Witnesses: Why The 1/19/14 WT Lesson Is Dangerous (page 3)

Splash

WMF Your constant spamming of the same comment on thread after thread really doesn't help anyone, and contributes nothing to the discussions.

I much prefer your more considered and thoughtful responses.

Splash.

AnnOMaly

Excellent critique, Apognophos! It's going to be useful for when this comes up in discussion with the JWs I know.

A couple of quibbles:

2. Upon becoming king, Hezekiah rebels against Assyria (2 Kings 18:7). Being that they are a vassal state left to rule themselves, the only conceivable way to rebel is to stop paying tribute.

3. It is at this point that the Assyrians attack (2 Kings 18:13)... because they were provoked by Hezekiah.

As you say, Hezekiah's rebellion has been placed early in his reign. It's followed by the account of Assyria's attack on Samaria in Hezekiah's 4th year. However, it's only in Hezekiah's 14th year that Assyria attacks Judah. Either it wasn't a serious rebellion up to that point or the Assyrians weren't too bothered (unlikely) or Hezekiah only plucked up the courage to rebel later in his reign. What is clear: something ticked off the Assyrians in that 14th year, i.e. Judah switching allegiance (2 Ki. 18:19f.).

5. Hezekiah then begs for forgiveness from Assyria, and is fined a certain amount of gold and silver. To make the payment, he gives all of the silver in the temple to Sennacherib, as well as lots of gold. Where does he get the gold? By stripping it off the posts at the entrance to the temple! (2 Kings 18:14-16)

[Later comment] Next, he pays Sennacherib to leave him alone by pillaging God's house of everything shiny, while apparently leaving his own treasure-house alone.

He took silver from his own treasure house too.

(2 Kings 18:15, 16) Therefore Hez·e·ki′ah gave all the silver that was to be found at the house of Jehovah and in the treasures of the king’s house. At that time Hez·e·ki′ah cut off the doors of the temple of Jehovah and the doorposts that Hez·e·ki′ah the king of Judah had overlaid and then gave them to the king of As·syr′i·a.

tornapart

Excellent post Apognophos. I have to admit to only skimming this article, deciding I couldn't stomach the meeting and letting my hubby know what I thought of it, manipulating and mind controlling. That didn't go down too well!

I never knew any of those things about Hezekiah, apart from showing the king of Babylon his wealth. It was a brilliant peice of sleuthing on your part! Just shows the lengths those '8 dukes' in Brooklyn will go to, to keep the R&F under control.

Slidin Fast

How refreshing a good honest summary and well reasoned analysis are. Reading the WT these days is like reading the propaganda of a dictator state. Perhaps the impractical and illogical instruction will be goose-stepping.

KiddingMe

Thank you! Excellent post! Very well written.

Bobcat

NowWhat:

correct me if i'm wrong, but i cant find anything that hezekiah actually had an alliance with egypt

Here are a few comments from the NAC-Isaiah commentary (Gary V. Smith, Vol I, pp. 507, 508, 511) concerning this point:

[Start quote (p. 507). This material is from part of the initial synopsis of Isaiah chapters 30-33 - Bobcat]

This group of three oracles (chaps. 30-33) explains how the priciples identified in 28:1-29:24 directly apply to the political conflicts involving Judah, Egypt, and Assyria around 704-701 BC.

[Incidentally, most, but not all scholars hold that the setting for chaps. 30-33 is around the 704-701 time period. Some think it is 713-711 (Wildberger), which would be very early in Hezekiah's reign. Some (Hayes, Irvine) think earlier, around the 726-721 time frame, which would be during Ahaz's reign. Some (Watts) prefer during Josiah's time (which would require non-Isaiah authoring). Page 468 of this commentary state: "There are numerous indications that these prophecies (chaps. 28-33) speak to the situation in Judah when the Assyrians were invading the land, thus they should be placed somewhere around 705-701 BC. These prophecies refer to the scourge that beats down Judah (28:18) and a siege of Jerusalem (29:2-3) when hourdes of people will attack it (29:7). God also promises to defeat the enemy by shattering Assyria (29:5; 30:31). He will shield Zion from defeat (31:5) by causing Assyria to fall by a sword not wielded by a man (31:8-9, fulfilled in 37:36)" - Bobcat]

