The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,
1. The word which came in the days of Jehoiakim ] This and the following chapter form a remarkable break in the narrative of chs. 32 44. They at once bring us back from the tenth year of the reign of Zedekiah to the later part of Jehoiakim’s reign, when the Babylonian army had entered Palestine and compelled many of its inhabitants to take refuge within Jerusalem. Among these were the Rechabites.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Jer 35:1-19
Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.
The Rechabites
Did the Lord make a proposal to total abstainers to drink wine? Did he send for them to a kind of wine festival? Is this the meaning of the Lords Prayer, Load us not into temptation? Is not the Lord always thus leading men into temptation?–not in the patent and vulgar sense in which that term is generally understood, but in a sense which signifies drill, the application of discipline, the testing of principles and purposes and character? Is not all life a temptation? The Lord tries every man. There need be no hesitation in offering the prayer, Lead us not into temptation. People have tried to soften the words. They have said instead of lead leave us not in temptation; but these are the annotations of inexperience and folly, or superficiality. We are not men until we have been thus moulded, tried, qualified. We can do little for one another in that pit of temptation. We must be left with God. There is one Refiner; He sits over the furnace, and when the fire has done enough He quenches the cruel, flame. Think it no strange thin that temptation hath befallen you; yea, think it not strange that God Himself has given you opportunities by which you may be burned. He never gives such an opportunity without giving something else. Alas, how often we see the opportunity and not the sustaining grace! The drinking of wine in this case was to be done in the house of the Lord. Now light begins to dawn. Mark the limitations of our temptation. The Lord is never absent from His house. Let God tempt me, and He will also save me; let Him invite me into His own house, that there, under a roof beautiful as heaven, He may work His will upon me, and afterwards I shall stand up, higher in nature, broader in manhood, truer in the metal of the Spirit. Observe the details of this mysterious operation. The men who were taken were proved men (verse 3). When the Lord calls for giants to fight His battle and show the strength of His grace, they are chosen men. All these men were conspicuous witnesses for the truth: they were identified with the faith of Israel; they were the trustees of the morality of society. It is so in all ages. There are certain men whom we may denominate our stewards, trustees, representatives; as for ourselves, we say, it is not safe to trust us; we are weaker than a bruised reed; we cannot stand great public ordeals; we were not meant to be illustrations of moral fortitude: spare us from the agony of such trial! There are other men in society whom God Himself can trust. What did the sons of Rechab say? Herein is a strange thing, that children should obey the voice of a dead father. Yet this is a most pleasing contention; this is an argument softened by pathos. The men stood up, and did not speak in their own name; they said, We be the sons of a certain man, who gave a certain law, and by that law we will live, and ever will live. The trial took place in the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah. The father of Maaseiah was Shallum, who was the husband of Huldah the prophetess, who had taken an active part in the reformation wrought in the reign of Josiah. So all these were so many guarantees of probity, and strength, and success. There will be no evil wrought in that chamber I Not only are the Rechabites there, but their fathers are with them in spirit. Though our fathers, physical and spiritual, be dead, yet they may live with us in the spirit, and may go with us and sustain us in all the trials and difficulties of life. We will drink no wine. Note the definiteness of the answer. No inquiry is made about the kind of wine. Men are saved by their definiteness. A strong, proud, decisive answer is the true reply to all temptation. An oath that strikes as with a fist of iron, a denial that is like a long, sharp two-edged sword,–these must be our policies and watchwords in the time of danger. The reason is given (verse 6). It is a filial argument. Good advice is not always thrown away; and men should remember that though exhortation may be rejected for a long time, yet there are periods when it may recur to the memory and come upon the whole life like a blessing sent from God. The argument is a fortiori. The Lord has shown how the sons of Jonadab can refuse wine: now He will take this example and apply it to the whole host of Judah, and He will say, See what one section of your country can do; if they can do this, why cannot you be equally loyal and true? why cannot you be equally obedient to the spirit of righteousness? for three hundred years this bond has been kept in this family; never once has it been violated: if one family can do this, why not a thousand families? if one section of the country, why not the whole nation? This was Gods method of applying truth to those who needed it. Thus we teach one another. One boy can be obedient; why not all boys? One soul can be faithful; why not all souls? God in His providence says: See what others can do, and as they toil and climb and succeed in reaching the highest point, so do ye follow them: the grace that made them succeed will not fail you in the hour of your trial and difficulty. (J. Parker, D. D.)
We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us.
The Rechabites
St. Austin says of the Syrophenician woman, who was both hardly spoken of by our Saviour at first, and anon commended highly before her face; she that took not her reproach in scorn, would not wax arrogant upon her commendation; so these Rechabites who lived with good content in a life full of neglect, may the better endure to have their good deeds scanned, without fear of begetting ostentation. And therefore I will branch out my text into four parts, in every of which they will justly deserve our praise, and in some our imitation. First, when the prophet Jeremiah did try them with this temptation, whether they would feast it and-drink wine, they make him a resolute denial, a prophet could., draw them to no inconvenient act. Some are good men of themselves, but easily drawn aside by allurements; such are not the Rechabites. He that will sin to please another, makes his friend either to be a God that shall rule him, or a devil that shall tempt him. Three things, says Aristotle, do preserve the life of friendship.
1. To answer love with like affection.
2. Some similitude and likeness of condition.
3. But above either, neither to sin ourselves, nor for our sakes to lay the charge of sin upon our familiars.
No, he is too prodigal of his kindness, that giveth his friend both his heart and his conscience. I may not forget how Agesilaus son behaved himself in this point toward his own father: the cause was corrupt wherein his father did solicit; the son answers him with this modesty: Your education taught me from a child to keep the laws, and my youth is so inured to your former discipline, that I cannot skill the latter. Here let rhetoricians declaim Whether this were duty or disobedience. But let us examine the case by philosophy. I am sure that no man s reason is so nearly conjoined to my soul as my own appetite, although my appetite be merely sensitive. And must I oftentimes resist my own appetite, and enthral it as a civil rebel: and have I not power much more to oppose any mans reason that Persuades me unto evil, his reason being but a stranger unto me, and not of the secret council of my soul! Yes, out of question. How it pities me to hear some men say, that they could live as soberly, as chastely, as saintlike as the best, if it were not for company! Fie upon such weakness: says St. Austin, If thy mother speak thee fair, if the wife of thy bosom tempt thy heart, beware of Eve, and think of Adam. The serpent was a wise creature (Gen 3:1-24), and Eve could not but take his word in good manners. Fond mother of mankind, so ready to believe the devil, that her posterity ever since nave Dean slow to believe God. Never can there be a better season for nolumus, for every Christian to be a Rechabite, than when any man reacheth out a cup of intemperance unto us, to say boldly, We will not drink it. Now I proceed to the second part of my text, which hath a strong connection with the former; for why did they resist these enticements, and disavow the prophet (verse 8)? Their obedience is the second part of their encomium, they will obey the voice of Jonadab their father. The name of father was that wherewith God was pleased to mollify our stony hearts, and bring them into the subjection of the fifth commandment. Surely as a parricide, that killed his father, was to have no burial upon the earth, but sewed in an ox hide and east headlong into the sea; so he that despiseth his father deserves not to hold any place of dignity above others, but to be a slave to all men. For what are we but coin that hath our fathers image stamped upon it? and we receive our current value from them to be called sons of men. And yet the more commendable was the obedience of the Rechabites, that their father Jonadab being dead, his law was in as good force as if he had been living. Concerning this virtue of obedience, let us extend our discourse a little further, and yet tread upon our own ground. Obedience is used in a large sense, for a condition, or modus, annexed unto all virtues. As the magistrate may execute justice dutifully under his prince, the soldier may perform a valiant exploit dutifully under his captain; but strictly, and according to the pattern of the Rechabites, says Aquinas. It is one peculiar and entire virtue, whereby we oblige ourselves, for authoritys sake, to do things indifferent to be done, or omitted; for sometimes that which is evil may be hurtful prohibito to the party forbidden: as the laws forbid a man to murder himself: sometimes a thing is evil prohibenti, so treasons, adulteries, and thefts are interdicted: but sometimes the thing is no way in itself pernicious to any, but only propounded to make trial of our duty and allegiance, as when Adam was forbid to eat the apple; and this is true obedience, not to obey for the necessity of the thing commanded, but out of conscience and subjection to just authority. Such obedience, and nothing else, is that which hath made the little commonwealth of bees so famous: for are they not at appointment who should dispose the work at home, and who should gather honey in the fields? they flinch not from their task, and no creature under the sun hath so brave an instinct of sagacity. Let us gather up this second part of my text into one closure: we commend the Rechabites for their obedience, and by their example we owe duty to our parents, natural and civil, those that begot us, those that govern us. We owe duty to the dead, after our rulers have left us in the way of a good life, and changed their own for a better. We owe duty to our rulers in all things honest and lawful; in obeying rites and ceremonies indifferent, in laws civil and ecclesiastical. But where God controls, or wherein our liberty cannot be enthralled, we are bound ad patiendum, and happy if we suffer for righteousness sake. Now that the obedience of the Rechabites was lawful and religious, and a thing wherein they might profitably dispense with freedom and liberty, the third part of my text, that is their temperance, will make it manifest, for in this they obeyed Jonadab. To spare somewhat which God hath given us for our sustenance, is to restore a part of the plenty back again; if we lay hands upon all that is set before us, it is suspicious that we expected more, and accused nature of frugality. And though the vine did boast in Jothams parable, that it cheered up the heart of God and man, though it be so useful a creature for our preservation, that no Carthusian or Caelestine monk of the strictest order did put this into their vow to drink no wine, yet the Rechabites are contented to be more sober than any, and lap the water of the brook, like Gideons soldiers. Which moderation of diet did enable them to avoid luxury and swinish drunkenness, into which sin whosoever falls makes himself subject to a fourfold punishment. First, The heat of too liberal a proportion kindles the lust of the flesh. Lot, who was not consumed in Sodom with the fire of brimstone, drunkenness set him on fire with incestuous lust in Zoar. What St. Paul hath coupled (2Co 6:1-18.), let us not divide; lastings go first, then follows pureness and chastity. Secondly, How many brawls and unmanly combats have we seen? Thirdly, Superfluity of drink is the draught of foolishness. Such a misery, in my opinion, that I would think men had rather lose their right arm than the government of their reason, if they knew the royalty thereof. Lastly, Whereas sobriety is the sustentation of that which decays in man, drunkenness is the utter decay of the body. The Rechabites had encouragement to take this vow upon them for three reasons:
1. As being but strangers to the true commonwealth of Israel.
2. To make the better preparation for the captivity of Babylon.
3. To draw their affections to the content of a little, and the contempt of the world.
Now I follow my own method to handle the second consideration of this vow, that these circumstances were not only well foreseen, but that the conditions of the thing vowed are just and lawful. Not to tumble over all the distinctions of the schoolmen, which are as multiplicious in this cause as in any; of vows, some are singular, which concern one man and no more, as when David vowed to build an house unto the Lord, this was not a vow of many associated in that pious work, but of David only. Some are public when there is a unity of consent in divers persons to obtest the same thing before the presence of God. And such was this vow in my text, it concerned the whole family of the Rechabites. That this vow was of some moment in the practice of piety, appears by Gods benediction upon them. For as it was said of Socrates goodness, that it stood the common wealth of Athens in more stead than all their warlike prowess by sea and land, so that religious life of the Rechabites was the best wall and fortress to keep Judah in peace and safety. And almost who doth not follow Christ rather to be a gainer by Him than a loser. Behold, we have left all and followed Thee; that was the perfection of the apostles, that was the state of the Rechabites; not simply all, everything that belonged to the maintenance of a man, and so to live upon beggary, they have learned to ask nothing but a gourd to cover their head, a few flocks of sheep to employ their hands, the spring water to quench their thirst. They that must have no more, have cut off superfluous desires, that they can never ask more. And so piety and a godly life were chiefly aimed at in the vow of the Rechabites. The end and last part of all is this: That forasmuch as God was well pleased with these abstemious people that would drink no wine, therefore promise unto the Lord, and do the deed; for that is my final conclusion, that a vow justly conceived is to be solemnly performed. When we have breathed out a resolved protestation before God, it is like the hour we spake it in, past and gone, and can never be recalled. Says David, I have poured out my soul in prayer, as if upon his supplication it were no longer his, but God s for ever. Surely if our soul be gone from us in our prayers, then much more in our vows they are flown up to Heaven, like Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham, they cannot, they should not return to earth again. He that changed his sex in the fable is not so great a wonder, as he that changeth any covenant which is drawn between God and his conscience. He that hath consecrated himself to God, doth, as it were, carry heaven upon his shoulders. Support your burdens in Gods name, lest if you shrink the wrath of God press you down to the nethermost pit. I will give a brief answer to one question. Is Christ so austere that He doth reclaim against all dispensation? no, says Aquinas, you are loose again, if the thing in vow be sinful, nay if it be unuseful, nay if it cross the accomplishment of a greater good. This is good allowance, and well spoken. The careful pilot sets his adventure to a certain haven, and would turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, if the winds were as constant as the loadstone, but they blow contrary to his expectation. Suppose a Rechabite protesting to drink no wine, had lived after the institution of our Saviours Supper, when He consecrated the fruit of the grape, and said, Drink ye all of this, would it pass for an answer at the Holy Communion to say, We will drink no wine? No more than if he had sworn before not to eat a paschal lamb, or any sour herbs, quite against the institution of the passover. There is enough in this chapter to stride over this doubt if you mark it. Jonadab indented with God, that he and his seed should live in tabernacles for ever; and in tabernacles they did live for three hundred years. Then comes the king of Babylon with an army into the country to invade the land. It was dangerous now to live in tabernacles; there was no high priest, I assure you, to absolve them; no money given to the publicans of the Church for a dispensation: but they said, Come and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans and Syrians, and let us dwell at Jerusalem. The vow was unprofitable, tabernacles dangerous, and so the bond is cancelled. Yet, do not take all the liberty due unto you, if I may advise you: there are two things which you may choose to untie the knot of a vow. The peremptory rejecting of a bad vow, and that is lawful, and the changing thereof into some other vow, and that is more expedient, that God may have some service done unto Him, by way of a vow. (Bishop Hacket.)
Obedience to parental authority
The first and principal commandment of the moral law, Honour thy father and thy mother, begins with obedience to parents; but must of course be interpreted in a wider sense so as to apply to all who have a right to obedience–the persons to be honoured in that famous and excellent summary of the Catechism are the King, and all in authority under him, my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters, and last of all my betters; the falling into disuse of such an instructive word is a fact of very great significance and needs no comment. But duty to parents comes clearly first, which an old writer has called the band and firmament of Commonwealths; for society is near its dissolution when this obligation is loosened or weakened in any way. The stability of an empire like that of China is an illustration in point, and I was struck some time ago by hearing a missionary of long experience select this one virtue of reverence for parents as that which has for so many centuries preserved the cohesion of that people. Affection may indeed be missing, but obedience and respect for authority are, I believe, universal. So it has come to pass that a nation that we despise outdoes us in the discharge of one of the most elementary moral duties; not that Confucius is a better teacher than Moses, or made any advance upon him, but that we are somehow drifting from a commandment of God, and seem powerless to enforce it. To arrest the widespread mischief we must go back to first principles, and seek to re-establish authority in the family, in the elementary schools, in places of higher education, and perhaps in the university itself. Authority must be taught to be a trust delegated by God to some for the good of the whole body, and the applications of the Christian precept: All of you be subject one to another, in its several relations, must be laid down fearlessly and with distinctness by teachers and preachers as the safeguard of society. To revert to filial reverence. It was once, I believe, a characteristic of Englishmen, for even as late as the last century sons would address their fathers by the reverential title of sir. The virtue is not exotic, it can stand our rude climate, and it must not be thought for a moment to be a poor sickly plant, that has no root in strong and masculine natures. On the contrary, take a specimen of it from the most robust of our own countrymen. To most of us is known the compunction of Dr. Johnson which has formed the subject of an historical picture. He has related of himself, how when a young man he refused to stand at his fathers stall to sell books; it was, he says, through pride he disobeyed, a trivial circumstance to a less sensitive man, but it was a burden to him for fifty years, until on the very day he went to the very spot where his fathers stall used formerly to be, and on a day of business stood in Uttoxeter market, bareheaded, for an hour exposed to the gibes of the passers-by, and the inclemency of the weather. This was a penance by which I trust I have propitiated heaven for the only instance I believe of contumacy to my father. Upon which Mr. Leslie Stephen, by no means a sentimental writer, remarks: The anecdote cannot be read without emotion, and if it illustrates a touch of superstition in Johnsons mind, it reveals too that sacred depth of tenderness which ennobled his character. To both parents we are debtors. Mothers are to be esteemed as highly as fathers, and dutiful obedience rendered to them. Take care you despise them not in their old age or in lonely widowhood. Value them all the more if they are alone. Do not think that you have outgrown their wisdom, for in his mature years Solomon could stamp his own maxims with the authority of his mothers mint, and give them currency as the words which his mother had taught him. The wishes of parents are also to be attended to, for wise fathers dealing with grown-up children will not burden them with commands, but will leave them to act upon what their sons know they would wish done. In a book that furnished my vacation reading I lighted upon a passage in the undergraduate life of Dr. Corrie that will interest some of us. When he first came up, his father, knowing his sons great love for horses, and fearing the scenes of temptation into which this taste might lead him, expressed a strong desire that he would not go to Newmarket. This injunction was faithfully respected. Though he was fully aware that his father would never ask him whether his wish had been observed, his loyalty would not permit him to trifle with the confidence thus placed in him. A characteristic anecdote of a man who was known as the soul of honour, who if he lacked sons of his own, was looked up to and reverenced by hundreds of pupils and others, who felt their own principles of duty strengthened by his unswerving fidelity to old traditions. Obedience to a fathers law is the whole idea of the incarnation. Not to please Himself at all, but to surrender Himself wholly to the Divine will, runs through all Christs life. When He cometh into the world He saith, I am come to do Thy will, O God, and when He is about to leave the world in that great fight of conflicting emotions the thought of submission alone rules His prayer, Not My will, but Thine be done. Not only as a son, but as a citizen, as a member of the Jewish synagogue and nation, He is obedient to the law, to every ordinance of man, for His Fathers sake. Conscious of His Divinity, of His real relation to God at twelve years old, He goes meekly home to be subject to earthly parents and to learn His trade. When the time of His manifestation has come, He allows John to baptize Him, to fulfil an ordinance of God, and by His obedience He approves Johns commission in the eyes of the people. Though, as Son of God, He is free from the temple tax, yet He works a miracle to pay the due, that He might give no offence to the rulers who sat in Moses seat. He even acknowledges that the civil power of the Roman Governor is of God. Under the terms of the new covenant we are no mere slaves but sons, and can claim the spirit of adoption, the will to wish all things in conformity with Gods will, and the power to perform the same. I have heard myself from the lips of those whose whole life has been most wilful and contrary such a confession as this, I love now as much to do things for God as at one time I did everything against God, for the love of Christ converts and subdues a stubborn temper, which to its harm would kick against the pricks into a service where there is no heavy burden, no galling yoke, but all is perfect freedom. (C. E. Searle, D. D.)
The obedient Rechabites
I. The authority of the family. The power of human descent and family tradition in moulding a career is well illustrated in the case of the Rechabites.
1. It controlled the natural tastes. Its members must renounce pleasure, comfort, and fixed habitation; their inheritance was the loss of those very things which sons expect, and parents delight to bequeath. But with the loss came a better gain,–health of body, purity of morals, loyalty of conscience. They had that best possession,–noble character.
2. The authority of the family also controlled their external alliances; those entering it by marriage must accept its obligations. A man may leave father and mother to cleave unto his wife, but may not leave truth and virtue.
3. In the same way the family tradition proved superior to surrounding influences. They were as faithful in the city as in the country, as loyal among strangers as where well known. So from lonely farmhouses among the hills, young men and young women have gone to seek an easier fortune in the great city, or in the lawless West, and been delivered from evil by the abiding influence of their sanctified homes.
4. The faithfulness of the Rechabites displays the normal influence of the family in transmitting a tendency to virtue, and confirming that inherited disposition by congenial surroundings and careful training. This is what God means the family to be,–His surest and mightiest agency for spreading righteousness on the earth.
II. This higher authority of God. If human descent and family tradition exert authority over the individual, the Divine Creator and Governor holds a far higher claim upon him. Whatever depravity sin may breed into the race, virtue is always its normal life, holiness its ideal. The Scriptures describe man as directly connected with God in his origin. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. When the clay was shaped, He breathed into his nostrils thy breath of life, and man became a living soul. The characteristics of our Divine origin are as discernible as the marks of our human descent. Our intellect is made after the likeness of the Divine mind, else the universe would be to us an insoluble mystery. In our tastes we can trace kinship with Him who has adorned the earth with beauty. Pure human affection gives us our worthiest conception of the Divine love. Misfortune cannot turn it, ingratitude cannot chill it, death itself cannot overcome it, The Heavenly Father uses this earthly tie to symbolise His own regard; the Saviour describes His fostering care and close union with the Church by naming it His bride. Our moral nature is plainly Divine in origin. Conscience is the voice of God in man. He who obeys it is lifted to the plane of Divine action, is made a co-worker with God. Over this lordly realm, crowned its regent by the Creator Himself, is the Personal Soul, the Self, the I. Self-consciousness is its throne, self-determination its sceptre. By this solemn conviction I am, I will, man separates himself from all the universe around him; through this he balances his soul against the whole world and weighs it down; with it he faces eternity. He is his own, something for which the Infinite asks, and he may give. It is here that mans Divine origin finds its explanation; for the glad choice of God, all the dignity of human nature was given; to this end converge the constant teachings of the revealing universe, the open instructions of the inspired Word, the solemn persuasions of the Holy Spirit. Lessons–
1. The responsibility of parents. One writer on heredity declares that the dispositions of Bacon and Goethe were formed by the simple addition of the dispositions of their ancestors. We know that passionate temper, fretfulness, and despondency may be inherited. Let a parent beware how he sins.
