Skip to content
Translation
King James Version
Thou sayest, (but they are but vain words,) I have counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
Thou sayest H559,(but they are but vain H8193 words H1697,) I have counsel H6098 and strength H1369 for the war H4421. Now on whom dost thou trust H982, that thou rebellest H4775 against me?
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
Do you think that mere spoken words constitute strategy and strength for battle? In whom, then, are you trusting when you rebel against me like this?
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
You claim to have a strategy and strength for war, but these are empty words. In whom are you now trusting, that you have rebelled against me?
Ask
American Standard Version
Thou sayest (but they are but vain words), There is counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou hast rebelled against me?
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for war.’ Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
Thou thinkest, Surely I haue eloquence, but counsell and strength are for the warre. On whom then doest thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
Thou hast said: Only a word of the lips! counsel and might are for battle; now, on whom hast thou trusted that thou hast rebelled against me?
Ask
See on the biblical-era map
Hoshea and the Fall of Samaria
Hoshea and the Fall of Samaria View full PDF
Hezekiah and Sennacherib
Hezekiah and Sennacherib View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 10,045 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

In 2 Kings 18:20, the Assyrian Rabshakeh, King Sennacherib's chief representative, confronts King Hezekiah of Judah during the siege of Jerusalem. He contemptuously dismisses any claims of Judah's strategic "counsel and strength for the war" as nothing more than "vain words"—empty and futile boasts. The Rabshakeh then issues a direct challenge, demanding to know the true source of Hezekiah's confidence that emboldens him to rebel against the seemingly unstoppable Assyrian empire, thereby setting the stage for a profound theological and military confrontation between human might and divine power.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is deeply embedded within the dramatic narrative of the Assyrian invasion of Judah, primarily detailed in 2 Kings 18 and 2 Kings 19. Specifically, it forms a pivotal part of the Rabshakeh's extended speech, delivered in Hebrew outside the walls of Jerusalem, intended to be heard by Hezekiah's officials and the people on the ramparts. Prior to this, Hezekiah had attempted to appease Sennacherib with a heavy tribute, even stripping the temple of its precious metals (2 Kings 18:13-16). However, Sennacherib's insatiable ambition led him to dispatch a formidable army to besiege Jerusalem. The Rabshakeh's speech, commencing in 2 Kings 18:19, is a masterful display of psychological warfare, designed to erode the morale of the besieged city and expose any perceived weaknesses in their reliance on foreign alliances or their God. Verse 20 directly challenges Hezekiah's supposed military readiness and the very foundation of his resistance.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: The events depicted in 2 Kings 18 and 2 Kings 19 transpired around 701 BC, during the reigns of King Hezekiah in Judah and King Sennacherib in Assyria. Assyria at this time was the preeminent superpower of the ancient Near East, notorious for its ruthless military campaigns, advanced siege tactics, and systematic use of terror and propaganda. Their standard operating procedure involved not only military conquest but also extensive psychological operations, including public taunts and diplomatic intimidation, to induce surrender and minimize casualties for the attacking force. The Rabshakeh, a title likely denoting "chief cupbearer" but signifying a high-ranking military and diplomatic official, was specifically chosen for his ability to speak Hebrew, enabling him to directly address the people of Jerusalem and sow discord. The piercing question, "Now on whom dost thou trust?", was particularly potent, as Judah had a history of vacillating alliances, often seeking aid from Egypt against Assyria—a reliance consistently condemned by prophets like Isaiah as utterly futile and faithless (Isaiah 30:1-7).
  • Key Themes: The overarching theme woven through 2 Kings 18 and 2 Kings 19 is the profound contrast between the sovereignty of God and the apparent invincibility of human power. The Rabshakeh's taunt in verse 20 immediately establishes this dichotomy, pitting Assyria's overwhelming might against Judah's perceived weakness and Hezekiah's "vain words" of counsel and strength. This audacious challenge forces the critical question of trust and reliance: will Hezekiah and Judah place their confidence in their own limited human resources, in unreliable foreign alliances, or in the Lord, despite the seemingly insurmountable odds? The subsequent narrative powerfully illustrates the theme of divine deliverance, as God ultimately intervenes miraculously to save Jerusalem, demonstrating that human boasting and military might are indeed "vain" when set against His omnipotent power (2 Kings 19:35-36). Finally, the passage vividly exemplifies psychological warfare, showcasing the Rabshakeh's sophisticated tactics designed to demoralize and divide, a common and effective feature of ancient conflicts.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Vain (Hebrew, sâphâh', H8193): While primarily meaning "lip" or "language," this word (H8193) here extends to denote empty, idle, or worthless speech, often implying futility or worthlessness. When applied to "words" (H1697, dâbâr), it emphasizes that Hezekiah's claims of counsel and strength are utterly devoid of substance, power, or efficacy against the Assyrian might. It is a dismissive term, designed to strip away any confidence Judah might have had in its own preparations or strategies, rendering their resistance as mere "lip service" without true backing.
  • Counsel (Hebrew, ʻêtsâh', H6098): This term (H6098) refers to strategic planning, advice, or wisdom, particularly in military or political contexts. The Rabshakeh's dismissal of Hezekiah's "counsel" implies that any plans or strategies Judah might devise are inherently flawed, foolish, or simply inadequate to counter the overwhelming Assyrian threat. It directly challenges Hezekiah's leadership, strategic acumen, and the very foundation of his decision-making.
  • Strength (Hebrew, gᵉbûwrâh', H1369): This word (H1369) denotes force, might, power, or military prowess. By calling Hezekiah's "strength" vain, the Rabshakeh mocks Judah's military capacity, suggesting that their army, fortifications, or any other physical resources are utterly insufficient and will crumble effortlessly before the Assyrian war machine. It is a direct assault on Judah's ability to defend itself.
  • Trust (Hebrew, bâṭach', H982): This primitive root (H982) means to hide for refuge, figuratively to trust, be confident, or sure. The Rabshakeh's question "on whom dost thou trust?" cuts to the core of Hezekiah's reliance, implying that his rebellion must be predicated on a misplaced confidence in some external, yet ultimately unreliable, power.

