II Kings 18:27 · Bible study
2 Kings 18:27 Commentary: The Rabshakeh's Crude Threat
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does Rabshakeh use degrading imagery? This study explores Assyrian intimidation tactics and the spiritual test at Jerusalem's walls.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Rabshakeh graphically threatens the defenders of Jerusalem with starvation to force surrender.
- Key words: Akhal (eat) and shatah (drink) are used with crude objects (dung, urine) to maximize shock and horror.
- Main debate: Whether the language is primarily a literal warning of siege conditions or a calculated rhetorical shock tactic to terrorize.
- Theological theme: The assault on God’s people through fear and intimidation, and the test of trusting Yahweh over human threats.
- Best use: As a case study in psychological warfare and a setup for God’s deliverance in II Kings 19.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But the Rabshakeh replied, “Has my master sent me to speak these words only to you and your master, and not to the men sitting on the wall, who are destined with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?”
WEB World English Bible 2000
But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you, to speak these words? Hasn’t he sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own urine with you?”
KJV King James Version 1769
But Rab–shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
ASV American Standard Version 1901
But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And the chief of the butlers saith unto them, `For thy lord, and unto thee, hath my lord sent me to speak these words? is it not for the men, those sitting on the wall to eat their own dung and to drink their own water, with you?'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And Rab-shakeh said to them, Is it to thy master and to thee that my master sent me to speak these words? Is it not to the men that sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And Rabsaces answered them, saying: Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words, and not rather to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their urine with you?
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y Rabsaces les dijo: ¿ Hame enviado mi señor á ti y á tu señor para decir estas palabras, y no antes á los hombres que están sobre el muro, para comer su estiércol|strong="H6675, H2755", y beber el agua de sus pies con vosotros?
E Rabsaqué lhes disse: Enviou-me meu senhor a ti e a teu senhor para dizer estas palavras, e não antes aos homens que estão sobre o muro, para comerem o seu excremento, e beberem a sua própria urina convosco?
Rabschaké leur répondit: Est-ce à ton maître et à toi que mon maître m’ a envoyé dire ces paroles? N’est-ce pas à ces hommes assis sur la muraille pour manger leurs excréments et pour boire leur urine avec vous?
Aber der Erzschenke sprach zu ihnen: Hat mich denn mein Herr zu deinem Herrn oder zu dir gesandt, daß ich solche Worte rede? und nicht vielmehr zu den Männern, die auf der Mauer sitzen, daß sie mit euch ihren eigenen Mist fressen und ihren Harn saufen?
Maar Rabsake zeide tot hen: Heeft mijn heer mij tot uw heer en tot u gezonden, om deze woorden te spreken? Is het niet tot de mannen, die op den muur zitten, dat zij met ulieden hun drek eten, en hun water drinken zullen?
Ma Rabshaké rispose loro: “Forse che il mio signore m’ha mandato a dir queste cose al tuo signore e a te? Non m’ha egli mandato a dirle a quegli uomini che stan seduti sulle mura e saran quanto prima ridotti a mangiare il loro sterco e a bere la loro orina con voi?”
Którym odpowiedział Rabsaces: Azaż mię do pana twego, albo do ciebie przysłał Pan mój, abym te słowa mówił? Azaż nie do tych mężów, którzy siedzą na murze, aby jedli łajna swoje, i pili mocz swój z wami.
И сказал им Рабсак: разве только к господину твоему и к тебе послал меня господин мой сказать сии слова? Нет, также и к людям, которые сидят на стене, чтобы есть помет свой и пить мочу свою с вами.