2. The responsibility resting upon the child of godly parents. When one who has had a virtuous ancestry seeks out vice and courts godlessness, he has not long to wait before every red drop in his veins will turn against him and curse him traitor. There is something back of his own will,–an authority he knows not how to resist and cannot defy.
3. The ultimate responsibility of each soul to God. When Samuel J. Mills was struggling against the convictions of the Spirit, he exclaimed, I wish I had never been born! His mother replied, But you are born, my son, and can never escape your accountability to God. The glad choice of the holy God is the highest exercise of the created will. (C. M. Southgate.)
The obedience of the Rechabites
I. Wherein it resembles christian obedience.
1. It was total. They did not consult their preferences or their affinities. They did not proceed upon any law of natural selection. They did not show punctilious fidelity with reference to one commandment, and great laxity concerning another. This is one essential characteristic of Christian obedience. It is total. If we can make choice of such commands as we feel like obeying and disregard the rest, what are we but masters instead of subjects, dictating terms instead of receiving orders?
2. It was constant. It kept an unbroken path. It bore the stress of storms and tests. And herein it was marked by another essential characteristic of Christian obedience–a beautiful constancy. Enlistment in the Lords army is for life, and there is no discharge in that war.
II. Wherein this Rechabite obedience was unlike Christian obedience.
1. The Rechabites obeyed Jonadab: Christians obey God. This is a substantive difference. And we must not confound things that radically differ. The source of a command has a great deal to do with the value of obedience to it. The lower relation must give way to the higher when the two conflict.
2. Jonadabs commands, so far as we know, were for temporal and material ends, in the interests of a rugged manhood and a sturdy independence. Gods commands are for spiritual ends, for good of soul, and they stand vitally connected with those higher interests that relate not only to the life that now is, but to that which is to come. Rechabite obedience, therefore, conserves temporal good; Christian obedience conserves eternal good.
3. Rechabite obedience was not necessary to salvation; Christian obedience is indispensable.
III. Wherein it shames Christian disobedience.
1. These Rechabites are obedient to their father Jonadab, a mere man who had been dead nearly three hundred years, while Judah is in open and flagrant disobedience to the Most High God.
2. Jonadab commanded but once, and he had instant and constant heed, generation upon generation, for centuries. But I, saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel–I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking. I have also sent unto you, &c.
3. Obedience to Jonadab was at a cost, and it brought at the best only power to endure and the spirit of independence. It left the Rechabites poor and homeless. Obedience to God was also at a cost, but it gave His people assured possessions, peace of conscience, protection from their enemies, and all the exceeding riches of an eternal inheritance in Gods kingdom of grace and glory. Yet the Rechabites obeyed Jonadab with a beautiful constancy, while Judah hearkened not to the voice of the Lord.
Practical suggestions–
1. The very essence of Christian fidelity is obedience.
2. A true obedience has two infallible signs. It will have no reservations, and it will never cry Halt!
3. See the shame and guilt of disobedience under the Gospel.
4. In respect to one particular in this Rechabite obedience, namely, abstinence from wine–three things are clear.
(1) Abstinence from wine is not here made obligatory.
(2) Abstinence from wine is not wrong.
(3) Abstinence from wine for the sake of the stumblers is lifted by the New Testament to the sublime height of a duty, and made imperative (Rom 14:21).
Wine-drinking is a sin for that man who drinks with offence (Rom 14:20). Wine-drinking is a sin for that man who by it puts a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in a brother s way (Rom 14:15). When wine-drinking wounds a weak conscience it is as in against Christ (1Co 8:12). (H. Johnson, D. D.)
The obedience of the Rechabites
Jonadab saw that his people were but a handful among a more powerful people, and likely soon to be swallowed up by their neighbours, and he hit upon a happy method of preserving their independent existence. He enjoined them not to drink wine; this was to save them from luxury and intemperance, which would prey upon them from within, and make them ripe for destruction; and he also commanded them not to till the ground, nor to have any houses, nor to dwell in cities; this was in order that they might have no riches to tempt others to make war upon them; and thus, to use his own words, they might live many days in the land wherein they were strangers. Luxury and wealth are the bane of nations, and by keeping his tribe a simple, pastoral people, pure in their habits, and destitute of property, he accomplished his wishes for them.
I. The obedience of the Rechabites contrasted with the disobedience of Israel to God. An ancestor of that family, who had been dead nearly three hundred years, had issued his commands, and they were still obeyed; but the living God had spoken repeatedly to Israel, by His prophets, yet they would not hear. The commands of Jonadab, too, were very arbitrary. There could be no sin in cultivating the fields, or in living in houses, whatever moral worth there may have been in the precept to drink no wine: but still, because Jonadab commanded it they obeyed. The complaint of God has still an application. It is a fact, that among sinners, any and every law, precept, or tradition, of mere human authority, is better obeyed than the laws of God Himself. See, in a few instances, how this has been verified. Mahomet arose, a sensualist, an adulterer, a breaker of treaties, and a robber, and issued his commands, which for centuries have been religiously obeyed. At the cry of the muezzin, and the hour of prayer, every follower of his, whether in the desert, on board the ship, in the city, or the field, suspends his labour, his pleasures, and even his griefs, and casts himself upon his knees in prayer. But the blessed Jesus, pure, peaceful, and glorious, speaks, and even those who acknowledge Him as Lord over all, and own the goodness of His commands, can listen to such words as, This do in remembrance of Me, and obey them not. The founder of some monkish order, again, has enjoined upon all his fraternity certain rules and austerities, and he is obeyed. Day after day, and year after year, the same tedious round of ceremonies is gone through with, as though salvation depended upon it, and the deluded ones will rise at the midnight hour to inflict stripes upon themselves or to offer prayer. But Christ may enjoin the reasonable duty of praying to our Father in spirit and in truth, and multitudes can suffer days and years to pass, and pray not. The commander of the order of Jesuits can place his inferior priests in any country of the world, and whether the mandate be to act as father confessor in some palace, or to Penetrate to China or Paraguay, there is no more resistance for apparent regard for the sacrifices to be made than in the machinery which is moved by mechanic power. Christ commands His disciples to go preach the Gospel to every creature, but only here and there one goes forth. The heathen priest bids the worshippers of idols to cast their children rote the fire or the water, and it is done. Jesus says, Suffer little children to come to Me, and has appointed a sacrament in which they may be received, but men will admit the duty, and yet neglect the baptism of their children. The Rechabites of modern times, and Sons of Temperance, may institute a vow of temperance, and it is kept; or command one of their number to minister to the sick, and it is done; or provide well for their poor; but Christ says, that no drunkard shall enter heaven, and enjoins charity to the sick and the destitute, while many heed Him not.
II. The rewards of obedience. Modern travellers, moreover, state that the Rechabites are still in existence. Mr. Wolf, the famous Jewish missionary, asserts this as his belief. And another traveller who visited a tract to the south of Judea, which has been unexplored for centuries, met there a native who claimed to be a Rechabite, and when an Arabic Bible was shown to him, turned to this chapter and read from it the description of his People, and said that it was still true of them, and that they still kept the precepts of Jonadab, their father. Over three thousand years have passed away since that family of the Kenites came with Israel into Canaan, and for two thousand years no traces of them were preserved; but now, after so long a lapse of time, recent discoveries have brought them to light, retaining their name, and glorying in their independence. Though surrounded by Mohammedan Arabs, they conform to the law of Moses yet maintaining that they are not Israelites; and are much hated by the Mussulman. This account was given by a traveller so late as 1832, and is confirmed by English residents at Mocha, and from other sources. No doubt every promise of Gods Word is as abundantly fulfilled. We may not always be able to trace out the literal accomplishment of every one as strikingly as in this case, but we never could prove one promise in all the Bible false; and the more light we have the more abundantly do we see that all have been yea and amen. Let us rest upon Gods Word. Exceeding great and precious promises are given to us in the sacred book. They are like good notes from a prompt paymaster, falling due at different times. We may sometimes question their worth, or may even forget in the multitude of cares that we have such securities treasured up, but the time of their payment will come, and we shall find all redeemed. (W. H. Lewis, D. D.)
The Rechabites
Their record was an honourable one, and reached far back into the early days of Hebrew history. When Israel was passing through the wilderness of Sinai, the tribe of the Kenites showed them kindness; and this laid the foundation of perpetual friendliness between the two peoples. They seem to have adopted the religious convictions of Israel, and to have accompanied them into the Land of Promise. Retaining their integrity as s pastoral people, the Kenites maintained these friendly relations with Israel during the intervening centuries; and it was of this tribe that the Rechabites, for such was the name of this strange tent-loving people, had sprung (Jdg 4:17-24; 1Sa 15:6; 1Ch 2:55). About the time of Elijah, and perhaps largely influenced by him, the sheikh or leader of one branch of the Kenites was Jonadab the son of Rechab. He was dismayed at the abounding corruption of the time, and especially of the northern kingdom, then under the fatal spell of Jezebels and Ahabs influence; and resembled some rank jungle in whose steamy air, heavy with fever and poison, noisome creatures swarm, and foul pestilences breed. In his endeavour to save his people from such a fate, this noble man, who afterwards become Jehus confederate in extirpating idolatry, bound his people under a solemn pledge to drink no wine for ever; neither to build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, but to dwell in tents.
I. Jeremiahs test of the Rechabites. So soon as their arrival was noised abroad, and had come to the ears of Jeremiah, he was seized by a Divine impulse to derive from them a striking object-lesson for his own people. With an inventiveness which only passionate love could have suggested, the prophet caught at every incident, and used every method to awaken his people to realise their true position in the sight of God. Probably a little group of Jews, arrested by the prophet s association with these strange-looking men, followed them in to watch the proceedings. They were curious witnesses of the prophets action, as he caused bowls of wine to be set before the tribesmen, and cups to be offered them, that they might dip them in and drink. They also heard the blunt unqualified refusal of these quaint old-fashioned Puritans, We will drink no wine, followed by an explanation of the solemn obligation laid on them centuries before. The moral was obvious, Hero were men loyal to the wish of their ancestor, though he was little more than a name to them, and refusing the offered sweets in which so many freely indulged. How great a contrast to the people of Jerusalem, who persistently disregarded the words of the living God perpetually remonstrating against their sins! The prohibitions of Jonadab were largely arbitrary and external; whilst those of Jehovah were corroborated by the convictions of conscience, and consonant with the deepest foundations of religion and morality. The voice of Jonadab was a cry coming faintly from far down the ages; whilst Jehovah was ever speaking with each new dawn, and in the voice of each fresh messenger whom He rose early to send. Such devotion to principle; such persistent culture of simplicity, frugality, and abstinence; such literal adherence to the will of the father of their house–not only carried within them the assurance of perpetuity to the people who practised them, but must receive the signature and countersign of the Almighty. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before Me for ever. This phrase had a very profound significance. It suggested, of course, obviously, that the tribe should not cease to exist. The phrase is often used in Scripture of priestly service. And may we not infer that where we meet that devotion to principle, and that detachment from the world, which characterised these men, there will always be a strong religious tone, a knowledge of God, a power in prayer and intercession, which are the essential characteristics of the priests?
II. This elements of a strongly religious life. Oh, to stand always before Him, on whose face the glory of God shines as the sun in his strength! But if this is to be something more than a vague wish, an idle dream, three things should be remembered, suggested by the words of the Rechabites.
1. There must be close adhesion to great principles. Many superficial reasons might have suggested to the Rechabites compliance with the prophet s tempting suggestion. The wine was before them; there was no sin against God in taking it; the people around had no scruples about it; and the prophet himself invited them. In contrast to this, it is the general tendency amongst men to ask what is the practice of the majority; what is done by those in their rank and station; and what will be expected of them. We drift with the current. We allow our lives to be settled by our companions or our whims, our fancies or our tastes. We make a grave mistake in supposing that the main purpose of our life is something different from that which reveals itself in details. What we are in the details of our life, that we are really and essentially. The truest photographs are taken when we are unprepared for the operation. And, indeed, when we consider the characters of the early disciples of Jesus, or those of saints, martyrs, and confessors, must we not admit that they were as scrupulous in seeking the will of God about the trifles of their life, as the Rechabites were in consulting the will and pleasure of the dead Jonadab? The thought of God was as present with the one as of Jonadab with the other. And was not this the secret of their strong and noble lives? What a revolution would come to us all if it became the one fixed aim and ambition of our lives to do always those things that are pleasing in His sight!
2. Abstinence from the spirit of the age. It was an immense gain in every way for the Rechabites to abstain from wine. Wine was closely associated with the luxury, corruption, and abominable revelries of the time (Isa 28:1-8). Their abstinence was not only a protest against the evils which wore honeycombing their age, but was a sure safeguard against participation in them. In these days the same principles apply. Surely, then, we shall do well to say with the Rechabites, whoever may ask us to drink, We will drink no wine. But wine may stand for the spirit of the age, its restlessness, its constant thirst for novelty, for amusement, for fascination; its feverish demand for the fresh play, the exciting novel, the rush of the season, the magnificent pageant. It is easier to abstain from alcohol than from this insidious spirit of our time, which is poured so freely into the air, as from the vial of some demon sorceress.
3. We must hold lightly to the things around. The Rechabites dwelt in tents. They drove their vast flocks from place to place, and were content with the simple life of the wandering shepherd. It was thus that the great patriarchs had lived before them (Heb 11:9; Heb 11:13). It is difficult to say what worldliness consists in. What would be worldly to some people is an ordinary part of lifes circumstances to others. But all of us are sensible of ties that hold us to the earth. We may discover what they are by considering what we cling to; what we find it hard to let go; what we are always striving to augment; what we pride ourselves in. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The Rechabites
I. Their principles are tried. Three features mark this trial.
1. They were offered wine. After s family record of three hundred years abstinence, the evil thing is set before them, free of cost. As they fortunately had no experience of its power by reason of former habits of intemperance, they could look upon the enemy without fear or danger.
2. Wine was offered them by a good man. Jeremiah was the generous host. Surely Gods prophet would not offer them an evil thing, or tempt them to do wrong! A great many well-meaning people place the tempting cup before their guests, and their guests are not the sturdy sons of Jonadab, and much evil is wrought.
3. Wine was offered in the Lords house. They were in the chamber of good men, on holy ground, and in strict privacy. Under such circumstances, might they not suspend their stringent rules of life? They had broken one vow in coming into Jerusalem, might they not yield another point, and adopt one of the ways of city people? Life is full of opportunities for testing principles and character.
II. Their principles are triumphant.
1. It was prompt and definite. They reasoned not with flesh and blood, nor did they offer any compromise.
2. It was complete. Their pledge was a comprehensive one, involving dwelling in tents, and living a very unworldly life (verses 6-10). Total abstinence, was not enough. Their fathers commandment, was broad. Sobriety is not salvation.
3. It was general. We, our wives, our sons, our daughters (verse 8). The domestic peace had not been broken by faithlessness and sin. A blessed unity in principle and in practice.
4. It was constant. Three hundred years had passed since they received these injunctions, and they still regarded them as binding and sacred.
III. Their actuating motive.
1. It was filial love. For Jonadab our father commanded us (verse 6) was the only defence they cared to offer for their singular conduct. A pious ancestry is an invaluable blessing; but the filial spirit must turn that boon to practical account.
2. Men live after death. He being dead, yet speaketh. Time cannot impair the power of a good life.
IV. The exemplary meaning of their conduct. They were not tried for their own sake, but for the good of others.
1. Conduct makes personal influence. No man liveth unto himself. The end of our trials may concern others more than ourselves. The Jews were to be instructed by the behaviour of the Rechabites.
2. The sobriety of one condemns the drunkenness of the other. If one life can be good, other lives can too.
3. It was a contrast of privilege. In obedience to an earthly father, who had been dead three centuries, the sons of Jonadab had kept their pledges. The Jews had received Divine commands, all the prophets had spoken to them, and yet they disobeyed (verses 14, 16).
4. It justified Divine judgment. Therefore . . . I will bring upon Judah, &c. (verse 17). The abstinence of Rechab condemns inebriate Judah.
5. National intemperance is a swift destroyer.
6. Personal drunkenness makes up the national sin. The units make the million.
V. The rechabites reward.
1. Divine approval Jeremiah assured them of Gods benediction.
2. Divine preservation. Jonadab promised his sons long life, many days in the land where ye be strangers (verse 7), and that promise God ratified. Medical and statistical science have come to Jonadabs view.
3. Divine honour. Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before Me for ever (verse 19). Standing before God has reference to a priestly relationship and service. (R. W. Keighley.)
A reason for total abstinence
The late Frances E. Willard once asked the greatest of inventors, Thomas A. Edison, if he were a total abstainer; and when he told her that he was, she said, May I inquire if it was home influence that made you so? and he replied, No; I think it was because I always felt that I had a better use for my head. Who can measure the loss to the world if that wonderful instrument of thought that has given us so much of light and leading in the practical mechanism of life had become sodden with drink, instead of electric with original ideas!
Obedience to human authority
1. Premise that complications are apt to arise, unless we remember–
(1) That the authority of any particular superior is limited to its own sphere.
(2) That all human authority is subordinate to Gods, so that in submitting to human authority we are submitting to Gods, in resisting we are resisting Gods (Rom 13:1-2; Eph 6:5-7; Col 3:20; 1Pe 2:13).
(3) That authority, even within its own limits, is to be used with discretion, not pressed beyond reason, or vexatiously.
2. What right had Jonadab to enjoin upon his descendants the observances specified? His injunctions were those of a founder and legislator.
3. To proceed, then, we have–
(1) Obedience to the laws of our country, a branch of which is obedience to magistrates. This to be rendered for conscience sake, and therefore even in cases in which (as the payment of taxes) evasion might be possible (Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; 1Pe 2:13-15).
(2) Obedience to the rules of the Church, a branch of which is obedience to ecclesiastical superiors (Heb 13:17; 1Th 5:12-13; 1Ti 5:17). And by the rules of the Church are to be understood the rules of that branch of the Church in which God has cast our lot.
(3) Obedience to authority in the family. To masters. To husbands. To parents. (C. A. Heurtley, D. D.)
I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto Me.—
The aggravated nature of disobedience
I. Look at the authority of God–the right He has to be obeyed and hearkened to. I have spoken unto you, saith God. We must lay a stress upon that I. We must contrast it with the name of Jonadab. It is as much as to say, What is Jonadab compared with Me? What is his authority compared with Mine?
II. We must lay a stress also upon the manner in which the Lord hath given His directions to us. I have spoken unto you, saith He–how? rising early and speaking. Oh! wonderful expression! spoken, indeed, in accommodation to mans language; but how affecting! how significant! Jonadab, perhaps, laid down his rules but once, and was readily obeyed. But again and again hath the Great Jehovah sent abroad His invitations, and renewed His offers, and repeated His commands.
III. The nature of the Lords directions. Look over Jonadabs injunctions, and assuredly you will pronounce them harsh and strict in the extreme. He laid an embargo on the very gifts of providence, and bade his family abstain from them. Now contrast with this the gentle, gracious precepts of the Gospel of Christ Jesus–surely His yoke is easy and His burthen is light! But before He gives His precepts He sends His invitations (Mat 11:28). Pardon and grace are first proposed before duties are required. (A. Roberts, M. A.)
The reasonableness of hearkening to Gods voice and submitting ourselves to Him
1. As we are His creatures (Mal 1:6; Heb 12:9).
2. As He is our benefactor (Isa 1:2-3; Rom 12:1).
3. As He has engaged Himself to support and deliver such (Rom 8:28, &c.).
4. As He forbids only what is hurtful, and commands only what is good (Rom 7:12; Deu 10:12-13).
5. The wisest and best of men have acted thus (Heb 12:1).
6. It is its own reward (Psa 19:11).
7. The reward He sets before us is infinitely great (2Co 4:17-18).
8. Disobedience exposes to His wrath (Rom 1:18; Rom 2:8-9). (H. Foster.)
Disobedience to God condemned
I. Let us consider this complaint. There is at this day–
1. The same regard for the commands of men.
2. The same disregard for the commands of God. But let us consider the complaint more minutely–
II. With its attendant aggravations.
1. The authority from which the different commands proceeded.
2. The commands themselves.
3. The manner in which they were enforced. Address–
(1) Those who regard man, and not God.
(2) Those who regard God, and not man.
(3) Those who feel a united regard for both. (C. Simeon, M. A.)
