23-27
About 30 years after the previous event, Nehemiah revisits Judea and meets some Jews who had married foreigners and even had children who could not speak “the language of Judah.” He “contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair...” (Eskenazi) By this time, the people had already been warned against intermarriages under Ezra and then in Nehemiah 6:18; ch. 10; and 13:1-3.
It is instructive to compare the quite different reactions of Ezra and Nehemiah to a similar situation. Myers says, “In contrast to Ezra, who chastised himself, Nehemiah laid hands upon of the guilty parties – the way of one who had more than moral authority. The text may indicate a progression in the harshness of the measures employed to break up the practice.” Fensham explains what Myers means by 'more than moral authority': “He received his authority from the Persian king and could thus take drastic action.”
Although Nehemiah appears to have gone too far in his violent approach, Myers notes, “Nehemiah did not go as far as Ezra, who demanded divorce; he simply demanded an end to further intermarriage.” “As for the propriety of their methods, some may find it hard to choose between the massive exertion of moral pressure by Ezra and the direct physical violence of Nehemiah!” (Clines)
Isaiah 50:4-9
This important passage is felt by most scholars to be the third of the so-called Suffering Servant Songs in Isaiah which predict the coming of the Messiah, not as a conqueror but as one who will be abused by others on behalf of the nation of Israel. In v. 6, this prophetic character says, “I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheek to those who pulled out the beard.” (NRSV)
But there is some controversy as to the exact identity of this “servant.” Some have suggested that the servant who was abused is Isaiah himself, and others feel that it stands for Israel. Whybray responds to the first of these possibilities by pointing out the strong echo of Isaiah 50:6-8 in Matthew 26:67, referring to Jesus. He feels that this is the main reference whether on not Isaiah had also received harsh treatment for his preaching.
As to the view that the servant is the nation Israel, Oswalt considers the whole context of the passage: Thus, Isaiah 50:4-9 appears after the point when “Israel believes herself forsaken (49:14,24). God insists that is not the case, but that he can and will deliver them (49:15-50:3). Then the voice of the Servant is heard again speaking of his mission and his obedience to God and God's trustworthiness. Surely this Servant is not the recipient of God's redemption for his people, but the agent of it.”
The identification of the Suffering Servant with Christ is strengthened by the appearance in Mark 10:33-34 of two specific Greek words: mastizoo (“scourged”) and emptyo (“spat upon”) which also occur in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 50:6. (Watts)
Also, Seifrid points to a series of four rhetorical questions in Romans 8:31-35 which “echoes the third Servant Song of the book of Isaiah (Isa 50:4-11)...In the descriptions Paul juxtaposes God and Christ in an ABBA pattern.”
Ezekiel 8:1-4
An angelic figure picks up the prophet by a lock of hair so that he is “lifted up between heaven and earth” (the same phrase as in II Samuel 18:9). He is shown the various forms of wickedness occurring in the Jerusalem Temple. Block understates, “In this experience Ezekiel is unique among Israel's classical prophets.”
So the main question we would probably ask is whether this experience happened in reality or was a spiritual vision. NRSV translates: “The spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the spirit of God into Chaldea.” However, Greenberg chooses to translate the Hebrew word for spirit as “wind” instead. And both are acceptable renderings. But that does not mean that Greenberg necessarily opts for a physical understanding of this event since he points out, “It is not said that the human figure accompanied him; in fact nothing is said of the location of the figure during the journey.”
Alden, along with the probable majority of commentators, calls Ezekiel's experience “a visionary trance.”
Bel and the Dragon 36
There is yet one more example, at least for those who accept the Apocrypha as part of the inspired Scripture. It appears in the short stories of Bel and the Dragon, in which the prophet Daniel first appears as a detective and then as a dragon slayer. In the latter story, Daniel kills a great dragon worshiped by the Babylonians by feeding it a mixture of pitch, fat and hair, causing it to explode. The Babylonians are upset because they had been worshiping the dragon. So they throw him into a lion's den, where God protects him. Meanwhile back in Judea, the prophet Habakkuk is cooking himself a meal when an angel of the Lord tells him to deliver the food to Daniel instead since he is getting hungry. The angel picks up Habakkuk by the hair of his head and transports him all the way to Babylon where the food is delivered. Then Habakkuk and the angel make a round trip back to Judea, where the angel leaves him.
As Dentan says, “Preposterous as the story sounds to us, savoring more of the Arabian Nights than of the Bible, it undoubtedly was crudely effective among the people for whom it was designed. It dramatized for them the conflict between the impotent gods of the Greek and the almighty God of Israel and helped them to dissolve the pretentions of paganism in hearty gusts of laughter.”
It is quite obvious that the detail of a prophet being carried from place to place by his hair was inspired by Ezekiel 8, as Greenberg agrees. The major difference between the two, however, is that Ezekiel's experience was in the form of a vision while the author of Bel apparently wants us to believe that Habakkuk was transported from place to place in physical reality.
Posts
All Comments