拉伯沙基 說：「我主 差遣我來，豈是單對 你 和你的主 說 這些 話嗎？不 也是對 這些坐 在 城上、要與你們 一同吃 自己糞、喝 自己尿 的人說嗎？」
But the Rab-shakeh said to them, Is it to your master or to you that my master has sent me to say these words? has he not sent me to the men seated on the wall? for they are the people who will be short of food with you when the town is shut in.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · II Kings 18:27
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Rabshakeh's crude language is a calculated act of psychological warfare. Barnes notes that the Rabshakeh directly addresses the men stationed on the wall to defend the city, who "will bear the last extremities of a prolonged siege." The phrase "eat their own dung and drink their own urine" paints the horrors of starvation in graphic physical terms. Adam Clarke explains that Rabshakeh intends to warn the people that if they resist, the siege will reduce them to eating their own excrement. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown state that this is "designed to show the dreadful extremities" awaiting Jerusalem. The Hebrew words tso'ah (dung) and mimei ragleyhem (literally "water of their feet") are deliberately shocking, meant to break morale. By speaking in Hebrew rather than Aramaic, Rabshakeh bypasses the officials and drives terror directly into the hearts of the common people. The consensus is clear: this is Assyrian intimidation at its rawest, intended to pressure Jerusalem into immediate surrender without a fight.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Rabshakeh uses deliberately degrading imagery to terrorize the defenders of Jerusalem into surrendering without a fight.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the crude language | All commentators agree Rabshakeh uses explicit scatological imagery to terrify the defenders and pressure surrender. | Some emphasize the literal warning of starvation (Clarke), while others focus on the rhetorical shock to break morale (Barnes). Both elements are present. |
| Audience of the speech | The speech is directed at the people on the wall, not only the officials. | Barnes identifies them specifically as soldiers bearing the last extremities; Clarke sees them as the whole populace who will suffer. The text allows both. |
| Historical authenticity of the account | The event is presented as historical narrative within Kings; commentators treat it as a real episode. | Some scholars (not in supplied excerpts) question details like the exact words, but the supplied sources accept the historicity without debate. |
| Significance of the location and language choice | Rabshakeh speaks in Hebrew at a public spot to maximize fear among the common people. | Whether this was a strategic error (giving offense) or a deliberate psychological tactic is not debated in the supplied commentaries; all see it as intentional intimidation. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The Assyrian Empire under Sennacherib (705, 681 BC) perfected psychological warfare as part of military conquest. II Kings 18 records that after capturing Judah’s fortified cities, Sennacherib sends his chief officer Rabshakeh to demand Jerusalem’s surrender. Hezekiah had already paid heavy tribute (verses 14, 16), but the king of Assyria wants unconditional capitulation. Rabshakeh delivers his message at the conduit of the upper pool, the point where the city’s water supply enters. The location is chosen for maximum publicity: the people on the wall can hear every word. When the Judean officials ask him to speak in Aramaic, the language of diplomacy, he refuses. He wants the common people to be terrified personally. The graphic imagery in verse 27 refers to the realities of ancient siege warfare. Starvation was often the primary weapon. Deuteronomy 28:53, 57 curses covenant-breakers with cannibalism and filth; Rabshakeh explicitly invokes these horrors. By warning that the defenders will eat their own dung and drink their own urine, he aims to break morale before a single arrow is shot. The men "sitting on the wall" are the soldiers tasked with defense, but they are also the first to suffer the siege’s effects. The Assyrian strategy is twofold: threaten physical misery and undermine trust in Hezekiah. Rabshakeh even claims Yahweh sent him (verse 25), trying to present the siege as divine judgment. Cross-references to the siege of Samaria (II Kings 6:25) and Lamentations 4:5 confirm that such extremes actually occurred. The historical setting thus presents a spiritual test: will the people believe Rabshakeh's intimidation or trust in Yahweh’s promise of deliverance through Isaiah and Hezekiah?
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant variants among manuscript traditions for this verse. The wording is stable across all major versions and translations. The variation in English renderings, KJV uses “piss” while others use “urine” or “water”, reflects translation choices for the Hebrew mimei ragleyhem (literally “water of their feet”), not textual differences.
Reception History
This verse has often challenged readers by its raw language. Early English translations like the KJV did not sanitize the scatology, rendering the second term as “piss.” Reformation commentators, including Matthew Henry, treated the verse as part of the larger narrative of God’s sovereignty over arrogant empires. The Geneva Bible included the unvarnished text in its notes. In the 19th century, Barnes and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown focused on the psychological warfare aspect. Modern versions sometimes soften the language to “urine” or “water,” but the verse remains a stark reminder of the brutality ancient Israel faced. It is read in the church as a prelude to God’s dramatic deliverance in II Kings 19, showing that no threat, however degrading, can thwart His purposes.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Target: The People on the Wall, Rabshakeh bypasses the officials to terrorize the common defenders directly.
- The Tactic: Graphic Terror, The crude scatological language is calculated to demoralize and break the will to resist.
- The Test: Whom Will You Trust?, The speech forces a decision between the threats of Assyria and the promise of Yahweh.