Verse Breakdown

  • "Thou sayest, (but [they are but] vain words,)": The Rabshakeh directly addresses King Hezekiah, immediately and contemptuously discrediting any statement or claim Hezekiah might make regarding his ability to resist. The parenthetical "but [they are but] vain words" is a sneering, dismissive interjection that reveals the Rabshakeh's utter contempt and the Assyrian belief in their own overwhelming superiority. It sets the demoralizing tone for a speech designed to break the will of the besieged.
  • "[I have] counsel and strength for the war.": This clause represents the Rabshakeh's sarcastic summary of Hezekiah's presumed position or boast. As king, Hezekiah would naturally be expected to possess strategic "counsel" (wise plans, effective advice) and military "strength" (troops, fortifications, resources) for defending his kingdom. The Rabshakeh presents this as a hollow, self-deceiving claim, implying that Hezekiah's resources are laughably inadequate and utterly futile against the Assyrian might.
  • "Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?": This is the core of the Rabshakeh's challenge and the most piercing, psychologically targeted question. It cuts to the heart of Hezekiah's motivation for defying Assyria. The Rabshakeh assumes Hezekiah must be relying on some external power, as his own resources are clearly insufficient. This question implicitly forces Hezekiah to consider if his trust is misplaced—perhaps in Egypt, or even in his God, whom the Rabshakeh will further mock and blaspheme in subsequent verses (2 Kings 18:22-25). It highlights the Assyrian's belief that only a fool would rebel without a powerful, tangible patron.

Literary Devices

The Rabshakeh's speech in 2 Kings 18:20 employs several powerful literary devices to achieve its psychological effect. Sarcasm is profoundly evident in the Rabshakeh's dismissive tone, particularly in the parenthetical "but [they are but] vain words," which mocks Hezekiah's presumed confidence and strategic position. This is closely related to Irony, as the Rabshakeh's confident assertion of Assyrian might and Judah's futility will be dramatically and divinely overturned by God's miraculous intervention in 2 Kings 19. The phrase "vain words" itself functions as a form of hyperbole, as it hyperbolically dismisses Hezekiah's entire strategic position as utterly worthless, while simultaneously understating the true source of Hezekiah's hope (his trust in God), which the Rabshakeh, from his pagan perspective, cannot comprehend. The direct question, "Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?", functions as a potent rhetorical question, designed not for a direct answer but to sow doubt, expose Hezekiah's perceived vulnerability, and force a psychological confrontation that undermines morale.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

This verse powerfully underscores a foundational biblical theme: the stark and eternal contrast between human reliance and divine trust. The Rabshakeh's taunt, though intended to demoralize and intimidate, inadvertently serves as a theological crucible, clarifying the true object of Hezekiah's faith. In the face of overwhelming human power and seemingly insurmountable odds, the question "on whom dost thou trust?" becomes a spiritual litmus test. It challenges the inherent human tendency to place confidence in one's own limited "counsel and strength," or in unreliable worldly alliances, all of which are ultimately "vain" and fleeting when set against the sovereign, immutable will of God. The subsequent narrative of Hezekiah's humble response and God's miraculous deliverance powerfully affirms that true security, enduring strength, and ultimate victory are found not in human might or worldly wisdom, but in an unwavering, steadfast trust in the Lord, who alone can deliver when all human efforts utterly fail.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

In our contemporary lives, we frequently encounter situations that profoundly parallel Hezekiah's desperate predicament, facing "Assyrian" challenges that seem to dwarf our own "counsel and strength." Whether it manifests as a daunting professional obstacle, a severe personal crisis, a seemingly impossible spiritual battle, or overwhelming societal pressures, the world often taunts us, suggesting our efforts are "vain words" and questioning the very basis of our hope. This verse serves as a profound and searching call to self-examination: on whom or what do we truly place our trust when our own resources, wisdom, and strength are clearly insufficient? Do we instinctively rely on our intellect, our financial security, our social connections, our professional networks, or even our past successes, only to find them hollow, brittle, and ultimately inadequate in the face of true adversity? Or do we, like King Hezekiah, turn in humble and desperate faith to the Lord, recognizing that His divine power is made perfect in our human weakness? The Rabshakeh's challenge, though intended for evil and destruction, transforms into an invitation for us to anchor our confidence not in the fleeting, finite, and fallible, but in the infinite, unfailing, and omnipotent power of God, knowing with absolute certainty that His strength is our ultimate defense, our impenetrable shield, and our unfailing hope.

Questions for Reflection

  • What "counsel and strength" do I tend to rely on most when facing overwhelming challenges, especially when my own resources feel inadequate?
  • In what areas of my life might I be speaking "vain words" by placing my ultimate trust in something other than God's sovereign power and provision?
  • How does the Rabshakeh's piercing question, "Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?", challenge my own faith, my daily decisions, and my practical dependence on God today?
  • What specific, practical steps can I take this week to intentionally shift my trust from finite, human resources to the infinite, unfailing power of God in a particular area of my life where I feel most vulnerable or challenged?

FAQ

What was the Rabshakeh's primary goal in delivering this speech to King Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem?

Answer: The Rabshakeh's primary goal was to demoralize the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Hezekiah, thereby compelling them to surrender without the need for a prolonged and costly siege. He employed sophisticated psychological warfare, aiming to sow deep doubt, paralyzing fear, and internal division among the people. He achieved this by mocking Judah's military capabilities, discrediting their potential alliances (such as with Egypt), and, most significantly, blaspheming their God. His meticulously crafted speech was designed to convince them that resistance was utterly futile and that their only sensible option was to submit unconditionally to Sennacherib's overwhelming power, a strategy vividly detailed throughout 2 Kings 18:19-35.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

