What is the significance of the language used in 2 Kings 18:27? Text of 2 Kings 18:27 “But Rabshakeh replied, ‘Has my master sent me only to your master and you to say these things, and not to the men sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?’ ” Historical Setting • 701 BC. Sennacherib’s Assyrian army has swept through Judah, flattening 46 fortified towns (Taylor Prism, Colossians 3, lines 18–25). • Only Jerusalem remains. Hezekiah’s officials—Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah—meet the Assyrian field commander (the “Rabshakeh”) outside the city walls (2 Kings 18:18). • The stakes are life under siege or miraculous preservation (2 Kings 19:35-37). Assyrian Psychological Warfare Ancient Near-Eastern records show the Assyrians specialized in terror rhetoric (cf. Sargon II’s Khorsabad Annals). Rabshakeh employs: 1. Public address in the vernacular to demoralize non-combatants. 2. Graphic imagery of siege starvation. 3. Direct mockery of YHWH (2 Kings 18:33-35). Choice of Language: Hebrew vs. Aramaic 1. Diplomatic lingua franca = Aramaic (“Syriac,” v. 26). Judahite common speech = Hebrew. 2. Hezekiah’s envoys request Aramaic to keep the populace from panic. Rabshakeh refuses, proving he is bilingual and deliberately crafting mass-propaganda. 3. External corroboration: a) 8th-cent. Aramaic treaties (Tell Fekheriye inscription) show its role in international discourse. b) Hebrew ostraca from Lachish layer III demonstrate Hebrew was the local tongue immediately before Sennacherib’s campaign. 4. Linguistic precision authenticates the narrative. A late fabricator would not invent such nuanced code-switching, yet the MT and 4QKings f(1 c a) share the same details, confirming transmission accuracy. Graphic Idiom: “Eat Their Own Dung and Drink Their Own Urine” 1. Literal potential under siege (cf. Josephus, Jewish War 6.201-213). 2. Covenant-curse echo: “You will eat the fruit of your womb …” (Deuteronomy 28:53-57). Rabshakeh unwittingly cites the penalty for rebellion while Judah is actually under divine protection, highlighting covenant irony. 3. Similar prophetic shock-language: Ezekiel 4:12-13; Lamentations 4:10. 4. Semitic euphemism: “water of their feet” (mei shenêhem) is an idiom for urine; the blunt vocabulary underscores the ruthlessness of Assyrian threats and the desperate reality of siege life. Theological Significance 1. Contest of gods: Rabshakeh’s taunt challenges YHWH’s capability vis-à-vis Assyrian deities (2 Kings 18:33-35). The ensuing deliverance (2 Kings 19:35) vindicates YHWH alone. 2. Faith under fire: Hezekiah’s silence (18:36) exemplifies Proverbs 26:4—refusal to answer a fool according to his folly. 3. Typological foreshadowing: As Jerusalem is saved by divine intervention, so ultimate salvation comes through the resurrection of Christ—deliverance against an otherwise hopeless siege of sin. Archaeological Corroboration 1. Lachish Relief (Nineveh Palace) depicts Assyrian siege-ramps and impaled captives, matching Rabshakeh’s threats. 2. Broad Wall in Jerusalem (excavated by Nahman Avigad) dates to Hezekiah’s fortification program (Isaiah 22:10), aligning with the narrative chronology. 3. Sennacherib Prism’s boast “Hezekiah I shut up like a bird in a cage” stops short of claiming Jerusalem’s capture, harmonizing with Scripture’s account of divine deliverance. Practical and Pastoral Application Believers today face intellectual and cultural sieges. Rabshakeh-style voices still mock divine trust, employing the vernacular of popular culture to demoralize. The text calls for Hezekiah’s posture—silence before scoffers and prayerful appeal to the living God—confident that ultimate deliverance has already been secured through Christ’s resurrection (1 Peter 1:3). Summary The language of 2 Kings 18:27 is significant for its: • Historically accurate bilingual setting. • Psychological warfare strategy. • Graphic realism that authenticates the record. • Theological depth contrasting human blasphemy with divine sovereignty. Taken together, it strengthens confidence in the integrity of Scripture and the God who stands behind it. |
    |