According to both biblical and Assyrian accounts, Sennacherib was intent on punishing Hezekiah for not adequately submitting to the Assyrian’s demands. And, according to both sides’ accounts, the prospects for Jerusalem’s survival weren’t very good.
However, one must take a step back, and look at the greater picture. Where is God, the master planner, in this scenario? How is God working here? Those questions serve to introduce the prophet Isaiah.
In my last entry, Hezekiah’s Motivation, I discussed the nature of Hezekiah’s prayer; namely, that it was spoken for God’s glory. God’s response to that prayer was to send a word through Isaiah to Hezekiah against Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:20-34).
A careful reading of the word against Sennacherib reveals some interesting things: First, we see that Sennacherib’s insults weren’t primarily against Hezekiah. Rather, from God’s perspective, they were against, “the Holy One of Israel (vs 19).”
Second, we also see that pride was the cause of this insult and blasphemy (vs 19).
Here is Sennacherib’s list of accomplishments (2 Kings 19:23-24 NIV):
“And you have said,
1) ‘With many Chariots I have ascended the heights of the mountains,
the utmost heights of Lebanon.
2) I have cut down its tallest cedars, the choicest of it pines.
3) I have reached its remotest parts, the finest of its forests.
4) I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.
5) With the soles of my feet I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.”
After examining his list of accomplishments, many might say, “After all he’s done, he deserved to brag a little.” But such an assessment discounts the third thing we see in the word delivered by Isaiah: God’s sovereignty.
“Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone (2 Kings 19:25 NIV).”
God clearly says here that Sennacherib conquered the fortified cities in Judah because God ordained, planned and brought it to pass. Sennacherib was a tool designed by God. Why should that provide encouragement for Hezekiah? Because, the sovereign God who raised up this wrecking machine, knows exactly how to disable it.
And, that’s what Isaiah goes on to say: “But I know where you stay and when you come and go and how you rage against me. Because you rage against me and your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came (2 Kings 19:27-28 NIV).”
The next day, the Assyrian army awakened to a great surprise: During the night, the angel of the LORD put to death 185,000 of their troops, which resulted in Sennacherib breaking camp and returning to Assyria (2 Kings 19:35-36).
Let’s not forget Isaiah’s previous word regarding Sennacherib’s personal future: “This is what the LORD says, . . . he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword (2 Kings 19:7 NIV).”
Sennacherib’s end was just as Isaiah had said it would be: “One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, . . . (2 Kings 19:37 NIV).” By the way, this occurred after Hezekiah’s death, which means that Hezekiah had to rest securely in the fact that God brings about His will in His own timing.
The LORD knows how to raise up and take down. And He does so to demonstrate His sovereignty and supremecy.
The Downside of Technology
Technology is great. I use it everyday. In fact, I’m using technology now to critique the use of technology. That irony isn’t lost on me, so save the wise cracks. Having said all that, I also think we are terribly short-sighted to not acknowledge there is some downside – trade off, if you will – to our speeding merrily down the technological freeway.
Here’s a case in point: Recently I had the need to duplicate a book that has been out of print for quite some time. I needed this particular book for an assignment I was giving some students, so I had a choice: I could use the old fashioned, labor intensive, data entry method and simply re-type the book in my word processor; or I could do an OCR scan and touch up the formatting.
Which did I choose? Well, . . . I chose both. I started the project the old fashioned way: I was sitting in a semi-comfortable chair with the book propped up on a stand, keyboard at the ready, and pretending they were bifocals, I had my reading glasses perched on my nose in such a way that I could read both both my monitor and the book I was reproducing.
All the physical preparation out of the way, the project was now underway. I read. I mentally processed what I had read. I typed. That was the process. Read. Process. Type. Read. Process. Type. After an hour, I was quite proud of what I had been able to transfer from a dusty old, long out of print book, to a modern technological masterpiece called a MacBook Pro. The long out of print and unavailable book was becoming available for my students. More important, though, was that the process gave me the chance to process the information as I transferred the text from one medium to another. I read and typed; the information was flowing into AND out of my mind.
Admittedly, the process was time consuming. But, my typing was improving on the fly: my speed increased and my mistakes decreased. However, after an hour, I started to think, “This could take a long time. I wonder if I should just scan it and reformat?“
In the end, I decided to scan and reformat the remaining pages. No doubt about it, scanning was MUCH faster than trying to type the text!
However, there was something I didn’t consider: by only scanning the documents, I was missing something vital. I wasn’t reading or processing the information as I had done previously. And that meant, that after scanning and reformatting, I would need to go back and read the document. Furthermore, simply going back to read the document wouldn’t provide the opportunity of output, which typing had. An important (for me) step in the process of mentally “owning” this information was lost in the more technology savvy method.
Here’s my conclusion on this unintended experiment: It’s true, I saved some time. But, the amount of time I saved was reduced by having to go back and read the material after it had been scanned and reformatted. It’s also true, that by leaving out, or greatly reducing, the labor step of the process, I paid a price in my ability to better understand and process the information.
In this process, there definitely was a downside. Now, I don’t intend this blog to suggest that I’ll never use OCR again. Neither is it intended to suggest that you should not use OCR or other technologies. What it is intended to do is to encourage you and me to fairly consider the wisest use of technology in our daily lives. Fastest isn’t always best. And old fashioned isn’t always best. Let’s use honest discernment when deciding when to use technology.
Share this:
Like this: