How did Les describe Nebuchadnezzar as a ruler?
Nebuchadnezzar was described as a great dictator, a despot, and a totalitarian. He had no concern for his subjects, and his decision-making was within himself. Unlike a benevolent ruler, he did not seek consensus but exercised absolute, self-centered authority over his empire.
Les explains that Nebuchadnezzar, like any other great dictator, was a despot and a totalitarian. He had no concern about his subjects, and his decision-making was within himself. Les points out that if Nebuchadnezzar had been a benevolent individual with the love and graciousness of God, he could have had that kind of empire, but no human has those attributes. This fits the Daniel 2 image of empires, where political power weakened as more people became involved in decision-making. Les contrasts this with democracy, which he calls the greatest form of government but poor for getting things done, and with Christ's coming kingdom of one, which will have absolute power with no confabs or consensus.