Return ye now every man from his evil way.–
Sinners admonished to return to God
I. What the exhortation presupposes.
1. That there has been a departure from God.
2. This departure is universal (Rom 3:10; Rom 3:19-23).
3. This departure is flagrantly wicked. Evil way. Evil in its nature, in its influence, in its consequences.
II. To what reforms the exhortation points.
1. Deep conviction of the evil and dangerous nature of a wicked career.
2. Contrition of heart, and confession of sin to God.
3. The renunciation of every evil way.
4. Supreme love and loyalty to God.
III. Compliance with this request is urgent.
1. Life is short and uncertain.
2. Sin is hardening and deceitful.
3. You will escape the greatest evils and realise the most exalted pleasures.
4. The longer you delay the less probability there is that you will ever return.
5. The present is the only time in which we are authorised to tell you you can be saved.
IV. The happy result of returning to God.
1. The Israelites entered Canaan–a faint type of heaven to which believers are called.
2. Ye shall dwell there in fulness of joy, and at Gods right hand. Your sun shall no more go down. (Helps for the Pulpit.)
Amending ones ways a great work
Sir Thomas Burnet, the third son of Bishop Burner, led at one time a dissipated life. At last he took a serious turn, and one evening his father observing him to be very thoughtful, asked what he was meditating. A greater work, replied he, than your lordships History of the Reformation. Ay, said the bishop, what is that? The reformation of myself, said the young man. He fulfilled his promise, and he afterwards became one of the best lawyers of his time; and in 1741 one of the judges in the Court of Common Pleas.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXXV
Jeremiah is commanded to go to the Rechabites, who, on the
approach of the Chaldean army, took refuge in Jerusalem; and to
try their obedience to the command of Jonadab, (or Jehonadab,
Jer 35:2; Jer 10:15; Jer 10:16,)
their great progenitor, who lived in the reign of Jehu, king of
Israel, upwards of two hundred and fifty years before this
time, offers them wine to drink, which they refuse, 1-11.
Hence occasion is taken to upbraid the Jews with their
disobedience to God, their heavenly Father, 12-17;
and a blessing is pronounced on the Rechabites, 18, 19.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXXV
Verse 1. The word which came – in the days of Jehoiakim] What strange confusion in the placing of these chapters! Who could have expected to hear of Jehoiakim again, whom we have long ago buried; and we have now arrived in the history at the very last year of the last Jewish king.
This discourse was probably delivered in the fourth or fifth year of Jehoiakim’s reign.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is another evidence that the prophecies of this book are not left us in that order wherein they were delivered, for those which we had in the two or three foregoing chapters being in the time of Zedekiah must needs be ten or eleven years after this.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord,…. Not as following the former prophecies; for they must be delivered seventeen years after this. The prophecies of Jeremiah are not put together in their proper time in which they were delivered. The preceding prophecies were delivered in the “tenth” and “eleventh” years of Zedekiah’s reign: but this
in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; in what part of his reign is not certain; but it must be after Nebuchadnezzar had invaded the land, Jer 35:11; very probably in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, after he had been the king of Babylon’s servant three years, and rebelled against him, 2Ki 24:1;
saying; as follows:
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jeremiah’s dealings with the Rechabites – Jer 35:2. Jeremiah is to go to the house, i.e., the family, of the Rechabites, speak with them, and bring them into tone of the chambers of the temple, and set before them wine to drink. , Jer 35:2, Jer 35:3, Jer 35:18, is exchanged for , Jer 35:5, from which it is apparent that “the house of the Rechabites” does not mean their dwelling-place, but the family, called in 1Ch 2:55 . According to this passage, the Rechabites were a branch of the Kenites, i.e., descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses (Jdg 1:16), who had gone to Canaan with the Israelites, and welt among them, partly in the wilderness on the southern frontier of the tribe of Judah (1Sa 15:6; 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29), partly at Kadesh in Naphtali (Jdg 4:11, Jdg 4:17; Jdg 5:24). Their ancestor, or father of the tribe, was Rechab, the father of Jonadab, with whom Jehu made a friendly alliance (2Ki 10:15, 2Ki 10:23). Jonadab had laid on them the obligation to live in the special manner mentioned below, in order to keep them in the simplicity of nomad life observed by their fathers, and to preserve them from the corrupting influences connected with a settled life. , “cells of the temple,” were additional buildings in the temple fore-courts, used partly for keeping the stores of the temple (1Ch 28:12), partly as dwellings for those who served in it, and as places of meeting for those who came to visit it; see Eze 40:17.
Jer 35:3-4 In executing the command of the Lord, Jeremiah took (went for) Jaazaniah, son of Jeremiah, son of Habaziniah, and all his brethren, and sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites, and brought them into the temple-chamber of the sons of Hanan. Jaazaniah was probably the then chief of the Rechabites. The chamber of the sons of Hanan was situated next the princes’ chamber, which stood over that of Maaseiah the door-keeper. Nothing further is known about Hanan the son of Jigdaliah; here he is called “the man of God,” an honourable title of the prophets – see e.g., 1Ki 12:22 – for, according to the usual mode of construction, does not belong to Jigdaliah, but to Hanan, cf. Jer 28:1; Zec 1:1. “The chamber of the princes” is the chamber where the princes, the chiefs of the people, used to assemble in the temple. Its position is more exactly described by , “over the chamber of Maaseiah,” but not very clearly for us, since the buildings of the temple fore-courts are nowhere else more exactly described; however, see on Jer 36:10. Maaseiah was , “keeper of the threshold,” i.e., overseer of the watchmen of the temple gates, of which, according to Jer 52:24 and 2Ki 25:18, there were three, who are there mentioned along with the high priest and his substitute Maaseiah is probably the same whose son Zephaniah was , cf. Jer 52:24 with Jer 37:3; Jer 29:25, and Jer 21:1.
Jer 35:5-7 There, Jeremiah caused bowls filled with wine to be set before the Rechabites, and commanded them to drink. ( are large goblets, bowls, out of which drinking-cups [ ] were filled.) But they explained that they did not drink wine, because their father, i.e., their ancestor, Jonadab had forbidden them and their posterity to drink wine for ever, as also to build houses, to sow seed, and to plant vineyards, i.e., to settle themselves down in permanent dwellings and to pursue agriculture. , “And there shall not be to you,” sc. what has just been named, i.e., ye must not possess houses, growing-crops, or vineyards (cf. Jer 35:9),
(Note: These injunctions, given by Jonadab to his posterity, that he might make them always lead a nomad life, are quoted by Diodorus Siculus, xix. 94, as a law among the Nabateans: , , , ; while the object of the law is stated to have been the maintenance of their freedom against the more powerful who sought to bring them into subjection. And even at the present day the Bedouins imagine that they are prevented, by the nobility of their descent from Ishmael, from engaging in agriculture, handicraft, or the arts; cf. Arvieux, Sitten der Beduinen-Araber, 5f.)
but ye are to dwell in tents all your life, that ye may live long, etc. This promise is an imitation of that found in Exo 20:12.
Jer 35:8-11 This command of their forefather they observe in all points, and therefore dwell in tents; and only because of Nebuchadnezzar’s arrival in the country have they come to Jerusalem, in order to find refuge for a time from the army of the Chaldeans and that of Aram (the Arameans). The special mention of the army of Aram in connection with that of the Chaldeans is perhaps due to the frequent predatory incursions made, at an earlier period, on Israel and Judah by the Syrians. According to 2Ki 24:2, after Jehoiakim had rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, hostile bands of Arameans invaded Judah for the purpose of laying waste the country.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Case of the Rechabites. | B. C. 607. |
1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, 2 Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. 3 Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; 4 And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: 5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. 6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: 7 Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. 8 Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; 9 Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: 10 But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11 But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.
This chapter is of an earlier date than many of those before; for what is contained in it was said and done in the days of Jehoiakim (v. 1); but then it must be in the latter part of his reign, for it was after the king of Babylon with his army came up into the land (v. 11), which seems to refer to the invasion mentioned 2 Kings xxiv. 2, which was upon occasion of Jehoiakim’s rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar. After the judgments of God had broken in upon this rebellious people he continued to deal with them by his prophets to turn them from sin, that his wrath might turn away from the. For this purpose Jeremiah sets before them the example of the Rechabites, a family that kept distinct by themselves and were no more numbered with the families of Israel than they with the nations. They were originally Kenites, as appears 1 Chron. ii. 55, These are the Kenites that came out of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab. The Kenites, at least those of them that gained a settlement in the land of Israel, were of the posterity of Hobab, Moses’s father-in-law, Judg. i. 16. We find them separated from the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. 6. See Judg. iv. 17. One family of these Kenites had their denomination from Rechab. His son, or a lineal descendant from him, was Jonadab, a man famous in his time for wisdom and piety. He flourished in the days of Jehu, king of Israel, nearly 300 years before this; for there we find him courted by that rising prince, when he affected to appear zealous for God (2Ki 10:15; 2Ki 10:16), which he thought nothing more likely to confirm people in the opinion of than to have so good a man as Jonadab ride in the chariot with him. Now here we are told,
I. What the rules of living were which Jonadab, probably by his last will and testament, in writing, and duly executed, charged his children, and his posterity after him throughout all generations, religiously to observe; and we have reason to think that they were such as he himself had all his days observed.
1. They were comprised in two remarkable precepts:– (1.) He forbade them to drink wine, according to the law of the Nazarites. Wine is indeed given to make glad the heart of man and we are allowed the sober and moderate use of it; but we are so apt to abuse it and get hurt by it, and a good man, who has his heart made continually glad with the light of God’s countenance, has so little need of it for that purpose (Psa 4:6; Psa 4:7), that it is a commendable piece of self-denial either not to use it at all or very sparingly and medicinally, as Timothy used it, 1 Tim. v. 23. (2.) He appointed them to dwell in tents, and not to build houses, nor purchase lands, nor rent or occupy either, v. 7. This was an instance of strictness and mortification beyond what the Nazarenes were obliged to. Tents were mean dwellings, so that this would teach them to be humble; they were cold dwellings, so that this would teach them to be hardy and not to indulge the body; they were movable dwellings, so that this would teach them not to think of settling or taking root any where in this world. They must dwell in tents all their days. They must from the beginning thus accustom themselves to endure hardness, and then it would be no difficulty to them, no, not under the decays of old age. Now,
2. Why did Jonadab prescribe these rules of living to his posterity? It was not merely to show his authority, and to exercise a dominion over them, by imposing upon them what he thought fit; but it was to show his wisdom, and the real concern he had for their welfare, by recommending to them what he knew would be beneficial to them, yet not tying them by any oath or vow, or under any penalty, to observe these rules, but only advising them to conform to this discipline as far as they found it for edification, yet to be dispensed with in any case of necessity, as here, v. 11. He prescribed these rules to them, (1.) That they might preserve the ancient character of their family, which, however looked upon by some with contempt, he thought its real reputation. His ancestors had addicted themselves to a pastoral life (Exod. ii. 16), and he would have his posterity keep to it, and not degenerate from it, as Israel had done, who originally were shepherds and dwelt in tents, Gen. xlvi. 34. Note, We ought not to be ashamed of the honest employments of our ancestors, though they were but mean. (2.) That they might comport with their lot and bring their mind to their condition. Moses had put them in hopes that they should be naturalized (Num. x. 32); but, it seems they were not; they were still strangers in the land (v. 7), had no inheritance in it, and therefore must live by their employments, which was a good reason why they should accustom themselves to hard fare and hard lodging; for strangers, such as they were, must not expect to live as the landed men, so plentifully and delicately. Note, It is our wisdom and duty to accommodate ourselves to our place and rank, and not aim to live above it. What has been the lot of our fathers why may we not be content that it should be our lot, and live according to it? Mind not high things. (3.) That they might not be envied and disturbed by their neighbours among whom they lived. If they that were strangers should live great, raise estates, and fare sumptuously, the natives would grudge them their abundance, and have a jealous eye upon them, as the Philistines had upon Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 14), and would seek occasions to quarrel with them and do them a mischief; therefore he thought it would be their prudence to keep low, for that would be the way to continue long-to live meanly, that they might live many days in the land where they were strangers. Note, Humility and contentment in obscurity are often the best policy and men’s surest protection. (4.) That they might be armed against temptations to luxury and sensuality, the prevailing sin of the age and place they lived in. Jonadab saw a general corruption of manners; the drunkards of Ephraim abounded, and he was afraid lest his children should be debauched and ruined by them; and therefore he obliged them to live by themselves, retired in the country; and, that they might not run into any unlawful pleasures, to deny themselves the use even of lawful delights. They must be very sober, and temperate, and abstemious, which would contribute to the health both of mind and body, and to their living many days, and easy ones, and such as they might reflect upon with comfort in the land where they were strangers. Note, The consideration of this, that we are strangers and pilgrims, should oblige us to abstain from all fleshly lusts, to live above the things of sense, and look upon them with a generous and gracious contempt. (5.) That they might be prepared for times of trouble and calamity. Jonadab might, without a spirit of prophecy, foresee the destruction of a people so wretchedly degenerated, and he would have his family provide, that, if they could not in the peace thereof, yet even in the midst of the troubles thereof, they might have peace. Let them therefore have little to lose, and then losing times would be the less dreadful to them: let them sit loose to what they had, and then they might with less pain be stripped of it. Note, Those are in the best frame to meet sufferings who are mortified to the world and life a life of self-denial. (6.) That in general they might learn to live by rule and under discipline. It is good for us all to do so, and to teach our children to do so. Those that have lived long, as Jonadab probably had done when he left this charge to his posterity, can speak by experience of the vanity of the world and the dangerous snares that are in the abundance of its wealth and pleasures, and therefore ought to be regarded when they warn those that come after them to stand upon their guard.
II. How strictly his posterity observed these rules, v. 8-10. They had in their respective generations all of them obeyed the voice of Jonadab their father, had done according to all that he commanded them. They drank no wine, though they dwelt in a country where was plenty of it; their wives and children drank no wine, for those that are temperate themselves should take care that all under their charge should be so too. They built no houses, tilled no ground, but lived upon the products of their cattle. This they did partly in obedience to their ancestor, and out of a veneration they had for his name and authority, and partly from the experience they themselves had of the benefit of living such a mortified life. See the force of tradition, and the influence that antiquity, example, and great names, have upon men, and how that which seems very difficult will by long usage and custom become easy and in a manner natural. Now, 1. As to one of the particulars he had given them in charge, we are here told how in a case of necessity they dispensed with the violation of it (v. 11): When the king of Babylon came into the land with his army, though they had hitherto dwelt in tents, they now quitted their tents, and came and dwelt in Jerusalem, and in such houses as they could furnish themselves with there. Note, The rules of a strict discipline must not be made too strict, but so as to admit of a dispensation when the necessity of a case calls for it, which therefore, in making vows of that nature, it is wisdom to provide expressly for, that the way may be made the more clear, and we may not afterwards be forced to say, It was an error, Eccles. v. 6. Commands of that nature are to be understood with such limitations. These Rechabites would have tempted God, and not trusted him, if they had not used proper means for their own safety in a time of common calamity, notwithstanding the law and custom of their family. 2. As to the other particular, we are here told how, notwithstanding the greatest urgency, they religiously adhered to it. Jeremiah took them into the temple (v. 2), into a prophet’s chamber, there, rather than into the chamber of the princes, that joined to it, because he had a message from God, which would look more like itself when it was delivered in the chambers of a man of God. There he not only asked the Rechabites whether they would drink any wine, but he set pots full of wine before them, and cups to drink out of, made the temptation as strong as possible, and said, “Drink you wine, you shall have it on free cost. You have broken one of the rules of your order, in coming to live at Jerusalem; why may you not break this too, and when you are in the city do as they there do?” But they peremptorily refused. They all agreed in the refusal. “No, we will drink no wine; for with us it is against the law.” The prophet knew very well they would deny it, and, when they did, urged it no further, for he saw they were stedfastly resolved. Note, Those temptations are of no force with men of confirmed sobriety which yet daily overcome such as, notwithstanding their convictions, are of no resolution in the paths of virtue.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
JEREMIAH – CHAPTER 35
LESSON FROM THE RECHABITES
Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, was still king in Jerusalem when the episode recorded in this chapter took place. The Rechabites, concerning which Jeremiah writes in this chapter, were descendants from the Kenites (Jdg 1:16; 1Ch 2:55) – the tribe to which Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, belonged. They had cast their lot with the Israelites at the time of Exodus. Jonadab, the founder of this religious clan, had been a militant accomplice of Jehu in the savage purge of the house of Ahab and the massacre of the devotees of Baal, (about 840 B.C.; 2Ki 10:15-31).
Vs. 1-11: A TEST OF LOYALTY
1. Here the Lord instructs Jeremiah to go to the Rechabites, bring them to one of the chambers of the temple, and there to offer them wine to drink. (vs. 1-2).
2. Thus, the prophet went to Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah (no relation to the prophet), who appears to have been the leader of the clan, – bringing him, his brothers and their sons (the whole house of the Rechabites) as the Lord had instructed him, (vs.3).
3. This being another of his SYMBOLIC ACTS, Jeremiah escorted them into the public room of “the sons of Hanan”, the son of lgdaliah, who is called “the man of God”, (vs. 4; comp. 1Sa 9:6; 2Ki 1:9; 2Ki 4:9).
a. This room was located beside that of the princes of Judah.
b. It was above the chamber of Maaseiah, who was keeper the threshold (comp. Jer 52:24; 2Ki 25:18) – an ancient priestly office having charge of the money allocated for temple repairs, (2Ki 12:10), and highly placed in the cults, (Jer 52:24).
c. This Maaseiah may have been the father of Zepaniah, the priest, (Jer 21:1; Jer 29:25).
4. Then Jeremiah set wine before them and invited them to drink, (vs. 5; comp. Deu 8:1-3; 2Co 2:9).
5. But, the Rechabites declined to accept of his hospitality in this matter – choosing, rather, to obey the voice of their ancestor, Jonadab, who had forbidden them to drink wine – along with a number of other things, (vs. 6-7).
a. They were to build no permanent dwellings, sow no seeds, and plant no vineyards; rather, they were instructed to be nomadic tent dwellers.
b. Evidently despising the kind of life that he saw developing in the cities (with their corrupting tendencies, commercial exploitation and wine), Jonadab believed that his posterity would live fuller, richer and longer lives by following the simplicity of the plan he outlined before them.
c. Living as “strangers and pilgrims” in the land, though native Israelites, they were to be prepared to move at God’s command, (Heb 11:13; Heb 12:14; 1Pe 2:11).
6. The Rechabites have explicitly obeyed the command of Jonadab their father, for almost 300 years – without compromise or change, (vs. 8-10; Pro 1:8-9; Pro 4:1-2; Pro 4:10; Pro 6:20; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20).
7. Only because of their fear of the armies of the Chaldeans, and of “Aram” (Syria, Gen 25:20; Jdg 10:6; 2Ki 24:2) were they then living in Jerusalem at the time of this incident, (vs. 11; 2Ki 24:1-2; Dan 1:1-2).
8. This incident is not recorded to approve OR condemn the wisdom of Jonadab’s orders, but to illustrate the strict adherence of the Rechabites to their father’s will!
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
It must be first observed, that the order of time in which the prophecies were written has not been retained. In history the regular succession of days and years ought to be preserved, but in prophetic writings this is not so necessary, as I have already reminded you. The Prophets, after having been preaching, reduced to a summary what they had spoken; a copy of this was usually affixed to the doors of the Temple, that every one desirous of knowing celestial doctrine might read the copy; and it was afterwards laid up in the archives. From these were formed the books now extant. And what I say may be gathered from certain and known facts. But that we may not now multiply words, this passage shews that the prophecy of Jeremiah inserted here did not follow the last discourse, for he relates what he had been commanded to say and to do in the time of Jehoiakim, that is, fifteen years before the destruction of the city. Hence what I have said is evident, that Jeremiah did not write the book as it exists now, but that his discourses were collected and formed into a volume, without regard to the order of time. The same may be also gathered from the prophecies which we shall hereafter see, from the forty-fifth to the end of the fiftieth chapter.
The power of the kingdom of Judah was not so weakened under King Jehoiakim, but that they were still inflated with pride. As, then, their security kept them from being attentive to the words of the Prophet, it was necessary to set before them a visible sign, in order to make them ashamed. It was, then, God’s purpose to shew how inexcusable was their perverseness. This was the design of this prophecy. And the Prophet was expressly commanded to call together the Rechabites, and to offer wine to them, in order that the obstinacy of the people might appear more disgraceful, as they could not be induced to render obedience to God, while the Rechabites were so obedient to their father, a mortal man, and who had been dead for nearly three centuries. The Rechabites derived their origin from Obad and from Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. There are those indeed who think that Obad and Jethro were the same; but this conjecture seems not to me probable. However this may be, interpreters think that, the Rechabites were the descendants of Obad, who followed Moses and the Israelites. And their opinion seems to be confirmed, because it is said here that they were commanded by Jonadab to live as sojourners in the land. An inheritance was indeed promised them, but as it appears from many parts of Scripture, they were unfaith-fifily dealt with, for they were scattered here and there throughout the tribes. They then did not enjoy an inheritance as it was right and as they deserved. And we see also that they lived among other nations.
