Daniel 5:28

Dan 5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Ver. 28. PERES; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes.] This had been long before prophesied, Isa 13:17; yea, Gen 9:25; and now Ham’s posterity felt his father’s curse. Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, came of Ham, Madai or the Medes were of Japhet, and Elam or the Persians of Shem. God’s forbearances are no acquittances. Let all wicked ones look to it. What is Mene but death? Tekel but judgment? Peres but hell or utter separation from God? and all to be passed through by their poor souls if timely course be not taken. Hear this, all ye drunkards, who glory in drinking the three outs &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dan_5:28

Thy kingdom is divided.

The Last Warning

In the words of our text, we have a warning addressed to a guilty monarch, in a manner too open and public to be ascribed to delusion on his part, or to imposture on that of others--a warning which silenced in a moment the roar of impious mirth.

I. SOME REMARKS EXPLANATORY OF THIS VISION.

1. It was an intimation to Belshazzar of the termination of his reign. It announced to him, not merely a calamity by which his throne might be shaken, or a banishment and captivity from which he might return, and resume his power, but its final close. The doubling of this word intimated, the absolute certainty of the predicted ruin. In this warning, too, it was intimated that his kingdom should be given to the rivals whom he hated, whose siege of his capital he had hitherto resisted, with success, and whose power and skill he had lately so presumptuously defied. This is a circumstance which has often embittered the last hours of falling greatest, that its honours should adorn the head of a rival, and that they should enjoy those scenes of delight which they had prepared for themselves.

2. In this warning of Belshazzar there is an intimation of Jehovahs estimate of the worthlessness of his character: Thou art weighed in the balances, and thou are found wanting.

3. In this warning the connection betwixt his sins and his punishment is strongly marked.

4. It was a warning in which no hope of mercy was exhibited. There was not merely no intimation that it was possible, by any particular course, to escape the impending destruction, but no direction was given how his soul might be saved from the wrath to come. But it may be said, Why was this warning given if his case was desperate? To this it may be answered, that it was an open testimony of the displeasure of Jehovah at the contempt which had been manifested to His name and worship, and was adapted to make the strongest impression in favour of the true religion on the successful besiegers.

5. It was the last warning which Belshazzar received. He had received many admonitions already. The Monitor, who had long struggled with him, had now written the last sentence, and uttered the last voice of admonition, and he was now abandoned of God to his fate.

6. It was quickly realised in Belshazzars ruin. Twelve months elapsed betwixt the warning given to Nebuchadnezzar and his expulsion from human society to all the degradations of wild insanity; but in that very night after this warning was Belshazzar slain. When Jonah cried in Nineveh, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown! word came to the king, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered himself in sackcloth, and sat in ashes, and called his people to fasting and prayer; and though no intimation of mercy was given in the warning of Jonah, they said, Who can tell if God will turn, and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? But no such grief was felt, no such mandate was issued by Belshazzar.

II. SOME OF THE IMPORTANT LESSONS WHICH THIS WARNING SUGGESTS.

1. It shows us that it is the province of Jehovah to fix the continuance, and to bring to a close the power of empires. Beyond the period which he hath set for their continuance, no wealth, nor skill, nor valour, can prolong their existence. In speaking of the revolutions of kingdoms, the wise men of this world confine their attention to the oppressions which made the yoke of princes intolerable; to the artifices by which the hearts of subjects were alienated from their rulers; to those habits of luxury which enervated them, and rendered them an easy prey; but let us recollect that these and ether causes are guided by His hand who hath wisdom and might for His; who changeth the times and the seasons; who removeth kings, and who setteth up kings. The history of the world presents us with other instances, besides this one in the text, of Gods terminating kingdoms and dynasties. Empires, which seemed likely to stand while sun and moon endured, have crumbled down like a house of clay, and not a trace remains that here their palaces stood, their ships rode, or their banners waved. How quickly did the empire of Alexander fall to pieces! His death was the signal for disunion among his generals; and the dominion which had been hastily acquired was as hastily lost.

2. This warning teaches us that Providence assigns the power of which it deprives guilty princes to those whom it pleases.

3. This warning suggests that God gives various indications of His intention of terminating the power of kings, and of transferring it to others. In this age we are not to expect, as in the case of Belshazzar, a sign from Heaven to indicate that the period for the fall of empires is come, but in many ways is this impression produced in the hearts of princes, and it is legible in the events of Providence. Princes, notwithstanding the flatteries of their courtiers, have been unable to shake off the gloomy apprehension of the decline of their glory. In other cases an approaching change is visible in the discontent of the people; in those cabals and murmurs which tell us that a storm is gathering; and in the persisting of rulers in measures which irritate where conciliation is required. Let us mark the signs of the times, not to cherish a croaking spirit of discontent, but to hear the sound of Gods steps, when He comes out of His place to punish, and to flee from the wrath to come.

