A Prophet and President On Separation

A Prophet and A President on Separation of Church and State by Loren Lineberry
The issue of the separation of church and state continues to be a vexing one. Particularly among
religious and political conservatives, the issue is viewed as the core of what morally plagues much of the
nation. Prayer in public schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, and the
matter of abortion on demand are all matters requiring the fusing of church and state. On the other hand,
there are those who would affirm that there is a wall of separation between church and state. The
question is: Where does one look for guidance on the issue?
The essay intends to shed light on the issue by seeking the guidance of a prophet and a
president. The prophet is Daniel; the president is Thomas Jefferson.
The thesis of the essay is that both the prophet and the president affirm a type of separation of
church and state. Daniel does so in terms of a transference motif in chapter 7; Jefferson does so by
affirming that a wall of separation exists between the church and the state. Daniel avers that the church
has a task in which the state has no part whatsoever; Jefferson claims that the state has no business
whatsoever intermingling in the affairs of the church.
The essay will consider the relevant sections of the prophet Daniel concerning the transference
motif. The objective of this treatment will be to show that the transference motif implies that the people
of God have a task in which the state has no part. Then, the essay will consider the full text of Jefferson’s
letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, a letter which affirms that Congress is inhibited from acts
respecting religion. Further support from the writings of Jefferson is consulted. Both men seem to see
separation between Church and State.
For Daniel, the operative statement is Daniel 7:27 – thus, the kingly authority, the dominion, and
the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens has been given to a people, the saints of
the Most High; their kingly authority – an eternal kingly authority; that is, all dominions will serve and
show themselves obedient to Him.
For Thomas Jefferson, the operative statement comes from a letter he wrote in January of 1802.
The key line in the letter reads, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& God1, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation
between Church & State.
We begin by considering Daniel 7:27 in its context before moving to Jefferson’s statement of
1802 concerning the separation of Church and State.
Daniel 7:27 in the Context of Daniel 7
The broader context of Daniel 7:27 is 7:23-27. Moreover, Daniel 7:23-28 is a second
interpretation of the fourth beast in chapter 7 of Daniel. The first interpretation of the fourth beast arises
in Daniel 7:19-20, and the second interpretation comes in 7:23-27. This alerts us to consider the broader
context of Daniel chapter 7.
1
Spelling conventions are those of the original. For the reader who wants to skip the gory
details, a summary of the material from Daniel may be found on pages 26-28; the Thomas Jefferson
material may be found on pages 29-35; and the conclusions begin on page 36. The operating system is
Windows 7; the Hebrew font is Jerusalem and the Greek font is koine.
1
It will be useful to appreciate the structure of Daniel 7 as a whole. Thus:
An historical introduction – 7:1

A vision report of four beasts – 7:12-14
The four beasts appear – 7:2-3
The first three beasts – 7:4-6
The fourth beast – 7:7-12
The fourth beast – 7:7-8
A throne-judgment scene – 7:9-10
A reversal of fortune for the beasts, including the small horn – 7:11-12
Dominion granted to one like a son of man – 7:13-14
An interpretation of the vision of the four beasts – 7:15-27
The initial interpretation of the vision of the four beasts – 7:16-18
The request for an interpretation – 7:16
The saints, not the state, tale possession of the kingdom – 7:17-18
A request for further clarification regarding the fourth beast – 7:19-27
The details of the request for further clarification – 7:19-20
Clarification provided – 7:21-27
The actions of the small horn – 7:21
Judgment and saints take possession of a new kingdom – 7:22
The final interpretation of the fourth beast – 7:23-27
A detailed explanation of the fourth beast – 7:23
The acts of the single horn – 7:24-25
A judgment scene – 7:26
The transference of dominion to the saints – 7:27
Clearly, Daniel structures this chapter in such a way as to progressively unpack the tension
between the beasts-kings and the saints of the Most High, or, in more modern parlance, between the
state and the church. It may help the reader to appreciate the progressive clarifications of Daniel 7, thus:
The four beasts-kings 7:2-3 7:17