With regard to Jonadab, of whom mention is made, we read in 2Kg 10:15, that he was a man of great name and influence, for when Jehu began to reign, he had him as his friend, though he was an alien. He must, then, have been in high esteem, and a man of power and wealth among the Israelites. And it is certain that it was the same Jonadab of whom sacred history speaks of there, because he is called the son of Rechab; and yet three hundred years, or nearly so, had elapsed from that time to the reign of Jehoiakim. As to the origin of this family or people, the first was Obad; from him came Rechab, whose son was Jonadab, who lived in the time of King Jehu, and was raised up into his chariot to be, as it were, next to him, when Jehu had not as yet his power firmly established. But they went afterwards to Jerusalem on account of the continual calamities of the land of Israel, for it was exposed to constant plunders, and this we shall hereafter see in the narrative. Then the sons of Rechab did once dwell in the kingdom of Israel; but when various incursions laid waste the land, and final ruin was at hand, having left their tents they went to Jerusalem; for they were not allowed to cultivate either fields or vineyards, as we shall hereafter see. The Rechabites, therefore, dwelt in the city Jerusalem, which protected them from the incursions and violence of enemies; but they still retained their ancient mode of living in abstaining from wine, and in not cultivating either fields or vineyards. They thought it indeed right for them to dwell in buildings, because they could not find a vacant place in the city where they might pitch their tents: but this was done from necessity. In the meantime they obeyed the command of their father Jonadab; and though he had been dead three hundred years, they yet so venerated the memory of their father, that they willingly abstained from wine, and led not only a frugal but an austere life.
The Prophet is now bidden to bring these to the Temple, and to offer them wine to drink I have briefly explained the design of God in this matter, even that he purposed to lay before the Jews the example of the Rechabites, in order to shame them; for that family obeyed their father after he was dead, but the Jews could not be induced to submit to the command of the living God, who was also the only Father of all. The Prophet then was bidden to bring them to the Temple, and to lay before them cups full of wine, that they might drink. He says that they refused to drink, and brought as a reason, that Jenadab their father forbade them to do so. We shall hereafter see how this example was applied; for the whole cannot be explained at the same time.
Let us consider the Prophet’s words, he says that the word came to him in the days of Jehoiakim, that is, after he had found out by the trial of many years how untameable the Jews were, and how great was their ferocity. Much labor then had the Prophet undertaken, and yet they were not so subdued as to submit to the yoke of God. When, therefore, they had now for many years given many proofs of their obduracy, God summoned the Rechabites as witnesses, who, by their example, proved that the Jews were inexcusable for being so rebellious and disobedient to the commands of the Prophet.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.1. Chronology of the Chapter. Seventeen years earlier than the preceding narrative of the manumission of the slaves; about the fourth year of Jehoiakims reign. From Jer. 35:11 we find that these Rechabites were driven from the desert-scenes they inhabited into Jerusalem for shelter, consequent upon the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar. These conquests began with the victory at Charchemish; and at the end of the same year as that decisive battle against Egypt, he invaded Judea, in order to quell Jehoiakims revolt (comp. 2Ki. 24:1-2). Cf. Notes on chaps. 7 and 20.
2. National Affairs. The defeat of the Egyptians at Charchemish had produced on all surrounding nations a sense of insecurity. These Rechabites, apprehensive of peril, took refuge within Jerusalem, pitching their black tents on the open spaces inside the citys walls,a remarkable and admonitory sight!
3. Personal Allusions. Jer. 35:2. See infra on Rechabites. Jer. 35:3. Jaazaniah: unknown except from this reference. Son of Jeremiah: not the prophet Jeremiah; it was a frequent name. Habaziniah: apparently, from the form of this allusion to him, the chief of the Rechabites at this time. Jer. 35:4. Hanan: being called here a man of God, leads some to connect him with Hanani (2Ch. 16:7; 2Ch. 19:2). Igdaliah: the Hebrew form, Yigdalyahu, is more commonly contracted into Gedaliah. Jer. 35:6. Jonadab, son of Rechab, belonged to the Kenites (1Ch. 2:55), the Arabian tribe which entered Canaan with the Israelites. He was an Arab chief, and created a semi-Jewish religious sect, which we here find in existence nearly three hundred years after.
4. Manners and Customs. Jer. 35:6-7. Drink no wine. &c. See infra on Rechabites.
5. Literary Criticism. Jer. 35:2. The house of the Rechabites: not the dwelling house, for they had none, they lived in tents; but house in the sense of family.
TOPICAL SURVEY OF CHAPTER 35
THE RECHABITES VOW OF ABSTINENCE
Give them wine to drink (Jer. 35:2); We will drink no wine (Jer. 35:6).
For nearly three centuries these descendants of Jehonadab had abstained from intoxicants. God sent Jeremiah with a test of fidelity to their vow; not a command to violate it. They avowed their unfaltering purpose to stand faithful to their habit and pledge of abstinence.
Habitual abstinence from intoxicants may be urged therefore as
I. Founded on precedent. Reverence for their ancestor kept them loyal for so long a period. Such an example has its influence; awakening respect for him who sets it; urging the duty of imitation upon others.
II. Approved by utility. Had drinking wine been permitted, it would have entailed the culture of the vine, and that would require settled residence. But Jonadab wished to maintain among his followers the purer morality and manlier habits of the desert, as contrasted with the laxity and effeminacy of city life. Abstinence would keep them independent of decoys to luxury, and out of the reach of city allurements and influences.
III. Desirable for safety. Character is safer if abstinence is practised. Simplicity of life is less open to contamination if the company of wine-drinkers is shunned. Mental perceptions and moral obligations are less likely to be obscured and obliterated in abstainers, as this chapter emphatically proves.
See Addenda: ABSTINENCE.
THE RECHABITES CONSTANCY
Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us (Jer. 35:6). We have obeyed and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us (Jer. 35:10).
I. Obedience to man and disobedience to God contrasted (Jer. 35:12-15).
1. For three hundred years (cf. 2Ki. 10:15) the sons of Rechab implicitly obeyed the injunction of their father Jonadab.
(1.) Obedience to this injunction required great self-denial, singularity of conduct, and many privations.
(2.) Notwithstanding these requirements, the sons of Rechab are the most illustrious examples of filial obedience the world has ever known.
2. The Jewish nation, called the children of God, have never continued for one hundred consecutive years obedient to their Father in heaven.
(1.) Not because God had not given them plain and earnest injunctions (Jer. 35:15).
(2.) Not because they could not obey (Jer. 35:16, loc. cit.)
3. This contrast is a sad one, and is true in our day.
II. God sets His seal of approval on filial obedience (Jer. 35:16-19).
1. The surest and mightiest agency we have for the establishment of righteousness on the earth is filial obedience to that which is good.
2. The reflexive power of filial obedience is a mighty force in the establishment of true character.
III. The peculiar injunction of Jonadab in respect to total abstinence from intoxicants is worthy the careful study of parents and statesmen, as well as that of the Church of Christ (Jer. 35:6).
1. Can anything short of total abstinence ensure our youth and nation from drunkenness and all its fearful consequences?
2. Can there be any valid argument offered against this form of self-denial?
3. Would not the domestic, social, and national benefits accruing from total abstinence amply repay every Christian parent and patriot for its practice?
REV. D. C. HUGHES.
See Addenda: PERMANENCE OF THE RECHABITES.
Jer. 35:18-19. OBEDIENCE TO TRADITIONS OF ANCESTORS
Rechabites originally Kenites (Jdg. 1:16; 1Ch. 2:55). Attached to Moses by a near and dear connection (Exo. 2:21); and, agreeing with Israelites in worship of Jehovah, the Kenites followed them to Canaan, where they dwelt peacefully. God cared for their safety (1Sa. 15:6); and hundreds of years after we find them still a distinct people, held up by God as example to Jews for their attachment to customs of ancestors, and honoured by Him with gracious and remarkable promise of perpetual endurance of their family.
Told little of Jonadab, though in honour of him the Kenites changed their name to Rechabites (comp. this chapter with 2 Kings 10.) Evidently a man of high character and popularity, for Jehu paid him extraordinary respect and attention; and we may guess, from the manner in which Jehu commends his own zeal, that he had been remarkable, in those evil and irreligious times, for fidelity to God, notwithstanding the threats and enticements of Ahab and Jezebel, and the bad example of Israelitish nation. Great influence over his clan; for two hundred years after his death we find them here observing his injunctions. God contrasts this with Jews indifference to ordinances of Divine authority. We cannot fix on any clan of the Kenites in whom this promise has been fulfilled; yet doubtless, though having forgotten their own ancestry, they are divinely preserved among the wandering tribes of those wildernesses where Rechabites dwelt. From this example may be inferred
I. How well-pleasing in Gods sight is obedience to parental authority, respectful attention to the discipline and traditions of former times, when these are recommended to us by the example and authority of good and honourable ancestors. (1.) Where the institutions of society are preserved, the permanence of the society is greatly secured. (2.) God here gives promise of perpetuity. (3.) The specific reason given (Jer. 35:18), because they adhered to the rules of their ancestors. Yet these rules were not divinely imperative; they related to things strictly indifferent, abstain from wine and live in tents. Hence, God regards with no common approbation adherence to customs and traditions of forefathers (Pro. 21:24).
There are, however, limitations to this rule
1. The precept or custom, if it be not good in itself, must at least be a matter of indifference. What at first was evil cannot become good by lapse of time. No precedent can make lawful what God has forbidden.
2. If this ordinance, though in itself harmless, should produce any breach of Gods laws; if it should, in time, become so applied as to become mischievous, the commandment of God must not be made of none effect by our tradition. Where two authors are at variance, God must be heard, not man (Mat. 15:5-6; Mar. 7:11-13). The custom, in order to be binding, must be lawful.
3. It must proceed from competent and authoritative persons. Jonadab was probably a chieftain, but his regulations had continued for two hundred years; this origin and antiquity gave force to his rules. But the rules of human wisdom, and those absolutely and universally binding, given by God Himself, must be distinguished. Must not teach as doctrines the commandments of men. Thus the Rechabites did not violate Gods moral code, as though inferior in importance to the laws of their society; and, though a breach of those laws in their community could be punished with expulsion, they did not count others accursed who enjoyed moderately indulgences they forbade. Jeremiah drank wine before them yet they treated him with respect and deference.
4. There may be cases of necessity for the repeal or suspension of such human and ceremonial customs or laws. Thus here they fled to houses for protection from Assyrian invaders (Jer. 35:11). So our Saviour profaned the ceremonial rules about the Sabbath (Mat. 12:7). But for no ends must Gods laws be violated, however good we deem them. The Ruler of heaven and earth has no need of our insolent and impious interference.
II. With these restrictions, obedience to existing laws and institutions is pleasing to God, and here received a very marked approbation. Hence
1. The falsehood of their opinion who think that laws merely human have no sanction except in the punishments they inflict.
2. A caution in times of change, when novelties are sought with frantic eagerness. Taught reverence for ancient precedent.
Fondness for change is displeasing to God; for(1.) It is a symptom and stimulus to a lightness of mind unfriendly both to happiness and piety. (2.) New customs, or systematic departure from ancient habits, arise almost always from vanity, or something worse. (3.) Where a rule is harmless, it is almost always advantageous; increases our habits of obedience, and therefore not without inherent grace.
Hence it is necessary to obey, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake; the wisest of men exhorts us not to meddle with those who are given to change. Jeremiah commands us not to exchange old ways for new ones; and a Divine blessing rests on those who reverence ancestral institutions.
III. If human regulations are observed, though burdensome, can we reflect without shame on our continued disobedience to Divine commands? (Jer. 35:13-14.) Deep contrition and alarm shall awake within us. We need Gods forgiveness for former provocations; and that He may not call on us in vain hereafter, we need hearts subdued by the searching graces of His Holy Spirit, through the merits and mediation of our Saviour.Condensed and arranged from Bishop Reginald Heber, A.D. 1838.
See Addenda: OBEDIENCE TO ANCESTORS.
THE REWARDS OF OBEDIENCE
The words of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their fathers commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me (Jer. 35:14).
The historical circumstances first demand attention.
The family of the Rechabites were descendants of Jethro, father-in-law of Moses; came into Canaan with the Israelites, and settled in southern part of Judea; were worshippers of the true God, but did not conform to Jewish rites. It has ever been deemed a great difficulty in political economy to maintain an empire within an empire; but this little tribe solved the problem; for it preserved an independent existence among the Israelites for nearly one thousand years, and, though neither acknowledging their worship nor their laws, was suffered to remain undisturbed by ambition or religious persecution.
They accomplished this result thus:About five hundred years after their settlement in Canaan, lived that Jonadab, a very distinguished man among his people; is said to have assisted Jehu in rooting out idolatry from Israel. He saw that his people were but a handful among a more powerful people, and likely soon to be swallowed up by their neighbours, and he hit upon a happy method of preserving their independent existence. 1. He enjoined them not to drink wine; this was to save them from luxury and intemperance, which would prey upon them from within, and make them ripe for destruction. 2. Also commanded them not to till the ground, nor to have any houses, nor to dwell in cities; this was in order that they might have no riches to tempt others to make war upon them; and thus, to use his own words, they might live many days in the land wherein they were strangers. Luxury and wealth are the bane of nations, and by keeping his tribe a simple, pastoral people, pure in their habits, and destitute of property, he accomplished his wishes for them.
I. Notice the obedience of the Rechabites, contrasted with the disobedience of Israel to God. An ancestor of that family, dead nearly three hundred years, had issued his commands, and they were still obeyed; but the living God had spoken repeatedly to Israel, by His prophets, yet they would not hear. The commands of Jonadab, too, were very arbitrary. There could be no sin in cultivating the fields, or in living in houses, whatever moral worth there may have been in the precept to drink no wine; but still, because Jonadab commanded it, they obeyed. Compelled by necessity to disobey him on this occasion; for when the Chaldeans invaded the land, they were obliged to go and dwell in Jerusalem for protection. And here occurred the trial of their obedience by Jeremiah. He called the family together, and set wine before them, inviting them to drink, not tempting them to break their pledge, but knowing that they would keep it, and meaning thereby to reprove the Israelites. They refused the wine, and pleaded the command of Jonadab as their excuse. How pointed was then the rebuke of the prophet! Jonadab was obeyed. But the Israeliteswho had reasonable, not arbitrary, laws from God, not from a frail mortal; from the living God, who had loaded them with benefits, and could still reward them; not from a dead ancestor who had done little for them, and could do nothing morehad rebelled against their Maker, and would not hearken unto Him.
The complaint of God has still an application.
It is a fact, that among sinners, any and every law, precept, or tradition, of mere human authority, is better obeyed than the laws of God Himself. No matter who speaks, if he has gained credit among his fellowmen; no matter how absurd the law or usage, if it has been sanctioned by custom or a good name, there is obedience such as God cannot win. I am come in My Fathers name, said our Lord, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
See, in a few instances, how this has been verified. Mahomet arose, a sensualist, an adulterer, a breaker of treaties, and a robber, and issued his commands, which for centuries have been religiously obeyed. At the cry of the muezzin, and the hour of prayer, every follower of his, whether in the desert, on board the ship, in the city, or the field, suspends his labour, his pleasures, and even his griefs, and casts himself upon his knees in prayer. No scoffing looks of those of another creed can make him forego this, no distance from home leads him to forget it; but whether he be in gay Paris or his own Stamboul, he omits not his ablutions or devotions. But the blessed Jesus, pure, peaceful, and glorious, speaks, and even those who acknowledge Him as Lord over all, and own the goodness of His commands, can listen to such words as, This do in remembrance of Me, and obey them not.
The founder of some monkish order, again, has enjoined upon all his fraternity certain rules and austerities, and he is obeyed. Day after day, and year after year, the same tedious round of ceremonies is gone through with, as though salvation depended upon it, and the deluded ones will rise at the midnight hour to inflict stripes upon themselves or to offer prayer. But Christ may enjoin the reasonable duty of praying to our Father in spirit and in truth, and multitudes can suffer days and years to pass, and pray not.
The commander of the order of Jesuits can place his inferior priests in any country of the world, and whether the mandate be to act as father-confessor in some palace, or to penetrate to China or Paraguay, there is no more resistance nor apparent regard for the sacrifices to be made than in the machinery which is moved by mechanic power. Christ commands His disciples to go preach the Gospel to every creature, but only here and there one goes forth. The Rechabites of modern times, and Sons of Temperance, may institute a vow of temperance, and it is kept; or command one of their number to minister to the sick, and it is done; or provide well for their poor; but Christ says that no drunkard shall enter heaven, and enjoins charity to the sick and the destitute, while many heed Him not.
Caution:1. Because religion is less powerful than something else to enforce obedience, we are not to think less of its truth. Said an infidel, Temperance societies are better than Christianity, because they can produce reforms which your boasted religion has failed to achieve. But temperance societies were originated by Christians, and have achieved the good they have done through Christian influence.
2. The lack of power to compel obedience does not prove the lack of right to claim it. Heathenism is not better than Christianity, because it can speak and be so literally obeyed; nor Popery than Protestantism, because the commands of pope or priest are received with a more implicit deference; nor Mahometanism better than our faith, because its followers so strictly heed the false prophets precepts. When God speaks there is always a reason why His commands are disobeyedMen speak and are obeyed, because they do not command an utter renunciation of sin, they only enjoin some external duty or moral obedience which may leave the heart to sin in other matters as it pleases; while God demands holiness in everything, and, therefore, fails of receiving obedience. What a proof have we hence of the necessity of a new heart! What a motive to pray for such a change!
II. The rewards of obedience. That family of Rechabites remained an independent community for about one thousand years, that is, during all the time that the Israelites continued in their land. God promised, as reward for their filial piety, temperance, and contempt of luxury, that Jonadab, the son of Rechab, should not want a man to stand before him for ever.
Modern travellers, moreover, state that the Rechabites are still in existence. Mr. Wolf, the famous Jewish missionary, asserts this as his belief. And another traveller who visited a tract to the south of Judea, which has been unexplored for centuries, met there a native who claimed to be a Rechabite, and when an Arabic Bible was shown to him, turned to this chapter and read from it the description of his people, and said that it was still true of them, and that they still kept the precepts of Jonadab their father. Over three thousand years have passed away since that family of the Kenites came with Israel into Canaan, and for two thousand years no traces of them were preserved; but now, after so long a lapse of time, recent discoveries have brought them to light, retaining their name, and glorying in their independence. Though surrounded by Mahometan Arabs, they conform to the law of Moses, yet maintaining that they are not Israelites; and are much hated by the Mussulman. This account was given by a traveller so late as 1832, and is confirmed by English residents at Mocha, and from other sources.
Note.We have here one of the most extraordinary accomplishments of prophecy on record. A little handful of people, not larger than one of our Indian tribes, has kept upon the same spot for about one hundred generations, while all the neighbouring nations have undergone change and dissolution.
No doubt every promise of Gods Word is as abundantly fulfilled. We may not always be able to trace out their literal accomplishment as strikingly as in this case, but we never could prove one promise in all the Bible false; and the more light we have the more abundantly do we see that all have been yea and amen. Let us rest upon Gods Word. Exceeding great and precious promises are given to us in the sacred book. They are like good notes from a prompt paymaster, falling due at different times.
And all the precious promises of eternity shall yet be realised by Gods people: about the golden city, and the harpers with their harps, and the innumerable company of saints and angels, and the glory of God filling the temple. The unchangeable faithfulness of God to His declarations is a most delightful theme to a Christian. It is the rock on which he rests. God has promised; he believes.
Happy the man who has these precious promises for his own, and can use them and rely upon them!Rev. W. H. Lewis, D.D., Brooklyn, 1871.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 35
Jer. 35:4. Theme: A MAN OF GOD.
Between a man of God in the Old Testament and a Christian in the New, no difference; convertible terms: alike in all that relates to moral character and religious faith. Called a man of God because he is Gods workmanship: He made him what he is. By the grace of God I am what I am.
He is the noblest of Gods works; the highest type of man.
I. He is the holiest of men.
1. Every holy thing under heaven he admires: holy Bible, holy Sabbath, Sanctuary, Supper, &c.
2. Every holy duty he loves: prayer, praise, &c.
3. His love of holy men is noticeable: the holy brethren of whatever Church.
II. He is the wisest of men.
1. His wisdom is seen in the provision he makes for his everlasting future.
2. He is prepared for all the contingencies of time: for storms, he has anchorage; for temptations, the whole armour of God, &c.
III. He is the best of men.
1. He has been created after the image of Him who created him. And he is the best who is most Godlike.
2. He is best adapted to promote the glory of God.
IV. He is the richest of men.
1. His wealth is of the highest kind: spiritual riches.
2. His wealth he can never lose: durable riches.
V. He is the most honoured of men.
1. To him belongs the honour of sonship.
2. Of priesthood.
3. Of daily converse with God.
4. Of being clothed with the garments of salvation.
VI. He has the fairest prospects of all men.
1. Of an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Of a deathless, felicitous existence.
3. Of association with the purest, noblest, highest of beings.
4. Of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, &c.
Who would not wish to be a man of God?Rev. D. Pledge, Walks with the Prophet Jeremiah.
Note.Trapp observes that this man of God was a priest and prophet, or teacher of the people. So in the New Testament others are called Gods children, His servants, and His people; but ministers only are called Gods men (1Ti. 6:11; 2Ti. 3:17).
Jer. 35:15. Theme: GODS EARNESTNESS IN DEALING WITH SINNERS. Rising up early, &c.
See Homily on chap. Jer. 7:13.
Jer. 35:15. Theme: SINNERS ADMONISHED TO RETURN TO GOD. Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings; and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers.
The Israelites were a rebellious people; but He sent His servants the prophets, rising up early, &c. God desires not the death of a sinner. To save men from present and eternal ruin, He appointed Christ as the Mediator. He has sent His servants to proclaim this mercy, and to invite sinners to return to the enjoyment of His favour. And what is the design of the Gospel ministry now? It is to turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, &c. (Act. 26:18).
