TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on 2 Kings 18 verses 17–37
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.
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.
Continue studying 2 Kings 18:21 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
In 2 Kings 18:21, Rabshakeh, the Assyrian field commander, delivers a piercing rhetorical challenge to the besieged inhabitants of Jerusalem, aiming to dismantle their trust in King Hezekiah and any potential foreign alliances. He employs a vivid and disparaging metaphor, likening Egypt, upon whom Judah might rely for aid, to a "bruised reed"—a broken and dangerous staff that offers no support but only injury to those who lean on it. This powerful imagery serves to highlight the futility and peril of misplaced trust in human power, specifically the unreliable strength of Pharaoh and Egypt, in stark contrast to the true, unwavering source of security found only in God.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The most prominent literary device in 2 Kings 18:21 is Metaphor. Egypt is directly equated with a "bruised reed," a non-literal comparison that vividly conveys the nation's perceived weakness, unreliability, and potential for harm. This metaphor is extended to illustrate the consequence of leaning on such a support, where it "will go into his hand, and pierce it," creating a powerful and memorable image of betrayal and injury. The verse also employs Symbolism, where the "bruised reed" symbolizes not only Egypt's specific unreliability but also the broader concept of any human or worldly power that promises security but ultimately fails. Furthermore, there is an element of Irony, as Rabshakeh, an agent of a formidable human empire (Assyria), uses this metaphor to discredit another human empire (Egypt), while the underlying biblical narrative implicitly contrasts both with the ultimate, reliable power of God. The entire speech also functions as a form of Rhetorical Questioning and Persuasion, designed to manipulate the audience's trust and encourage surrender.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This verse powerfully articulates a core biblical warning against placing ultimate trust in human strength, worldly alliances, or any source other than God. The "bruised reed" metaphor encapsulates the inherent futility and active danger of relying on fallible human institutions or resources for ultimate security and deliverance. Throughout Scripture, God consistently calls His people to depend solely on Him, contrasting His steadfastness and omnipotence with the transient and unreliable nature of human power. Trusting in nations, armies, wealth, or even personal abilities ultimately leads to disappointment, failure, and spiritual harm, much like leaning on a broken reed results in a pierced hand. This theological principle underscores the necessity of faith in God as the only true and unwavering foundation for life and security.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
The vivid imagery of the "bruised reed" offers a timeless and potent warning for believers across generations. In our own lives, we are constantly tempted to lean on "bruised reeds"—whether they are financial security, career success, human relationships, political ideologies, personal abilities, or even our own understanding. We seek comfort and stability in these things, hoping they will bear our weight in times of crisis. However, just as a broken reed cannot support a man but will only pierce his hand, so too will these earthly supports ultimately fail, disappoint, or even cause us harm when we place our ultimate trust in them. This verse calls us to a radical re-evaluation of where our true security lies. It reminds us that only God is the unshakeable rock, the steadfast refuge, and the unfailing source of strength and deliverance. Leaning on Him means acknowledging our own limitations and the inherent fragility of all human endeavors, choosing instead to anchor our hope and trust in His unchanging character and omnipotent power.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Who was Rabshakeh, and what was his role?
Answer: Rabshakeh was a high-ranking Assyrian military commander, specifically a "field commander" or "chief cupbearer" (a title for a high official, not necessarily a literal cupbearer), serving under King Sennacherib. His role during the siege of Jerusalem was to act as Sennacherib's envoy and chief propagandist. He was fluent in Hebrew and used this skill to directly address the people of Judah, bypassing King Hezekiah and his officials. His mission was to demoralize the city's inhabitants, undermine their faith in God and their king, and persuade them to surrender without a fight, thus avoiding a costly siege for the Assyrians. His speech in 2 Kings 18:19-35 is a prime example of ancient psychological warfare.
Why was Egypt considered a "bruised reed" by Rabshakeh?
Answer: Rabshakeh's description of Egypt as a "bruised reed" was a strategic and accurate assessment from a geopolitical perspective. Historically, Egypt had a reputation for being an unreliable ally for smaller nations in the Levant. While they often promised aid against powerful empires like Assyria, their actual military support was frequently insufficient, delayed, or non-existent. Furthermore, Egypt itself was not as dominant as it once was, experiencing periods of internal strife and weaker leadership during this era. From the Assyrian perspective, Egypt was no match for their military might and could not genuinely protect Judah. The metaphor vividly conveyed that leaning on Egypt would not only fail to provide support but would also result in harm, as its broken pieces would "pierce" the hand of anyone who dared to rely on it. This assessment was consistent with warnings from Israelite prophets like Isaiah, who also cautioned against relying on Egyptian help (e.g., Isaiah 31:1-3).
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The warning against trusting in the "bruised reed" of Egypt in 2 Kings 18:21 finds its ultimate fulfillment and radical reorientation in the person and work of Jesus Christ. While the Old Testament repeatedly cautions against placing trust in human power, the New Testament reveals the one reliable foundation upon whom all can lean without fear of being pierced or disappointed. Jesus himself is the embodiment of divine strength and unwavering faithfulness, in stark contrast to any "bruised reed" of this world. He is the true and living "staff" that will never break, the "chief cornerstone" upon which the entire spiritual edifice of God's people is built (Ephesians 2:20). Unlike Pharaoh, who would fail those who trusted him, Jesus declares, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35), asserting His absolute reliability. He is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), offering not just temporary political deliverance but eternal salvation and an unshakeable kingdom. Our trust in Christ is never misplaced; He is the firm foundation upon which we can build our lives, knowing that He will never fail us, for He is "the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).