The fourth beast-king 7:8 7:19-20 7:23
The ten horns-kings 7:7 7:20 7:24
The small horn-king 7:8 7:19-20 7:24-25
The judgment motif 7:9-10 7:22 7:26
Transference/kingdom 7:14 7:18 7:22 7:27
As the reader can see, the chapter builds up to and underlines the transference motif. In Daniel
7:14, as we shall note, the dominion of the beasts-kings in 7:12 is, in effect, transferred to one like a son of
man in 7:14. This transference is a consequence of judgment, 7:13. In 7:18, the transference motif takes
the form of the saints of the Most High who take possession of the kingdom, once in the power of the
kings of the earth, 7:17. In 7:22, the saints of the Most High take possession of the kingdom, ostensibly in
the hand of the small horn-king who had been waging war with them, 7:21. This transference is also a
result of judgment, 7:22. Finally, in 7:27, the saints of the Most High are granted dominion after the
dominion of the small horn is utterly annihilated 7:26. Again, this transference is a consequence of
judgment, 7:26. Accordingly, we begin our consideration of the transference theme by considering it in
Daniel 7:14, 18, and 22.
2
The Transference Theme in Daniel 7:14
Thesis. Daniel 7:14 uses key terms in such a way as to underscore the transference theme. That
is, dominion, royal honor, kingdom, pay reverence, and the phrase every people, nation, and language are
all terms that were once used in reference to some political-military leader but are now applied to one like
a son of man in Daniel 7:14. The net effect is transference from the former to the latter. Moreover,
Daniel 7:14 teases out the divine purpose for this transference – so that every people would pay reverence
to the Son of Man. This latter purpose is a task in which the state has no part, thus implying a sort of
separation between the work of the people of God and the state.
Daniel 7:14 may be translated – Then, to Him was given dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom;
so that every people, nation, and [men of every] language would pay reverence to Him; His dominion – an
everlasting dominion that will never pass away and His kingdom [is one] which will never be destroyed. 2
To begin with, the reader may appreciate the back references attached to dominion, royal
honor, kingdom, pay reverence, as well as the phrase every people, nation, and [men of every] language.
These key terms, once applied to human, political leaders, are now transferred to the son of man figure.
Dominion. Daniel 7:14 affirms that to Him – the son of man figure – was given dominion. The
noun glossed dominion - ˆflv – is used fourteen times in the Aramaic section of Daniel, three times of
Yahweh’s dominion [4:3, 34; 6:27] , six times in reference to the dominion of a political-military leader
[4:22; 6:27a; 7:6, 12 (dominion is stripped away), 26, 27c], three times in reference to the dominion of the
son of man figure [7:143], and once of the saints of the Most High [7:27a]. It will be useful to consider the
use of ˆflv in 4:22, 7:6, 12, and 14.
In Daniel 4:22, ˆflv refers to the power, mastery of Nebuchadnezzar, a level of control that
extends to the distant parts of the earth.
In Daniel 7:6, the third beast in the vision, a leopard, is given ˆflv/dominion. In its context in 7:6,
ˆflv seems to point to mastery over or ruling over. The precise form of this dominion is not made explicit
in the context. Moreover, we note that this dominion is given. The Aramaic verb – bhy – figures
prominently in the book of Daniel, and means to be given in the Pe’il stem.3 The implication of the stem is
that Yahweh is effectively the One who does the giving of this mastery. To be sure, bhy/to give is used
consistently in Daniel of Yahweh’s action. He gives power, life and dominion. The upshot is that this verb
in this stem implies that what is given at one time may be given to another at another time. Indeed, this
is precisely how Daniel uses bhy in relation to ˆflv/dominion in the latter portion of chapter 7. That is, the
ˆflv/dominion of this third beast is removed [7:12a] and subsequently byhy/given to the one like a son of
man figure [7:14], thus carrying out the transference.
With Daniel 7:12, we begin to get a hint of the nature of the transference of dominion. That is, in
Daniel 7:12, the ˆflv/dominion of three of the beasts-kings is removed, while a lengthening of life is given
to them for a time and a season. Obviously, the fact that ˆflv/dominion is removed does not mean that
these beasts-kings vanish from existence, since a lengthening of life is given to them for a finite amount of
time. Moreover, the writer is not offering us an account of the end of human history as we know it for the
2
All translations are the author’s.
3
The verb glossed is given – bhy [Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, ms] – is written in a stem that is passive in
nuance [Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1927), 93 o]. To be sure, this verb is used of the actions of Yahweh on various
fronts; He gives wisdom [2:21, 23]; He gives power to kings and leaders of nations [2:37, 38; 5:18, 19, 28];
He gives extended life to beasts-kings [7:12]; He gives dominion to one like a son of man [7:14] and He
gives dominion to the saints of the Most High [7:27].
3
simple reason that the human history of the three beasts-kings in question continues for a time and a
season.
The nature of the ˆflv/dominion in 7:12 is still mastery or rule or power and control. However,
the fact that these three beasts-kings continue to exist must be taken into account. The reason for this is
their reappearance [they do continue for a time and a season] in chapter eight. In chapter 8, the second
and the third of these beasts reappear and they are prominent in chapter 8. The crucial point is to
observe that they wage war and seem to engage in expansionism on a fairly large scale in chapter 8. The
implication is that the nature of the ˆflv/dominion they lose in 7:12 is not the power to wage war and to
attempt to expand.4 Whatever the precise manifestation of this ˆflv/dominion actually is, it is something
other than political and military power.
The verb in 7:12a – wyd[h – may be translated to take away, or to remove.5 The stem in which
the verb is used communicates causation. Thus, Yahweh [causes to take away, or] removes the dominion
of the three beasts-kings in Daniel 7:12a. Accordingly, at some unspecified level, the ˆflv/dominion in 7:6
– power, mastery, control – that is given to the third beast-king is removed in 7:12a. We may infer that
some sort of transference of ˆflv/dominion – power, mastery, control – is underway between 7:6 and
7:12a, as indeed it is. Eventually, in Daniel 7:14, we will realize that the son of man figure is given – byhy –
ˆflv/dominion.6
In Daniel 7:14, the son of man figure is brought before Ancient of Days and is given dominion,
royal honor, and a kingdom; the purpose for this is so that every people, nation, and [men of every]
language would pay reverence to Him; finally, the chief characteristic of His dominion is its permanence –
His dominion [will be] an everlasting dominion.
Daniel 7:14 uses the same language in reference to the son of man figure – dominion – that has
been previously used of human leaders. At some level, the dominion they once had is now His. The
dominion is transferred from them to Him.
We have already made the case for ˆflv/dominion as language once used with reference to
political and military leaders, who exerted power, control and mastery. Now, the ˆflv/dominion – power,
direction, authority, control – is subsequently transferred to the son of man [7:14].7
4
To be sure, if a connection is made between the he-goat in chapter 8 and Alexander the Great,
war, expansion, and the power to create a new culture is still with these beasts-kings.
5
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, translated and edited by M. E. J.
Richardson, vol. 2, p-t [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1944r [hereafter abbreviated KB2]. The verb has Ancient Near
Eastern cognates that shed light here. The Egyptian Aramaic cognate may be translated in this stem – to
remove or to take away; a Mandaean cognate may be translated to be taken away. The verb is used nine
times in the Aramaic section of Daniel [2:21; 3:27; 4:31; 5:20; 6:8, 12; 7:12, 14, 26]. In six of the
appearances of the verb, Yahweh is the principle actor [2:21; 4:31; 5:20; 7:12, 14, 26]. In 2:21, Yahweh
removes kings; in 4:31;5:20, the sovereignty of king Nebuchadnezzar is removed; in 7:12, the dominion of
three beasts-kings is removed; in 7:14, the dominion of the son of man figure will never be removed; in
7:26, the dominion of the small horn-king is removed, annihilated and eradicated forever.
The verb – wyd[h [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl] – is used in a stem that is causative [Bauer-
Leander § 76 i]. The net effect is that the action of the verb is caused, presumably by Yahweh.
6
The reader is alerted to the fact that it is in Daniel 7:14 that the nature of this ˆflv/dominion is
specified. Indeed, this ˆflv/dominion is quite separate from the ˆflv/dominion of the state.
7
Ultimately, this ˆflv/dominion will be shared with the saints of the Most High, 7:27.
4
The upshot is that, after Daniel 7:14, the Son of Man enjoys a range of dominion in which the
former possessors of dominion – the state – now has no part. A separating has occurred.
Royal honor. We are told in Daniel 7:14 that the son of man is given royal honor.8 Speaking in
broad terms, rqy/royal honor is a term that points to status, especially the quality of being priceless, or
very highly valued.9 The noun points to persons who are recognized as possessing prestige and eminence.
The Septuagint translator uses a term for esteem, and the ANE cognates point to language that describes
the quality of value and dignity.
To be sure, rqy/royal honor is a gift that Nebuchadnezzar is prepared to bestow upon Daniel
[2:6]. At the same time, Daniel acknowledges that Yahweh has granted rqy/royal honor to
Nebuchadnezzar [2:7]. Later, Nebuchadnezzar affirms that rqy/royal honor is something that he has
created out of whole cloth for himself [4:30]. Then, after some humiliation from Yahweh,
Nebuchadnezzar returns to his original position that Yahweh has really been the one who granted him
rqy/royal honor [4:36]. Subsequently, Daniel would witness to Belshazzar to the effect that Yahweh is the
One who grants men like Nebuchadnezzar rqy/royal honor [5:18] and who can also remove rqy/royal
honor [5:20]. The net effect is that these passages, like the dominion passages, show that Yahweh is the
One who dispenses rqy/royal honor to political leaders, that Yahweh disposes of rqy/royal honor as He
sees fit, and can remove rqy/royal honor at will.
It should come as no surprise, then, that in Daniel 7:14, the Son of Man is brought before Ancient
of Days and given rqy/royal honor. The very same rqy/royal honor that had been granted to
Nebuchadnezzar, and presumably to Belshazzar, is now given – transferred to – the Son of Man. The
status, the quality of being highly valued, the prestige, the majesty, the esteem and the eminence once
the unique possession of the occupant of the palace are now attributed to the Son of Man.
The net effect is that there would seem to be transference of custody of high regard or esteem –
rqy/royal honor – from the world of the political-military leadership of the day to the Son of Man. Rank,
high value and impressiveness, in the social order are transferred from the world of the state and its
political-military leaders to the Son of Man. With this transference of rqy/royal honor to the Son of Man,
a separation has occurred with regard to rqy/royal honor; that is, status, prominence, rank, position and
8
The noun translated royal honor is rqy [noun, ms, sg]. The noun may be translated dignity,
honor [KB2, 1893r; see also Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-
Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press; reprint 1979, Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers), 1096r (all citations are from the Hendrickson reprint; hereafter abbreviated
BDB); also William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 408r, opts for honor, majesty.
Ancient Near Eastern cognates include an Akkadian cognate – aqaru – that may be translated to
be precious, to make rare, to value, to honor. There is also an Arabic cognate – waqar – that refers to
dignity as well as a Ugaritic adjective – yqr – that is translated precious [see William Yarchin, “rqy,” in
Willem VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999; CD-ROM); hereafter abbreviated NIDOTTE].
The LXX translator uses timh – worship, esteem, honor, such as is accorded a god or a superior
[Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised by Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968), 1793; hereafter abbreviated LSJ].
The noun appears seven times in the Aramaic of Daniel [2:6, 37; 4:30, 36; 5:18, 20; 7:14]. In 2:6,
rqy is honor that Nebuchadnezzar is prepared to bestow upon Daniel; in 2:37, Daniel makes it abundantly
clear to Nebuchadnezzar that rqy is honor or dignity that is bestowed by Yahweh; in 4:30,
Nebuchadnezzar attributes rqy to himself; in 4:36 and 5:18, Daniel once more makes it quite clear that rqy
is that which is bestowed by Yahweh.
9
See “Precious, costly,” in NIDOTTE.
5
high value are no longer with Nebuchadnezzar and his like, rather, rqy/royal honor is now with the Son of
Man. The Son of Man has a status in which the state has no part.
Kingdom. In Daniel 7:14, we are told that the son of man figure is given a kingdom.10 The lexical
data supports the sense of Wklm/kingdom as the office of ruling or the place where a sovereign holds
sway. Moreover, the LXX use of the noun – basileia – also confirms the sense of Wklm/kingdom as the
realm where one is ruled by a king. Obviously, in Daniel 7:14, the one who rules as a king is the son of
man.
As elsewhere, the transference motif is evident here too. The Wklm/kingdom is the place where
men like Nebuchadnezzar [4:31-32], Belshazzar [5:20, 26, 28], and Darius [6:1-2] once held sway as
sovereign. At the same time, the book of Daniel makes the proposition very clear that it is Yahweh who
grants Wklm/kingdom where and when He chooses [4:17]. It should come as no surprise, then, that
there is a transference implied in Daniel 7:14, when the son of man is given a Wklm/kingdom. As D. S.
Russell writes, “The dominion and authority which belong to all other kingdoms under heaven will be
transferred to this coming kingdom.” 11
We may stop to summarize the evidence for the transference motif in Daniel 7:14. The essence
of the argument is that each of the bestowals upon the Son of Man in Daniel 7:14a was once possessed by
political-military leaders. This applies to dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom.
Dominion, for example, was held by Nebuchadnezzar [Daniel 4:22], by Darius [Daniel 6:27a], and
by the third beast-king [Daniel 7:6]. But, this hold on dominion did not last, since the dominion of the first
three beasts-kings was removed [Daniel 7:12a]. While these beasts-kings were granted further life, the
dominion is given to one like a son of man [Daniel 7:14]. Ultimately, this same dominion will be shared
with the saints of the Most High [7:27a]. The movement of dominion from Nebuchadnezzar through
Darius and the others, coming to rest finally with with the son of man and the saints, shows that a
transference of dominion has occurred.
Then, there is the matter of royal honor. The status incorporated into this high esteem is
bestowed by Yahweh on a two Babylonian recipients [Daniel 2:37; 4:36; 5:18], only to be conferred on the
son of man figure in Daniel 7:14.
10
The noun translated kingdom is Wklm [noun, fm, sg]. The noun appears 53 times in the book
of Daniel [2:37, 39, 40-42, 44; 4:3, 17-18, 25-26, 29-32, 34, 36; 5:7, 11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28-29; 6:1-2, 4-5,
8, 27, 29; 7:14, 18, 22-24, 27 (there are multiple uses in some of these verses)].
The lexical data for Wklm/kingdom is as follows: BDB, 1106r, translates an organized kingdom;
KB2, glosses kingship, sovereignty; Holladay, 411, prefers realm, sovereignty, and kingdom.
The LXX translator uses basileia [kingdom, dominion, kingly office, being ruled by a king (a passive
sense of the noun), a reign (LSJ, 309)]. It would appear that the LXX translator uses the noun in the sense
of dominion, kingdom, or the place where one is ruled by a king.
Daniel uses Wklm/kingdom to reference the place where a political-military leader exercises his
sovereignty [2:37; 4:28, 33]. Moreover, Wklm/kingdom in Daniel may simply refer to an organized
kingdom, or more simply mankind [2:39, 40-42, 44]. Then, in Daniel 7:14, Wklm/kingdom would seem to
be pointing to the Messianic kingdom, or the kingdom of the saints, 7:18, 22, 27.
We should also note that in Daniel, it is Yahweh who bestows Wklm/kingdom [2:37-39; 4:17, 26;
5:18, 21]. Moreover, it is Yahweh who removes Wklm/kingdom when He sees fit [4:31-32 (bestowing
Wklm/kingdom on whomever He wishes); 5:20, 26, 28. Beyond this, it is only the Wklm/kingdom of
Yahweh that is permanent and eternal [4:34; 6:27; 7:14]. Finally, it is Yahweh who grants the
Wklm/kingdom to both the son of man [7:14, 27b] and the saints of the Most High [7:18, 22, 27a].
11
J. C. L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible, Daniel by D. S. Russell (Louisville: John Knox Press,
1981), 122.
6
Finally, the kingdom motif is also the object of transference. The Wklm theme is the place where
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius hold sway. Yet, in Daniel 7:14, it is the son of man personage to
whom a kingdom is given, thus signaling a transference.
The Divine Purpose. We now turn to a consideration of the divine purpose behind this
transference of dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom to the Son of Man. The purpose of the
transference is so that, every people, nation, and [men of every] language to Him would pay reverence.
The implication of this purpose for the transference motif is clear: sovereignty applies in only one
direction – the Son of Man. Acknowledging and submitting to the governance of this One King is the
responsibility of every people, nation, and [men of every] language; the state, in the form of its political,
legal, and military powers, has no part in this task at all. As the summary statement of Isaiah has it – the
government has settled upon His shoulders [Isaiah 9:5].
There are three issues connected with the Divine purpose that are relevant to the transference
motif: [1] the purpose of the transference – pay reverence; [2] the scope of the transference – every
people; and [3] the recipient of the purpose of the transference – to Him.
The syntax of the sentence may be set out thus: The granting of dominion, royal honor, and a
kingdom – to him was given dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom – followed by the purpose – so that,
every people, nation, and [men of every] language to Him would pay reverence.
Daniel 7:14b expresses the purpose or divine intention behind the investiture of the Son of Man
with the prerogatives, powers, and privileges once held by earthly kings. This investiture is so that there
would be universal reverence of the Son of Man. Clearly, this is a task in which the state has no part.
So that expresses intention or purpose. Daniel 7:14b opens with lkw, a simple waw prefixed to a
noun, so that every. The syntax of the sentence signals purpose through the simple waw that is prefixed
to the noun.12
The content of this purpose is paying reverence – jlp – to the son of man. The verb implies
servanthood.13 The verb has cognates in the Ancient Near East that are used of serving God.14 As used in
the book of Daniel, jlp is used of serving idols [Daniel 3:12, 14, 18], not serving idols to serve God [Daniel
3:28], serving God [Daniel 6:17, 21], serving the Son of Man [Daniel 7:14], and all dominions serving the
Most High [Daniel 7:27]. Obviously, jlp concerns one’s ultimate orientation in life. The verb as used in
Daniel implies to be under the control of one influence or the other and, thus, to serve the interests of one
or the other.
The verb, jlp has some interesting terms used with it, terms that may help us understand how jlp
is used. These other terms are: dgs, 6jr, and [mv.
12
For the connective, waw, to signal purpose, see Bauer-Leander § 70 c´; KB2, 1862; BDB, 1091.
13
KB2, 1957, translates the verb to serve; BDB, 1108, opts for to pay reverence to; Holladay, 417,
goes with to serve.
14
KB2, 1957.
7
When Daniel 3:12, 14, 18, and 28 use jlp, the writers uses the verb in connection with dgs. This
verb teases out the pay reverence, serve notion in jlp by underling the element of acquiescence or self-
denial with dgs.15 The net effect is that dgs teases out an implication of jlp by stressing the submission to
the authority of another signaled with serving or paying reverence to another.
Moreover, Daniel 3:28 uses jlp along with 6jr, a term that means to place one’s trust in.16
Obviously, serving or paying reverence to implies placing one’s trust in the one who is served.
In addition, Daniel 7:27 uses jlp in concert with [mv, where the latter verb is glossed to show
oneself obedient to. Clearly, jlp involves, in the final analysis, obedience to the dictates of the one to
whom reverence or servanthood is shown.
Finally, in the context of the book of Daniel, the transference motif is supported by an earlier use
of the verb, jlp. The verb is used in Daniel 3 in reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s attempt to get the three
Jews to serve and worship the statue he had created. This brazen attempt to wed religion with politics is
