“The Handwriting on the Wall”
Daniel 5:25-28
John Walvoord, in Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, explains the above passage:
“In beginning his explanation of the handwriting on the wall, Daniel first of all reads the writing; and for the first time, the words are introduced into the text of this chapter. Transliterated into English, they are given as “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” There has been almost endless critical discussion as to what the meaning of this inscription is, and the interpretation is complicated by a number of factors.*32 In the book of Daniel the words are given in Aramaic, but some have questioned this. If it was written in Aramaic script, however, only the consonants may have appeared. If in cuneiform, the vowels would be included. While in ordinary discourse the lack of vowels could normally be supplied rather easily, in a cryptic statement such as this the addition of vowels is a problem. The inscription on the wall may have appeared like this, “MN’ MN’ TQL UPRSN.” The order of the letters in the Aramaic, of course, would be the reverse of this, that is, from right to left.
Young suggests, after some of the rabbis, that the characters may have been written vertically,a4 and in that case in the Aramaic order they would have appeared as follows:
P T M M
RQNN
SL’’
If, in addition to the complications of the Aramaic, a language which was known, some unfamiliar form of their characters was used, it would indeed have required divine revelation to give a suitable explanation and interpretation, and may account for the difficulty in reading the writing.
.*32 1n the end, even the critics accept either the interpretation of Daniel (mene, “numbered”; tekel, “weighed”; peres, “divided”); or the reading, “ a maneh, a maneh, a shekel, and a half-maneh,” see exposition.
Because of the variety of words that could be identified merely by the consonants, another suggestion has been made. MENE could be considered equivalent to the maneh of Ezekiel 45:12; Ezra 2:69. TEQEL could be considered as representing the Hebrew shekel. PERES could be read as PERAS, or a half-maneh, although this identification is questionable. Under this interpretation, the writing would read, “A maneh, a maneh, a shekel, and a half-maneh.” Having arrived at this conclusion, however, it still remains to be determined what it means. Young in his discussion on this point gives J. Dymeley Prince* the credit for the suggestion that the maneh refers to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (of much less value) to Belshazzar, and the half -minas refers to the Medes and the Persians.35 Daniel’s explanation, however, is far more cogent and reasonable, and does not give any indication that the words mean other than he indicates.
The word MENE means “numbered,” and Daniel interprets this in verse 26 as indicating “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.” It is in keeping with the idea that man’s days are numbered, and the repetition of the word twice is probably for emphasis. Like the other words, it is a passive participle.
TEQEL means “weighed,” with the thought that Belshazzar has been put into the balances and found wanting, that is, short of true weight.
PERES means “divided,” and is merely another form for UPHARSIN as in verse 25 having the u, which is equivalent to the English and, with PHARSIN being the plural of PERES. Leupold suggests that PHARSIN could be understood by changing the vowels to be “Persians”36 and might have a double meaning as indicated by Daniel’s explanation “given to the Medes and Persians.” A pun may be intended on this third word. Having been interpreted to mean “divided,” it is also understood as a reference to the Aramaic word for Persian, thereby hinting a Persian victory over Babylon.
The interpretation of Daniel is clear and much more satisfactory than the alternatives offered by some expositors. Belshazzar is made to understand that Babylon will be given to the Medes and the Persians. Even while Daniel was interpreting the writing on the wall, the prophecy was being fulfilled as the Medes and the Persians poured into the city.
*Since Prince, who wrote his commentary in 1899, many others have followed the suggestion of Clennont-Ganneau (Journal Asiatique) 1886, that the inscription contained a string of weight names. E. G. Kraeling (“The Handwriting on the Wall,” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 [1944]: 11-18) assuming that five kings are in view—i.e., mane is given twice and the upharsin equals two half-minas—suggests that the five kings following Nebuchadnezzar were intended, viz., Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Labashi-Mardulc, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. D. N. Freedman (“Prayer of Nabonidus” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145 [1957]: 32) identifies die three kings as Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Freedman cites H. Louis Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel, pp. 24-26) as holding that only three kings are referred to, viz., Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar.
A particularly imaginative interpretation has been given to this passage of Scripture by writers who reject the literal hermeneutic. One such writer, Mr. Colin Heath from “Bibleinsights” writes:
“ NUMBER ONCE (GOLD)
- 100 shekels divided into gerahs(20 per shekel) = 2,000 gerahs ie 2,000 years!
NUMBER TWICE (SILVER)
- 300 shekels divided into gerahs(20 per shekel) = 6,000 gerahs ie 6,000 years!
These periods are counted backwards from the close of the age of man.
** 100 Shekels ** ** 300 Shekels **
GOLD SILVER
- 6,000 yrs (20x(10+5))
| (Adam & Eve)
- 4,000 yrs (20x10)
| (Abraham called)
- 2,010 yrs |
| (Pentecost) |
- 10 yrs |
(Tribulation)
- 0 (Kingdom of God)
Does Scripture always have more than one meaning or does Scripture never have more than one meaning?
One example: Moses struck the rock and water came out of it. The fact is that God performed a miracle that day to bring water out of a rock by the command of Moses’ rod. This was literal and people drank from the miraculous water that day. Paul made reference to this event in 1 Cor 10: 4, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
When the Scriptures clearly indicate that there is an antitype we may not ignore nor reject the truth of the facts.
To make every incident of the OT to have an antitype and secondary meaning, either allegorical or spiritual, is to water down the Word to man’s view of the incident as opposed to authorial intent presented by the writer moved by the Spirit of God.
One of the debates that rages in Christian circles is God’s purpose for Israel. If Israel came to a permanent end in 70 A.D., then Israel has been replaced and the future tribulation and Kingdom of God aspect of scripture has only spiritual significance and not actual.
Nearly 30% of Scripture deals with the prophetic nature of the Word of God. 2301 references are made to Israel. 72 of those references are found in the NT. And they almost always refer to the people chosen in Exodus 19.
When an obscure reference is selected and made the dominant truth, new trains of thought always emerge and the student must search to substantiate his position rather than what is the majority view.
The Daniel passage and the handwriting on the wall does not appear to have an antitype referenced in Scripture.
God pronounced judgment which was to happen immediately upon the scoundrel grandson of Nebuchadnezzar that he would lose power and his life by the hands of the Medes and Persians. This prophecy was fulfilled the same night it was spoken. The head of gold was eliminated without much incident and the torso and arms of silver, the divided empire of the Medes and Persians, took control of the world power.
“Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” was fulfilled and has no secondary fulfillment. It does not refer to dates and predictions of a future date yet to be realized. It was an historical forecast with very little notice and found its fulfillment in the phenomenal demise of Babylon and assumption of power by Media and Persia almost instantaneously.