Between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar on the Babylonian throne, there were at least four kings. The biblical text of Daniel chapter 5 is often read as if there were no other rulers between them — Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father.” But history and the biblical text itself show a more complex picture. Understanding this sequence helps us see the accuracy of Scripture and the deeper spiritual meaning of the story.
Who ruled after Nebuchadnezzar
The historical sequence of Babylonian kings:
- Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) — the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Mentioned in the Bible: “he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison” (2 Kings 25:27, Jer 52:31).
- Neriglissar — seized the throne through marriage into the royal family.
- Labashi-Marduk — reigned for a very short time.
- Nabonidus — the actual supreme ruler of the empire at the end of its existence.
- Belshazzar — the son of Nabonidus, co-regent in the capital itself.
Evil-Merodach is directly mentioned in Scripture — this is an important biblical reference, which confirms that after Nebuchadnezzar there was another king.
“And it came to pass in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin… Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, showed favor to Jehoiachin king of Judah.” 2 Kings 25:27
Why Belshazzar is the central figure in Dan. 5
Daniel 5 describes Belshazzar’s feast, the mysterious writing on the wall, and the fall of Babylon. It is Belshazzar who summons the guests, orders the temple vessels to be brought, promises a reward to Daniel, and acts as king. For the eyewitnesses of that night, he was the real ruler.
Especially striking is the text:
“Then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, and a chain of gold was put around his neck, and they proclaimed concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.” Dan. 5:29
Why exactly third? This fits the historical situation perfectly: first was Nabonidus (absent from the city), second was Belshazzar, and Daniel could only be offered the third position.
This is one of the indirect proofs of the historical reliability of the book of Daniel. At one time critics doubted Belshazzar’s existence — extra-biblical sources spoke more about Nabonidus. But later archaeological discoveries confirmed that Belshazzar действительно held high authority as co-regent.
Why Belshazzar is called Nebuchadnezzar’s “son”
In Daniel 5:11, 18, 22, Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s father. However, in biblical language the word “son” does not always mean a direct biological son. It can mean:
- a descendant
- a successor
- a representative of the dynasty
- an heir to royal authority
Therefore, the expression about Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s “son” does not contradict the existence of several kings between them. The book of Daniel emphasizes spiritual continuity: Belshazzar stood in the same Babylonian royal tradition and knew what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar, but did not draw the right conclusions.
“But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this.” Daniel 5:22
The emphasis is not only on genealogy, but on moral responsibility. Nebuchadnezzar was humbled by God and acknowledged His supreme authority. Belshazzar, knowing this history, continued in a proud and sacrilegious life.
What this story reveals about God’s judgment
The book of Daniel does not merely present a list of kings — it shows that God rules history. Babylon seemed unshakable, but on the night of the feast its kingdom came to an end:
“That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain.” Dan. 5:30
This is one of the strongest biblical lessons: human greatness, political power, and pride cannot stand before the judgment of God:
“He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings.” Dan. 2:21
Conclusion.
Between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar there reigned Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, and Nabonidus. Belshazzar himself acted as co-regent under Nabonidus. The biblical account in Daniel 5 does not contradict history — on the contrary, it agrees with it very well.
The practical lesson is simple: knowing the facts of the Bible is important, but even more important is to learn from them. Belshazzar knew about God’s actions in Nebuchadnezzar’s life, but he did not humble himself. So today it is worth asking ourselves: do I draw conclusions from God’s Word—or do I only possess information?