rebuffed by the three, initially to their detriment. Be that as it may, the three Jews refused to allow
religion to be a vehicle of showing ultimate allegiance to a political figure.
Here in Daniel 7:14, then, we see the purpose behind the investiture of the Son of Man figure
with the powers and prerogatives once given to earthly kings. Specifically, it is to eliminate this tension
between the state and the people of God by dissolving the tension in favor of living out one’s ultimate
allegiance in life to the Son of Man.
We may summarize the gist of what the divine purpose is behind transferring dominion, royal
honor, and a kingdom to the Son of Man. The motive behind this transference is paying reverence to this
Son of Man figure. The divine purpose involves the kind of orientation in life that means being under the
control or influence of the Son of Man and serving the interests of the Son of Man. The purpose behind
transferring sovereignty from those who previously held it is so that there would emerge a universal
reverence for the Son of Man. As the synonyms indicate, this jlp/reverence/servanthood also implies
submission to the authority of the Son of Man, placing one’s trust in the Son of Man, and showing oneself
obedience to the will of this Son of Man.
The divine purpose communicated in Daniel 7:14b has considerable significance for the
transference motif. The purpose motivating the transference of prerogatives and powers once held by
preceding regimes to the Son of Man is to create a universal reorientation in life. This readjustment is
such that the influence of the Son of Man and the interests of the Son of Man are paramount. The
transference of dominion to Him is oriented toward such purposes as submission to His authority, placing
one’s full and complete trust in Him, and demonstrating His sovereignty through life of obedience to His
will.
It is the case that the state has no part in this task, since the singular responsibility for this task
falls upon, as we shall note momentarily, every people, nation, and [men of every] language. Accordingly,
this purpose clause, which delineates the divine intention behind this transference of dominion, almost
seems to place a wall of separation between the people of God and the state’s legal, judicial, bureaucratic
and military powers in accomplishing this task.
The scope of the transference goes well beyond the narrow confines of state powers to embrace
every people, nation, and [men of every] language. The universality of the range of the transference to
ultimately unify all humanity around the Son of Man places us beyond the limitedness of state legal,
15
See KB2, 1937; BDB, 1104; Holladay, 414; Terence Fretheim, “dgs,” in NIDOTTE.
16
KB2, 1981.
8
political, and military power. To the extent that humanity is ever to be unified at all, such unity comes
only through freely chosen submission to the Son of Man.
The language used to describe humanity as a whole is instructive. The term used for people –
µm[ – is a noun that points to ethnic groups.17 The noun seems to imply ethnic identity based on blood
relationships.18 The term used for nation – µa – signals a nation or clan descended from a common
ancestry.19 The final term – ˆvl – obviously points to populations that differ by language group.20 The net
effect is that, taken as a whole, no exclusions are implied.
The divine purpose behind the transference of dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom is so that
all humanity would orient around the Son of Man in service, obedience and worship. When
Nebuchadnezzar legally demanded that all humanity serve, obey, and essentially worship him in Daniel 3,
he was motivated by an attempt to bring order to the diverse elements of his empire. Like others before
him and since, Nebuchadnezzar was inclined to see the powers of the state as “the embodiment of
order.”21 However, like the best laid plans of mice and men, these inclinations toward generating order
and unity through the law-making power of the state often go awry. The point behind transferring
dominion to the Son of Man figure is so that all humanity would acknowledge this: all authority has been
given to the Son of Man. The transference motif takes the form of every people, nation, and [men of
every] language recognizing that “real order is not that of earthly kingdoms but that which comes from
heaven.”22
Finally, we note the recipient of this transference of dominion. The repetition of the
prepositional phrase, to Him – hl – is suggestive. Note: to Him dominion was given so that to Him every
people, nation and language would pay reverence. Whatever else one may see in this relationship
between the dominion that is given and the reverence that is paid; both are oriented toward the Son of
Man. The state has no part whatsoever to play.
Let’s now take a moment to summarize the evidence for the transference motif in Daniel 7:14.
First, there are those bestowals upon the Son of Man figure that were once in the hands of previous
regimes – dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom. Second, there is the divine purpose for these bestowals;
this purpose is oriented toward the Son of Man Himself.
That dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom are associated with regimes in Daniel’s past is clear.
It is just as evident that these very same powers are transferred to the Son of Man figure. The movement
of dominion from Nebuchadnezzar through Belshazzar and Darius to the Son of Man, and ultimately to be
shared with the saints, is evidence that dominion is transferred. Similarly, royal honor is once attributed
to a man like Nebuchadnezzar, only to be transferred to the Son of Man. So it is with the kingdom
terminology in Daniel. Initially, the noun is uniquely the place where a political-military power rules, until
the Son of Man. Then, when the Son of Man is given a kingdom, the dominion and authority of all
previous regimes now fall upon Him. Overall, the transference of the powers once the unique province of
earthly rulers to the Son of Man would seem to be obvious. The upshot is that in terms of dominion, royal
17
For this nuance of the noun, see Holladay, 416.
18
See “Nations/Nationality: Theology,” in NIDOTTE.
19
Ibid.
20
For this sense of the noun, see KB2, 1902.
21
Goldingay, 190.
22
Ibid.
9
honor and a kingdom, the state really has no role. The kingdom, the glory, and the honor reside solely
with the Son of Man and those with whom He shares His reign.
One of the clearest warrants for the transference motif is the Divine purpose that is associated
with the transfer – to pay reverence to the Son of Man. The state, with all of its legal powers and all of its
military powers, has no real part in this resolve. Part of the reason for this is that one pays reverence to
one’s definitive focus in life. In this sense, the sense of decisive loyalty, the state can have no part, since
the state cannot become the object of one’s ultimate commitment. This ultimate commitment is teased
out in terms of submission to His authority, placing one’s trust in Him and demonstrating a life lived in
obedience to Him. Clearly, these are goals in life in which the state can have no part whatsoever.
Thesis. The transference motif in this context, Daniel 7:15-18, is signaled syntactically and
lexically.
The syntactical marker of transference is carried by an adversative sense of the conjunction that
opens Daniel 7:18. In Daniel 7:17a, we have an enumeration of the beasts – these great beasts, which are
four. This is followed in Daniel 7:17b with a clarification statement – they are four kings who will arise
from the earth. Then, Daniel 7:18a opens, syntactically, as a contrasting sentence – But, the saints of the
Most High will receive the kingdom. Finally, Daniel 7:18b disambiguates 7:18a – and take possession of
the kingdom forever and for eternity. In the contrast between Daniel 7:17 and 7:18, we have a syntactical
signal that the saints of the Most High have a task [7:18] in which the kings – the state – have no part.
There are two primary lexical markers that are significant for the transference motif in Daniel
7:17. The first is the figure of comprehensiveness, signaled by the adjective – four; the second is the figure
of the king that melds into the place where a king rules and reigns. Both of these images are impolrtant
for the transference theme in Daniel 7:17.
There are three lexical markers of the transference motif in Daniel 7:18. The first is the verb
translated will receive; the second is the verb will take possession of; and the third is the repletion of two
prepositional phrases – forever and for eternity. The nuance of each of these does support the
transference motif between Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 7:18.
Daniel 7:17-18 may be translated thus – (17) These great beasts, which are four; [they are] four
kings who will arise from the earth. (18) But, the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom; and
take possession of the kingdom forever and for eternity.
Daniel 7:17. In Daniel 7:17, we have a fair amount of figurative language. Some of this figurative
language is germane to understanding the transference motif. By way of an introductory summary, the
figure of comprehensiveness is carried by the adjective – four. Then, the figure of the king melds into
kingdoms. In terms of the transference motif, two of these figures are relevant – the figure of
comprehensiveness and the figure of the king.
Daniel 7:17a affirms that these great beasts are four; and Daniel 7:17b clarifies with the
information that these four beasts are actually four kings. We shall point out that the adjective – four – is
a figure of completeness and comprehensiveness. As a collective representation of kings, the state, Daniel
7:17 is a kind of all-inclusive figure for political and military leadership – kings – who arise upon the earth.
Let’s consider the figurative use of the adjective – four – a bit more closely.
10
The use of the adjective – four – is fairly common in chapter 7 of the Aramaic of Daniel. 23
Lexically, the adjective – [bra – may be translated as a cardinal number – four.24 But, the use of the
adjective as a cardinal number does not seem to be the case here.
The fact of the matter is that there are uses in Daniel 7 indicating that [bra/four is a figure for
comprehensiveness. In Daniel 7:2, for instance, [bra/four is part of a figure for the four compass points on
the earth – the four winds of heaven – thus referring to all directions in a figure of completeness. In
Daniel 7:6, the description of the beast in question notes his four wings and his four heads. The former is
a figurative way of underlining the completeness of the swift movement of this beast; the latter is a way of
figuratively underscoring the totality and comprehensiveness of his powers of sight; he can see in all
directions.
Outside of the book of Daniel, there is ample evidence of the use of [bra/four as a figure for
totality and comprehensiveness. In Ezekiel 7:2, [bra/four is part of a figure of the universal judgment of
Yahweh. In Zechariah 6:5, [bra/four is part of a figure of the spirit of Yahweh in the whole world.
The upshot is that [bra/four is often a figure of comprehensiveness. So it is here, the four kings
who arise upon the earth are comprehensive metaphors of the kinds of kings that arise repeatedly over
time. Thus, the adjective, [bra/four, is a way of signaling a collective idea.25 While one may be able to
identify these four in terms of specific nations and leaders, the matter does not stop there. As Jenson
writes, “The four empires of Daniel comprehend the whole of world history.” 26
Accordingly, [bra/four is germane to understanding the transference motif. That is, [bra/four
carries with it the figure of totality, comprehensiveness, and completeness as these relate to kings and
kingdoms, or all the empires of world history. That which is transferred – kingdoms – is done so
comprehensively and totally. In other words, the people of God have a position [7:18] in which the state
has no part [7:17].
Before leaving Daniel 7:17, one other matter needs to be discussed that is relevant to the
transference motif. We have noted that these four beasts are, in fact, four kings. As we have noted, the
adjective – four – is a metaphor of totality and completeness. At the same time, the noun – kings – also
contributes to the figure of completeness.
23
Daniel 7:2, 3, 6, 17.
24
KB2, 1823r; BDB, 1112r.
25
The reader may be well aware of the amount of ink that has been spilt on identifying these four
kings in Daniel 7. The Lion has been identified with Babylon; the Bear has been identified with Persia and
Media; the Leopard has been identified with Greece and Persia; and the Beast with Iron Teeth has been
identified with Rome and Greece [to be sure, other more imaginative identifications have been made]. I
would be the first to admit that there may be some merit in these attempts to identify these four with
specific leaders in Ancient Near Eastern history. At the same time, I am convinced that these specific
identifications are intended to be models of the kinds of political and military leaders that arise from the
earth over time, indeed, up to the end of time. The net effect is that these four beasts-kings may well
have some identifiable historical referent; however, the identifications do not stop there, for these four
have had many successors.
26
P. Jenson, “[bra,” in NIDOTTE.
11
Lexically, the noun – ˆyklm/kings – may signal the kingdoms these kings represent,27or a
succession of kings.28 Indeed, BDB simply translates ˆyklm/kings as kingdoms.29 The reader is thus alerted
to the interchangeability between the kings/kingdoms in 7:17 and the kingdom in 7:18. The net effect is
that ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms is also a collective idea, just as the adjective, four, was.
Joyce Baldwin helps tease out an implication of this collective use of ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms. She
writes, “The reader is made aware of the fluidity of thought which can move easily between an individual
and a collective idea, and will take note that rigidity of interpretation is out of place here.” 30 The outcome
is that the four ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms that arise from the earth is a collective idea in Daniel 7:17 and,
collectively, is that which is received – transferred – in Daniel 7:18. The kingdom received in 7:18 is the
very same kingdom once represented by the four beasts-kings of 7:17.
Specifically, Daniel 7:18 claims that the saints of the Most High receive the kingdom.31 In both
occurrences of this noun, the definite article is used. Syntactically, a definite alerts the reader to a
previous mention of the same person or thing, kingdom in this case. Clearly, the correspondence is
between the uses of kingdom in 7:18 with the collective idea in 7:17 – ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms. This
anaphoric use of the definite article on the kingdom back referencing the collective use of
ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms in 7:17 tightens the reading of the transference motif between 7:17 and 7:18.
The fluidity of thought between Daniel 7:17 and 7:18 on the matter of kings and kingdoms
supports a transference of the former, Daniel 7:17, to the latter, Daniel 7:18. That which the saints
receive in Daniel 7:18 is a breadth of sovereignty that kings once possessed in Daniel 7:17. The realm
within which authority is actually exercised is transferred to the kingdom of the saints of the Most High.
Before moving forward to consider the lexical and syntactical support for the transference motif
in Daniel 7:18, let’s summarize the contribution of Daniel 7:17 to the transference theme.
When Daniel affirms in 7:17 that the four beasts are in reality four kings/kingdoms, the prophet is
using figures of all-inclusiveness and totality. These kingdoms are collectives, representing figuratively all
the empires of world history. There is a statement of comprehensiveness in Daniel 7:17 that is also in
Daniel 7:18 – the kingdom. The upshot is that the four ˆyklm/kings/kingdoms that arise from the earth is
a collective idea in Daniel 7:17 as well as that which is received – transferred – in Daniel 7:18. The end
result is that in Daniel 7:18 the saints of the Most High have received a kingdom task in which the political
and military representatives of the state no longer have a part [Daniel 7:17].
Daniel 7:18. Moving on to Daniel 7:18, there are three lexical markers of the transference motif
in 7:18. The first is the verb translated will receive; the second is the verb will take possession of; and the
third is the repletion of two prepositional phrases – forever and for eternity. The nuance of each of these
does support the transference motif between Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 7:18.
27
KB2, 1917.
28
Ibid.
29
BDB, 1100r; also Holladay, 411r.
30
D. J. Wiseman, ed., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 144.
31
The kingdom glosses atWklm [noun, fm, sg, with a definite article]. The use of the definite
article may signal a back reference to a previous reference to a person or thing [Bauer-Leander § 88 c; see
also Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 13.5.1d [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].
12
Daniel 7:18 may be translated – But, the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom; and
take possession of the kingdom forever and for eternity.
The visionary interpreter tells us that the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom.32 The
verb supports the transference motif in the interchange between Daniel 7:17 and 7:18. That is, the reader
may understand lbq – receive – when used with this particular direct object – Wklm/kingdom – to signal
– to take over the rule of. Indeed, the only other time this precise collocation of verb and object is used in
Daniel, it is used in Daniel 5:31 of Darius who took over the rule of Babylon from Belshazzar. Indeed, the
verb the Septuagint translator uses follows suit – to take over from another in the sense of succeeding to
an office. The transference motif is clearly signaled by using a verb and object collocation that means to
assume the obligations of the kingdom.
The use of this verb with this direct object clearly affirms that the saints of the Most High have
assumed an obligation [Daniel 7:18] in which the state [Daniel 7:17] now has no part. Just as Belshazzar
had no part in the reign of Darius, so it is here; the former beasts-kings who arose from the earth now
have no part in the obligations currently assumed by the saints of the Most High. The transference motif
would seem to be very obvious in this collocation of terms in Daniel 7:18.
The visionary tells us that the saints of the Most High will take possession of the kingdom.33 The
relationship with the verb – will receive – is probably to clarify the sense of what is transferred. That is,
the saints will succeed to an office, so as to underline the promise that the saints will occupy so as to be
master of this kingdom. At the same time, the reader may wish to take Montgomery’s comment
seriously; that is, this possession and mastery is held as a tenancy for an overlord. Indeed, to the extent
that lbq – will receive – implies assuming an obligation, then ˆsj – to take possession – may clarify Who
defines the obligations, that is, the Overlord.
The language that has the saints taking possession of, so as to be master also supports the
transference motif. Clearly, to the extent that the saints occupy a kingdom as master, then they have
assumed a dominance within the kingdom in question [Daniel 7:18] in which the former kings [Daniel
7:17] no longer have a part. Moreover, if the evidence from the papyri is taken into account, then this
32
Receive the kingdom glosses a verb – ˆWlbqyw [Pa’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl] – followed by a
direct object – atWklm [definite article, noun, fm, singular].
The verb – ˆWlbqyw – may be glossed simply to receive; however, an Akkadian cognate – qubbal
– may be glossed to accept [KB2, 1966]. There is also a Sabean verbal cognate that may be translated to
accept [“lbq,” in NIDOTTE]. BDB, 1110, also translates to receive. Holladay, 419r, affirms that, when used
with this specific direct object – kingdom – the sense of the collocation is to take over the rule of. When
this same verb and direct object are used in Daniel 5:31, the sense is to take over the rule of. The use in
Daniel 5:31 communicates succession [see James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), 267]. This idea of succession to an office is precisely
how the LXX translator sees the verb in question, using paralambanw [to receive from another in the sense
of succeeding to an office, to inherit, to take upon oneself (LSJ, 926)].
The Pa’el stem signals causation [Bauer-Leander § 76 f]. The imperfect aspect of the verb is
probably simple futurity [Bauer-Leander § 78 e].
33
The verb translated will take possession of – ˆwnsjyw [Haph’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl] – is used
only here and in Daniel 7:22 and only in reference to the saints taking possession of the kingdom. The
verb may be glossed to take possession of, to occupy[KB2, 1878]. BDB, 1093, translates the verb to take
possession of, as does Holladay, 406. The LXX translator uses katew [to gain possession of, to be master
of, to possess, to occupy, to dwell in (LSJ, 926)]. Montgomery, 172, cites evidence from the papyri that
this verb in this stem is a technical term for taking possession of a territory as a fief-tenancy, in other
words, to an overlord.
13
possession so as to be master of is a tenancy that implies a responsibility to an overlord. If this language,

