Colonialism-imperialism
Short answer: Daniel 4:17 says, "the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will, and sets up over it the lowest of men." That verse does not endorse colonialism or any empire. It declares that no throne, crown, or colonial administration rises apart from God's sovereign decree and that every one of them will be judged by him. Scripture treats empire as a real, often brutal fact of fallen history (Daniel 2:21). It never makes conquest a mandate or a mark of divine favor. So the Bible neither blesses the colonial project nor lets it off the hook. It places every empire, ancient Babylon and modern Europe alike, under the rule and the verdict of the Most High.
What Daniel 4:17 actually says
The verse sits in a royal proclamation. Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful man of his age, has been humbled by God and is describing what he learned. The sentence concerning his downfall is attributed to watchers and holy ones, and the stated purpose is that the living may know something specific about God. The point is not simply that God is strong. The point is that God is the one who assigns kingdoms.
Note the last clause carefully. God does not merely permit kings; he actively gives the kingdom to whomever he will, and he raises up over it the lowest of men. Nebuchadnezzar had boasted about his own might, and God brought him down until he acknowledged heaven's rule. The verse is a rebuke to imperial self-congratulation, not a charter for it.
Many teachers see in the phrase about the lowest of men a reference to rulers who seem base or unlikely, even to Nebuchadnezzar himself being reduced to a beastlike state before his reason returned. Either way, the sovereignty belongs to God, not to the empire. That distinction matters enormously when Christians ask what to make of colonialism.
Daniel's Babylon and the moral weight of empire
Daniel lived as a captive in an empire that had crushed his nation, burned the temple, and deported its people. Babylon was not a benign administrator. It was a predator. Daniel served within it faithfully, but the book never presents Babylon as a righteous institution. It is portrayed as a beast in the visions of Daniel 7, and its king is humbled precisely because he claimed a glory that was not his.
Yet God uses Babylon. He calls Nebuchadnezzar his servant in Jeremiah, and Daniel tells the king that it is God who has given him dominion, power, and glory. That pattern is uncomfortable for modern readers who want a clean moral grid. Scripture can say both things at once: God raises up an empire for his purposes, and that same empire stands guilty of pride and bloodshed.
This is the frame Christians should bring to the history of colonialism. Babylon's existence was decreed by God. Babylon's arrogance was still judged. The two truths do not cancel each other, and neither can be dropped.
Does Romans 13 justify colonial rule
Romans 13:1-7 commands subjection to governing authorities and states that there is no authority except from God. Colonial powers often quoted this text to demand obedience from subject peoples. That use deserves careful scrutiny. Paul is not writing a theology of conquest. He is writing to believers in Rome about how to live under a government they did not choose and could not control.
The passage says authorities are ordained by God, and the next verses describe rulers as servants for good and as avengers of wrath. Paul is describing the purpose of government, not the pedigree of every governor. The same Paul was beaten, jailed, and executed by Roman authorities. He did not teach that whatever an empire does is good because it holds power.
God's ordaining of an authority and God's approval of everything that authority does are not the same claim. Daniel 4:17 itself proves that God sets up rulers, and the story surrounding it proves those rulers can be proud, cruel, and subject to divine humiliation.
Babel, scattered nations, and the myth of one empire
Genesis 11:1-9 describes humanity united in one language and one project, building a city and tower to make a name for themselves. God scatters them and confuses their speech. Whatever else that account teaches, it sets a pattern: unified human power reaching for heaven is characteristically met with divine resistance, and the scattering of peoples is part of God's own action in history.
Acts 17:26-27 tells us God made every nation from one blood, having determined their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek him. The nations and their borders are not accidents. They are appointed by God. That text does not forbid migration or trade, but it does undercut any ideology that treats one people's dominance over another as the natural order of things.
An empire that erases boundaries or absorbs peoples by force is working against a pattern Scripture attributes to God himself. That should make Christians cautious about any theology that treats colonial expansion as obviously providential.
Why Daniel 4:17 is not a colonial mandate
Some have read the clause about the Most High giving kingdoms to whomever he wills as a blank endorsement of whoever happens to win. If God gave Britain its territories, the reasoning goes, then British rule was God's will and resistance was rebellion. But that logic proves far too much. By the same reasoning, God gave Judah into Babylon's hand, and yet Babylon was later destroyed for its treatment of the nations.
The verse tells us who is in charge. It does not tell us that every action of the ruler in question is righteous. Nebuchadnezzar was given a kingdom, and he also spent seven years eating grass because of his pride. Being raised up by God and being judged by God are frequently the same story.
Claiming divine approval for conquest confuses providence with approval. God's hidden purposes in history are not a certificate of moral innocence for the powerful, and the Bible consistently warns the powerful not to assume they are.