The Rabshakeh's taunt in 2 Kings 18:20—challenging Hezekiah's "counsel and strength" and demanding to know the object of his trust—finds its ultimate fulfillment, and indeed its profound reversal, in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In a world that often dismisses faith as "vain words" or foolishness, Christ stands as the very embodiment of true counsel and strength, not of human origin, but divinely sourced. The world, much like the Rabshakeh, relentlessly questions on whom we trust, frequently mocking reliance on an unseen God. Yet, the New Testament unequivocally reveals that all true wisdom and power reside in Christ, who is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). Our "rebellion" against the world's fallen systems, its empty promises, and its transient values is not based on our own "vain words" or feeble strength, but on the unshakeable, eternal foundation of Christ's finished work on the cross. He is the ultimate Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, and the triumphant Victor over death, sin, and the grave (Colossians 2:15). Our trust is not in human counsel that proves empty, but in the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), and whose divine strength is made perfect in our human weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). In Him, the "vain words" of human boasting are forever silenced, and the true, eternal, and all-conquering strength of God is revealed for all who place their unwavering trust in His glorious name.

Copy as

Commentary on 2 Kings 18 verses 17–37

I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points

Here is, I. Jerusalem besieged by Sennacherib's army, Kg2 18:17. He sent three of his great generals with a great host against Jerusalem. Is this the great king, the king of Assyria? No, never call him so; he is a base, false, perfidious man, and worthy to be made infamous to all ages; let him never be named with honour that could do such a dishonourable thing as this, to take Hezekiah's money, which he gave him upon condition he should withdraw his army, and then, instead of quitting his country according to the agreement, to advance against his capital city, and not send him his money again either. Those are wicked men indeed, and, let them be ever so great, we will call them so, whose principle it is not to make their promises binding any further than is for their interest. Now Hezekiah had too much reason to repent his treaty with Sennacherib, which made him much the poorer and never the safer.

II. Hezekiah, and his princes and people, railed upon by Rabshakeh, the chief speaker of the three generals, and one that had the most satirical genius. He was no doubt instructed what to say by Sennacherib, who intended hereby to pick a new quarrel with Hezekiah. He had promised, upon the receipt of Hezekiah's money, to withdraw his army, and therefore could not for shame make a forcible attack upon Jerusalem immediately; but he sent Rabshakeh to persuade Hezekiah to surrender it, and, if he should refuse, the refusal would serve him for a pretence (and a very poor one) to besiege it, and, if it hold out, to take it by storm. Rabshakeh had the impudence to desire audience of the king himself at the conduit of the upper pool, without the walls; but Hezekiah had the prudence to decline a personal treaty, and sent three commissioners (the prime ministers of state) to hear what he had to say, but with a charge to them not to answer that fool according to his folly (Kg2 18:36), for they could not convince him, but would certainly provoke him, and Hezekiah had learned of his father David to believe that God would hear when he, as a deaf man, heard not, Psa 38:13-15. One interruption they gave him in his discourse, which was only to desire that he would speak to them now in the Syrian language, and they would consider what he said and report it to the king, and, if they did not give him a satisfactory answer, then he might appeal to the people, by speaking in the Jews' language, Kg2 18:26. This was a reasonable request, and agreeable to the custom of treaties, which is that the plenipotentiaries should settle matters between themselves before any thing be made public; but Hilkiah did not consider what an unreasonable man he had to deal with, else he would not have made this request, for it did but exasperate Rabshakeh, and make him the more rude and boisterous, Kg2 18:27. Against all the rules of decency and honour, instead of treating with the commissioners, he menaces the soldiery, persuades them to desert or mutiny, threatens if they hold out to reduce the to the last extremities of famine, and then goes on with his discourse, the scope of which is to persuade Hezekiah, and his princes and people, to surrender the city. Observe how, in order to do this,

1.He magnifies his master the king of Assyria. Once and again he calls him That great king, the king of Assyria, Kg2 18:19, Kg2 18:28. What an idol did he make of that prince whose creature he was! God is the great King, but Sennacherib was in his eye a little god, and he would possess them with the same veneration for him that he had, and thereby frighten them into a submission to him. But to those who by faith see the King of kings in his power and glory even the king of Assyria looks mean and little. What are the greatest of men when either they come to compare with God or God comes to contend with them? Psa 82:6, Psa 82:7.

