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.
Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden ... vessels. While under the effects of wine, men will do what they dare not do when sober.
Which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem. "His father Nebuchadnezzar," i:e., his forefather. So "Jesus ... the son of David, the son of Abraham." Daniel does not say that the other kings mentioned in other writers did not reign between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar-namely, Evil-merodach (Jeremiah 52:31), Neriglissar, his brother-in-law, and Laborasoarchod (nine months). Berosus makes Nabonnedus, the last king, to have been one of the people, raised to the throne by an insurrection. Since the inscriptions show that Belshazzar was distinct from and joint-king with him, this is not at variance with Daniel, whose statement that Belshazzar was son (grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar is corroborated by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 27:7). Their joint yet independent testimony, as contemporaries, and having the best means of information, is more trustworthy than that of the pagan historians, if there were a discrepancy.
Evil-merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar (according to Berosus) reigned but a short time (one or two years), having, in consequence of his bad government, been dethroned by a plot of Neriglissar, his sister's husband; hence, Daniel does not mention him. At the elevation of Nabonnedus as supreme king, Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was doubtless suffered to be subordinate king and successor, in order to conciliate the legitimate party. Thus the seeming discrepancy becomes a confirmation of genuineness when cleared up, for the real harmony must have been undesigned.
That the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Not usually present at feasts in the East, where females of the harem are kept in strict seclusion. Hence, Vashti's refusal to appear at Ahasuerus' feast, (Esther 1:1-22.) But the Babylonian court, in its reckless excesses, seems not to have been so strict as the Persian. Xenophon ('Cyropaedia,' 5: 2, 28) confirms Daniel, representing a feast of Belshazzar where the concubines are present. At the beginning the "thousand of his lords" (Daniel 5:1), for whom the feast was made, alone seem to have been present; but as the revelry advanced the females were introduced. Two classes of them are mentioned: those to whom belonged the privileges of "wives," and those strictly concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; Song of Solomon 6:8).