I. What the exhortation presupposes.
1. That there has been a departure from God. Return ye.
2. This departure is universal. Every man. For all have sinned, &c. (Rom. 3:10; Rom. 3:19-23).
3. This departure is flagrantly wicked. Evil way. (a) Evil in its nature; (b) evil in its influence; (c) evil in its consequences.
II. To what reforms the exhortation points. Return ye, &c.
1. Deep conviction of the evil and dangerous nature of a wicked career.
2. Contrition of heart, and confession of sin to God.
3. The renunciation of every evil way.
4. Supreme love and loyalty to God.
III. Compliance with this request
is urgent. Return ye now, because
1. Life is short and uncertain.
2. Sin is hardening and deceitful.
3. You will escape the greatest evils and realise the most exalted pleasures.
4. The longer you delay the less probability there is that you will ever return.
5. The present is the only time in which we are authorised to tell you you can be saved.
IV. The happy result of returning to God. Ye shall dwell in the land.
1. The land. The Israelites entered Canaan. But Canaan a faint type of heaven to which believers are called.
2. It will be the residence of Gods people. Ye shall dwell there in fulness of joy, and at Gods right hand. Your sun shall no more go down.
Helps for the Pulpit.
Jer. 35:15. Theme: SINNERS SUMMONED TO SELF-IMPROVEMENT. Amend your doings.
See Homily on chap. Jer. 7:3.
Jer. 35:16. Theme: TRUE OBEDIENCE SHOWN IN THE CONTRASTED CONDUCT of Israel and the Rechabites. But this people hath not hearkened unto Me.
The Rechabites obedience to their ancestors command is in itself praise-worthy and exemplary. It is perfectly accordant with the Fourth Commandment.
Were the Rechabites equally conscientious in their observance of the DIVINE commands? Would not a custom contrary to the Divine command have been retained with equal tenacity on the authority of their chief?
Still
I. The Rechabites put Israel to shame, in so far as they obey the command of their earthly ancestor, while the latter does not obey the Lords command.
II. The obedience of the Rechabites to the command of their earthly ancestor is, however, no pledge of their obedience to the commands of God.
III. Obedience to Gods commands is guaranteed only among the spiritual Israel, i.e., among those who by the Holy Spirit have become members of a higher order of nature, in which the will of God is written in the hearts of all, and has consequently become the innermost principle of life.
Or thus
I. In respect to legal obedience, the
Jews are surpassed by the Rechabites. Note the difference between Israel and the Rechabites in this respect.
II. The obedience of the Rechabites to their ancestor does not guarantee obedience to God. Note the equality of Israel and the Rechabites in this respect.
III. Only spiritual Israel bears in itself the guarantee of obedience to God. Note the higher status of the spiritual Israel over the Rechabites.Comp. Naegelsbach in Lange.
Jer. 35:19. Theme: PERMANENCE OF THE RECHABITES. Of so great a price in the sight of God is the virtue of filial duty and obedience, that it seldom fails of its reward even in this world. The law which enjoined it had a promise of long life attached to it (Exo. 20:12); and it is distinguished by the Apostle as the first commandment with promise (Eph. 6:2).
And by this history of the Rechabites we may learn that the surest way to entail a blessing on our children, and to perpetuate our names and families in a numerous and virtuous issue, is to reverence and obey our own parents.Wogan.
See Addenda: PERMANENCE OF THE RECHABITES.
ADDENDA TO CHAP. 35: ILLUSTRATIONS AND SUGGESTIVE EXTRACTS
OBEDIENCE TO ANCESTORS. , .Aris. Rhe. It is not good for a man to dissent from the gods, from his father, and from his teacher.
We read of a king of Poland who carried the picture of his father in a plate of gold about his neck; and when he was entering upon any great business he would kiss the picture and say, God grant I may observe my fathers charge, and do nothing unworthy of him.Trapp.
Absaloms pillar (2Sa. 18:18) is still standing, according to Sandys; and the Turks, whenever they pass, throw a stone at it, in token of their horror at his unnatural conduct against his father.
ABSTINENCE.
Against diseases here the strongest fence
Is the defensive virtue Abstinence.
R. Herrick.
Though I look old, yet I am young and lusty;
For in my youth I never did apply
Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood.
Shakespeare.
Thou sparkling bowl! thou sparkling bowl!
Though lips of bards thy brim may press,
And eyes of beauty oer thee roll,
And songs and dance thy power confess
I will not touch thee; for there clings
A scorpion to thy side that stings.
J. Pierpoint.
Diodorus tells us that the Nabathans, for the preservation of their wandering habits and therefore of their liberty, forbade any one either to sow corn, or plant fruit-trees, or drink wine, or build a house.
PERMANENCE OF THE RECHABITES. Information on this remarkable fact may be obtained from Dr. Wolffs Journal of his Travels in Yemen and Mesopotamia, pp. 388, 389; and Travels, ii. pp. 298300; and Pusey on Daniel, p. 268. In Kittos Daily Bible Illustrations, Evening Series, Isaiah and the Prophets, will be found most helpful information on the Modern Rechabites.
Dr. Wolffs account is this:At Jalovha, in Mesopotamia, a Rechabite was pointed out to him. I saw one standing before me dressed and wild like an Arab, the bridle of his horse holding in his hand. I showed him the Bible in Hebrew and Arabic: he read both languages, and was rejoiced to see the Bible; he was not acquainted with the New Testament. After having proclaimed to him the tidings of salvation, and made him a present of the Hebrew and Arabic Bibles and Testaments, I asked him
Whose descendant are you?
Mousa (that was his name), with a loud voice, Come, I show to you; and then he began to read Jer. 35:5-11.
Wolff. Where do you reside?
Mousa (recurring to Gen. 10:27).
At Hadoram, now called Samar by the Arab; at Usal, now called Sanaa by the Arabs; and (Gen. 10:30) at Mesha, now called Mecca, in the deserts around those places. We drink no wine and plant no vineyard, and sow no seed, and live in tents, as Jonadab our father commanded us. Hobab was our father too. Come to us: you will find still 60,000 in number; and you see thus prophecy has been fulfilled. Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before Me for ever.
And saying this, Mousa mounted his horse, and fled away, and left behind him a host of evidence of Sacred Writ.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
A. The Fidelity of the Rechabites Jer. 35:1-11
TRANSLATION
(1) The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, (2) Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them to the house of the LORD unto one of the chambers, and offer them wine to drink. (3) And I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites. (4) And I brought them to the house of the LORD, unto the chamber of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which is beside the chamber of the princes, above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the threshold. (5) And I placed before the sons of the house of Rechabites bowls full of wine, and cups; and I said unto them, Drink wine! (6) And they responded, We do not drink wine for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, Do not drink wine, you nor your sons, forever. (7) Furthermore do not build houses, sow seed, plant vineyards or own any such; but you shall dwell in tents all of your days, in order that your days may be many upon the face of the land in which you are sojourning. (8) And we have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, every word which he commanded us, not to drink wine all of our days, neither we, our wives, our sons, or our daughters, (9) nor to build houses in which to dwell; and we do not possess vineyards, fields or seed. (10) We dwell in tents, and we have obeyed, and done everything which Jonadab our father commanded us. (11) But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up against the land, that we said, Come and let us go to Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans and Arameans. So we dwell in Jerusalem.
COMMENTS
Jeremiah used many different methods to communicate Gods truth to men. In the present instance he uses a dramatic demonstration involving a whole clan to drive home the truth to the people of Judah. The Rechabites are one of the most interesting groups mentioned in the Bible. They were apparently of Kenite descent (1Ch. 2:55) and had joined the Israelites at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Jdg. 1:16). It was Jehonadab (or Jonadab) the son of Rechab who gave to the name Rechabite its special connotation.
Jehonadab first appears in 2Ki. 9:15-31 as a militant worshiper of Yahweh. He participated in the revolution of 841 B.C. when the zealot Jehu overthrew the dynasty of Omri in the northern kingdom of Israel. Apparently the excesses of Ahab and Jezebel, the importation of the worship of the Tyrian Baal, the disintegration of ancient social patterns and the wide-spread debauchery so completely upset certain conservative elements of the population that they were ready to take drastic steps to preserve the old values. Jehonadab had imposed rather strict regulations upon his descendants. But even though some 200 years had elapsed the Rechabites were still living by the rule of their father. Normally a nomadic group, the Rechabites had recently sought refuge in Jerusalem from the roving bands of Chaldeans and Syrians which were making repeated raids on the Jews living outside the walled cities (Jer. 35:11).
The narrative begins with Jeremiah receiving instruction to seek out the members of the Rechabite community.[302] In obedience to this command Jeremiah contacted Jaazaniah, the present leader of the sect, and invited him and the members of his clan to come to the Temple (Jer. 35:2). Scripture does not state whether or not Jeremiah informed Jaazaniah as to the purpose of the Temple visit but the impression is left that what transpired there came as somewhat of a surprise to the Rechabites.
[302] Literally, Go to the house of the Rechabites. House here does not refer to a dwelling but to members of a clan or, better still, a community.
Jeremiah chose the chamber of the sons of Hanan the man of God[303] as the spot for the demonstration (Jer. 35:4). A number of chambers were arranged around the courts of the Temple and served partly as storehouses and partly as residences for priests and other Temple personnel.[304] No doubt this particular chamber was able to accommodate several persons. It certainly was located in a prominent place being next to the chamber of the princes and just above the chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper of the door.[305] This would be a most advantageous spot for an object lesson to be seen by the leaders of Jerusalem. The fact that Hanan (or his sons) lent the room to Jeremiah on this occasion indicates that some high ranking officials of the nation were in sympathy with the prophet.
[303] The title man of God was an honorable title of the prophets. It was applied to Samuel (1Sa. 9:6-10), Elijah (2Ki. 1:9-13), Elisha (2 Kings 4-13) and others. The term occurs only here in Jeremiah. Perhaps Hanan was a prophet. If so, his sons may have been his disciples. See Streane, op cit., p. 237.
[304] See 1Ch. 9:27; Eze. 40:17; Neh. 10:37-39.
[305] The keeper of the door was an important priestly function. There were three of these officials corresponding to the number of gates of the Temple (Jer. 52:24; 2Ki. 25:18). They seem to have been in charge of money contributed for the Temple (2Ki. 12:9).
After a crowd of witnesses, probably including Temple officials, had assembled Jeremiah placed before the Rechabites large bowls of wine together with drinking cups and told them to drink (Jer. 35:5). This is no example of placing a temptation before a weaker brother. It was not Jeremiahs intention to entice these ascetics into sin. He knew that the Rechabites had committed themselves to a rigorous rule of life that included the abstinence from all fruit of the vine.[306] It was their loyalty and obedience to this way of life that Jeremiah wished to vividly portray before the national leaders. So he offered them wine and, as expected, the Rechabites vigorously declined the invitation to drink.[307] They offered a reason for their refusal. Jonadab, the ancestor of their clan, had commanded them (1) not to drink wine; (2) not to build houses; and (3) not to engage in agricultural pursuits (Jer. 35:6-7). The descendants of Jonadab had compiled with these commandments for over 200 years (Jer. 35:8-10). Surely this is one of the most noted examples of the influence of a father in all the annals of history! They wish it to be clearly understood that their presence in Jerusalem does not indicate unfaithfulness to principle. Only for the sake of self-preservation had they sought refuge in the city. Bands of Chaldeans and Syrians pillaging the countryside had forced these gentle people to temporarily take Up residence behind the protective walk of the capital (Jer. 35:11).
[306] At this point the Rechabites have something in common with the Nazarites who also abstained from all fruit of the vine. There is no indication, however, that the Rechabites did not cut their hair or avoided contact with dead bodies as was the case with the Nazarites.
[307] The use of the Hebrew imperfect in the Rechabite refusal implies customary action and can be translated: We never drink wine.
The Rechabites were a people who desired the simple pastoral life. But there is more involved. By their practices they were protesting the corruption which they observed in the sedentary population about them. The excessive drinking and wild harvest-time orgies associated with Baal worship were repulsive to Jonadab. Since Baal was an agricultural deity, the god of the farmer, Jonadab refused to allow members of his clan to sow seed, to plant or to own vineyards. By their austerity the Rechabites were a constant rebuke to those Israelites who succumbed to the tantalizing temptation to join in the sensual worship of Baal. Like the Nazarites, the Rechabites set an example of commitment to God. Even when forced to temporarily seek the safety of Jerusalem, even when confronted by the command of a prophet within the house of God these noble nomads refused to compromise their convictions. Along with their meager belongings the Rechabites had brought their principles to the big city with them. Such convictions and courage were as rare in the sixth century before Christ as they are today. May God grant that the lives of His people today will be a perpetual protest against the debauchery and drunkenness of this world.
Jeremiah commends the Rechabites for being faithful to their vow. This does not, of course, mean that Jeremiah shared their sentiments in every respect or regarded their way of life as a model that all should follow. Jeremiah spent most of his life in Jerusalem, lived in a house, presumably drank wine (it was the common daily beverage), and owned land (Jer. 32:1-15). The main point here is that the faithful obedience of the Rechabites is pleasing to God. They were a living rebuke to a faithless and disobedient nation.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXXV.
(1) In the days Jehoiakim.The prophecy that follows carries us back over a period of about seventeen of years to the earlier period of the prophets life and work. Jerusalem was not yet besieged. Jehoiakim had not filled up the measure of his iniquities. The armies of the Chaldans were, however, in the meantime moving on the outskirts of the kingdom of Judah (Jer. 35:11) or were driving the nomad inhabitants, who had hitherto dwelt in tents, to take refuge in the cities. The first capture of the city by Nebuchadnezzar was in B.C. 607.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES A COUNTERPART OF THAT OF ISRAEL, Jer 35:1-11.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jeremiah Call The Rechabites To A Gathering And Offers Them Wine ( Jer 35:1-11 ).
Jer 35:1
‘The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying,’
Here YHWH had sent His word through Jeremiah ‘in the days of Jehoiakim’. The time note is deliberately general and not specific. It is emphasising that the disobedience being described was common throughout the reign of Jehoiakim.
Jer 35:2
“Go to the house of the Rechabites, and speak to them, and bring them into the house of YHWH, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.”
‘The house of the Rechabites’ may here be the equivalent of ‘the family of’ as it is in Jer 35:3. Or it may refer to the house in which they were living as paralleled with ‘the house of YHWH’, emphasising that the Rechabites were now living in ‘a house’, contrary to their principles. It may have been for this last reason that YHWH put them to a further test so as to demonstrate that they were being loyal to their father’s requirements, in spite of living in a house, for Jeremiah was called on to invite them into the house of YHWH, ‘into one of the chambers’, and there to give them wine to drink. There were many side chambers in the court of the Temple where important people resided.
Jer 35:3
‘Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites,’
It is noteworthy in the description of those whom he invited to the house of YHWH that both they and their fathers all have ‘Yah’ in their names. (The mention of a Jeremiah is purely coincidental). We know nothing further about these people, only that they appear to be dedicated to YHWH. ‘Brothers’ and ‘sons’ may be intended literally, or may refer to wider relationships (he would not for example exclude the sons of his brothers) like e.g. ‘sons of the prophets’. The name Jaazaniah was found on a seal discovered at Tel en-Nasbeh from c. 600 AD
Jer 35:4
‘And I brought them into the house of YHWH, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the threshold.’
Jeremiah here clearly had the use of a chamber in the Temple which was in the possession of a fellow-prophet (a ‘man of God’) called Hanan, demonstrating that not all prophets were to be seen as false at this stage. Hanan was distinguished enough to have his chamber ‘by the chamber of the princes’ (used by the princes when visiting the Temple) and above that of the ‘keeper of the threshold’. The keeper of the threshold was an important post in the Temple. He was not just a doorkeeper but one of three high officials whose responsibility it was to ensure that no unauthorised or unclean persons entered the Temple area (Jer 52:24; 2Ki 25:18). He thus had high authority. ‘The sons of Hanan’ were probably Hanan’s trainee prophets.
It appears that Jeremiah was trying to give the appearance of bringing together two groups of religious zealots who were in sympathy with him, thus disarming the Rechabites who might otherwise have wondered what he was about.
Jer 35:5
‘And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites bowls full of wine, and cups, and I said to them, “Drink you wine.”
Once they were gathered he brought out drinking cups and wine bowls and invited the Rechabites to partake (along presumably with the ‘sons of Hanan’). Note the wider use of ‘sons’ here to signify all the Rechabites. It was a typical prophetic acted out parable for Jeremiah no doubt knew what to expect.
Jer 35:6-7
‘But they said, “We will drink no wine, for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, ‘You shall drink no wine, neither you, nor your sons, for ever, nor shall you build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any, but all your days you shall dwell in tents, that you may live many days in the land in which you sojourn.’ ”
The Rechabites stood firm by their convictions. They refused to drink wine on the grounds that their ancestor Jonadab, the son of Rechab, had commanded them to avoid the drinking of wine in perpetuity, along with the avoidance of all the other trappings of civilisation mentioned. They were not to live in houses or involve themselves in the kind of settled life which allowed time for grain to grow and vineyards to flourish. Rather they were to live a healthy life in tents, moving from one place to another, thus living healthy and long lives and surviving for many days. The aim would appear to have been to avoid the temptations of civilisation so that they might remain true to YHWH, copying the life of Israel when they were in the wilderness, and of course following the nomadic life of their own ancestors. The covenant that Jonadab had made may well have been a reaction to the ‘civilisation’ introduced by Jezebel, for they were probably already living in this way in accordance with their own lifestyle. Jonadab seemingly turned it into a ‘virtue’. The fact that Jehu had sought an alliance with Jonadab suggests that in his day the Rechabites were admired by the common people because of their simple way of living which was a reminder of ‘the great days in the wilderness’. (Note how these Kenites were now seen as native-born Israelites)
In fact by living the kind of lifestyle that they did wine would not be as important for them as it would be for people in cities, for they could move camp regularly and could always ensure that they encamped by a pure spring. In contrast those who lived in cities often had to depend on water from cisterns which as it became staler and more fouled was unpleasant to drink to say the least. In such circumstances wine was a more pleasant, and often even a more necessary, alternative. (Compare Paul’s advice to Timothy in Ephesus where the water was notorious for giving people sickness – 1Ti 5:23).
Jer 35:8-10
“And we have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, or our daughters, nor to build houses for us to dwell in, nor have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed, but we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.”
They stressed their loyalty to the requirements laid down by their ‘father’ in everything that he had required of them, a loyalty which was carried on in the family tradition. There was no loose living among the Rechabites. They lived disciplined lives and were obedient to the covenant by which they had been bound.
Jer 35:11
“But it came about, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, ‘Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians,’ so we dwell at Jerusalem.”
They were aware, however, that their claim appeared a little incongruous in the light of the fact that they were actually dwelling in houses in Jerusalem, so they pointed out that the only reason why they were living in Jerusalem was because they had sought refuge there from invaders. They wanted Jeremiah to know that the single reason for their presence was their fear of the armies of the Chaldeans and the Aramaeans who were harassing the land of Judah and would simply have gobbled up the Rechabites. Once they had gone the Rechabites would return to their previous way of living.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Rechabites Are Held Up As An Example Of Obedience To Their Father ( Jer 35:1-19 ).
Commencing with the words, ‘The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH in the days of Jehoiakim,’ the passage demonstrates that YHWH was using the example of the Rechabites as an illustration of the obedience which was the very opposite of Judah’s disobedience, a disobedience which would result in judgment coming on Judah and Jerusalem. The fact that the Rechabites had continually from generation to generation, for over two hundred and fifty years, faithfully followed the requirements of their father concerning their way of life, is contrasted with the way in which God’s supposed people had treated their Father and His requirements for their way of life (see Jer 31:9; Jer 31:20). As in the last passage the idea is once again to bring out their overall disobedience.
The Rechabites were related to the Kenites (1Ch 2:55), a wilderness tribe who had joined up with Israel while they were making their journey from Egypt to Canaan (Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11; Num 10:29-32), and in obedience to their tribal father’s requirements they had refused to settle in cities, but had lived in tents and had abstained from all forms of wine and strong liqueur. Nor had they engaged in settled agriculture. Their aim had been to maintain their wilderness traditions and not to become contaminated by ‘civilisation’ and idolatry. Indeed the only reason that they were in Jerusalem at all was because they were seeking refuge there from the invading Babylonians and Aramaeans (Syrians).
As the invasion described here was in the days of Jehoiakim, it could not have been the one occurring during the final days of Judah. It was thus referring to a previous invasion by Nebuchadnezzar when he had specifically called on Aramaean forces. It could have been the invasion of 606/605 BC after Nebuchadnezzar had defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish and Hamath, but more likely it is the one later in the days of Jehoiakim when Jehoiakim had withheld tribute (2Ki 24:1-2).
The ancestor of the Rechabites, Jonadab, had in the past demonstrated their fierce loyalty to YHWH when he had supported Jehu in destroying all the worshippers of Baal (2Ki 10:15-27).
As previously in chapters 21-24 events which took place in the reign of Jehoiakim and other kings are here sandwiched between two passages referring to the reign of Zedekiah, the aim being to bring out that the final invasion was the result of, a long period of disobedience which preceded it. Here it brings out that their disobedience, previously reflected, was of a long standing nature.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
SECTION 2 ( Jer 26:1 to Jer 45:5 ).