Five-point outline
- A Calculated Message: Rabshakeh's words are tactical, tailored to the audience on the wall.
- The Horrors of Siege: He describes the literal consequences of prolonged resistance.
- The Psychological War: Speaking in Hebrew causes panic among the people who understand every word.
- The Assault on Faith: Rabshakeh equates Yahweh with powerless gods (verses 33, 35), attacking trust in God.
- The Deceptive Offer: He presents surrender as a way of peace (verses 31, 32), hiding Assyria's true intent of deportation.
Illustration hooks
- Think of propaganda leaflets dropped during wartime, designed to make soldiers question if their cause is worth dying for. Rabshakeh uses the same tactic, but with raw, physical language.
- A child facing a bully who threatens worse consequences if the parent is told. The pressure to give in rather than trust authority mirrors the pressure on Jerusalem's defenders.
- Anyone who has received a threatening message knows how words can cause a physical reaction of fear. Rabshakeh aims directly at that instinct.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why does the Bible include such crude language? The text does not sanitize evil; it shows the raw reality of what the enemy intended.
- How could God allow an enemy to blaspheme His name in public? This sets the stage for God's vindication in chapter 19, where He delivers Jerusalem in a dramatic way.
- Is this just ancient history, or does it teach something about spiritual warfare? The same tactic of intimidating believers with fear of loss is still used today.
Leading a Discussion
This verse is jarring. The Rabshakeh’s words are deliberately crude and shocking. As a group, work through the text to understand what is happening and why it matters for the larger story of God’s people.
Discussion questions
- Read II Kings 18:13, 27. Where is the delegation standing, and who is present? Why does Rabshakeh refuse to speak Aramaic?
- Who does Rabshakeh say he was sent to? What is the effect of his targeting the men on the wall?
- What specific horrors does Rabshakeh describe in verse 27? Why do you think he uses such graphic language?
- How does this speech connect to the curses in Deuteronomy 28:53, 57? What does Rabshakeh assume about the relationship between Judah and God?
- In verse 25, Rabshakeh claims Yahweh sent him. How does that claim affect the way the people might hear his threats? What does it reveal about his rhetorical strategy?
- How does the people’s silence (verse 36) and Hezekiah’s response (chapter 19:1, 2) show a different way of handling this intimidation?
- This passage shows raw evil and brute force. How does the outcome in II Kings 19 demonstrate that God’s power is stronger than any human threat?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Deuteronomy 28:53 | You will eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters, whom Yahweh your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies will distress you. |
| Deuteronomy 28:57 | toward her young one who comes out from between her feet, and toward her children whom she bears; for she will eat them secretly for lack of all things in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in your gates. |
| II Kings 6:25 | There was a great famine in Samaria. Behold, they besieged it until a donkey’s head was sold for eighty pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. |
| Psalms 73:8 | They scoff and speak with malice. In arrogance, they threaten oppression. |
| Lamentations 4:5 | Those who ate delicacies are desolate in the streets. Those who were brought up in purple embrace dunghills. |
| Ezekiel 4:13 | Yahweh said, “Even thus will the children of Israel eat their bread unclean, among the nations where I will drive them.” |
| Ezekiel 4:15 | Then he said to me, “Behold, I have given you cow’s dung for man’s dung, and you shall prepare your bread on it.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
5 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke sees this as the Assyrian commander's deliberate shock tactic, a calculated warning meant to frighten the people into abandoning Hezekiah. The point is not that this has already happened but that such brutal famine will come if they resist the siege.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that the Rab-shakeh deliberately uses crude, coarse language to stir up the soldiers on the wall by making them feel the immediate physical horrors of a prolonged siege. He observes that the Chronicler softened these harsh words in his later account.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights Rabshakeh's rhetorical cruelty: he deliberately addresses the common soldiers on the wall, not just the king, forcing them to picture themselves eating their own filth during the siege. The point is to break their morale by making the horror personal.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that the purpose of this instruction is not literal but illustrative: it was meant to reveal the horrific conditions the people of Jerusalem would face during the coming siege. The extremity of the situation is the central point, showing how desperate and reduced they would become.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley focuses on the phrase "to the men," interpreting it as the declared purpose of the action. God will force them into extreme miseries, and the intent is to make that outcome known to them beforehand.