as used by Daniel, is a veiled way of referring to Yahweh, then it is certain that the leaders in Daniel 7:17
have no part, by choice, in serving the Lord of history in this way. Only the saints of the Most High would
possess a kingdom so as to be masters of it in service to the overlord, Yahweh. Accordingly, this language
in Daniel 7:18 affirms that the saints of the Most High possess a mastery [Daniel 7:18] within this
kingdom, in which the state [Daniel 7:17] has no part. In fact, the state will never have a part in this
reception and possession.
Finally, the visionary interpreter tells us that these saints will receive and take possession of this
new kingdom forever and for eternity. If it is the case that the reception of and the possession of this new
kingdom demonstrate transference of authority and mastery, then these are said to last forever and for
eternity. This last remark is not one that can be readily applied to the nations mentioned thus far [Daniel,
chapters 1-6] nor later [Daniel, chapters 8-12]. This transference is permanent.
This language of permanence is applied only once to one of these political-military leaders. In
Daniel 7:26, the dominion of the small horn will be deposed, annihilated and eradicated forever.
Elsewhere, this language of permanence is applied to the dominion of the son of man [Daniel 7:14, 27], as
well as to the kingdom reign of the saints [Daniel 7:18].
To be sure, in Daniel 7:18, the transference of the rule of [will receive] and the mastery of [will
possess] the new kingdom is permanent, implying that the state will never have a part in this rule and
reign. In order to rhetorically underline the sheer longevity of this transference, the divine interpreter
affirms that this transference is forever and for eternity. The divine speaker uses two prepositional
phrases – forever [aml[Ad[] and for eternity [ayml[ µl[ d[] – for effect. Never will the political forces that
have lost their dominion regain it; the saints will exercise their brand of rule and reign in perpetuity.
Let’s summarize the evidence for the transference motif in Daniel 7:18. The essence of the
argument is that in Daniel 7:17-18 we see the transference of a kingdom in which the state has no part.
To begin with, the transference motif is unpacked with the kingdom of the four beasts-kings
[7:17] now being under the guidance of the saints of the Most High [7:18]. This kingdom [7:17, 18] is the
place where a sovereign holds sway or the place where one is ruled by a king. In Daniel 7:14, the
sovereign who holds sway is the son of man; in Daniel 7:18, His co-regents are the saints. Obviously, the
state has no part where the son of man holds sway, as well as His co-regents, the saints [7:18]. There has
been a transference of authority.
Moreover, the transference theme is carried forward with a succession from one sovereign
[Daniel 7:17] to another, the saints [Daniel 7:18]. The verb translated – will receive – clearly signals that
the saints have taken over the rule of the kingdom from its previous leaders [Daniel 7:17]. The saints have
succeeded to an office [7:18] once held by the beasts-kings [7:17]. Terminology once used of the
succession of Darius who took over the rule of Babylon from Belshazzar is now used of the saints who take
over the rule of the kingdom from the beasts-kings. The latter now have no part in the rule of the
kingdom.
A crucial clarification of the succession is teased out when we are told that the saints take
possession of the kingdom [Daniel 7:18]. This possession is not self-serving. Rather, if the evidence from
the papyri is taken into account, then this possession [so as to be master of] is an occupancy that implies a
responsibility to an overlord, a veiled way of referring to Yahweh. The implication of this for the
transference motif is clear: the state has no part [nor by its own choice would the state desire a part] in
possessing a kingdom so as to be masters of it in service to an overlord, Yahweh. John Goldingay nicely
summarizes the possession of the kingdom by the saints: 34
34
Goldingay, 176.
14
They will take over the same kingship that these preceding regimes
held. There is only one kingship, and this kingship which succeeds
other kingships is presumably, like them, a rule exercised in the world,
as in earlier chapters. Yet, it is a rule derived from heaven.
Thesis. The passage introduces the judgment theme as the basis for transference of the kingdom
to the saints of the Most High. The argument in the context of Daniel 7:21-22 is that the possession of the
kingdom by the saints is a consequence of an act of judgment by Yahweh. With this act of judgment,
Yahweh affirms that human institutions are not the final authority in the governance of man. It appears
that a separation has occurred.
In this section of the essay, we shall establish the transference theme through analyzing the
taking possession language. Then, we shall establish the link with the judgment theme. Finally, we shall
tease out the implications of these points for the separation motif.
We may translate Daniel 7:21-22 thus: (21) Then, I kept on looking and that horn was waging
war with the saints and prevailing over them; (22) until ancient of days came, and judgment was given on
behalf of the saints, such that, the time came when the saints took possession of the kingdom.
Possession. The transference motif may be established by noting how Daniel uses the
possession language. As in previous passages, so here in 7:22, an attribute once associated with one of
the national leaders is attributed to the saints of God.
The nominal form of the verb translated took possession of – ˆsj – is used of Nebuchadnezzar and
used by Nebuchadnezzar of himself. In Daniel 2:37, Nebuchadnezzar is told that Yahweh has been the
One who gave him ˆsj/possession. The drift of the noun in this context is possession in the sense of
tenure.35 In the context, Yahweh has granted Nebuchadnezzar occupancy of his position as an act of
grace. Later, in Daniel 4:30, Nebuchadnezzar, in a moment of extreme pride, congratulates himself; that
is, his kingdom and his majesty are due solely to his ˆsj/might. In both passages, the ˆsj/possession is
dependent upon Yahweh. What Nebuchadnezzar learns in this latter passage [4:30] is that: 36
Yahweh is the supreme Lord of the world; power and achievement are a gift
from God; absolute human power and achievement are only relative in
relation to God's power; human kingship must reflect the priorities of the
God who works through it; and when, for whatever reason, it fails to do so,
God's kingdom will come by the catastrophic destruction of earthly empires,
not by his working through them.
As the use of the nominal form shows, possession of the kingdom is an occupancy that is granted
by Yahweh. Accordingly, those who possess the kingdom of the Son of Man are those who share a kind of
co-regency with Him, people and nations from every language group who serve Him and show themselves
obedient to Him.
Moreover, that this ˆsj/possession was once associated with Nebuchadnezzar [2:37; 4:30] but
now is granted to the saints of the Most High shows, once more, the transference motif.
35
See Montgomery, 245.
36
Robin Wakely, “ˆsj,” in NIDOTTE.
15
Judgment. This possession of the kingdom by the saints is the consequence of an act of
judgment by Yahweh. The judgment is on behalf of the saints of the Most High, language that supports
the transference motif.
The Hebrew term glossed judgment – ˆyd – may imply, when used of Yahweh, [1] to execute
judgment upon, in the sense of calling to account;37 [2] to plead a cause, in the sense of to help someone
get her/his rights;38 or [3] to contend with.39
The use of the Aramaic noun in 7:22 has occasioned a fair amount of debate. Broadly speaking
two options have been given for understanding ˆyd/judgment. In one reading, ˆyd/judgment is the power
to act as a judge, given to the saints.40 In a second reading, ˆyd/judgment is a decision or judgment is
pronounced in favor of.41
Given the thrust of the parallel passage, Daniel 7:9-10, where Ancient of Days is the judge, the
reader may doubt the first option in favor of the second. What we have here, then, is a ˆyd/judgment in
the sense of a Divine decision, a Divine adjudication in favor of the saints.
The prepositional phrase – on behalf of the saints – probably signals a dative of advantage, for or
on behalf of.42 The net effect is that a Divine decision or adjudication was given on behalf of the saints.
The fact that this Divine adjudication was given on behalf of the saints may indicate that the
possession of the kingdom is the outcome of the Divine adjudication. Indeed, one may read Daniel 7:22b-
c thus: judgment was given on behalf of the saints of the Most High, that is, the time came when the
saints took possession of the kingdom.43 On this reading, the possession is the explanatory gloss of the
judgment. To the extent that the judgment on behalf of the saints consists in the possession of the
kingdom, we have a reflection of the transference motif.
In summary, the possession of the kingdom by the saints is the result of the transference of
tenancy from those who had it to the saints. Moreover, this transference has the force of a judgment, a
Divine verdict made by Yahweh on behalf of the saints. The upshot is that political institutions are not the
final authority in the universe.
Thesis. Daniel 7:27 asserts a transference of kingly authority, dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdoms under the whole of the heavens to people, the saints of the Most High God. This transference is
permanent, being designated as eternal. Finally, the operational task set before these kingly authorities is
the commission of bringing every dominion into service and obedience to the Son of Man. The net effect
of this transference is that the state, the political, judicial, legislative and executive wings of government,
37
KB1, 220; see also BDB, 192.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
KB2, 1853; Montgomery, 310.
41
Ibid.
42
See KB2, 1905; BDB, 1080; see also IBHS 11.2.10d [the benefactive dative].
43
For this explanatory use of the connective waw in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander § 70 r.
16
has no part to play in the execution of this undertaking. The mission given to the saints of the Most High
is separate from the powers of the state.
In this section of the essay, we shall discuss Daniel 7:27 in context. The contextual setting of the
passage also can be shown to support the transference motif. Moreover, as we have noted in previous
sections, key terminology can show transference of authority, dominion, and greatness from those who
once held such to people who are saints of the Most High. Then, the scope of this transference will be
noted, once again underlining the fact that the state has no part in the scope of the task. Finally, the
commission given to the saints in the pursuance of their duty is unique to them: service to and obedience
of the Son of Man. This undertaking is exclusive to the people of God; the state has no place in this task.
We may translate Daniel 7:27 thus – The kingly authority and the dominion and the greatness of
the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens has been given to people, the saints of the Most High God;
their kingly authority [is] an eternal kingdom, and so, every dominion will serve and show themselves
obedient to Him.
The context of Daniel 7:27. The context of Daniel 7:27, including the parallel passages to Daniel
7:27, supports the transference motif. Those passages are: Daniel 7:14 and Daniel 7:22. In Daniel 7:14a,
the bestowal of dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom upon the Son of Man is a transfer of that which
was once under the aegis of a temporal political leader. In Daniel 7:27, the saints now share in this
transference. Then, in Daniel 7:14b, we were told that every people, nation, and [men of every] language
to the Son of Man would pay reverence. Once more, the transfer of paying reverence from the political
icons in Daniel’s era to the Son of Man is clear. Similarly, in Daniel 7:27, the saints of the Most High God
have the commission to bring every dominion – every people, nation, and [men of every] language – to
serve and obey the Son of Man. The saints also share in this element of the transference. Finally, in
Daniel 7:22 we noted that the possession of the kingdom by the saints of the Most High is the result of a
judgment on the abuse of power by those who once held it. In other words, the transference is an
outcome of a Divine decision by Yahweh. So it is here, for in Daniel 7:26, a Divine court takes its seat and
issues another judgment. This time, the dominion of the fourth beast is deposed, annihilated, and
eradicated forever.
Daniel 7:26 is key in support of the transference motif. The line affirms that, in an act of Divine
judgment, the dominion of the fourth beast is taken away, annihilated, and eradicated forever. Then, in
turn, the authority, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens are given to
the saints. The dominion of the one is transferred so as to become the dominion of the many. Indeed,
the dominion that is lost forever [7:26] is granted to the saints, forever [7:27]. There seems to be a
separation in dominion.
The severance of dominion in Daniel 7:26 begins with – they will take away his dominion, by
annihilating [it] and eradicating [it] forever. The dominion that is taken away is the same kind of dominion
that we have noted previously. In Daniel 7:14, the dominion – directive authority, sovereignty, controlling
influence – is effectively transferred to the Son of Man. Similarly, the dominion that is taken away from
this third beast is also power, power in the sense of mastery over or rulership over. The upshot is that the
power and mastery and dominion of kingdoms such as that of the fourth beast are utterly annihilated and
transferred to a universal and eternal dominion of saints whose sovereign is the Son of Man [7:27].
Elevating the sovereignty of the Son of Man in every dominion under the heavens is a commission unique
to the people of God and one in which the state has no part whatsoever.
The complete destruction of the dominion once held by the fourth beast justifies the claim that
there are charges in which the state has no part at all. The loss of dominion is entire and absolute. The
language of Daniel 7:26 is unambiguous on this point.
17
We are told that they will take away his dominion. The reader will note that the verb has a plural
subject. The actors are probably the council of judges in 7:26a and also in 7:10. The operative activity is
to take away. The sense of the verb is to remove, to vanish, or to annul.44 To the extent that the
dominion of this leader has vanished, there seems to be warrant for the assertion that the saints in 7:27
take up a duty in which the state has no part.
As if to rhetorically underline the total loss of dominion, the visionary tells us that the dominion
of this leader vanishes by annihilating [it] and eradicating [it] forever. The verbs in the line are infinitive
constructs, used to explain and clarify, in no uncertain terms, the circumstances involved in the vanishing
dominion.45 Once more, both of these verbs underline the fact that the saints assume a commission in
7:27 in which the state has absolutely no part at all.
To begin with, the dominion is annihilated. The verb glossed annihilate is used only here in the
Aramaic portion of the Hebrew Bible. Based on cognate studies, the verb signals wholesale elimination of
the dominion that once characterized this leader and his nation. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the verb is used
of excommunication.46 In Jewish Aramaic, the verb points to banishment.47 The Septuagint translator
offers additional insight, using a term that means to make unseen, to do away with, or to cause to
disappear.48 The net effect is the dominion – the directive authority, sovereignty, and controlling
influence – once in the possession of a political leader utterly ceases to exist for that leader.
The verb translated eradicate is more or less synonymous with the previous verb. The
Septuagint translator once more gives the flavor of the word. This translator uses a verb that means to
cease to exist, to be laid waste, to be undone or simply to go to ruin.49
Finally, this loss of dominion is permanent. The visionary tells us that the dominion is annihilated
and eradicated forever. The Aramaic uses a prepositional phrase with temporal import. The translation
may be forever or totally.50 Either way, the loss of dominion is unending.
Accordingly, the contribution of Daniel 7:26 to the transference motif is in emphasizing the fact
that the dominion of the leader in 7:26 utterly vanishes in perpetuity. The directive authority of this state
leader is annulled; his sovereignty disappears; and his controlling influence ceases to exist. All of this is
done on a permanent basis. Accordingly, the mission that is assigned to the saints of the Most High God
in 7:27 is a commission in which the state has no part. There is a separation.
The key terminology in 7:27 supporting transference. There are four terms in Daniel 7:27 that
support the transference motif. That is, kingly authority, dominion, and greatness are all terms that were
44
KB2, 1944r. The Haph’el stem that is used here is causative in nuance [see Bauer-Leander § 76 i-
l]. The translation could be – they cause his dominion to vanish.
45
For this use of the infinitive construct, see Bauer-Leander § 85; Gibson § 108.
46
KB2, 1997.
47
Ibid.
48
On the meaning of afanizw, see LSJ, 286.