Whilst the first twenty five chapters of Jeremiah have mainly been a record of his general prophecies, mostly given during the reigns of Josiah and Jehoiakim, and have been in the first person, this second section of Jeremiah (Jer 26:1 to Jer 45:5) is in the third person, includes a great deal of material about the problems that Jeremiah faced during his ministry and provides information about the opposition that he continually encountered. This use of the third person was a device regularly used by prophets so that it does not necessarily indicate that it was not directly the work of Jeremiah, although in his case we actually have good reason to think that much of it was recorded under his guidance by his amanuensis and friend, Baruch (Jer 36:4).
It can be divided up as follows:
1. Commencing With A Speech In The Temple Jeremiah Warns Of What Is Coming And Repudiates The Promises Of The False Prophets (Jer 26:1 to Jer 29:32).
2. Promises Are Given Of Eventual Restoration And Of A New Covenant Written In The Heart (Jer 30:1 to Jer 33:26).
3. YHWH’s Continuing Word of Judgment Is Given Through Jeremiah And Its Repercussions Leading Up To The Fall Of Jerusalem Are Revealed (Jer 34:1 to Jer 39:18).
4. Events Subsequent To The Fall Of Jerusalem (Jer 40:1 to Jer 45:5).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
SECTION 2 ( Jer 26:1 to Jer 45:5 ). (continued).
As we have previously seen this Section of Jeremiah from Jer 26:1 to Jer 45:5 divides up into four main subsections, which are as follows:
1. Commencing With A Speech In The Temple Jeremiah Warns Of What Is Coming And Repudiates The Promises Of The False Prophets (Jer 26:1 to Jer 29:32).
2. Following The Anguish To Come Promises Are Given Of Eventual Restoration, Central To Which is A New Covenant Written In The Heart And The Establishment Of A Shoot (Branch) Of David On His Throne (Jer 30:1 to Jer 33:26).
3. YHWH’s Continuing Word of Judgment Is Given Through Jeremiah, The Continuing Disobedience Of The People Is Brought Out, And Jeremiah’s Resulting Experiences Leading Up To The Fall Of Jerusalem Are Revealed (Jer 34:1 to Jer 38:28).
4. The Fall Of Jerusalem And Events Subsequent To It Are Described (Jer 39:1 to Jer 45:5).
We have already commented on Subsections 1). in Jeremiah 4 and subsection 2). in Jeremiah 5. We must now therefore consider subsection 3). This subsection deals with various experiences of Jeremiah (although not in chronological order) in the days of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.
Section 2 Subsection 3. YHWH’s Continuing Word of Judgment Is Given Through Jeremiah, The Continuing Disobedience Of The People Is Brought Out, And Jeremiah’s Resulting Experiences Leading Up To The Fall Of Jerusalem Are Revealed ( Jer 34:1 to Jer 38:28 ).
The promise of future restoration having been laid out Jeremiah now returns to the current situation with Jerusalem under threat. He demonstrates the different ways in which YHWH has been rejected, and treated with contempt by 1). a hypocritical pretence of obedience to the covenant, which is reneged on, 2). a treating of YHWH’s Fatherhood with contempt by the people, something which is in stark contrast with the obedience and reverence shown by the Rechabites to their father, 3). a burning of YHWH’s very word in a brazier, and 4). a continuing misuse of YHWH’s prophet. All this but confirms YHWH’s prophecies of judgment against Jerusalem,
The subsection divides up easily into five parts, each of which is opened by a crucial phrase, thus:
1. 34:1-7 ‘The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH when Nebuchadnezzar — fought against Jerusalem and all its cities.’ This was a word declaring that Jerusalem would be destroyed and Zedekiah would be carried off to Babylon and meet Nebuchadnezzar face to face. There he will die ‘in peace’ and be lamented by his nobles.
2. 34:8-22 ‘The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people at Jerusalem to proclaim freedom to them.’ Zedekiah having persuaded the more wealthy in Jerusalem to enter into a covenant before YHWH to set free their Hebrew slaves, thus fulfilling the Sinai covenant, the more wealthy do so, but once the danger appears to be past, change their minds and re-enslave them, bringing down on themselves the renewed wrath of YHWH and the certainty of Babylonian subjection.
3. 35:1-19 ‘The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH in the days of Jehoiakim.’ YHWH uses the example of the Rechabites as an illustration of a filial obedience to their father, which is the very opposite of Judah’s disobedience to their Father, something which will result in judgment coming on Judah and Jerusalem.
4. 36:1-32 ‘And it came about in the fourth year of Jehoiakim — this word came to Jeremiah from YHWH.’ Jeremiah records his prophecies in a book in the days of Jehoiakim, prophecies which impress the nobles, but which are treated with disdain by Jehoiakim and his associates, resulting in Jehoiakim cutting up the ‘leaves’ of the book and burning them, thereby bringing judgment on himself.
5. 37:1-38:28 ‘And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah — but did not listen to the words YHWH which He spoke by the prophet Jeremiah.’ YHWH’s prophet is rejected. Jeremiah warns the king not to expect deliverance through the approaching Egyptian army, and on seeking to visit his hometown during a lull in the siege is accused of attempted desertion and is shut up in prison, although there he is surreptitiously consulted by Zedekiah. His various sufferings, resulting from his prophesying, including a near death experience, are described, and he ends up in the royal prison where he is comparatively well treated.
It will be noted from this that after the initial warning of the success of the Babylonians there is a continuing emphasis on the growing disobedience towards, and rejection of, YHWH and His covenant. This is illustrated firstly by the breaking of a solemn covenant made by the people, a covenant in which they guaranteed to free their Hebrew slaves as required by the Sinaitic covenant, something which they subsequently reneged on; secondly by a disobedience which is shown to be the direct opposite of the obedience of the Rechabites (who sought to be faithful to the principles of wilderness days) to their father; thirdly by the disrespect shown to YHWH’s prophecies as written down by Jeremiah when Jehoiakim contemptuously burned them in a brazier; and fourthly by the continual disrespect shown to Jeremiah himself in his various imprisonments. The growth in intensity of the disobedience as each chapter progresses (breach of the ancient covenant, falling short of a righteous example presented before their very eyes, burning the currently received word of YHWH, and finally misusing the prophet of YHWH because of his up to date prophecies), helps to explain why the prophecies have been put in this order.
We may also see here a deliberate attempt to sandwich between two references to the approaching end and to Zedekiah’s reign, reasons as to why that end is necessary from earlier days. This follows a similar pattern to chapters 21-24 which also sandwiched earlier situations between two examples of the days of Zedekiah.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Fact
v. 1. The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, v. 2. Go unto the house of the Rechabites, v. 3. Then I took Jaazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites, v. 4. and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, v. 5. and I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. v. 6. But they said, We will drink no wine; for Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons, forever, v. 7. neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any, v. 8. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he hath charged us, v. 9. nor to build houses for us to dwell in; neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed; v. 10. but we have dwelt in tents and have obeyed and done according to all that Jonadab, our father, commanded us.
v. 11. But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up into the land,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
The third member of this group of short prophecies. In it, Jeremiah points to the faithful obedience of the Rechabites, as putting to shame the infidelity of Judahites. It belongs obviously to the time before the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps to the summer of B.C. 606. (See Dr. Plumptre’s poem, “The House of the Rechabites,” part 2, in ‘Lazarus and other Poems.’)
Jer 35:2
The house of the Rechabites (“house” equivalent to “family”). From a notice in 1Ch 2:55 it appears that the Rechabites were a subdivision of the Kenites, the nomad tribe so closely connected with the Israelites (Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:18-22; comp. Num 10:29), especially with the tribe of Judah (1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29). The names of Jonadab and of Jaazaniah and his progenitors (which include the sacred Name), together with the zeal of Jonadab for the worship of Jehovah (2Ki 10:15, 2Ki 10:23), seem to indicate that the religion of the Rechabites approximated closely to that of the Israelites. There seem, in fact, to have been two branches of the Kenitesone having Edomitish, the other Israelitish, affinities. Records of the former still exist in the Sinaitic inscriptions, and in the Arabian histories; indeed, there is still a tribe called Benu-l-Qain (often contracted into Belqein) in the Belqa (the ancient land of Ammon); and it would seem that there is an Arab tribe in Arabia Petraea, eastward of Kerak, which traces itself to Heber the Kenite. and goes by the name of Yehud Chebr, though it now denies any connection with Jews. There were also Jews of Khaibar, near Mecca, who played an important part in the early history of Islam. Into one of the chambers. There were many “chambers” of different sizes attached to the temple, and employed partly for stores, partly for councils and assemblies, partly for guard chambers, and other official purposes. In Jer 36:10 we even find a private person occupying one of the “chambers.” That into which Jeremiah conducted the Rechabites was, no doubt, one of the largest size; it was appropriated to the use of a single priestly familythe “sons of Hanan” (verse 4).
Jer 35:4
A man of God. The title, according to Hebrew usage, belongs to Hanan, not to his father, and means “prophet” (see e.g. 1Ki 12:22); comp. Plumptre
“There the chamber stands
Where Hanan’s followers gather up the words
Their master speaks.”
The chamber of the princes; i.e. the room “where the princes,” i.e. the most distinguished laymen, especially the “elders of the people,” assembled before the temple services. Maaseiah the son of Shallum. Probably the father of Zephaniah, “the second [or, ‘deputy’] priest” (Jer 52:24), himself a functionary of high rank, as he is called a keeper of the door (or rather, threshold). There were three of these “keepers,” corresponding to the number of the gates of the temple, and they ranked immediately after the high priest and his deputy (Jer 52:24); comp.” I had rather be a doorkeeper,” etc; in one of the Korahite psalms (Psa 84:10).
Jer 35:5
Pots full of wine; rather, bowls, large round vessels (crateres), out of which the drinking cups were filled.
Jer 35:6
Jonadab the son of Rechab our father. Jonadab (the contemporary of King John) is here called the “father” of the Rechabites (comp. Jer 35:14, Jer 35:16), in the same sense in which the disciples of the prophets are called the “sons of the prophets;” he was a teacher, if not (in some sense) a prophet. This illustrates the uncompromising zeal of Jonadab in 2Ki 10:23; the religion of Baal was probably at the opposite pole in the matter of luxury to that of Jehovah as practised by Jonadab.
“Not for you the life
Of sloth and ease within the city’s gates,
Where idol feasts are held, and incense smokes
To Baalim and Ashtaroth; where man
Loses his manhood, and the scoffers sit
Perverting judgment, selfish, soft, impure.”
(Plumptre.)
Ye shall drink no wine, etc. The Rechabites were, in fact, typical Arabs. The Wahhabee movement, in our own century, may be taken as partly parallel, though, of course, a settled life is not one of the abominations of the neo-orthodox Islam. A still more complete parallel is given by Diodorus Siculus (19.94), who states it to be the law of the Nabataeans, “neither to sow corn, nor to plant any fruit-bearing herb, nor to drink wine, nor to prepare houses,” and gives as the motive of this the preservation of their independence.
Jer 35:11
And for fear of the army of the Syrians. We are expressly told in 2Ki 24:2 that, after the rebellion of Jehoiakim, “bands of Syrians” made incursions into Judah.
Jer 35:12
Then came the word of the Lord, etc. The substance of the severe address which follows must have been delivered in one of the outer courts of the temple, when Jeremiah had left the Rechabites.
Jer 35:16
Because, etc. This rendering is against Hebrew usage, and any reader will see that the obedience of the Rechabites stands in no inner connection with the sentence pronounced upon Judah. Jer 35:16 is rather an emphatic recapitulation of what has preceded. It runs literally, (I say) that the sons of Jonadab have performed, etc; but (that) this people hath not hearkened unto me; or, in more English phraseology, “Yea, the sons of Jonadab,” etc.
Jer 35:18, Jer 35:19
A promise to the Rechabites (perhaps removed from its original connection). The form of the promise is remarkable; it runs, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me forever. The phrase is, as Dr. Plumptre remarks, “all but essentially liturgical. It is used of the Levites (Deu 10:8; Deu 18:5, Deu 18:7), of the worship of the patriarchs (Gen 19:27), of the priests (1Ki 8:11; 2Ch 29:11; Neh 7:65), of prophets (1Ki 18:15), of priests and Levites together (Psa 134:1; Psa 135:2).” It is, however, rash, perhaps, to maintain, with the same acute scholar, that the Rechabites were adopted into the tribe of Levi. The phrase may be simply chosen to indicate the singular favour with which Jehovah regarded the Rechabitesa favour only to be compared to that accorded to his most honoured servants among the Israelitesthe patriarchs, the priests, and the prophets.
HOMILETICS
Jer 35:1-11
The Rechabites.
A curious interest attaches to these singular people, whose relation to the settled life of the Jews may be compared to that of the gipsies in modern Europe. They were nomads in the midst of cities, preserving the habits of the desert among all the scenes of civilization. But they were in some respects strikingly superior to their more civilized neighboursa people whose simplicity and abstemiousness was a living rebuke to the debased luxury of the times. Three leading characteristics of the Rechabites are worthy of special note.
I. THEIR NOMADIC HABITS. It is refreshing to meet these quiet, simple people after wearying ourselves with sickening sights of the vice and hyprocrisy of the court and city life of Jerusalem. We are inclined to think too much of external civilization. Making allowance for exaggerations and eccentricities, we may find some much needed lessons in the protest of Mr. Ruskin against the industrial ideal of the age. Inventions, commerce, wealth,these are but means to an end. What is the use of the working of wonderful machinery if the outcome is poor and profitless? Many a man’s business is a Frankenstein which becomes a tyrant to him. By others the science and resources of the age are only used as ministers to selfish pleasures. Thus the men and women may be none the better for all the advance that is made in the material appliances of the most complex civilization. Yet the personal condition of these men and women, and not that of the machinery of life, is the one matter of final importance. The quieter, simpler life of the Rechabites had many points which it would be instructive for us to consider. It was out of all the rush and worry of town life. It was calm and comparatively free from care. With few wants, the Rechabites had few anxieties. Are we so much better off than they in this respect? Then, as a wandering life, it was a reminder of the truth, so often forgotten to our serious harm, that all men who live a life higher than the earthly must be pilgrims and strangers here, and must “seek” a better country, that is, a “heavenly.” The man of the world is rooted to the earth; and is there not a danger lest many of us should be so absorbed in the busy pursuits of the world as to neglect greater interests, or so satisfied with earthly possessions as to forget that this is not our rest?
II. THEIR ABSTEMIOUSNESS. These Rechabites were the prototypes of the modern teetotalers. They were no ascetics. They made no pretence to the peculiar holiness of the “self-imposed worship” of “dealing hardly with the body” (Col 2:23). On the contrary, they were probably a cheerful and unpretentious people, finding more human happiness in a simple abstemious life than the citizens of Jerusalem could ever discover in the unwholesome luxuries of a corrupt civilization. They teach a lesson which our age greatly needs. We may differ as to the necessity or desirability of total abstinence from wine and such things. But all of us should feel the terrible danger that comes from the enervating influence of luxury. In the present day we see little of “plain living and high thinking.” Life is both eager and materialistic. It would be well if we could deny ourselves more, that there should be less grossness about our habits, dragging us down from the calm heights of spirituality.
III. THEIR CHANGELESSNESS. The Rechabites are like the Arabs of the desert who were contemporaries of the Pharaohs, and who live now just as they lived in the days of Abraham. Where shall we find such staunch conservatives? Now, of course, we Western Christians believe in a principle of progress, and rightly set ourselves to realize it. But in the pursuit we may lose something that the Rechabites retained. Mere change is not progress, and a restless love of change endangers the fruitfulness of measures which take time to ripen. On the other hand, there is a true loyalty to the past, a just fidelity to our forefathers. At all events, it is grand to see a people independent of passing fashions, bold to resist the spirit of the age when they think that wrong for them, and firm in their own convictions and determinations. Such conduct is bracing to witness; unhappily it is not common.
Jer 35:11-17
Filal obedience.
The filial obedience of the Rechabites is here adduced as a rebuke to the people of Israel for their disobedience to their Father in heaven.
I. WE OWE A DUTY OF FILIAL OBEDIENCE TO GOD. Obligation corresponds to privilege; peculiar relationship involves peculiar duties. If God is our Father, we owe special obedience to God on account of our relationship with him. The doctrine of the fatherhood of God is no excuse for the relaxation of the fidelity which we felt to be obligatory so long as he was regarded only as our supreme Ruler. Instead of making us more careless, this doctrine should increase the assiduity of our devotion. Strict religionists who dread the moral effects of the modern broad enunciation of this great truth, and lax self-indulgent people who fancy it will allow them to defy the Law of God at pleasure, both fall into a grievous mistake. The father has rights over his children possessed by no one else, and they owe obedience to him as to no other person. This was recognized and carried out much further in the ancient world than it is among us.
1. It is based on nature; the child naturally belongs to the parent.
2. It is increased by experience. For years the child is wholly dependent on his parents. Helpless, and needing constant attention, he finds in them sustenance, protection, and happiness. Parental anxiety, labour, and sacrifice should bind the children by ties of deepest gratitude. Repayment is impossible, nor is it expected; but the least that can be done is to offer, obedience.
3. It is recognized by law. The old Roman law gave the father absolute power over the life of his child. Modem law, though it interferes more with the relations of the family, sanctions wide parental fights. Now, if God is our Father, similar obligations bind us to filial obedience to him over and above the obligation we may feel to his Law, his holiness, and his supremacy (Mal 1:6).
II. THE NEGLECT OF FILIAL OBEDIENCE TO GOD IS REBUKED BY THE NEGLECT OF FILIAL OBEDIENCE TO MEN. The Rechabites were a rebuke to the Israelites. Yet the Israelites had less excuse for disobeying their heavenly Father than the Rechabites would have had for neglecting the ordinances of their ancestor. Matthew Henry clearly indicates the points of contrast somewhat as follows. I give his thoughts with abridgment:
1. The Rechabites were obedient to one who was but a man; but the Jews were disobedient to an infinite and eternal God.
2. Jonadab was long since dead, and could neither take cognizance of their disobedience nor give correction for it; but God lives forever to see how his laws are observed, and to punish disobedience.
3. The Rechabites were never put in mind of their obligations to their father; but God often sent his prophets to his people, “rising early and speaking,” etc.
4. Jonadab never did that for his seed which God had done for his people; he left them a charge, out left them no estate to bear the charge; but God had given his people a good land, etc.
5. God did not tie up his people to so much hardship as Jonadab required of his descendants; and yet Jonadab’s orders were obeyed, and God’s were not.
HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR
Jer 35:1-6
Termination by Divine command.
I. SO FAR AS IT WENT IT WAS REAL. The scene and the circumstances of authority and religious sanction given to the invitation were calculated to influence the mind. The “pots full of wine” were also an appeal to the eye. God has tried his servants often, but with no intention of making them fall. He tried Job, Abraham, David, etc. He often does this by his providence, the withholding of his grace, etc.
II. IT WAS DONE WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT THE TEMPTATION WOULD BE RESISTED. The same wisdom that devised the incident knew what would be its issue. We are assured of God that he tempteth no man (Jas 1:13), and that he will not suffer men to be tempted beyond their ability to resist (1Co 10:13). Yet God is continually testing and trying his people, that they may discover their own weaknesses and apply to him for succour.
III. A GREAT END WAS TO BE SERVED. The scene is dramatic and carefully arranged, that it may be publicly impressive. The lesson to be learnt on this occasion is not that of temperance, but simply of filial obedience in one of its most singular and emphatic illustrations. To Israel the lesson was a comparative one. They were put to shame by the steadfastness of men who had no such exalted Person to obey in the matter of their peculiar customs, but who yet had unswervingly adhered to it. Israel, with all the reasons for a similar fidelity, had been weak and fickle, and finally apostate. Men are tried, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of others. The patience of the saints is a potent reason for our patience and obedience. Christ himself is the Example and Inspiration for all mankind. He was faithful when he was tempted by. circumstances infinitely more trying than any that can assail us; and his power is at our disposal when we ask for it.M.
Jer 35:6-10
The filial obedience of the Rechabites.
There is something very remarkable in this simple history. Originally aliens in race (1Ch 2:55), they gained a place in the land of Israel (Jdg 1:16). Jonadab the son of Rechab, the ancestor of the race, was the true founder of the family. His character was so high that Jehu affected his company in order to gain esteem from the people (2Ki 10:15, 2Ki 10:16). From him their ascetic rule of life was received, and they had continued to observe it with unswerving strictness. We have here an illustration of
I. AN EXAGGERATED VIRTUE.
1. Their asceticism was a real virtue. In its various elements of temperance, simplicity, and hardihood, it presents a most exemplary and attractive aspect. It must have tended to holiness and happiness. It would be well for the men of our own day were they to imitate this race in these respects. Most of our social evils are easily traceable to the influence of intemperance, luxury, etc. It was a noble ideal nobly realized; yet:
2. It was exaggerated beyond natural limits. This is the penalty of those who rigidly observe one mode of life. Excellent as that may be at the first, and, as a whole, may still continue to be, it gets out of joint with the advancing customs of the age, isolates its votaries from the general current of the national life, and stereotypes the degree of civilization or barbarism which gave it birth. In its rigid observance it leads to anachronisms, inconveniences, etc. Its accidental features become more noticeable than its essential ones. Unless grounded on sufficient reasons and continually referred to these, unless adapted in its accidental features to the changing circumstances of the world,it tends to become unreal, and to produce unreal moral distinctions. There is something of weakness to be detected in the explanation of their presence in Jerusalem (Jer 35:11). They were out of place.