4. I remark that it teaches us that there are various methods by which God tries the characters, tempers, and conduct of men. There is the balance of the sanctuary, by which I understand those principles for guiding our opinions, and those rules for directing our conduct, which are laid down in Scripture. The world hath its maxims by which it tries the tempers and actions of men. There is the balance of conscience. To this faculty God hath assigned the office of judging of mens thoughts, words, and actions. In some cases it performs this duty in a careless manner. There is the balance of Providence, by the events of which astonishing discoveries are some- times made of the real tempers and characters of men, and they are found quite different from what they were supposed to be both by themselves and others. How many a man has prosperity shown to be in heart haughty and cruel! And there is the balance of judgment. God hath appointed a day in which He will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

5. There are various persons who, when thus tried, shall be found wanting. The scrutiny is universal. There is none on earth so mighty as to resist it, and none too insignificant to escape it.

6. There are various modes and seasons in which God intimates to the sinner, even in the present life, His estimate of his character. He does this in exposing his true character to the knowledge end the detestation of his fellow-creatures: and how horrible is public shame and infamy when it is considered as an expression of the secret abhorrence of the Judge of all! He does this in the destruction which He brings on sinners around them in their sins, and in the exposure of their wickedness. In such sad events the sinner is made to read his own character, and to hear his own doom. He does this in the melancholy reflections of old age on a life spent without God, and closing without hope. And He often intimates this estimate of the sinners character to him on his death-bed.

7. There is something very solemn and awful about such intimations. There are various considerations which evince this to be the case. Were it merely the expression of human opinion it might be despised, but it is His verdict in whose hand our final destiny rests. It is often unexpected. Little did Belshazzar imagine that such an intimation was approaching. In the eye of fancy he beheld his enemies retiring from the siege of Babylon, public applause placing new crowns on his head, and a long career of prosperity and glory opening before him. Little did the man who had gone to the feast without the wedding garment imagine that on that day he was to be exposed and punished. CONCLUSION. How much is it to be desired that the lessons of this scene should be pondered by the rulers and the judges of the earth! Let them bow before Him by whom kings reign and princes decree justice. How similar to that of Belshazzar was the character and sudden exit of Charles the Second in England!--a monarch whose debaucheries were copied in the licentiousness of his subjects, and whose cruel persecutions the flatterer attempts to excuse, and the bigot to vindicate in vain. This suddenness in his fate, says Evelyn in his Diary, might well create awful feelings in those who had witnessed the life he continued to lead, till the stroke of death arrested him. I saw this evening such a scene of profuse gaming, and luxurious dallying and profaneness in the palace, as I had never before witnessed. A week after he assisted at the proclamation of his successor, and thus records his feelings: I can never forget the luxury and profaneness, gaming and all dissoluteness, and, as it were, total forgetfulness of God, it being Sabbath evening which, this day seennight, I was witness to, the king dallying with his mistresses, a French boy singing wanton songs to amuse them, and a number of the courtiers in deep play round a gaming-table. Six days after all was in the dust. But all ranks of people should listen to the instructions which are taught them by this scene. Let not any say, I shall never be moved, I shall never be in adversity. Mark every intimation which God gives you of the solemn change. Let good men receive the consolation which is imparted to them by this subject, however gloomy it may appear. Whatever disasters may happen, the kindness of God shall not depart from you, and with your joy a stranger cannot intermeddle. Let ungodly men be afraid. Make not the terrors of judgment the subject of your mirth. (H. Belfrage, D.D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:28 Parsin means ‘divided’ (or halved): The Babylonian Empire would be divided and given to two peoples, the Medes and the Persians.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Peres--the explanation of "dividers" (Dan 5:25), the active participle plural there being used for the passive participle singular, "dividers" for "divided." The word "Peres" alludes to the similar word "Persia."