Empire in Revelation and the coming judgment
Revelation 18 describes the fall of a great commercial and imperial city, a power that traded in the souls of men and grew rich on the labour of nations. An angel announces its downfall with great authority, and the earth is illuminated with his glory. The chapter is a sustained indictment of economic and political empire, not a celebration of it.
The kings of the earth and the merchants weep over the city's ruin because their wealth depended on it. That is an unsettling picture for any era in which Christian nations profited richly from overseas possessions and forced labour. The text does not say the church must never benefit from trade. It does say that empires built on exploitation have a reckoning coming.
Daniel 4:17 and Revelation 18 are not in tension. The God who sets up kings is the God who brings them down, and the language of judgment falls heaviest on those who imagined their power was their own.
How Christians should speak about colonial history
Honesty is required here. Christians differ over how much of colonial-era missionary work should be read as faithful witness and how much as complicity with violence and land theft. Some point to genuine conversions, translations of Scripture into local languages, and schools and hospitals. Others point to forced labour, land seizure, and the way the gospel was sometimes preached alongside the gun.
Both sets of facts exist, and faithful believers weight them differently. What Scripture does not permit is either the triumphalism that calls empire clean or the cynicism that calls the gospel itself a colonial tool. The gospel belongs to Christ, not to any flag. Where Christians sinned in the name of Christ, confession is the right response.
Daniel 4:17 gives us the right posture: humble, sober, and accountable, because the Most High rules and he is not impressed by thrones.
What this means for the church today
If God gives kingdoms to whomever he will, then no nation has a permanent claim on his favour, including the nations that once held empires or the nations that were held by them. Every country stands under the same decree. That levels the field in a way that neither nationalist pride nor national shame can fully capture.
It also means Christians should be cautious about framing the spread of the gospel in the language of national destiny. The kingdom of God is not advanced by conquest, but by witness, suffering, and love, as the early church demonstrated under an empire far more powerful than any of them.
The church's calling is not to run empires but to testify to the one who sets them up and takes them down. That testimony is more credible when the church refuses to be the priest of any empire.
Biblical fidelity check
Daniel 4:17 establishes that God is sovereign over human kingdoms. It does not establish that any particular empire is morally good, that conquest is a divine mandate, or that the peoples under colonial rule were under God's judgment. The verse tells us who assigns power; it does not certify how that power is used. Every ruler is accountable to God for what he does with the authority he receives.
A common misreading treats the verse as a kind of blanket endorsement: whoever holds power must be God's choice, so opposing them is opposing God. That misreading proves too much. The same God who gave Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom later stripped it from him and pronounced judgment on Babylon. Providence explains how an empire rose. It does not explain away what the empire did, and it never removes the obligation to speak the truth about injustice.
Other passages that speak to Daniel 4:17
Daniel 4:17 stands within a wider biblical witness about God's rule over nations. Daniel 2:21 declares that he removes kings and sets up kings, which is the same truth stated in the king's own declaration. Romans 13:1-7 discusses the believer's subjection to governing authorities and the purpose God intends for them. Acts 17:26-27 declares that God made every nation from one blood and determined their seasons and the boundaries of their dwellings. Genesis 11:1-9 records the scattering of one proud, unified humanity, and Revelation 18:1-24 pronounces judgment on an empire that grew rich on the souls of men. For related studies, see What Does Acts 1:6–11 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, What Does Acts 1:8 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, Acts 1:9-11 Prophecy: Jesus’s Promised Return from Heaven, and Acts 10: Peter and Cornelius: God Shows No Favoritism.
Frequently asked questions
Does Daniel 4:17 mean God approves of every empire?
No. Daniel 4:17 says God rules over the kingdoms of men and gives them to whomever he will. It says nothing about whether a given empire's conduct is righteous. Nebuchadnezzar was raised up by God and then humbled by God for his pride. Babylon was used for God's purposes and later judged for its cruelty. Providence explains how a power arose; it is not a moral endorsement of everything that power does. Christians should avoid confusing God's sovereignty with his approval.
Was colonialism part of God's plan for the world?
Scripture never commands conquest as a means of spreading the faith, and it warns consistently against the pride and cruelty of empire. God ordains rulers and nations, but the Bible also holds them accountable for injustice. Faithful Christians read the colonial era differently, some emphasizing missionary work and Bible translation, others emphasizing violence and land seizure. What is clear is that the gospel is not the property of any empire, and Christ's kingdom advances by witness, not by the sword.
How should Christians respond to colonial history today?
Start with honesty. Daniel 4:17 puts every nation and every ruler under the Most High, so no people group holds permanent spiritual superiority. Where Christians participated in injustice, confession and repentance are fitting. Where God used imperfect people to bring Scripture and the gospel to new places, gratitude is also fitting. Both can be true at once. The church's calling is to testify to the King who sets up and removes rulers, not to serve as chaplain to any earthly empire.