3. The secret of this was float it was founded upon an exaggerated sentiment. Asceticism is in itself neither good nor bad. It receives its real moral importance from the motives and aims that underlie it. In this instance the motive was excellent so far as it was legitimate, but it was clothed with a factitious sacredness and obligation. Consistently carried out, such a principle would stay all progress and sanction the most horrible crimes. That their ancestor had enjoined their mode of life was hardly a sufficient reason for it, and the motive of policy with which he had commanded it was not an exalted one. The true justification for a peculiar mode of life, especially when of this trying description, must be found in the great human and spiritual aims which religionespecially in its later evangelical phasepresents for our achievement. To guard the weakness of a brother, to further the moral and religious welfare of men, and to glorify God by holiness and unselfishness of conduct, are aims that may be ours if we will
II. A MAGNIFIED PERSONAL INFLUENCE. The hold this man obtained over the conduct of his descendants through so many generations was most remarkable. A man or marked character, great reputation for sanctity, wisdom, and power of impressing others with his peculiar views, forms a conception of what life ought to be, especially for those who, like his own family, are strangers living on sufferance in the midst of another people. The Eastern feeling of respect for parents and reverence for ancestors and of the sacredness of tradition and custom associates itself with his teaching and example, and soon his rule of life becomes a fixed, ineradicable principle amongst his descendants far more potent than any law of the statute-book. This shows:
1. The power of personal influence. “Influence is the best kind of power.” It belongs more or less to all of us; and we shall be held responsible for its legitimate increase and direction. The influence of any one of us is probably both greater and less than he suspects. It is a natural and proper instinct for man to seek this moral power, and the relations of life afford many opportunities for acquiring and exercising it. Parents.
2. The importance of securing that our influence shall be of the right kind. Ultimate results and effects must be left to God; but we have to do with our own character and aims, and with the known tendency of the means at our disposal. We should seek that our influence should be of the very highest kind. It is better to discover moral principles and’ communicate spiritual inspirations than merely to initiate a custom. Jonadab’s influence was on the whole very salutary, but it was not of the highest kind, because he did not famish his imitators with a morally sufficient motive. So fixed and mechanical, indeed, had their obedience become that they appeared to have more regard to his precept than for the direct command of God (Jer 35:5). In this respect Jesus Christ is immeasurably his superior. His precepts are self-evident, and commended by his own personal example. He did not appeal to mere self-preservation, but to the noblest moral instincts and principles of our nature. We are not coerced by the personality of Jesus, but persuaded by the sweet reasonableness of his doctrine and Spirit. Influence like this may be slower in making its way, but in the end it is sure to be more lasting and universal.M.
Jer 35:18, Jer 35:19
The blessing of the Rechabites.
I. WHAT IT INCLUDED. It is very startling to find that their blessing is precisely that which is pronounced upon the spiritual Israel of the future. There are two factors in the blessing.
1. Continuity of the fatally.
2. Perpetuation of its religious standing and moral character: “To stand before me forever. It is said that descendants of the Rechabites have been discovered in Yocan, and that they still observe the strict regimen of their forefathers.
II. WHY IT WAS BESTOWED. The reason given is simple enough, viz. their filial obedience; hut it hardly seems to account for the character of the blessing. It is manifest that the bestowal of such a blessing is not to be taken as implying that their conduct had attained to the highest moral standard. But it is significant that the fifth commandment, enjoining this very duty, should be the first with promise. Why is emphasis laid upon filial obedience in the Old and New Testaments? Is it not because the sentiment of filial affection and respect is a necessary antecedent and preparative for the love of God, which is the supreme and universal law of life? Of the latter it is the shadow and type. Secondary occasions for the solemn utterance of the blessing on this occasion were probably found in
(1) the fact that their conduct had furnished a signal reproof of the apostasy of the nation from its true, eternal Father;
(2) that they acted up to the light which they had; and
(3) that the principle of filial obedience, and the habits of temperance which in their case it had enjoined, were thereby more powerfully commended to the observance of men.M.
Jer 35:5, Jer 35:6
Fathers of temperance
“Intertwined with the history of Israel is that of a wild and independent tribe of Kenites. When the western Israelites abandoned the roving Arab life to settle in the cities of Canaan, the Kenites still retained their pastoral habits. One of the characteristics which we trace in their history was a fierce resentment against oppression and idolatry. It was a Kenite woman, Jael, who smote Sisera, even in her own tent. It was a Kenite sheik, Jonadab, the son of Rechab, who washed his fierce hands in the blood of Baal’s worshippers and Ahab’s house (1Ki 16:1-34.).” The free and eager air of the desert had passed into their lives, and they loved it dearly, and determined never to abandon it, especially when they saw the rum wrought by the oppression and luxury which were overspreading the inhabitants of the cities they knew most of. Hence the Rechabite vow. But the triumphant march of the vast squadrons of Nebuchadnezzar swept the deserts as well as the cities which lay in his way. And for the time even the hardy Kenites were compelled to set up their tents within the walls of Jerusalem. To them God sent Jeremiah, that he might test and behold and then declare their fidelity to their ancient vow. Amid a population given to excess and gluttony, their total abstinence from wine and their temperate habits could not but excite attention, as much as the strange sight of their black tents pitched in the open spaces and squares of the city. intimation was given to Jeremiah to teach from their obedience a lesson on the disobedience of the people amid whom they were sojourning. “Inviting these rude and faithful Bedouins into a chamber of the temple, he gave them the invitation which the revellers of Jerusalem would only have been too eager to accept, ‘Drink ye wine.’ But the Rechabites were not to be tempted. They had adopted their law of temperance at the bidding of a mighty ancestor, as a protection against the temptation of cities. They continued it because conscience approved and health rewarded a noble choice. Broken onceeven to please a prophet of the Lordit might be broken again, and soon the glory of their race would have fled. Therefore they at once replied, plainly, even bluntly, ‘We will drink no wine; for,’ etc.” Now, learn from this
I. GOD SANCTIONS THE TEMPERANCE VOW. (Cf. verse 18,) How many and manifold are these sanctions! By the rewards of obedience thereto; by the doom which follows disobedience to the laws of temperance; by his providence and his Spirit speaking within; by the laws of health, of thrift, of social well being, of conscience; by sanctions negative and positive alike; by the example of some of the foremost and best of men, and by his Word;by all, he witnesses in favour of the temperance vow.
II. AND THERE IS SORE NEED FOR IT. “If I were to tell you,” says one, “that there is in the British Isles a being into whose treasuries are annually poured in unproductive consumption more than one hundred and forty millions of our national wealth; whose actions crush year by year more victims than have been crushed for centuries together by the car of Juggernaut; whose unchecked power causes year by year horrors incomparably more multitudinous than those which the carnage of any battlefields can present; if I were to say that the services wrought by this being were, if any at all, which is an open question, yet almost valueless in kind, infinitesimal in extent, while, on the other hand, the direct admitted indisputable miseries he inflicts were terrible in virulence and vast in ramification; if I were to say that at his right hand and at his left, as eager and ever active ministers, stood Idiocy and Pauperism, Degradation and Brutality; and at that point you were all to rise up at once and cry aloud, ‘Tell us the name of this being, that we may drive him with execration from the midst of us, and that every one of us may strive to extirpate his power and expel his polluting footsteps from our soil;’ and if I were to say that, far from doing this, we all as a nation, and nearly all of us as individuals, crown him with garlands, honour him with social customs, introduce him into gladdest gatherings, sing songs in his glory, build myriads of temples to his service, familiarize our very children with his fame and praise;were I to say this, then sentence by sentence, clause by clause, word by word, it would be literally true, not of a man, but of a thing, and that thing intoxicating drink.”
III. HOW MAY WE FURTHER THE TEMPERANCE CAUSE? Certainly there is no help equal to that of taking this vow ourselves. If, wherever we are, we will touch not, taste not, handle not, on the ground that we regard it as the curse of this land, that entire abstinence will speak more eloquently than aught beside. And besides this, train your children as Jonadab trained his; command them, saying, “Ye shall drink no wine.” A generation so trained, what a difference they would make on the side of temperance and all that is good! Never allow a sneer at those who have taken the temperance vow. Strike at the aids and abettors of intemperance, such as badly drained, ill-lighted, comfortless, unventilated houses; lack of means of reasonable recreation and amusement; want of education and leisure, etc. Never treat drunkenness, however grotesque and absurd its forms, as a thing to be laughed at. We never really hate that at which we laugh. And let each one be sure that he does something in this great cause, that he comes “to the help of the Lord against the mighty.”C.
Jer 35:14
The children put to shame by the stranger.
The men of Judah were the children, inmates of God’s house, members especially of his family. These Rechabites, a wandering tribe of the desert, were the stranger. But their fidelity to the command laid upon them by their ancestor Jonadab is contrasted with and rebukes the shameful disregard of the laws of God, of which the men of Judah were so guilty. For near three hundred years the Rechabites had, out of regard for their father’s ordinance, adhered to their self-denying customs, and were adhering to them still, whilst God’s own people had set at nought all his counsel and would none of his Law.
I. OBSERVE THIS CONTRAST.
1. In the motives for obedience which existed on either side. The one was an earthly father, the other Divine; the one man, the other God. The one, long dead, and whose right to control the actions of his descendants had therefore lapsed; the other, the ever-living God, whose right is as eternal as himself. The one had given an arbitrary command against which much might have been urged; the other had given commands which reason, conscience, and experience alike consented to as wise and good.
2. In the nature of the obedience rendered. The one was full of self-deniala hard, stern law; the other contemplated life in a land flowing with milk and honey, and its ways were ways of pleasantness, and all its paths peace.
3. In the results of obedience. In the one, obedience had kept together a small, hardy tribe of half-barbarian herdsmen, without home, friends, religion, wealth, or any marked earthly good. In the other, obedience had been crowned with every blessing, so that all men confessed,” Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord.” And yet, notwithstanding the service of the Lord was every way better, that service was disregarded by his people, whilst the ill-requited obedience to a long deceased ancestor had been so faithfully maintained.
II. AND SUCH CONTRAST STILL EXISTS. Look at the obedience rendered to the laws of the Koran by the followers of Mahomet; to the laws of honour, of trade, of human masters; everywhere we may see human law obeyed, whilst. Divine are set at nought. The world can Command the prompt, implicit obedience of her votaries; but God calls, and no man answers.
III. EXPLAIN SUCH CONTRASTS. It is because to those who faithfully obey human laws the transient and inferior are as if they were eternal and supreme, whilst to those who profess to be bound by Divine laws the eternal and supreme are as if they were transient and inferior.
IV. WHAT DO SUCH FACTS SAY TO US? Seek the purged vision, that we may clearly see the relative values of things, that our estimates may be corrected, and so we may come to regard as “first” the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and “all other things” as secondary thereto.C.
Jer 35:15
C.
Jer 35:18, Jer 35:19
Rewards of filial piety.
We have an instance here. Literally, the promise annexed to the commandment, “Honour thy father,” etc; was fulfilled; for their “days were long in the land which the Lord their God gave them.” Now
I. THERE ARE SUCH REWARDS.
1. Promised in God’s Word (cf. passim).
2. Visible in happy home life.
3. Perpetuated in prosperous communities, nations, etc.
4. Sanctioned by the laws of nature, of man, and of God.
II. THEY ARE THE PRODUCTS AND PROOFS OF THE LOVE OF GOD TO MAN. Hence:
1. The heart of the parent is filled with love to his children.
2. This love leads to desire earnestly the child’s well being.
3. To secure this, God has given
(1) a responsive love in the heart of the child towards its parent;
(2) the instinct of trust;
(3) the direct sanctions of his Word, his Spirit, his providence, to strengthen and maintain that filial piety which so ministers to the good of all.
III. THE GREAT EXEMPLAR OF SUCH PIETY. Our Lord Jesus Christ. “I do always,” he said, “those things which please my Father.” As God is the realization of perfect fatherhood, so is the Lord Jesus Christ the embodiment of perfect sonship. That sonship was tested and tried as no human sonship ever can be, and it never failed, even under the pressure of the agony, the cross, the seeming abandonment. In him, therefore, we see our Model, and in his exaltation now our reward.C.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Jer 35:1-11
The power of a fathers command.
The Rechabite habit is, of course, brought forward here to contrast obedience to an earthly and arbitrary demand with the disobedience of Israel to heavenly and essentially righteous laws. But it is worth while to look into this Rechabite habit altogether, in its origin, its causes, its results, its power.
I. THE ORIGIN OF THIS HABIT. The only information we have here is that the habit originated in a command of Jonadab. But, of course, Jonadab must have had some reason seeming weighty to him; and on looking at 2Ki 10:1-36. we can make a shrewd guess as to the ends he had in view. He sees the sanguinary and extirpating zeal of Jehu against the scions of Ahab and the worshippers of Baal, and is it not fair to presume that he wished to guard his kinsfolk and posterity against falling into idolatry such as would involve a like terrible fate? Then it occurs to him that he can best do this by separating his people from the dwellers in Israel This can best be done by urging on them to live a wandering and pastoral life; and still again, the tent life is to be secured by separating the Rechabites from the Israelites in their pleasures. The Rechabite has his plain rule of conduct: “I drink no wine.” “Very well,” says the indulgent, idolatrous Israelite, “I care not for your company.” Idolatry was always connected with debauchery, sensuality, and indulgence of animal passions, and to all these things wine might come to be a minister. Unquestionably Jonadab was a shrewd man, and something of what he aimed at he seems to have gained.
II. THE TEST OF THIS HABIT. No doubt the habit had often been tested, and presumably the same answer would ever be given: “Our father has commanded us to drink no wine.” Was it a sufficient reason, one may ask? To which it may be replied that, generally speaking, a father’s command would not be enough. We must always askWhat is the thing commanded? Here the question is simply one of positive precept. No one could say that drinking wine was a moral duty, or that the Rechabites injured any one by refusing to drink it. And, indeed, they might have enlarged on the advantages that had come to them through their strict compliance with Jonadab’s command, But, in doing so, they entered on debatable ground, and might have been forced into argument. They did the best thing in their positionthey fell back on a simple, unreasoning assertion of ancestral custom. Notice, too, the circumstances in which this habit was tested. They are divinely prepared circumstances. It is not a band of revellers in the house of feasting who ask them to drink wine. God commands it to be put before them in the house of the Lord, and in the chamber of a man of God. God wishes his people to see for themselves the power of a paternal request; for never before surely had the reasons seemed so great for departing from the rule.
III. THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS HABIT. The habit did secure what Jonadab meant it to secure. The Rechabites had been kept apart from Israel. But now notice that an advantage gained from some purely external practice is very likely to have some accompanying disvantage. The Rechabites become tent dwellers, and then, on the approach of the Chaldeans, having no continuing city, no place of defence, they flee to Jerusalem. After all, the principle of Rechabitism, the principle of separation and isolation, has its limits. If we would fairly claim the advantages of human society in times of peril, we must not play the hermit and ascetic at other times. To be in the world and yet not of it, that is both the problem and the possibility.Y.
Jer 35:12-17
Rechabites unconsciously reproving Israelites.
I. HOW FAR THE MEN OF JUDAH WERE REALLY CONDEMNED; i.e. How far were the cases really parallel? The first question to be asked isWere the men of Judah as able to obey the commandments of Jehovah as the Rechabites were to obey the precept of Jonadab? and, of course, the answer is that for many reasons they were not. But passing this over for the present, let us notice the one respect in which Israelites were lamentably different from Rechabites. The Rechabites gloried in their attachment to the precept of their ancestor; it was a sort of point of honour with them; whereas the Israelites were in no way grieved, humiliated, or ashamed because of their disobedience. If only it had been a continual and sore trouble of heart that there was not in them strength to obey God, why, this very trouble would have been a measure of obedience. But they both disobeyed and disobeyed in the most heedless and audacious way. Instead of receiving prophets with contrition and as messengers of God, they laughed them to scorn, abused them, and even put them to death. And similarly the Rechabites reprove us. In the midst of all our natural inability to give a true obedience to Divine requirements, we should be incessantly troubled by this; then would the way be made open for revealing to us how obedience becomes possible.
II. HOW FAR THE RECHABITES WERE REALLY PRAISED. After all, Rechabite and Israelite were really the same sort of beings. If they had exchanged places, they would have exchanged conduct. The Israelite was quite capable of sticking, with utmost tenacity, to some external rule. And the Rechabite, we may be quite sure, was equally incapable, with the Israelite, of obeying the commandments of God. But the Rechabite was to be praised in this that he recognized an authority outside of his own wishes. The law under which he lived might not go very far; but it operated with certainty so far as it did go. The Rechabite would have died rather than violate the ancestral prohibition. God ever recognizes conformity to law as a good thing. We must, therefore, not go seeking in these Rechabites more than God has appointed us to find. The one good thing in them was singled out to point a most humiliating lesson and vindicate the need of a severe chastisement. Compared with the benefits of Jehovah toward Israel, what had Jonadab done for the Rechabites?Y.
Jer 35:18, Jer 35:19
God’s recognition of the Rechabite obedience.
This is just in accordance with what we might expect. The Rechabites, when they have been used to put Israel to shame, are not allowed to go away without a sufficient stamp on their noble conduct. The Divine estimate of that conduct is sufficiently shown by the words Jeremiah is authorized to speak.
I. GOD WILL ALWAYS RECOGNIZE A SPIRIT OF OBEDIENCE. Here we lay emphasis, not so much on actual obedience, as on a spirit of obedience. As to actual obedience, there may be dispute of claim and conflict as to authorities. But the spirit of obedience is one running through the whole of life. And God must have seen the spirit of obedience very strong in these Rechabites. Perhaps it is not too much to say that, if they had been in the place of Israel, it would have been a sore grief to them that they were not able properly to obey the commandments of Jehovah. Their obedience was tried, it must be remembered, not in the ordinary associations of life, but in extraordinary and difficult circumstances. They showed the stuff that martyrs are made of, and if God specially recognized their obedience in what was only a matter of external conduct, how sure we may be that he will recognize all obedience that goes deeper! The thing he would have us do is to find out the right Master, right Teacher, right Leader, and then follow him to the death.
II. THE PARTICULAR PROMISE WHICH GOD MAKES HERE. Very likely, in a certain sense, it was literally fulfilled. We must take “forever” in the limited meaning so often found in the Scriptures, and then we shall have no difficulty in believing that the Rechabites for many generations had a special providence surrounding them. But recollecting the spiritual significance of prophecy, we may take “forever” in its largest sense. The essence of the promise is not fulfilled to sons of Jonadab according to the flesh. Promises to natural succession were only to serve a temporary purpose. As all who have a spirit of trust in them are reckoned children of Abraham, so all who have in them the spirit of obedience may be reckoned children of Jonadab. Where the spirit of obedience is, knowledge of God’s will becomes easy. Where the spirit of obedience is, actual obedience becomes easier and easier and more a matter of satisfaction.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Jer 35:1. The word, &c. What is related in this chapter happened long before that which is mentioned in the preceding chapters. Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem twice in the reign of Jehoiakim: the first time in the fourth year of this prince’s reign, and the second three or four years after. It is most probable, that Jeremiah speaks here of the second siege; when the Rechabites, to avoid falling into the hands of the enemy, retired to Jerusalem. See Jer 35:11 and Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
B. The Counterpart To The Disobedience Of The Israelites: The Obedience Of The Techabites (chap. 35)
1. The Fact.
Jer 35:1-11
1The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim 2the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, 3and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house 4of the Rechabites; And I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of 5Shallum, the keeper of the door [or, threshold]. And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots1 full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink 6ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons 7for ever: Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents: that ye may live many days in the 8land where ye be strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, 9we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; nor to build houses for us to dwell in: 10neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor field: but we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Jer 35:1-5. The word . . . Drink ye wine. As the Rechabites did not live in houses, the house of the Rechabites must be taken in a gentilic sense. The Rechabites were a branch of that tribe of Kenites, which springing from Hobab, the brother-in-law of Moses (Num 10:29), migrated with the Israelites from the desert to Canaan, and were therefore closely connected with them politically, a well as religiously (comp. Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11; 1Sa 15:6; 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29). To what an extent this, especially the latter, was the case may be learned from what is said of Jonadab, the ancestor and lawgiver of the Rechabites, in the book of Kings (2Ki 10:15; 2Ki 10:23). The injunctions which, according to Jer 35:6-7, Jonadab laid on his descendants, were doubtless for the purpose of preserving their nomadic state and avoiding the evils of stationary and agricultural life. Jonadab appears to have forbidden the drinking of wine, not merely for the sake of the immediate consequences, which it might easily have, but also that the love of wine might not be the occasion of their becoming settled. The conscientiousness with which the Rechabites after three centuries still followed the commands of their ancestor, is a testimony that they held him in high honor. That he deserved this honor, and that it was shown him by others during his life-time, is seen in the respect with which Jehu treated him, taking him as a witness of his zeal in the service of Jehovah. Comp. Keil on 2Ki 10:12-17.The were rooms in the buildings enclosing the fore-courts, appropriated to various uses (1Ch 28:12 coll. Jer 9:26; Jer 36:10; Jer 36:12; Jer 36:20-21; Ezr 10:6; Neh 10:38). One of these rooms, which must have been a hall corresponding to the number of the persons, was named after the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, the man of God. It is not known who this Hanan was. From the designation man of Elohim, we may infer that he was a prophet (comp. Deu 33:1; Jos 14:8; 1Sa 2:26; 1Sa 9:8; 1Sa 9:10, etc.), and from sons (comp. 1Ki 20:35; 2Ki 2:3; 2Ki 2:5; 2Ki 2:7; 2Ki 2:15, etc.), that the room was a place of assemblage used by him and his pupils and adherents. Maaseiah, the threshold-keeper (of which there were three, Jer 52:24; 2Ki 25:18, and who stood in rank immediately after the . (Comp. 2Ki 23:4) is probably identical with the Maaseiah, whose son Zephaniah was a second priest (Jer 52:24; Jer 37:8; Jer 29:25, Jer 21:1).Of the region inhabited by the Rechabites we have no further indication than the brief notice, 1Ch 2:55, from which we learn merely that they dwelt in the tribe of Judah. Jdg 1:16 agrees with this, where it is said of the Kenites, that they settled in the wilderness of Judah, which lies south of Arad (near the wilderness of Kadesh to the south of Hebron, Raumer, Palst., S. 172). As they were Nomads, they needed land suited to this mode of life. There is no objection to their southern position from the approach of the enemies from the North. For they might justly fear an inundation of the whole land, and therefore sought refuge in Jerusalem betimes, before they were cut off.