49
For the meaning of apollumi, see LSJ, 207.
50
See KB2, 1938; BDB, 1104; Holladay, 414.
18
once used in reference to political leaders previously in the book of Daniel, but now are applied –
transferred – to the saints. The same may be said of the principle event in the verse – has been given.
The kingly authority of the kingdoms under the heavens is given to the saints. The noun glossed
kingly authority – jtwklm – is a noun that signifies the right to rule as well as the activity of ruling.51 In a
nutshell, the noun points to the realm in which a ruler exercises sovereignty.
The noun appears fifty three times in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, with pride of place going to
reference the realm of human political sovereignty and power.52 The noun is also used of the realm where
Yahweh holds sway.53 Indeed, in 7:14, the Wklm is the realm where the Son of Man holds sway. In Daniel
7:27, the Wklm/kingly authority is the place where the saints of the Most High have the right to rule and
also exercise rule. Accordingly, the distribution of the noun points to the Wklm of human sovereignty and
power being transferred to the realm where the saints have the right to exercise rule.
The same pattern may be seen with the noun dominion. The sentence affirms that the dominion
of the kingdoms under the heavens is given to the saints.
It is noteworthy that the noun we have here – anflv – has a definite article. The definite article
on a noun can signal a back reference to the same term or concept mentioned in a previous context. 54
The previous mention of dominion comes in Daniel 7:26, the dominion that was utterly eradicated from
the leader in 7:26. Accordingly, the use of the definite article suggests that the dominion that vanished in
7:26 now reemerges with the saints in 7:27. The use of the definite article is a way of signaling
transference of dominion from the leader in 7:26 to the saints in 7:27.
Another point needs to be made relative to ˆflv/dominion. I refer to the similar patterns
involving ˆflv/dominion in Daniel 7:12 and Daniel 7:26.
In Daniel 7:12, ˆflv/dominion is taken away – hd[ – from the beasts and given to – bhy – the Son
of Man. In 7:26, ˆflv/dominion is taken away – hd[ – from the fourth beast and given to – bhy – the saints
in 7:27. Two conclusions follow. First, there is obviously a shared relationship between the Son of Man
and the saints in terms of ˆflv/dominion. The ˆflv/dominion of the saints is to guide every ˆflv/dominion
to serve and obey the Son of Man.
Second, this shared relationship should alleviate the kind of fear expressed by John Goldingay.
Commenting on dominion in the hands of God’s people, he writes, “There is little evidence that Israelites
or Christians make less oppressive rulers than Babylonians or Greeks.” 55 This is surely an apprehension
with merit, if the ˆflv/dominion is along the lines of political rule such as we see in Babylon and Greece.
However, as noted above, the ˆflv/dominion of the saints serves only to bring about the ˆflv/dominion of
the Son of Man over every ˆflv/dominion.
51
See Philip J. Nel, “9lm,” in NIDOTTE.
52
See Daniel 2:37, 39-42; 4:15, 25-26, 29-32, 36; 5:7, 11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26-29; 6:1-2, 4-5, 8, 27,
29; 7:23-24.
53
Daniel 2:44; 4:3, 17; 7:14, 18, 22.
54
For this use of the definite article, see Bauer-Leander § 88 c; IBHS 13.5.1d.
55
Goldingay, 190.
19
A similar pattern emerges with the term, greatness. The sentence affirms that the greatness of
the kingdoms under the heavens is given to the saints.
The noun – greatness – seems to be a quality term used in apposition to the preceding two
nouns. The relationship would seem to be that of entity – kingly authority and dominion – to their quality
or status – greatness.56 The noun seems to point to a quality or status designation, depicting a quality or
state of great importance.57 The noun has been so used in human political terms in Daniel 4:22, 36; 5:18,
19. Now, once more, the pattern emerges where a trait allied with a human political-military ruler is now
applied to the saints of the Most High. The net effect is that, what the world once reckoned as greatness
– the status of the politically and militarily powerful – is now transferred and redefined in terms of service
to and obedience of the Son of Man.
Finally, we call attention to the principle verb in 7:27a – the kingly authority, dominion, and
greatness of kingdoms under the whole the heavens have been given. The nuance of the stem and tense-
aspect of the verb support the transference motif.
To begin with, the verb – has been given – is in the Pe’il stem, a stem that ordinarily signals a
passive nuance.58 Beyond this, the verb is in the perfect tense, where the aspect of the perfect implies a
completed action.59 The net effect is that the passive nuance implies the presence of an unidentified
agent in the giving and the perfect aspect signals a resultant state that is once and for all. The
transference of the dominion in 7:26 to the saints in 7:27 remains with the people to whom the transfer
was made. The once and for all character of the transfer implies that the dominion from which the
transfer was made [7:26] is no longer in play.
We may summarize the terminological support for the transference theme in Daniel 7:27. Four
key terms – kingly authority, dominion, greatness and the principle verb has been given – all support the
transference motif. The three nouns – kingly authority, dominion and greatness – are all nouns once used
of earthly political-military leaders but are now used of the saints in 7:27. These attributes have been
transferred. Moreover, the principle verb in 7:27a – has been given – implies the creation of a state of
affairs that has a once and for all quality to it. In other words, the three capabilities that have been given
– transferred – to the saints remain with the saints. The state powers from which they were transferred
have no part in the authority, dominion, and greatness that was once theirs.
The scope of the transference. Daniel 7:27 relates the extent of the transference of the kingly
authority, the dominion, and the greatness. Specifically, 7:27 refers to the authority, dominion, and
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens. Then, 7:27 affirms that the authority of the
saints is eternal. And finally, 7:27 affirms that every dominion will serve and show themselves obedient to
the Son of Man. Taken together, these universal affirmatives relating to the kingdom of the saints imply
that the state has no part in these matters.
The visionary tells us that the kingly authority, the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms
under the whole of the heavens are transferred to the saints. Worldwide dominion, a universal kingdom,
is transferred or granted to the saints of the Most High God. The political and military powers of the state
56
For apposition, see Bauer-Leander § 93; Gibson § 39.
57
For the gloss, see KB2, 1977; BDB, 1112; and Holladay, 420.
58
For the passive nuance of the Pe’il stem, see Bauer-Leander § 80 a-b.
59
Ibid. See also Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1983), § 98.
20
are eclipsed; the authority which once belonged to all the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens is
now transferred to the saints in the service of the Son of Man.
The prepositional phrase – under the whole of the heavens – marks location and totality. The
preposition glossed under – twjt – may be translated underneath60or simply under.61 The prepositional
phrase also signals totality with the words – the whole of.62 The upshot is that the worldwide rule of the
people of the earth has been granted to a universal kingdom under the aegis of the Son of Man and the
saints of the Most High God. D. S. Russell summarizes the point nicely: 63
The dominion and authority which belong to all the other kingdoms under
heaven will be transferred to this coming kingdom. That is, it will be greater
than any of the kingdoms that have been before it.
Not only will this new kingdom be worldwide in extent, it will be eternal throughout all time. The
visionary tells us – their kingly authority [is] an eternal kingdom. Another way of translating this noun
clause – there is no finite verb – is to gloss: their kingly authority – an eternal kingly authority. By leaving
out a finite verb, the force and immediacy of the noun clause arrests the reader’s attention – eternal
kingly authority.
The noun translated eternal – µl[ – signals what is of lasting duration, what is eternal, what is
forever.64 The kingly authority of the saints – both the right to rule and the act of ruling – is perpetual and
ongoing. As Russell notes concerning this eternal kingly authority, “Its universality in space is thus
paralleled by its universality in time and as such it reflects the very nature of God himself.” 65
This last point, in the context of Daniel is telling. That is, the book of Daniel presents us with
patterns in history. One of those patterns is the rise-the fall-and the rise of numerous nations over time.
From the standpoint of the history of the political empires in Daniel, nothing is permanent. However, the
kingly authority of the saints is perpetual; it endures forever. This durative quality is another feature in
which the state has no part. Indeed, the states in Daniel have come and gone, but the authority of this
new kingdom is here to stay and will never be succeeded.
Finally, the visionary tells us that every dominion will serve and obey the Son of Man. While it is
the case that this last issue relating to the extent of the transference melds into considerations of the
commission, for now, we simply call attention to the assertion in every dominion.
In the final analysis, all of the empires of man, rather than pursuing their political and military
and economic ambitions, all of the empires of man will do their obeisance to the Son of Man. To the
extent that the state entails politics and legislation and regulation and treaty-making and governance of
citizens and making war and making money, all of these ambitions will fade into the irrelevancies that
they are. These run of the mill ambitions, pursued in defiance of or disregard for Yahweh, have no part to
60
Rosenthal § 84.
61
KB2, 2005; Bauer-Leander § 69 i’; for the locational connotation of the Hebrew cognate of this
preposition, see IBHS 11.2.15b.
62
KB2, 1898.
63
Russell, 122.
64
KB2, 1949.
65
Russell, Daniel, 123.
21
play in preparation for the Son of Man. These preparations are the work of the saints; the state has no
part in them.
In summation, the scope of the transference would seem to exclude the participation of the state
powers of governance. Daniel 7:27 stresses worldwide and eternal themes, themes that do not apply to
the nation-states as presented in Daniel. With the transference of kingly authority, dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens to the saints, the political and military powers
of the state are universally eclipsed. To be sure, this eclipse is permanent, since the kingly authority of
the saints is eternal in duration. In terms of both space and time, the authority of the saints acting on
behalf of the Son of Man surpasses the political powers of all human realms.
The commission given to the saints. The commission given to the saints entails service and
obedience. Heretofore, in Daniel, these activities were directed to the state, especially to the leader of
the state. Now, however, transference has occurred. To the extent that all men and women will serve
and render obedience to some master, the saints are tasked with making the Son of Man the object of
supreme allegiance. In this mission, the state has no part whatsoever to play.
In order to fully appreciate the task given to the saints, a mission in which the state has no part,
let’s again place before the reader a translation of Daniel 7:27:
(7:27a) Then, the kingly authority, the dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdoms under the whole of the heavens has been given to the saints of
the Most High God; (7:27b) their kingly authority – an eternal kingly
authority, (7:27c) and so, all dominions will serve and show obedience to
Him.
The syntactical arrangement of these three clauses will help us appreciate the mission for which
only the saints bear responsibility. The mission is an outcome of the judgment of the fourth beast [7:27a];
that outcome entails the transference of authority, dominion, and greatness to the saints. Daniel 7:27b is
an appositional line, clarifying the eternal nature of the kingly authority transferred to the saints. Then,
Daniel 7:27c is an explanatory sentence, interpreting the nature of the saint’s mission. The upshot is that
the saint’s authority [7:27a-b] is oriented to a task, namely that, all dominions serve and show obedience
to Him [7:27c]. In this work, the state plays no part.
The scope of the saint’s commission is all dominions. The noun used here is a plural noun with a
definite article. The definite article probably signals a back reference to the noun – dominion – in Daniel
7:27a.66 The article thus reminds us of the dominion of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens that
has been transferred to the saints. While some nation-state may aspire to “world domination,” none of
them will ever achieve it. The kingdoms under the whole of the heavens are the domain of the saints of
the Most High and the Son of Man.
The most pertinent support for the transference motif, in Daniel 7:27, concerns the transference
of allegiance. Prior to 7:27, the matters of service [jlp] and obedience [[mv] are focused on political
leaders of nation-states. In 7:27, this allegiance is transferred from the political leaders of nation-states to
the Son of Man.
We first turn to jlp and [mv as expressions of ultimate allegiance to a political leader of the state.
66
For the anaphoric use of the definite article, see Bauer-Leander § 88 c and IBHS 13.5.1d.
22
The verb jlp appears once in Ezra and nine times in Daniel. jlp/service always has some deity as
its direct object, whether an idol [3:12, 14, 18, 28], or Yahweh [3:17, 28; 6:16, 20} or the Son of Man [7:14,
27].
Regardless of the object of jlp/service, the force of the verb stresses paying reverence to.67 A
cognate of the verb in the Ancient Near East, the Akkadian cognate – palahu – signals veneration, fear,
and respect.68 Overall, jlp/service includes veneration and reverence for the object of one’s service; in this
case, the veneration is reserved for the head of state, Nebuchadnezzar. Both the Hebrew term and its
Septuagint gloss point to service that borders on slavery, if not worship. To be sure, service in the form of
worship is certainly what Nebuchadnezzar had in mind in Daniel 3. The reader can appreciate the
supreme loyalty implied by the use of this term.
The reader may also appreciate the force of jlp/service by noting a parallel term in Daniel 3 –
dgs/worship [3:12, 14, 18, 28]. The Aramaic term – dgs – may be translated to pay homage to,69 or to
show homage by prostration.70 The Septuagint translator goes with proskunevw, a term that describes
one who makes obeisance, falls and worships, and one who prostrates himself before a superior.71 The
net effect is that this parallel term underlines the worship of a superior implied in jlp/service.
The upshot is that jlp/service and dgs/worship both accentuate a mindset of obeisance to a
political superior, Nebuchadnezzar in this case. jlp/service and dgs/worship are twin elements of tribute
that are rendered to the head of state in Daniel 3. That this tribute was expected to be made exclusively
to this superior within a nation-state is the gist of Daniel 3.
Daniel 3 also provides additional evidence of a mindset of exclusive devotion to a superior. That
is, [mv/obedience is also part of this service bordering on worship. That is, in Daniel 3, [mv is the run-up
to jlp/service and dgs/worship [3:5, 7, 10, 15]. The attentive listening for the sounds associated with the
ceremony, the [mv, is meant to produce obedience, that is, jlp/service and dgs/worship. The net effect of
hearing and obeying – [mv – would be to show one’s exclusive devotion to Nebuchadnezzar; this loyalty
would come out in jlp/service and dgs/worship. For the three young Jews in Daniel 3, the question came
down to whom they meant to serve. D. S. Russell cites a fine summary from Adam Welch concerning
exclusive allegiance to a superior:72
Then, the opposite ends for life come into open collision and men have
to choose whom they mean to serve. Are they citizens only of Babylon,
finding their complete life in it and drawing their final sanctions from it;
or are they gerim (aliens) in Babylon, seekers after a better kingdom
and subject to a higher law?
Overall, then, jlp/service and dgs/worship are born of [mv/obedience fashioning an exclusive
devotion to Nebuchadnezzar. All are part and parcel of language that expresses one’s ultimate allegiance
67
BDB, 1108.
68
KB2, 1957; the LXX uses latruevw [to be in servitude to, to be enslaved to, to be devoted to (LSJ,
1032)].
69
KB2, 1937.
70
BDB, 1104.
71
LSJ, 1518.
72
23
to a political leader, Nebuchadnezzar. The apocryphal book, Judith, contains an interesting story of the
exploits of Nebuchadnezzar, who set out to punish those states that did not support him in his war with
Media. In chapter 6, the account is picked up of those who lived in Sidon, Tyre, and Jamnia. The language
in Judith 6 is very familiar to the reader of Daniel 3:
They sent messengers to him to sue for peace in these words: “We, the
servants of Nebuchadnezzar, the Great King, lie prostrate before you.