divided--namely, among the Medes and Persians [MAURER]; or, "severed" from thee [GROTIUS].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The word פרס, Pheres, is added, for the word Phersin, meaning his kingdom was divided among the Medes and Persians. I have no doubt that by this word God signified the dispersion of the Monarchy which was at hand. When, therefore, he says Upharsin, and they shall divide, it signifies the instability of the Monarchy, since he wished to destroy or utterly abolish it. But the Prophet alludes very appositely to the division made between the Medes and Persians; and thus his disgrace was increased by the Babylonians being compelled to serve many masters. This is indeed a grave and serious disgrace, when a people has obtained a wide and extensive empire, to be afterwards conquered and subjected to the yoke of a single master; but when it suffers under two masters, then the indignity is greatly increased. So Daniel here shews how God’s wrath was complicated in the destruction of the monarch of Babylon, since it added to the severity of their punishment, to be subdued by both Medes and Persians. The city, indeed, was truly taken by the valor and industry of Cyrus; but since Cyrus admitted his father-in-law to the great honor of allowing him to partake of the royal authority, hence the Medes and Persians are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was properly no division of the kingdom. Cyrus afterwards engaged in other expeditions, as he was led away by his insatiable avarice and ambition. But Darius, as we shall afterwards see, died at the age of sixty years, dwelt quietly at home, and it is very well known that he was a Mede; and if we may believe the majority of historians, his sister, the mother of Cyrus, had been banished to Persia, in consequence of the oracle concerning the fortune and greatness of Cyrus. Since his grandfather had exposed him, he afterwards avenged the injury, yet, not so cruelly as to take his life,-for he desired him to retain some dignity, and hence appointed him a satrap. But his son afterwards reigned over the Medes, with the full permission of Cyrus, who next married his daughter; and thus, on account of this relationship, and through the influence of this new alliance, he wished to have him as a partner in the empire. In this sense, then, Daniel narrates the division of the Monarchy to be at hand, since the Medes and the Persians should divide it among them. It follows, —

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

28. the Medes and Persians] See on Dan_5:31.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PERES,.... The singular of "Pharsin", Dan 5:25. The sense of this word is,

thy kingdom is divided: which, though it consisted of various provinces, united under Belshazzar, now should be broken and separated from him:

and given to the Medes and Persians; to Darius the Mede, and to Cyrus the Persian, who was a partner for a while with his uncle Darius in the government of the empire: there is an elegant play on words in the words "Peres" and "Persians"; and a grievous thing it is to sinners, not only to have body and soul divided at death, but to be divided and separated from God to all eternity; and to hear that sentence, "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels".

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Peres - In Dan 5:25 this is “Upharsin.” These are but different forms of the same word - the word in Dan 5:25 being in the plural, and here in the singular. The verb (פרס peras) means, to “divide;” and in this form, as in the previous cases, it is, according to Gesenius, participle meaning “divided.” As it stands here, it would be applicable to anything that was “divided” or “sundered” - whether a kingdom, a palace, a house, territory, etc. “What” was divided could be known only by Divine revelation. If the “word” had been understood by Belshazzar, undoubtedly it would have suggested the idea that there was to be some sort of division or sundering, but what that was to be would not be indicated by the mere use of the word. Perhaps to an affrighted imagination there might have been conveyed the idea that there would be a revolt in some of the provinces of the empire, and that a part would be rent away, but it would not have occurred that it would be so rent that the whole would pass under the dominion of a foreign power. Josephus (“Ant.” b. x. ch. xi. Section 3) says, that the word “Phares in the Greek tongue means a “fragment,” κλασμα klasma - God will, therefore, break thy kingdom in pieces, and divide it among the Medes and Persians.”

Thy kingdom is divided - That is, the proper interpretation of this communication is, that the kingdom is about to be rent asunder, or broken into fragments. It is to be separated or torn from the dynasty that has ruled over it, and to be given to another.

And given to the Medes and Persians - On this united kingdom, see the notes at Isa 13:17. It was “given” to the Medes and Persians when it was taken by Cyrus, and when the kingdom of Babylon became extinct, and thenceforward became a part of the Medo-Persian empire. See the notes at Isa 13:17, Isa 13:19.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Persians. Those who confound Baltassar with Nabonides, say that Cyrus made himself master of all the empire. How then was it divided? Darius rather took possession of the greatest part while Cyrus had Persia, (Calmet) till his uncle’s death. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Separated, divided, broken.

Peres signifies two things,

broken off, and

Persian; noting, first, That this kingdom was broken from Belshazzar, and his line and family. Secondly, That it was given from the Chaldeans to the Persians. Then it was divided between the Medes and Persians; for Cyrus took Babylon, he was a Persian; after that he gave part of it to Darius his son-in-law, and he was a Mede; and so they were as it were partners. So this vast empire, that was one sole, entire thing under Belshazzar, becomes now as it were two, divided betwixt the Medes and Persians, which thing is curious to observe, from this word

Phars, Pharsin, Peres, which signifies not only dividing, but

Persian, as Pliny testifies. With the Chaldeans, the Persians, in Scripture, are called Elamites.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

PERES - Separated, divided, broken. Phars signifies two things, broken off, and Persian; noting that, first, this kingdom was broken down from Belshazzar. Secondly, that it was given to the Persians.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Your kingdom has been broken up, etc. i.e., UFARSIN means two definitions of PEREIS; one is that your kingdom פְּרִיסַת, your kingdom has been broken up, and the second one is that it has been given to Media and Persia (וּפָּרַס).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.