[Continuing quote (p. 508) The following paragraph is part of the initial synopsis of Isaiah chapter 30 - Bobcat]

These messages [regarding Isaiah chapter 30 - Bobcat] are very different and their unity is not obvious because some paragraphs lament the nation's disobedience (30:1-17) and others paradoxically promise hope because of God's grace (30:18-26). These two rather contradictory themes come together in the historical circumstances of the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem around 701 BC. God condemns the people of Judah for not trusting him and instead leaning on Egypt, but he also promises in his grace to defeat the Assyrians (30:31). Such contradictory acts of God are possible because God is gracious and will lead his people to repent and rest in him for salvation (30:15). Then he will eventually transform their sinful world (30:23-26).

[Continuing quote (p. 511). This paragraph forms part of the introductory commentary to 30:1-17 - Bobcat]

It is surprising that Isaiah does not specifically condemn King Hezekiah for this unfaithful political dependence on Egypt. He speaks against the "scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem" and make a covenant with Egypt (28:14), the wise men who counsel the king (29:14), those who hide their plans from God (29:15), and those obstinate ones who make plans without consulting God (30:1), but no specific mention is made of the king. This raises the question: Is Isaiah addressing the politicians in order to condemn what the nation's leaders are doing, or is he primarily addressing the public in order to castigate the dominant position that won the palace political arguments? Since Hezekiah allows envoys to go to Egypt, he carries responsibility, yet the prophet's failure to condemn Hezekiah (in contrast to Ahaz in chap. 7 and Hezekiah in chap. 39) may indicate that he was not the driving force or a strong proponent of this policy. Later Hezekiah supports another alternative and trusts God rather than Assyria (chaps. 36-37).

[End quote]

Some of my own comments here, based on the commentary's comments:

The setting (704-701, prefered by the majority of scholars based on internal clues in the context) definately involves Hezekiah. He was king alone after his father (Ahaz) died in 715. Since Hezekiah was 25 in 715, Isaiah chapter 30 puts him in his mid-30s; certainly not a feeble youngster at the mercy of adult counselors. Yet he may have had to deal with others in Jerusalem who had political power and knew how to 'work the system' so to speak.

On the other hand, Hezekiah was born into or inherited a situation that for a long time was contrary to Jehovah's will for Judah. In the end, he is remembered as a king who was much more pleasing to God than his predecessors. So it could reasonably be argued that Hezekiah learned from his circumstances, and no doubt made many mistakes along the way as he learned. He was much more 'human' than any whitewashed comic book hero. And I think that's the portrayal that many take exception to.

It is interesting that the Society's Isaiah commentary on chapter 30 leaves out any hint of the historical setting. (See here.)

And I forgot to add: I very much enjoyed reading your analysis, Apognophos.

Apognophos

Ah, good points AnnOMaly. As you indicated, it could well have been Judah's attempt to ally with Egypt that pushed things over the edge with the Assyrians. Also, I totally missed the clause where it said that Hezekiah also gave silver from his treasure-house. Shame I can't edit my post. I also wish I put the title of the article in the thread title.

I really wanted to give at least one comment during the study to set some facts straight. It's not the historical inaccuracies per se that bothered me so much, but the fact that they arrive at such a dangerous conclusion from what must purposely have been an incomplete set of facts. I was thinking of mentioning one of the three bold points in my post, but when it came time to get my hand up, I felt too ill from nervousness. If anyone I know brings up the article in a private discussion, though, I will definitely have to say something about this.

Edit: Thanks for the comments, Bobcat. I shouldn't have said that Isaiah was railing against the king specifically, and in fact there's an interesting clue to be gleaned from the fact that he doesn't name him, as you say -- that Hezekiah might have simply allowed an envoy to be sent but was not the primary mover, and Isaiah felt that others were to blame. Hopefully you agree that the statement in paragraph 10 of the article was still disingenuous, though, about how Hezekiah would never 'enlist the help of a pagan nation'.

eyeuse2badub

Nice job of presenting a realistic account (timeline) of what really happened and why.

Witnesses: Why The 1/19/14 WT Lesson Is Dangerous

mind blown

Witness My Fury