Today, we will talk about King Belshazzar’s wife, but first, let me give a bit of context.
In my last few blogs, I’ve been talking about Jeremiah’s prophesy of destruction for Jerusalem and, more specifically, how God invited women to be part of this. Their role to lead mourning in the midst of it and celebration in the redemption of it.
Today, we’re in the Book of Daniel. Which is to say that Jeremiah’s prophesy is now reality; Daniel takes place after Jerusalem fell to Babylon, with many Jewish people being captured and taken to Babylon.
We can understand what a far cry Babylon is from Jerusalem in the events recorded in Daniel. For instance, we have Daniel appealing that he and his fellow Jewish men might be able to continue eating the diet they are accustomed to (Daniel 1). There is also the favourite Sunday school story of three fellow Jewish men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, being thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship the King (Daniel 3).
And we have the lamenting of the unknown psalmist “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion… How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137:1,4).
Babylon is a Godless place, but not a godless place. King Nebuchadnezzar and later his son, King Belshazzar, jumped at opportunities to be worshipped, to assert themselves as a god; Nebuchadnezzar required that people bow to a statue of himself (the requirement that had Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego thrown into the furnace) and later on, Belshazzar who required that people worship no other god (what sends Daniel to the lion’s den).
After each instance of seeing God’s goodness or wisdom or provision, as demonstrated by Daniel or the firey three, King Nebuchadnezzar would have these beautiful moments of clarity where he would recognize God as God and praise him. But always, he would forget again.
Where we enter the story today, his son, King Belshazzar, is reigning in his place. During his father’s reign, he would have seen the power of God, the God of Israel, in not only saving Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace but enduring it with them (Daniel 3). And he would have seen the wisdom of God when Daniel was able to interpret two of his dreams (Daniel 4).
And yet, when he sees, quite literally, the writing on the wall (in case you’d wondered where that phrase came from, it’s Daniel 5), he turns to what he knows—calls in the enchanters, Chaldeans, astrologers, and wise men—and when no one can interpret the writing for him, he turns to fear.
This is where his wife, the Queen, enters the story. Speaking of forgetfulness, I hadn’t remembered her, and I was struck by the length and forcefulness of her speech. She has more words than many of the women we study.
It is her, not the King and not the officials or wise men, who remembers what occurred during King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; she remembers Daniel. She has quite a long speech, making her appeal with confident claims; she tells the King not to be afraid, tells him who can help him, reminds him of Daniel’s resume, and directs him to call upon him—which he does.
I can think of other instances in Scripture when wives of powerful men appeal to them; off the top of my head, is Queen Esther to King Xerxes in the saving of the Jewish people and Pilot’s wife to Pilot in the prosecution of Jesus—some fairly consequential moments in Jewish history.
So, we have a precedent of women being appealers. But what stood out to me in this instance is her role as rememberer. Queen Esther’s appeal was guided by Mordecai and, understandably, her own self-interest. Pilot’s wife’s appeal was prompted by a disturbing dream.
But Belshazzar’s wife’s appeal to go to Daniel for wisdom and clarity comes from her remembering the past goodness of God, remembering what Belshazzar and his officials seem to have forgotten.
Remembrance, particularly, remembering the goodness of God, is a Biblical motif. Think about the narrative construct of the Torah: the repetition, particularly of the exile and the laws, is not accidental or to fill up pages—it was not written by highschool students trying to hit a word count—rather, the Biblical authors, inspired by the Spirit, know how forgetful human nature is.
We know very little about this Queen, not even her name or heritage are noted. I think it’s safe to assume that she, living in Babylon and married to the King of Babylon, is a Babylonian. That she is not a Jewish woman. Which is to say that her knowledge of God—as far back as she can remember of the story of God and his goodness—might very well be to Daniel and his friends as young men. It’s very possible that this is all she knows of God and his story.
Her small offering leads to the King summoning and listening to Daniel. To Daniel being promoted within the Kingdom. To the King reckoning with the power and goodness of God when Daniel is saved from the lions.
I just started classes for seminary last week, and I am perhaps more aware than usual of how much more there is to know about the story of God’s goodness. This is a concern I often have in the writing of this blog; it is not an academic exercise. I don’t have the time to do all the reading and research needed for that type of exegesis. All I can offer is what the Lord has shown me of his character and story in my daily reading and reflecting—parts of today’s blog are pulled from my journal this week as I sat and worked through what I’d read that morning.
I think I see a certain gentleness of God, his bent for his loved ones to know him, his ability to use any who are willing, in how he would enable the Queen to turn the King to himself, even though, as far as we know, she didn’t even really know the God she was turning him to! And in how he would allow me to gesture to him, in this space and others, while he alone knows what I still don’t know.
He is such a wonderful compassionate God.This was so interesting Rose.You are a terrific writer.Blessings as you start this new chapter of ministry.❤️
It was also Pilate's wife who God used to give her husband a choice., ... to "have nothing to do with that 'just man.'"