2.He endeavours to make them believe that it will be much for their advantage to surrender. If they held out, they must expect no other than to eat their own dung, by reason of the want of provisions, which would be entirely cut off from them by the besiegers; but if they would capitulate, seek his favour with a present and cast themselves upon his mercy, he would give them very good treatment, Kg2 18:31. I wonder with what face Rabshakeh could speak of making an agreement with a present when his master had so lately broken the agreement Hezekiah made with him with that great present, Kg2 18:14. Can those expect to be trusted that have been so grossly perfidious? But, Ad populum phaleras - Gild the chain and the vulgar will let you bind them. He thought to soothe up all with a promise that if they would surrender upon discretion, though they must expect to be prisoners and captives, yet it would really be happy for them to be so. One would wonder he should ever think to prevail by such gross suggestions as these, but that the devil does thus impose upon sinners every day by his temptations. He will needs persuade them, (1.) That their imprisonment would be to their advantage, for they should eat every man of his own vine (Kg2 18:31); though the property of their estates would be vested in the conquerors, yet they should have the free use of them. But he does not explain it now to them as he would afterwards, that it must be understood just as much, and just as long, as the conqueror pleases. (2.) That their captivity would be much more to their advantage: I will take you away to a land like your own land; and what the better would they be for that, when they must have nothing in it to call their own?

3.That which he aims at especially is to convince them that it is to no purpose for them to stand it out: What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? So he insults over Hezekiah, Kg2 18:19. To the people he says (Kg2 18:29), "Let not Hezekiah deceive you into your own ruin, for he shall not be able to deliver you; you must either bend or break." It were well if sinners would submit to the force of this argument, in making their peace with God - That it is therefore our wisdom to yield to him, because it is in vain to contend with him: what confidence is that which those trust in who stand it out against him? Are we stronger than he? Or what shall we get by setting briars and thorns before a consuming fire? But Hezekiah was not so helpless and defenceless as Rabshakeh would here represent him. Three things he supposes Hezekiah might trust to, and he endeavours to make out the insufficiency of these: - (1.) His own military preparations: Thou sayest, I have counsel and strength for the war; and we find that so he had, Ch2 32:3. But this Rabshakeh turns off with a slight: "They are but vain words; thou art an unequal match for us," Kg2 18:20. With the greatest haughtiness and disdain imaginable, he challenges him to produce 2000 men of all his people that know how to manage a horse, and will venture to give him 2000 horses if he can. He falsely insinuates that Hezekiah has no men, or none fit to be soldiers, Kg2 18:23. Thus he thinks to run him down with confidence and banter, and will lay him any wager that one captain of the least of his master's servants is able to baffle him and all his forces. (2.) His alliance with Egypt. He supposes that Hezekiah trusts to Egypt for chariots and horsemen (Kg2 18:24), because the king of Israel had done so, and of this confidence he truly says, It is a broken reed (Kg2 18:21), it will not only fail a man when he leans on it and expects it to bear his weight, but it will run into his hand and pierce it, and rend his shoulder, as the prophet further illustrates this similitude, with application to Egypt, Eze 29:6, Eze 29:7. So is the king of Egypt, says he; and truly so had the king of Assyria been to Ahaz, who trusted in him, but he distressed him, and strengthened him not, Ch2 28:20. Those that trust to any arm of flesh will find it no better than a broken reed; but God is the rock of ages. (3.) His interest in God and relation to him. This was indeed the confidence in which Hezekiah trusts, Kg2 18:22. He supported himself by depending on the power and promise of God; with this he encouraged himself and his people (Kg2 18:30): The Lord will surely deliver us, and again Kg2 18:32. This Rabshakeh was sensible was their great stay, and therefore he was most large in his endeavours to shake this, as David's enemies, who used all the arts they had to drive him from his confidence in God (Psa 3:2; Psa 11:1), and thus did Christ's enemies, Mat 27:43. Three things Rabshakeh suggested to discourage their confidence in God, and they were all false: - [1.] That Hezekiah had forfeited God's protection, and thrown himself out of it, by destroying the high places and the altars, Kg2 18:22. Here he measures the God of Israel by the gods of the heathen, who delighted in the multitude of altars and temples, and concludes that Hezekiah has given a great offence to the God of Israel, in confining his people to one altar: thus is one of the best deeds he ever did in his life misconstrued as impious and profane, by one that did not, or would not, know the law of the God of Israel. If that be represented by ignorant and malicious men as evil and a provocation to God which is really good and pleasing to him, we must not think it strange. If this was to be sacrilegious, Hezekiah would ever be so. [2.] That God had given orders for the destruction of Jerusalem at this time (Kg2 18:25): Have I now come up without the Lord? This is all banter and rhodomontade. He did not himself think he had any commission from God to do what he did (by whom should he have it?) but he made this pretence to amuse and terrify the people that were on the wall. If he had any colour at all for what he said, it might be taken from the notice which perhaps he had had, by the writings of the prophets, of the hand of God in the destruction of the ten tribes, and he thought he had as good a warrant for the seizing of Jerusalem as of Samaria. Many that have fought against God have pretended commissions from him. [3.] That if Jehovah, the God of Israel, should undertake to protect them from the king of Assyria, yet he was notable to do it. With this blasphemy he concluded his speech (Kg2 18:33-35), comparing the God of Israel with the gods of the nations whom he had conquered and putting him upon the level with them, and concluding that because they could not defend and deliver their worshippers the God of Israel could not defend and deliver his. See here, First, His pride. When he conquered a city he reckoned himself to have conquered its gods, and valued himself mightily upon it. His high opinion of the idols made him have a high opinion of himself as too hard for them. Secondly, His profaneness. The God of Israel was not a local deity, but the God of the whole earth, the only living and true God, the ancient of days, and had often proved himself to be above all gods; yet he makes no more of him than of the upstart fictitious gods of Hamath and Arpad, unfairly arguing that the gods (as some now say the priests) of all religions are the same, and himself above them all. The tradition of the Jews is that Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew, which made him so ready in the Jews' language; if so, his ignorance of the God of Israel was the less excusable and his enmity the less strange, for apostates are commonly the most bitter and spiteful enemies, witness Julian. A great deal of art and management, it must be owned, there were in this speech of Rabshakeh, but, withal, a great deal of pride, malice, falsehood, and blasphemy. One grain of sincerity would have been worth all this wit and rhetoric.