Do with us whatever you will.”
It would be difficult to find a more clear expression of absolute allegiance to a political leader
than – Do with us whatever you will. This statement of complete capitulation is what drives
Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 3. It is also what is transferred to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:27c.
The [mv/obedience and the jlp/service, activities that were once reserved exclusively for a head
of state, are now transferred to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:27c.
The first element in the transference is the conveyance of jlp/service. We have already noted
that in Daniel jlp/service always has some deity as a direct object. That which Nebuchadnezzar had
attempted to usurp is now rightfully transferred to the Son of Man.
Moreover, the depth of devotion implied in jlp/service is now rightfully transferred to the Son of
Man. That is, jlp/service involves paying reverence to the Son of Man; the language implies veneration,
servitude, and supreme loyalty to the Son of Man. Emperor-worship, king-worship, or the more modern
form – president-worship – are hereby excluded. The sole claim upon the heart, soul, mind, and strength
of a man or woman of God is the all-powerful claim of the Son of Man; all other claims for reverence,
veneration, and service are ill-advised. Russell puts the matter succinctly: 73
There must be a limit to the demands the state can make. It can claim
loyalty and sacrifice on the part of its subjects. But, it cannot demand
worship and love. This is to commit sacrilege, to replace the Creator
with the creature and to bow down before the work of one’s hands. It
matters not whether the idol is a potentate or an institution. When it
goes beyond its God-given sanction and claims from its subjects what
God alone can claim, it must stand condemned.
Do with us whatever you will is a permission that is transferred to the Son of Man; such an
authorization cannot be extended to a head of state or a political entity. The idolatry of political leaders is
eclipsed by one’s devotion to the Son of Man. At this level, the level of ultimate and supreme loyalty,
there is a separation of church and state.
Not only is jlp/service transferred to the Son of Man figure, but also, the [mv/obedience once
demanded exclusively by a head of state is now transferred to the Son of Man. We have already noted
that in Daniel [mv/obedience is expected to lead to jlp/service/veneration. The level of [mv/obedience
that Nebuchadnezzar expected, on pain of death in Daniel 3, is now freely offered to the Son of Man in
7:27c.
73
24
The formulation of [mv/obedience in Daniel 7:27c tells us much concerning what is transferred
to the Son of Man.74 The obedience one publically displays is that obedience to the Son of Man. The
openness and the directness of one’s ultimate commitment in life is transferred to the Son of Man. This
devotion to demonstrate [mv/obedience to one’s decisive calling in life is teased out more fully later in
Daniel.
Much can be learned about what is transferred by noting what [mv/obedience implies
subsequently in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 9:6, the nation of Israel has not [mv/listened to the voices of
the prophets. In Daniel 9:10, the people of God have not demonstrated [mv/obedience by walking in
Yahweh’s teachings. Then, in Daniel 9:11, the people of God have not demonstrated [mv/obedience since
they have transgressed or turned aside from Yahweh’s voice.
[mv/obedience is transferred to the Son of Man. What does this mean? To begin with, it points
to transference of final moral obligation to the voices of the prophets and the voice of Yahweh. Moreover,
[mv/obedience demands transference of one’s personal and social ethic to walking in Yahweh’s
teachings. Finally, [mv/obedience requires transference of constancy in life to not turning aside from the
voice of Yahweh.
When we consider what is transferred to the Son of Man in 7:27c, it should be plain that the
state has no part in this agenda whatsoever. To the extent that one’s jlp/service/veneration is rightly
directed to a deity and not to the state, there are limits to what the state can demand of its citizens.
Specifically, the state cannot demand that it replace the claim on the people’s heart, soul, mind and
strength that only God can demand. There is a separation of one’s ultimate devotion and passion in life
that is reserved solely for the Son of Man.
Moreover, to the extent that [mv/obedience essentially involves one’s moral compass in life, it
should be plain that the state has no dog in this fight either. One’s final moral obligations in life lie with
heaven; one’s personal ethic is directed by Yahweh; and one’s chief duty in life is not to abandon
Yahweh’s Torah. The values that inform what is right and what is wrong, what will work and what will not
work, these values are revealed through the voices of the prophets and the voice of Yahweh. One’s
principles in life, to the extent that one claims allegiance to Yahweh, are derived from Yahweh and the
Son of Man. At the level of one’s standards, that is, the foundation of one’s final sanctions, there is a
separation of church and state.
Summary. The thesis of the essay is that both the prophet, Daniel, and the president, Thomas
Jefferson, affirm a type of separation of church and state. Thus far, we have teased out what Daniel has
to say on this score in terms of the transference motif. The facet of separation in the transference motif is
that the people of God, the church, have a task in which the state has no part whatsoever. Support for the
thesis comes from Daniel 7:14, 18, 22, 27.
Daniel 7:14 supports the thesis in two ways. First, some of the key terms in the verse –
dominion, royal honor, kingdom, pay reverence to and the words every people, nation, and language – are
all terms that were once applied to a political-military leader, but are now applied to one like a Son of
Man. The net effect is transference from the former to the latter. Second, the divine purpose for
transference – so that every people, nation, and [men of every] language would pay reverence to Him – is
a purpose in which the state can has no part.
74
Show obedience to is a gloss for – ˆw[mtvy [Hithpa’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl]. The stem of the
verb signals a reflexive nuance [Bauer-Leander § 76 q]. More specifically, the estimative-declarative
reflexive underscores the fact that the subject of the verb presents himself in the state represented by the
verb [IBHS 26.2f]. The upshot is that the verb may be glossed – to show/display obedience.
25
That dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom are associated with regimes in Daniel’s past is clear.
It is just as evident that these very same powers are transferred to the Son of Man figure. The movement
of dominion from Nebuchadnezzar through Belshazzar and Darius to the Son of Man, and ultimately to be
shared with the saints, is evidence that dominion is transferred. Similarly, royal honor is once attributed
to a man like Nebuchadnezzar, only to be transferred to the Son of Man. So it is with the kingdom
terminology in Daniel. Initially, the noun is uniquely the place where a political-military power rules, until
the Son of Man. Then, when the Son of Man is given a kingdom, the dominion and authority of all
previous regimes now fall upon Him. Overall, the transference of the powers once the unique province of
earthly rulers to the Son of Man would seem to be obvious. The upshot is that in terms of dominion, royal
honor and a kingdom, the state really has no role. The kingdom, the glory, and the honor reside solely
with the Son of Man and those with whom He shares His reign.
Second, the implication of the purpose for the transference motif is clear: sovereignty applies in
only one direction – the Son of Man. Acknowledging and submitting to the governance of this One King is
the responsibility of every people, nation, and [men of every] language; the state, in the form of its
political, legal, and military powers, has no part in this task at all. As the summary statement of Isaiah has
it – the government has settled upon His shoulders [Isaiah 9:5].
Indeed, the purpose of transference is so that all humanity to the Son of Man would pay
reverence. The language of paying reverence applies only in one direction – to the Son of Man. Thus,
when one pays reverence to Him, one is identifying one’s ultimate orientation in life; he or she who pays
reverence to the Son of Man places herself or himself under the direction of the Son of Man so that His
interests become, and remain, paramount. Finally, paying reverence also entails an element of trust. In
all of this, the tension between the church and state is eliminated by dissolving the tension in favor of
finding one’s ultimate sanction in life in the Son of Man. The state, with all of its legal, regulatory,
bureaucratic, judicial, executive and military powers, really has no part in defining one’s ultimate
allegiance in life.
Daniel 7:18 supports the transference motif by affirming that a transference of a kingdom has
occurred in which the state has no part.
To begin with, the transference motif is unpacked with the kingdom of the four beasts-kings
[7:17] now being under the guidance of the saints of the Most High [7:18]. This kingdom [7:17, 18] is the
place where a sovereign holds sway or the place where one is ruled by a king. In Daniel 7:14, the
sovereign who holds sway is the son of man; in Daniel 7:18, His co-regents are the saints. Obviously, the
state has no part where the son of man holds sway, as well as His co-regents, the saints [7:18]. There has
been transference of influence.
Moreover, the transference theme is carried forward with a succession from one sovereign
[Daniel 7:17] to another, the saints [Daniel 7:18]. The verb translated – will receive – clearly signals that
the saints have taken over the rule of the kingdom from its previous leaders [Daniel 7:17]. The saints have
succeeded to an office [7:18] once held by the beasts-kings [7:17]. Terminology once used of the
succession of Darius who took over the rule of Babylon from Belshazzar is now used of the saints who take
over the rule of the kingdom from the beasts-kings. The latter now have no part in the rule of the
kingdom, since this régime is now in the hands of the saints.
A crucial clarification of the succession is teased out when we are told that the saints take
possession of the kingdom [Daniel 7:18]. This possession is not self-serving. Rather, if the evidence from
the papyri is taken into account, then this possession [so as to be master of] is an occupancy that implies a
responsibility to an overlord, a veiled way of referring to Yahweh. The implication of this for the
transference motif is clear: the state has no part [nor by its own choice would the state desire a part] in
possessing a kingdom so as to be masters of it in service to an overlord, Yahweh.
26
Daniel 7:22 supports the transference motif by affirming that the transference has occurred as a
consequence of judgment by Yahweh on human, political-state, institutions. With this act of judgment,
Yahweh affirms that human institutions are not the final authority in the governance of mankind. When
the saints take possession of the kingdom, it appears that a separation has come about.
Daniel 7:27 supports the transference theme, first, by asserting a transference of kingly
authority, dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens to people, the
saints of the Most High God. Second, this transference is permanent, being designated as eternal. Finally,
the operational task set before these kingly authorities is the commission of bringing every dominion into
service and obedience to the Son of Man. The net effect of this transference is that the state, the
political, judicial, legislative and executive wings of government, has no part to play in the execution of
this undertaking. The mission given to the saints of the Most High is separate from the powers of the
state.
First, the transference of authority suggests a conveyance of authority in which the state has no
part. Specifically, four key terms – kingly authority, dominion, greatness and the principle verb has been
given – all support the transference motif. The three nouns – kingly authority, dominion and greatness –
are all nouns once used of earthly political-military leaders but are now used of the saints in 7:27. These
attributes have been transferred. Moreover, the principle verb in 7:27a – has been given – implies the
creation of a state of affairs that has a once and for all quality to it. In other words, the three capabilities
that have been given – transferred – to the saints remain with the saints. The state powers from which
they were transferred have no part in the authority, dominion, and greatness that was once theirs.
Second, there is the matter of the scope of the transference now given to the saints [7:27a]. It
seems fairly clear that when the visionary tells us that the kingly authority, the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens are transferred to the saints, then, the
political, regulatory, bureaucratic, and judicial powers of the state are eclipsed. The authority which once
attempted to organize the various nations comprising all the kingdoms under the whole of the heavens is
now transferred to the saints in the service of the Son of Man. The upshot is that the worldwide rule of
the people of the earth has been granted to a universal kingdom under the co-regency of the Son of Man
and the saints of the Most High God.
Third, the commission given to the saints is an operational task to bring all humanity under the
aegis of the Son of Man, a task in which the state has no part to play whatsoever. Here also, a separation
has ensued. The gist is the commission given to the saints entails service and obedience. Heretofore, in
Daniel, these activities were targeted to the state, especially to the leader of the state. Now, however,
transference has occurred. To the extent that all men and women will serve and render obedience to
some master, the saints are tasked with making the Son of Man the object of supreme allegiance. In this
mission, the state has no part whatsoever to play.
Specifically, when Daniel 7:27c affirms that every dominion will serve Him the language used in
the text implies that veneration, servitude, and supreme loyalty belong to the Son of Man. Emperor-
worship, king-worship, or the more modern form – president-worship – are hereby excluded. The sole
claim upon the heart, soul, mind, and strength of a man or woman of God is the all-powerful claim of the
Son of Man; all other claims for reverence, veneration, and service are ill-advised.
Beyond this, when Daniel 7:27c claims that every dominion will display obedience to Him, the
assertion is that, owing to transference, the openness and directness of one’s ultimate commitment in life
is transferred to the Son of Man. Here too, the state has no part to play whatsoever. As we noted in
detail above, the category of obedience involves one’s moral compass in life. At the level of one’s moral
standards, that is, the ultimate arbitrators of what is right or what is wrong, the people of God disclose an
allegiance to the revealed directives and permissions from Yahweh and the Son of Man. The state is
separate from this moral program.
27
Taken as a whole, the texts we have cited from Daniel affirm that the whereabouts of authority
has shifted from the palace to the sanctuary, from the state to the church. The people of God, the church,
have an authority inseparably linked to an assignment. That assignment is the commission to introduce
all humanity in and from every dominion under the whole of the heavens to the sovereign leadership of
the Son of Man. In this use of their authority and in the pursuance of their mission, the state has no part
to play at all. There is a separation between the task of the church and the job of the state.
Thomas Jefferson on the Wall of Separation between Church and State
In this section of the essay, we shall point out that Jefferson did, in fact, use this language – a
wall of separation between church and state. Having done that, the essay will posit the following thesis:
Jefferson meant by a wall of separation between church and state that the state has no business meddling
in the affairs of the church. The direction of fit is from the state to the church.
To support the thesis, we shall present the full text of the letter so as to represent the full
context of the phrase. Then, we shall endeavor to understand what Jefferson meant by the phrase. We
shall argue that Jefferson meant that the legislative powers of government cannot legally establish
doctrines, teachings, or creeds as the law of the land. Finally, the essay will briefly discuss the use of the
phrase – a wall of separation between church and state – to, allegedly, remove God from the public forum.
In response to this claim, the essay shall argue that if Daniel is taken at face value, there is no one who
can remove God from the public forum.
Thomas Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. In October of 1801, the
Danbury Baptist association wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson, seeking clarity on the matter of religious
liberty. In reply, Jefferson wrote the association a letter that contains the famous phrase – a wall of
separation between Church & State.
Jefferson’s letter of January 1, 1802. The full text of Jefferson’s letter is as follows:
Mr. President
To Messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a

committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so

good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful
and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as
they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them
becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of
rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
28
those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights,
convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the
common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your
religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
Jan. 1, 1802.
This was what the final draft sent to the Danbury Baptists looked like. In the final draft of the
letter that Jefferson retained, there is a deleted line that he did not put into the final draft sent to the
Danbury Baptists. The deleted sentence comes immediately after the wall of separation between Church
& State. The sentence does seem to tease out what Jefferson meant by the phrase. The deletion is:
Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing
even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the
Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject
here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and disciplines
of each respective sect.
The meaning of the separation of church and state. Given the fact that Jefferson actually did
use the phrase, the question becomes what he meant by it. We begin with the hints provided by the
document itself. The indications are that Jefferson thought that government had no business meddling in
the affairs of the church.
Obviously, the phrase – make no law respecting the establishment of religion – prohibits
Congress from creating a state church.
Moreover, when Jefferson writes that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his
God and then follows with he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, it would seem that
Mr. Jefferson believes that none other includes the powers of government in the next line. The upshot is
that owing account to none other is another way of Mr. Jefferson affirming that the powers of
government have no business meddling in the affairs of religion. This is what is included in his separation
doctrine.
Moreover, the Jefferson statement adds insight into the separation doctrine when we consider
the deletion that comes after the wall of separation phrase. If we place the deletion in its proper place, as
indeed it remained in Jefferson’s copy, we get this:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing
even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the
Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject
here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and disciplines
of each respective sect.
29
Note, to begin with, that the deletion is an inference to be drawn from the separation phrase.
Jefferson writes – thus – Congress is inhibited from acts respecting religion. The reader should observe
that Mr. Jefferson specifies acts – plural – as that which Congress is constrained from acting on. Whatever
these acts respecting religion actually are, Congress can make no law respecting them.
Mr. Jefferson gives us a hint as to what these acts may include. He notes that I have refrained
from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of
another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
regulations and disciplines of each respective sect. Historians tell us that those occasional performances
of devotion were national days of fasting and prayer as prescribed by Mr. Jefferson’s predecessors in the
presidency.75 The point is that Mr. Jefferson was unwilling to legally establish these occasional
performances of devotion, owing to the wall of separation. Clearly, Mr. Jefferson was unwilling to allow
government, with its legal powers, to meddle in the affairs of the church. Hence, Mr. Jefferson places
these devotional exercises where they rightfully belong here, in a constitutional form of government, –
the voluntary regulations and disciplines of each respective sect.
Accordingly, on the basis of the language of the Danbury letter, we may conclude that Thomas
Jefferson did affirm a wall of separation between church and state. The net effect of this wall of
separation was that Congress could not legally establish any creedal discipline as the law of the land. As
Hutson notes, “Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not
do in the religious sphere – legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial
and coercive powers.”76
Supportive statement from Thomas Jefferson. We have argued that the Danbury letter affirms
that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to legally institute any given creedal statement
as the law of the land. There is a separation between church and state. The reader may cull through
other of Jefferson’s writings to clarify his separation doctrine.
In a letter to a Richard Bush in 1813, Mr. Jefferson wrote:
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved.

I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in
which no other [emphasis mine], and far less the public, had a right to
intermeddle.
The doctrine of separation as Mr. Jefferson intended it to be understood seems clear in a letter
written to Samuel Miller in 1808:
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the

Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
disciplines, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no
law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion,
but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated
to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe [emphasis mine] any
religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been
delegated to the General Government.
75
James Hutson, “A Wall of Separation,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin (June 1998), 3.
76
Ibid., 5.
30
In yet another letter to Samuel Miller in 1808, Mr. Jefferson is unambiguous on the extent of the
legislative power of the state vis-à-vis religion. He writes:
Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States,
and no authority to direct [emphasis mine] the religious exercises of his
constituents.
Mr. Jefferson also seems to have believed that the meddling of the state in matters of religion
actually had the net effect of undermining the rights and liberties of the citizenry. In a letter written to
Jeremiah Moor in 1800, Mr. Jefferson noted:
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the
machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against
[emphasis mine] the civil and religious rights of man.
Mr. Jefferson looked to the history of the alliance of church and state to support his theory that
an alliance of church and state is detrimental to civil liberties. He seems to have thought this alliance and
its outcome began very early in religious history. In a letter written to Samuel Kercheval in 1810, he
wrote:
But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the
Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who
professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.
Mr. Jefferson was certainly of the opinion that any legal alliance between church and state would
yield a form of tyranny. In a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1800, Mr. Jefferson underscored the tyrannical
aspect of a church and state alliance. He wrote:
The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me as President

will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me:
and enough, too, in their opinion.
Then, Mr. Jefferson looked at other nations that legalized a certain code of dogma into law and
thought that such amounted to a reduction of liberty. In his Bill for Religious Freedom, written in 1779,
Mr. Jefferson observed:
I have just been reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its
fundamental bases is expressed in these words: “The Roman Catholic
religion, the only true one, is, and always will be, that of the Spanish
nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits
the exercise of any other whatever.” Now I wish this presented to those
who question what a bookseller may sell or we may buy, with a request to
strike out the words, “Roman Catholic,” and to insert the denomination of
their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each
wishes should domineer over the opinions of all the others, and be taken,
like the Spanish religion, under the “protection of wise and just laws.” It
would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty [emphasis mine] for
which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness.
Finally, the reader might wish to ponder whether Thomas Jefferson believed the proposition that
the United States was founded on Christian principles. In the Statute for Religious Freedom written for the
31
state of Virginia in 1779, Mr. Jefferson takes on what we would call today a religious litmus test for
holding public office. Mr. Jefferson wrote:
The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying

upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument
unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion [emphasis mine]
is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in
common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.
When it came time to write the bill for religious freedom for the state of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson
and the delegates to the convention were intent on advocating religious freedom, even at the expense of
a specific mention of Jesus Christ. In his autobiography of 1821, Mr. Jefferson wrote:
When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom was finally passed,
a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion [emphasis
mine] was meant to be universal [emphasis mine]. Where the preamble
declares that a coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of
our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus
Christ” [emphasis mine], so that it should read “a departure from the plan
of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” [emphasis mine]. The
insertion was rejected [emphasis mine] by a great majority, in proof that
they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and
the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of
every denomination [emphasis mine].
This autobiographical statement lends some credence to the idea that, in Thomas Jefferson’s
mind, the state of Virginia at least would be built upon the kind of religious freedom that extended the
mantle of state constitutional protection to every denomination, including those not specially allied with
Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion. The idea that the United States was built upon Christian
principles may be a bit narrower than is called for. It may be wiser to affirm that the United States was
founded on the principle of protecting religious freedom.
Summary of Jefferson’s wall of separation doctrine. The reader will readily admit that Thomas
Jefferson did indeed affirm a wall of separation between church and state. Upon review, we can see that
he intended to assert that the powers of the state, its legal, financial, and coercive powers, have no
constitutional right to meddle in the affairs of the church.
The letter to the Danbury Baptist association supports the thesis that the state has no business
meddling in the affairs of the church. In the Danbury letter, Mr. Jefferson explicitly proscribes Congress
from supporting acts respecting religion. Moreover, Mr. Jefferson himself was unwilling to support a
national day of fasting or a national day of prayer based upon his reading of the establishment clause in
the Constitution. The net effect is that the Danbury letter upholds the Jeffersonian ideal that Congress
could legally establish any single creedal statement as the law of the land.
Other written statements of Mr. Jefferson seem to support the notion that the state has no
business invading the affairs of the church. Indeed, his statement to Samuel Miller in 1808 explicitly says
as much: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines, or exercises.” The statement speaks
for itself.
The separation doctrine would also seem to prelude the government from advocating any
particular religious point of view as the law of the land. In the letter to Samuel Miller, 1808, Mr. Jefferson
wrote, “Civil powers alone [emphasis mine] have been given to the President of the United States and no
32
authority to direct [emphasis mine] the religious exercises of his constituents. Whatever else this
sentence may claim, it seems clear that, for Thomas Jefferson, the authority of government extended only
to civil matters, not religious matters.
Moreover, Mr. Jefferson seems to have been of the opinion that, should the state become
meddlesome in religious matters, the net effect would be a loss of liberty. In the letter of 1800 to
Jeremiah Moor, Mr. Jefferson affirmed, “The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and
ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and
religious rights of man.”
In a similar vein, Mr. Jefferson bristled at protecting by law any code of religious dogmas. In the
Bill for Religious Freedom, Mr. Jefferson noted that any such attempt to legally encode the dogmas of any
denomination would lead to a loss of liberty.
Beyond these issues, Mr. Jefferson extended the separation doctrine to exclude what we would
today call a religious litmus test for holding public office. Mr. Jefferson affirmed that prohibiting any
citizen from holding public office unless he profess or renounce this or than religious opinion amounts to a
denial of his rights as a citizen.
Finally, the wall of separation meant that, while government was prohibited from meddling in
the affairs of the church, the nation was indeed founded on the principle of religious freedom.
One of the implications of this statement is that, for Thomas Jefferson, the citizen must
appreciate the distinction between founded on Christian principles and founded on the principle of
religious freedom. That the latter is the case is amply demonstrated by Mr. Jefferson’s work on the
Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom. Remember, he and the delegates rejected placing a
reference to the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our faith in the bill for religious freedom. The
rationale was that the bill for religious freedom was intended to comprehend within the mantle of its
protections the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and the infidel of every
denomination. This points more toward religious freedom than it does to founded on Christian principles.
On the removal of God from the public forum. The reader is well aware of the uses to which
Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation doctrine has been put. The American Civil Liberties Union and
Americans United for Separation of Church and State have used the doctrine to expunge religion from any
appearance of government support.
In reaction to the activities of these groups is the claim that they seek to remove God from the
public forum. Examples of this removal of God include the elimination of the Ten Commandments from
government buildings and the exclusion of prayer from public/government schools.
The premise upon which this denouncing of the removal of God from the public forum seems to
be based is something like: Unless the things of God are politically recognized, they are not acknowledged
at all. The public forum is the political forum.
The reader is surely aware that during the time of Mr. Jefferson, and before for that matter, all
manner of religious services were conducted in public buildings. We can document “Jefferson’s
participation in House church services and the granting of permission to various denominations to
worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held.” 77
77
Ibid., 5. The reader is advised to log onto the Library of Congress web site for a wealth of
historical data on Jefferson’s religious practices.
33
Let the reader note well that this was the man who eschewed the power of government, by
virtue of the Constitution of the United States, to intermeddle with religious institutions, doctrines,
disciplines, or religious exercises. 78 Contradiction? Hypocrisy? Or, do we have Jeffersonian discrimination
between his participation in these services and legally establishing some creedal discipline as the law of
the land?
The Jeffersonian ideal seems to be that his participation in these services had nothing to do with
legally supporting any particular creed or denomination above another. His operating principle, even
while attending these services himself and sanctioning them for others, remains that the state, with its
legislative powers, its financial powers, and its coercive powers, has no Constitutional right to legislatively
meddle in the affairs of the church. Participation is not legislation. Evidently, Mr. Jefferson could draw a
distinction between participation and legislation that the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans
United for Separation of Church and State cannot draw. Moreover, those who decry what the ACLU and
others like them are want to do apparently cannot tease out the Jeffersonian distinction either.
So, where does all of this leave us? The Jeffersonian ideal was religious freedom. Whether Jew or
Gentile, Christian or Mahometan, Hindoo or infidel, Jefferson’s ideal was religious freedom. I suspect his
own participation in the religious services of his day was based on his own insistence that religious
freedom applied to him too. Be that as it may, when related to the notion that God can be removed from
the public forum, the Jeffersonian ideal of religious freedom comes into play. The Jeffersonian notion of
religious freedom means that all denominations have the right to put God into the public forum any time
they wish. Government is powerless to stop them and equally powerless to aid them. If God is not in the
public forum, it is because His modern representatives do not wish to introduce Him there.
I have written elsewhere concerning two examples of the alleged removal of God from the public
forum, owing to the efforts of the ACLU and the like. 79 Those two examples concern the Ten
Commandments and prayer in a public/government place. On the first score, I point out that the only
place God ever said He wanted to put the Ten Commandments was within the hearts of men [Ezekiel 36;
Jeremiah 31]. On the second point, when Daniel was legally prohibited from praying in Daniel 6, he
ignored the law and prayed anyway. Daniel did not require legal sanction for a permission God had
already granted him. Like Jefferson, Daniel was fully aware that there were limits on what government
could do in respect of his own religious faith, and the government could not stop him from prayer.
As a founder of this nation, as a principle architect of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, by his
own participation in religious services, does underline the necessity of religious freedom for the health
and survival of the nation. It would seem that the Constitutional liberties enjoyed by all would be
protected from abuse by virtue of a religiously virtuous people. As James Hutson notes:80
Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a

