Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT Prophets' started by Herald, May 13, 2008.
Did Nebuchadnezzer become a believer?
I believe he did. You may wish to consult Stuart Olyott's Dare to Stand Alone for a defence of this view. And I believe E.J. Young also takes this position.
Most of the older commentators disagree, but if Nebuchadnezzar was not saved, then I am not sure who ever has been. Keep in mind that his profession of faith in the sovereign God was a lot stronger than that of most Arminian Christians today.
I am not convinced that he did, but I would be happy to be wrong
Since there is nothing in the Biblical text to say that he did not, then surely the judgment of charity must cause us to conclude that he was?
I wonder whether a parallel an be drawn between Nebuchadnezzer's confession and Nineveh's repentance in Jonah? Interesting.
Didn't Nebuchadnezzar die shortly after this? So that we cannot proffer any reason why his profession was not genuine?
I believe he did die shortly thereafter.
Daniel seemed to have an affection for Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel said to the king:
Notice that Nebuchadnezzar does not react in anger against Daniel for his foreboding interpretation. At the end of the interpretation Daniel says:
Daniel did not share the same affection for Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar's son. When summoned to interpret the handwriting on the wall, and after being offered gifts and a promotion, Daniel said:
Notice that Daniel never pleaded with Belshazzar to change his ways.
I agree with Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar, I believe, gave a credible and beautiful profession of faith.
I don't see by what grounds one would say that he did not come to saving faith in God.
And ditto to Daniel Ritchie "Keep in mind that his profession of faith in the sovereign God was a lot stronger than that of most Arminian Christians today."
I agree with Daniel Ritchie too, esp his great sentence about the profession of faith better than arminian church's! I don't think that someone could say things about God the way Nebuchadnezzer did unless he was saved. (It was recorded by Daniel and is the word of God, so if he was faking, it would have said so or not been written down)
I hope so, but I don't know so.
I'm not sure what you could mean here. Maybe I misunderstood. But if this is pointing out a possible relationship in time and location, the two won't go together. I might get a few details wrong here, but overall the record is pretty close. And the spelling of names may be off too.
Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon (the Chaldeans). Nineveh was the capital of Assyria. The chronology of power lied in Assyria, Babylon and then the Persians and the Medes before Alexander the Great invaded the region (Wasn't it Xerxes I, the Persian, to set out to destroy Athens and was met by the 300 Spartans at Battle of Thermopylae? That would have been about 480 B.C.).
In the late 800s Shalmanezer (sp?) III was the king. Jehu bowed down to him and swore Israel's fealty to Assyria, but Judah did not. Shortly after this would have been the time of Jonah, around 790. Then, in the late 700s Tiglath Peneser came against Judah after King Uzziah died (735). It is speculated that Nineveh's repentance accounts for her relative silence during the first half of the 700s. Nebuchadnezzar wasn't until later, obviously.
Well, it goes something like that. Perhaps our resident historians can correct my mistakes. The point is, the repentance of Nineveh and Nebuchadnezzar are not related in location or time.
I was looking at the larger picture, the fact that two heathen kings repented in the face of judgment (one realized, the other impending). It displays God's grace even to gentiles.