Lastly, We are told what the commissioners on Hezekiah's part did. 1. They held their peace, not for want of something to say both on God's behalf and Hezekiah's: they might easily and justly have upbraided him with his master's treachery and breach of faith, and have asked him, What religion encourages you to hope that such conduct will prosper? At least they might have given that grave hint which Ahab gave to Benhadad's like insolent demands - Let not him that girdeth on the harness boast as though he had put it off. But the king had commanded them not to answer him, and they observed their instructions. There is a time to keep silence, as well as a time to speak, and there are those to whom to offer any thing religious or rational is to cast pearls before swine. What can be said to a madman? It is probable that their silence made Rabshakeh yet more proud and secure, and so his heart was lifted up and hardened to his destruction. 2. They rent their clothes in detestation of his blasphemy and in grief for the despised afflicted condition of Jerusalem, the reproach of which was a burden to them. 3. They faithfully reported the matter to the king, their master, and told him the words of Rabshakeh, that he might consider what was to be done, what course they should take and what answer they should return to Rabshakeh's summons.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 17–37. Public domain.
Copy as
Ephrem the SyrianAD 373
ON THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS 18:19
As I have already said, Sennacherib is a type of the devil, and this hypothesis is perfectly confirmed by the words that in this passage the Rabshakeh boastfully speaks against God when he makes false promises to the people, trying to take away from [God] the praise of his supreme power and giving assurance of a land of fertile soil and abundant crops in order to persuade them to abandon the region given to them by God and to move to the new dwelling places promised by the Assyrian. With a very similar artifice the accomplices and envoys of the devil endeavor to seduce a simple soul. And for this reason, in the first place, they try to uproot all the opinions that are inspired by divine providence.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying 2 Kings 18:20 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.