more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of
his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a
republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his
Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the
people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address.
The conclusion for us today is this: Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation forbids the government
from legally prescribing creeds, doctrines, teachings, and disciplines of any particular religion or sect. At
the same time, Jefferson’s wall of separation ensures, constitutionally, the freedom of religious expression
and practice. Moreover, given the fact of constitutionally protected freedom of religion, the people of
78
See the letter to Samuel Miller, 1808, above.
79
See my “One Nation Under God: A Reflection on 2 Chronicles 7:14” available on Scribd.com.
80
Hutson, 5.
34
God are sanctioned through the transference motif in Daniel to put God squarely within the public forum.
This shall be done through proclaiming to every dominion service to an obedience of the Son of Man.
Let’s draw together both strands of the separation doctrine and unite a prophet and a president on
separation of church and state.
The Prophet and the President on Separation of Church and State
Conclusions. Both the prophet, Daniel, and the American President, Thomas Jefferson, affirm a
kind of separation of church and state. From Daniel’s perspective, the transference of those powers once
the unique province of the political classes to the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High implies an
uncoupling of these powers from the state to their new overseers. A separation of authority has occurred
from the realm of realpolitik to the kingdom of the Son and His saints. Moreover, from Daniel’s
perspective, the task that now falls upon the saints – to bring every earthly dominion into service of and
obedience to the Son of Man – is a task in which the state has no part to play at all. A separation of task
has ensued from the political classes to the Son of Man and His saints.
From President Jefferson’s perspective, his wall of separation means three things. First, the wall
of separation precludes the Congress from establishing any form of state church. Second, and this is more
germane to the argument of the essay, the wall of separation implies that Congress shall make no law that
legally establishes any particular creedal statement as the law of the land. And, third, the separation
doctrine means that the church is perfectly at liberty to pursue its religious task as it sees fit.
The correlation between the prophet and the president seems clear. That is, the American
president affirms that only the church is responsible for pursuing its task without either the aid of or
interference from civil law; the prophet affirms that only the church knows what that task is and only the
church has the resources to accomplish it.
One of the first conclusions that we may draw is that the church has neither Scriptural nor
Constitutional warrant for enlisting the law-making powers of the state in the pursuance of its task. Daniel
reminds us that the authority, the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of the
heavens have been given to the saints [7:27a]. Mr. Jefferson notes that civil powers alone have been
given to the president, with no authority to direct the religious exercises of anyone [letter to Samuel
Miller, 1802].
If one were to focus on some laundry list of the “seven deadly sins,” the state would remain
Biblically and constitutionally powerless to do anything about them. Petitioning the state or one’s local
school board to put the Ten Commandments back into public places is an exercise in futility, at best.
Passing laws that allegedly define marriage – however one wishes to define it – is pointless. Bringing the
powers of the state to regulate mankind’s penchant for greed on Wall Street, or Main Street for that
matter, will simply provide a momentary speed bump. The truly effective law-making capability is this:
Yahweh writing the Law on the hearts of men. That encompasses the task of the church, not the state.
The Gospel is the power of God leading to salvation, including salvation as social recovery, not the
Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, nor the right or the left, nor Congress, nor any state
legislature.
The second conclusion is that this country was not founded on explicitly Christian principles;
rather the country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The problem with the first
statement – the country was founded on Christian principles – is the suppressed premise it seems to
35
contain. That premise is: Christian principles are somehow baked into the make-up of the nation. They
were not and they are not. That exclusively Christian principles were not hot-wired into the DNA of our
nation is obviously denied by Jefferson’s statement in the Bill for Religious Freedom. Religious freedom
protects the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Muslim, the Hindu or even the infidel “of every
denomination.” Upon what conceivable warrant does any reader lift out Christian from that list to the
exclusion of the others?
At the same time, the second statement – the country was founded on religious freedom –
places faith squarely at the heart of this country’s endurance as a nation. Thomas Jefferson seems to
have believed that religion was necessary for the welfare of our form of government. In a letter to P. H.
Wendover in 1815, Mr. Jefferson wrote, “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those
principles on which our government has been founded [emphasis mine] and its rights asserted.” Indeed,
in Mr. Jefferson’s First Inaugural address, he compiles a list of “what I deem the essential principles of this
government and consequently, those which ought to shape [emphasis mine] its administration.” Among
the essential principles that will “make us a happy and prosperous people,” Mr. Jefferson simply refers to
“Freedom of Religion.” It would seem that, among those virtues that would enable the most blessed
application of constitutional principles and, at the same time, avoid abuse of constitutional liberties is a
healthy religious faith among the citizens of our the constitutional republic. For this constitutional form of
government to yield a “happy and prosperous people” demands that the church brings every dominion to
serve and to display obedience to the Son of Man [Daniel 7:27c].
This second conclusion requires that the church render to God the things that are God’s.
Specifically and unambiguously, the church is in the business of making disciples of Jesus Christ, the Son of
Man. On one hand, this means that the church is most assuredly not in the business of making our politics
run more efficiently; the church is not in the business of supporting ballot initiatives that either prohibit or
permit some activity; the church is not in the business of supporting political candidates of either the
Right or the Left. On the other hand, rendering to God the things that are God’s does imply that the
principle task of the church is making disciples of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The church is in business
to teach them to obey all things whatsoever He commanded with His support and presence to the end of
human history [Daniel 7:27b; Matthew 28:20].
The third conclusion, which follows upon the second, is that because of our constitutionally
guaranteed religious freedom and because of the task assigned solely to the saints of the Most High, the
church is the only contemporary hope for curing the moral malaise that infects us. To put the same thing
another way, it is deception of the highest order to assume that politicians can pass laws, even laws based
on what is referred to as the Judeo-Christian ethic that will breed a national Christian personal and social
ethic. The latter is the business of the church, not the state.
The question arises, however, as to the reason for trusting in the legislative powers of the state
to overturn our moral implosion. One of the reasons must be the presumed inadequacy of preaching. As
early as 1978, Rev. Jerry Falwell made clear an indictment of preaching that seems to exist to this very
day. Mr. Falwell wrote, “Since Gospel preaching alone will not clean up America, we must crusade against
sin.”81 At the time, the idea was that “laws can be changed and court decisions can be overruled.
Christians can alter the laws of the communities where they live.” 82 It would seem that this idea has stood
the test of time.
81
Jerry Falwell, How You Can Help Clean Up America (Lynchburg: Liberty Publishing Company,
1978), 31. See my article, “Political Activism and the Religious Right,” published on Scribd.
82
Ibid., 46.
36
Somewhat later, James Dobson and Gary Bauer argued for the rightful place of the Judeo-
Christian ethic in government. Indeed, the authors insist that America must return to a Judeo-Christian
value system. How does the nation return to Judeo-Christian values? “Our best hope is to reinstate its
precepts into government, the schools and into our homes.” 83 Again, we have an idea that, in some
quarters in this country, remains firmly in place.
Moving forward, Ralph Reed once took note of the declaration, “Evangelicals and Catholics
Together.” He wrote, “The statement also called for ‘convergence and cooperation’ in advocating school
choice, religious freedom, the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in schools, racial justice, and a free
market economy.”84 Here too, we find an idea – the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in schools – that
seems to remain an infatuation with conservative evangelical churchmen and churchwomen.
Wherever these ideas persist, they are all, in one way or another, derivative from the notion
that preaching just isn’t good enough to heal what morally ails our citizenry. Before the church sells its
birthright for a mess of pottage, modern advocates of merging the Judeo-Christian ethic with civil law
should take note of the following indisputable fact. Specifically, civil law isn’t adequate to heal what
morally ails us either!
The reason is this: the Judeo-Christian ethic as a model for public policy ignores the inherent
weakness of the law. Indeed, advocates of the views expressed above might want to grapple with the
biblical witness to the inability of law to move people to do the good they know they should do [Romans
7:14ff.].
For example, the Mosaic Law – which seems to be foundational for the much referred to
Judeo-Christian ethic – was, in and of itself, never able to change the human heart. Theologically and
pragmatically, this impotence to change mankind from within is the inherent weakness of law, including
that shaped by the Judeo-Christian ethic as well as civil law.
The relevance of our third conclusion is obvious: the church is the only hope for restoring moral
sanity to our nation. Again, the church needs to abandon its political ambitions, in whatever form they
may exist, and be about the task of making disciples. To the extent that the Sermon on the Mount is what
a disciple looks like, the church needs to be about the responsibility of replicating the kind of Christian
character one finds in the Sermon on the Mount. To be sure, the Sermon on the Mount is what a human
being looks like when Yahweh writes His Law upon their heart. Now, there is our hope!
The fourth conclusion is that tyranny will be the outcome of any attempt to wed the church
and the state. The observation will not have escaped the reader of the book of Daniel that religion and
the powers of the state were part and parcel of the same package [Daniel 3]. The thought will also not
have escaped the reader that this amalgamation was the stuff of tyranny. Moreover, the reader of
Thomas Jefferson cannot avoid the conclusion that legalization of church dogma through civil law yields
the fruit of tyranny.85
The devotee of the unification of church and state would do well to imitate Jefferson’s exercise
in his Bill For Religious Freedom of 1779. In that document, he invited those who would wed church
dogma with civil law to insert the dogma of their own denomination. Fair enough. So, let’s insert the
dogma of the Koran and wed that to civil law; or, let’s insert the dogma of Hinduism and wed that with
83
James Dobson and Gary Bauer, Children At Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our
Kids (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), 260-61.
84
Ralph Reed, Politically Incorrect (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994), 14.
85
See Thomas Jefferson on the Bill For Religious Freedom and his letter to Benjamin Rush, both
above.
37
civil law; or, let’s insert the dogma of Catholicism, or Methodism, or Presbyterianism, or whatever –ism
one chooses and wed one of them to civil law. Is any reader comfortable with legalizing church dogma
through civil law?
Do we really want to reinstate religious principles into our government and into our schools if
the wide divergences of opinion represented by those faiths in the above paragraph are the choices? If, in
our current political climate of religious tolerance, we really press for the teaching of Judeo-Christian
values in the public schools, what is there to stop any advocate of any other religion from pressing for the
same right? At the very least, we would be more morally confused than we already are; at the very worst,
we would be at the mercy of religious tyranny.
The upshot is this: our American Constitution places the highest value on religious freedom.
Our American Constitution affirms a separation of church and state that forbids both the creation of a
state church and the legalization, through civil law, of any specific set of dogmas. The church in American
is constitutionally guaranteed to be free of any interference whatsoever from government authorities.
This further means that, in its freedom, the church must be the church, pursuing the Great
Commission for the sake of the Messiah and for the sake of the lost. A blessed by-product of this holy
work will be a blessed and prosperous America.
38
39

A Prophet and President On Separation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Prophet and President On Separation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Prophet and A President on Separation of Church and State by Loren Lineberry

Daniel 7:27 in the Context of Daniel 7

It will be useful to appreciate the structure of Daniel 7 as a whole. Thus:

An historical introduction – 7:1

The four beasts-kings 7:2-3 7:17

The Transference Theme in Daniel 7:14

The Transference Theme in Daniel 7:18

possession so as to be master of is a tenancy that implies a responsibility to an overlord. If this language,

The Transference Theme in Daniel 7:22

The Transference Theme in Daniel 7:27

Thomas Jefferson on the Wall of Separation between Church and State

To Messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so

In a letter to a Richard Bush in 1813, Mr. Jefferson wrote:

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the

The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me as President

The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying

Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a

The Prophet and the President on Separation of Church and State

Você também pode gostar