Jer 35:11. Army of the Syrians. Aram is Syria in the more restricted sense. Before B. C., 738, when it became an Assyrian province, it played an important part among the foes of the Israelites (2Sa 8:3 sqq., etc.), and afterwards it still appears among their number in the train of Assyria (Isa 9:11), as here in that of Babylon (comp. 2Ki 24:2).
Footnotes:
[1]Jer 35:5., related to ,, hill, designates here a larger round vessel (crater), from which the cups were filled. Comp. Gen 44:2; Gen 44:5; Gen 44:12.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have here a subject introduced in the midst of Israel’s history, of the history of a family obedient to their father. The Prophet makes a suitable improvement from it, to set forth the shamefulness of the disobedience of the family of Israel towards God their Father.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
This family of the Rechabites was an ancient family, for we find the founder of it in the days of Jesse, 2Ki 10:15-16 . But some have supposed that it began much earlier, even tracing it to Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law. I refer the Reader, if he be desirous to examine this point for himself, to Num 10:29-30 ; Jdg 1:16 . The prohibition of wine should seem to imply, that the original founder was of the order of the Nazarites. But whether so or not, the house of the Rechabites became a living reproach to all the drunkards of Ephraim. Oh! for more of the house of the Rechabites in this our day!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Rechabites
Jer 35
This part of the prophecy takes us back to the earlier years of Jeremiah’s life and work. Jerusalem had not been besieged, and Jehoiakim the king had not filled up the cup of his iniquity. The Lord wished to read the king and the people of Judah a solemn lesson; and he preferred to do so by way of example rather than by way of precept. He took what to us appears to be an extraordinary course; but the issue proved that the course which the Almighty adopted was fraught with the very lesson which infinite wisdom intended to apply in all its breadth and pungency to the disobedient kingdom. The Rechabites drank no wine. This was one of the characteristics of the house or family of Rechab. It was a well-known characteristic. By the necessity of the case it was patent to God. Yet what did God do? He sent a strange message by the mouth of the prophet; he said,
“Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink” ( Jer 35:2 ).
We may well pause here a moment and quicken our vision, that we may read the strange words once more to make ourselves quite sure they are what they first sounded like. Did the Lord make a proposal to total abstainers to drink wine? Did he send for them to a kind of wine festival? Is this the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer, “Lead us not into temptation”? Will he try the nostrils of the Rechabites with the perfume of wine? This is strange. We gain nothing by slurring over the difficulty; let us face it, consider it, and act wisely concerning it.
Is not the Lord always thus leading men into temptation? not in the patent and vulgar sense in which that term is generally understood, but in a sense which signifies drill, the application of discipline, the testing of principles and purposes and character? Is not all life a temptation? Does not every day dawn in order that we may be tempted once more? and when the darkness comes, is it not that we may have a larger sphere in which to feel the pressure of the devil? The words are exactly as we have quoted them; “Bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.” Was not this hard? But, then, all life is hard. You can never look at another human being without having a chance to wrong him. There is nothing easy in life. One boy cannot sit next to another without being tempted to do something that is unlawful. Society is a school, a drill-house, a fiery furnace. It is a fearful thing to live! If we have by some jugglery come into easiness of relations, it may be because we have quelled the voice of great convictions, because we have undertaken to live a life that shall be undistinguished by the action of great principles. We may only have escaped temptation because we have run into folly. The Lord tries every man.
There need be no hesitation in offering the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation.” People have tried to soften the words. They have said instead of “lead” “leave us not in temptation”; but these are the annotations of inexperience and folly, or superficiality. Every man goes through hell to heaven, if he goes at all; some linger there; some never escape from the pit of perdition. We are not men until we have been thus moulded, tried, qualified. We can do little for one another in that pit of temptation. There is no comfort so discomforting as that of superficial consolation. We cannot be healed by maxims, because the maxims themselves are burned up in the furnace in which our life is being scorched. Exhortation goes but a little way in the agony of life. We must be left with God. There is one Refiner; he sits over the furnace, and when the fire has done enough he quenches the cruel flame. Think it no strange thing that temptation hath befallen you; yea, think it not strange that God himself has given you opportunities by which you may be burned. He never gives such an opportunity without giving something else. Alas, how often we see the opportunity and not the sustaining grace! It is useless, and worse than useless, it is quite a sceptic-making business, to evade the difficulties of Scripture and of life; we must look at them, and where we have not time in one brief day to adjust and determine them we must ask for larger time. The question cannot be settled either way by superficial thought. We must remember this, because it is supposed evidently by some that a denial establishes everything, and assertion or affirmation establishes nothing. If the affirmation cannot be instantly proven to the utmost point of satisfaction, the denial must also take its time for being searched and tested and weighed in the scales of adequate experience.
The drinking of wine in this case was to be done in “the house of the Lord.” Now light begins to dawn. How thankful we are for one little pale ray of light when the darkness has been a sevenfold midnight! Not only is there wine to be drunk, but if drunk it is to be drunk in the house of the Lord. Mark the limitations of our temptation. The Lord is never absent from his house. If we will choose the sphere of temptation, then let us not blame God if we fall into a snare; if we will persist in trying ourselves, be not amazed if such self-temptation should end in suicide; if we say we will choose the open field without historical association or tradition, without religious sanctions, consolations, or sustaining thoughts, then we shall be brought home dead men: if God will choose the temptation, and choose the place of its application, and himself preside over the tremendous conflict, we may be more than conquerors. Here is no encouragement to men who place themselves in circumstances of temptation, who put themselves in the way of the devil, and beckon him with uplifted finger that he would come and work his will. Always carefully distinguish between the temptations of a truly beneficent providence and the temptations which men bring upon themselves, and the temptations with which men needlessly put their own fortitude to test. Let God tempt me, and he will also save me; let him invite me into his own house, that there under a roof beautiful as heaven he may work his will upon me, and afterwards I shall stand up, higher in stature, broader in manhood, truer in the metal of the Spirit.
Observe the details of this mysterious operation. The men who were taken were proved men:
“Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites” ( Jer 35:3 ).
When the Lord calls for giants to fight his battle and show the strength of his grace, they are chosen men. The Lord knows the result before the process begins. The Lord never fails in any miracle. No work of his has been left half finished because Almightiness gave up because Omnipotence shrank through want of strength from the completion of the design. All these men were conspicuous witnesses for the truth: they were identified with the faith of Israel; they were the trustees of the morality of society. It is so in all ages. There are certain men whom we may denominate our stewards, trustees, representatives; as for ourselves, we say, it is not safe to trust us; we are weaker than a bruised reed; we cannot stand great public ordeals; we were not meant to be illustrations of moral fortitude: spare us from the agony of such trial! There are other men in society whom God himself can trust. He might even allow the devil to work almost all his infernal will upon them. There are Jobs that can be brought almost to hell, but cannot be thrown in. If certain men could fail, society itself might collapse, saying, Human life has been defeated, and divine purposes have been dragged down into humiliation and disgrace. But certain men are fireproof; the inflexibility of their will is the strength of social life. Some could never lift up their heads again if men who could be named in Church and State were to fall from their moral supremacy. What could the fir tree do after the cedar had fallen? What could the little stars do when the morning star had slipped its foot and fallen out of the palace of the heavens? It would seem as if God looked for much from some of us; as if, speaking reverently, he were dependent upon us for his own reputation in human history. Are there none that will abide in the day of trial? Is the Lord to be utterly deserted by the creatures whom he made in his own image and likeness? Is not one man to be found who will magnify the grace of God, saying, But for the grace of God I should have fallen: grace triumphs over weakness; grace makes the frailest strong; by the grace of God I am what I am? When such trial can be so borne, the fact becomes argument, and the argument is of that concrete, direct, and conclusive kind which the most skilful disputant can neither answer nor evade. In this way we have it in our power to magnify God, and to show how great is his grace.
What did the sons of Rechab say? “And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. But they said” here is the critical point “But they said, So be it: there can be nothing wrong in following the finger of Providence: we have thirsted for this poison, now give us enough of it; we are well curtained in, the walls are thick, no eye can penetrate them; the windows are high up, there can be no overlookers: fill up the vessel, and see how strong men can drink.” The story does not read so, but thus: “But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever” ( Jer 35:6 ). Herein is a strange thing, that children should obey the voice of a dead father. Yet this is a most pleasing contention; this is an argument softened by pathos. The men stood up, and did not speak in their own name; they said, We be the sons of a certain man, who gave a certain law, and by that law we will live, and ever will live. “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” The trial took place in the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah. The father of Maaseiah was Shallum, who was the husband of Huldah the prophetess, who had taken an active part in the reformation wrought in the reign of Josiah. So all these were so many guarantees of probity, and strength, and success. There will be no evil wrought in that chamber! Not only are the Rechabites there, but their fathers are with them in spirit. A man should never be left alone; all his best antecedents should be round about him; voices cheering him in right ways, Benjamins comforting him in sudden distresses. Though our fathers, physical and spiritual, be dead, yet they may live with us in the spirit, and may go with us and sustain us in all the trials and difficulties of life. Our fathers cannot die. The sense in which men die is the narrowest of all interpretations of human history. When the father is dead he is nearer to us than ever he could be whilst he lived: we know not what power of vision he has now; we cannot tell how he operates upon the soul that looks for heavenly help; we know not what tracks he may make in the pathless darkness: here we stand in mystery, but we know that there is something which sustains and animates and strengthens us when the battle is at its sorest point.
“We will drink no wine.” Note the definiteness of the answer. No inquiry is made about the kind of wine that was supplied. Always particularly beware of those wines which are warranted not to intoxicate. They are not wines at all if they do not intoxicate. And they lead up to wines that will make you drunk. There is probably hardly any man who is doing more harm to the world than the man who thinks he can cheat the devil by changing a label. God has poured out all the wine we want: let us drink it from its fountains, and we shall be wise and strong. “We will drink no wine.” Men are saved by their definiteness. A strong, proud, decisive answer is the true reply to all temptation. An oath that strikes as with a fist of iron, a denial that is like a long sharp two-edged sword, these must be our policies and watchwords in the time of danger.
The reason is given:
“For Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever” ( Jer 35:6 ).
It is a filial argument. Good advice is not always thrown away; and men should remember that though exhortation may be rejected for a long time, yet there are periods when it may recur to the memory and come upon the whole life like a blessing sent from God. Noble exhortation must not be spared from human speech. The preacher may be well aware that every exhortation he utters will be thrown back upon him, and yet by the grace of God he has learned the mystery of patience; so he can say to his soul, The people will remember this exhortation some other day; they will cut themselves with severest reproaches because of their neglect, and in the day of their necessity they will apply to themselves many a rejected discourse. The argument is a fortiori . The Lord has shown how the sons of Jonadab can refuse wine: now he will take this example and apply it to the whole host of Judah, and he will say, See what one section of your country can do; if they can do this, why cannot you be equally loyal and true? why cannot you be equally obedient to the spirit of righteousness? for three hundred years this bond has been kept in this family; never once has it been violated: if one family can do this, why not a thousand families? if one section of the country, why not the whole nation? This was God’s method of applying truth to those who needed it. Thus we teach one another. One boy can be obedient: why not all boys? One soul can be faithful: why not all souls? If it had been proved impossible to keep any of the laws of God by any human creature, then the criticism would have been not only practical but final. Where one man can keep the law all men can keep it. This is the very argument of the history. The incident that has taken place in the little chamber connected with the house of God will be enlarged into a great national appeal. This is the use which God makes of every individual experience. This is the true use of history. Without such applications as these history would be lost upon us. God in his providence says: See what others can do, and as they toil and climb and succeed in reaching the highest point, so do ye follow them: the grace that made them succeed will not fail you in the hour of your trial and difficulty. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Modern Rechabites should remember that they are only obeying one part of the pledge. It must not be forgotten that the pledge was a comprehensive one:
“Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers” ( Jer 35:6-7 ).
Is it not desirable that we should keep a whole pledge, or that we should at least say that we limit our pledge to such and such sections? Let us be careful of a partial obedience. The lesson here goes further than it would seem at first sight to do. A man must not claim to be a Bible moralist because he keeps two of the Ten Commandments. A man ought to be careful to liberate Rechab from all responsibility in relation to his action beyond the one point which is claimed as a point of analogy. When modern Rechabs drink no wine, but build houses and abandon tents, they should say clearly that they are obeying the Rechab vow in one respect only. It is of no consequence in the local incident, for Rechab is dead, but it is of infinite consequence in all the broader paths and bearings of morality. We do not follow Christ because we wear a crucifix; we are not Christian martyrs because we put ourselves or are put to occasional inconvenience of a very superficial kind; we do not keep the Ten Commandments because we obey the first Jesus Christ does not call us to a partial pledge. Upon this he is very severe; both himself and his Apostles teach that if we offend in one point we offend in all. If we have dishonoured our father and our mother, we have broken ten commandments in one; if we have taken that which does not belong to us, we have shattered the decalogue at a blow. Beware of partial morality, sectional respectability, rags and patches of orthodoxy. There are hardly any civilised men who are not apparently good in points. Some have pet commandments which they would not break for the world. Almost every man has chosen one commandment, and thinks in keeping that he is keeping the ten. There are persons who would not, could not steal; yet they would break all the other nine commandments as quickly as they could be handed to them. This is not obedience; this is the worst kind of disobedience. The man who will have nothing to do with the commandments at all may take to himself some kind of reputation for grim consistency; but he who palters with pledges, and histories, and vows, and moralities, pleases himself, and is not exemplifying a spirit of unquestioning obedience. How, then, does it stand with us today? We cannot rid men of this sophism, that to do one good thing is to have at least so much reputation for goodness. The Lord reasons in precisely the contrary way: it is because we can do one thing, and do not do the rest, that he blames us. He never blames the man who wants to keep all his law, who is conscious of failure, and who says nightly, Lord, I have done it again; yea, I have played the fool before high heaven; I have grieved thy Spirit; and yet this night I am filled with bitterness and tears, and broken down with contrition, and thou knowest this night, though I am not worthy to look at anything thy hands have made, I love thee: it is a strange love, a love which no mortal imagination could conceive or understand, yet here it is; Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I would keep the commandments if I could, thou knowest that I love thee. Heaven never shut its door in the face of such a suppliant.
The Lord has promised in these words:
“Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever” ( Jer 35:19 ).
What is the meaning of that expression? Does it mean that there would be a mere continuance of the family life of the house? Certainly not. Standing before God has a priestly significance. Whenever you find this expression in the Bible, you find that the Lord has chosen this line of men out of which to bring those who shall serve before him in a priestly function. The Lord has made it clear that he will proceed along a moral basis. “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.” He will have it understood that obedience is the root of priesthood; it must be known that character is the basis of every true ministry; it must be written in stars, in lightnings, that they have no right to be in God’s house who are not in God’s spirit. We cannot be brought up to this office; assigned to it by some gracious father or mother, thrust into it by some official power; dignified with it as by a kind of family heraldry: we are in God’s house because we love God’s law; we are in spiritual offices because we are in spiritual relations; if we have not obeyed the Lord, though we have the tongue of men and of angels, we are become as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. He is priest who is obedient. Only he is mighty to the pulling down of the strongholds of Satan who is already himself destroyed by the power of God, and reconstructed by the grace of Christ.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
VIII
THE LIFE OF JEREMIAH DURING THE LATTER HALF OF THE REIGN OF JEHOIAKIM
Jeremiah 18-20; 22-23, Jer 22:25
We have already described some of the events that occurred during the reign of Jehoiakim and this period, but we group them together in this chapter and discuss them more in detail. These prophecies may have been written by Baruch at the time they were uttered or at Jeremiah’s dictation. Some of them may have been written later and one of them was doubtless written by Jeremiah himself. They comprise the chapters given at the head of this chapter. We shall take them up in the order there given. It is quite probable that some of these prophecies and events occurred a little subsequent to 604 B.C., or after the roll was written and then burned by the king. We cannot fix with any certainty the events of Jeremiah’s life in chronological order. The chapters of this book are grouped with no regard to the order of events in the life of the prophet. In fact, the book makes no claim whatever to be a biography.
We have here in these chapters some lessons from the potter, the prophet’s message to the kings, the princes, the priests, and the shepherds of Israel, as well as the prophets of Judah; prophecies against the neighboring nations; the incident of the writing and the reading of the roll of prophecy; and admonitions to Baruch, his scribe.
We have the story of the potter in Jer 18:1-4 . Jeremiah had been preaching about twenty years and had used, as we have seen, a great many illustrations, a great many figures to make forceful his teachings and illustrate them, so that they would show the workings of divine providence in Israel. One day when he was sitting in the city meditating as to what he should say to the people, what he should use as an illustration so that they would feel the weight of their doom and rejection, suddenly an inspiration comes to him to go down into the lower part of the city from where he was sitting, down into the valley, the valley between Zion and Mount Moriah, called the Tyroean valley, or it may have been the valley of Hinnom. So he goes down and notices a potter sitting at his work. While he watches him, there leaps into his mind and heart a great idea, and he draws an illustration from the potter and his works. In this he is like Jesus who drew many of his illustrations from the common things of life and the affairs of men about him.
Jeremiah watched the potter. He saw him place a lump of clay on his wheel and with his deft fingers begin to mold and fashion it into a piece of pottery, and while he is attempting to fashion it into a beautiful piece, it crumbles and goes to pieces. It would not respond to his treatment. It was too crude for the fine purpose he had in mind, and so it crumbled and fell. It would not adjust itself to the ideal of the potter, and so he could not make the vase he had intended. He did not throw it away but picked it up again and began to mold it into another pattern not so beautiful or fine. He made this one but it was a poorer grade, a more common piece of pottery. We find this recorded in Jer 18:1-4 .
In the application (Jer 18:5-12 ) Jeremiah brings before our minds one of the most beautiful lessons, illustrating divine sovereignty and human freedom, to be found in the Bible. The application shows the relation of the human will to the movement of divine power. He says, Jer 18:6 , “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Jehovah. Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.” That is a weighty expression; that nations are clay in God’s hand, as individuals are; the world is but a lump of clay in God’s hands to be fashioned as he wills. “As the clay is in the potter’s hands, so are ye in my hand.” He goes on to explain the import of that truth: “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it [that was the mission of Jeremiah to the nation of Israel and to the surrounding nations] ; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.”
This brings us face to face with a great truth in human life; a great fact that must be considered in order to understand the mysteries of divine providence. We can apply the truth to ourselves and ought to do so. It is a statement that in the event that a nation changes its conduct, or repents, God changes his attitude, not that he changes his will, but that he wills to change. Repentance in the main is a change of the will, that is, repentance in man is a change of the mind, or will, but repentance in God is the will to change. So God changes his attitude toward men when they repent. That is the way it is with the potter; he wills to fashion the clay according to his plan, but when it will not adjust itself to his ideal, then he changes his plan and fashions it as best he may. The idea is this, if the potter cannot make the best kind of a vessel out of the clay, he will do the next best thing. How mightily this truth applies to individuals. He uses the materials we give him. He does the best he can to train us as we submit to his leading. Thus, this principle, as illustrated by the potter and his clay, applies to us in our daily lives. It is only as we are pliable that God can work with us and through us.
In Jer 18:10 he says, “If they do that which is evil in my sight then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Now, that is the same idea as set forth in repenting and not doing evil. If we change, he will, in harmony with his changelessness, change, too. He will do with us as we do with him. Jonah said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed.” That was God’s prophecy concerning that wicked city. After all that threatening, God did not do it because they repented, and Jonah was angry and disappointed. He wanted the city to be destroyed. The city repented, and then God repented, too, and thus the change was in the city and in God. Here in Jer 18:11 he says, “Behold I frame evil against you; return every one from his evil ways.”
Then in Jer 18:14 he draws lessons from nature. He shows how constant nature is. He says, “Shall the snow of Lebanon fail from the rock of the field? or shall the cold waters that flow down from afar be dried up?” He fixes his eyes on the snow-capped Lebanons or Hermon, and he sees that the snows are there perpetual according to the laws of nature. That snow as it melts is the source of the rivers of Damascus and the winding Jordan and they never dry up. Their source is stable; it faileth not. These streams run perpetually. He says in verse Jer 18:15 : “My people have forgotten me, they have burned incense to false gods; they have been made to stumble in their ways.” They are unstable but nature is not, and God is not, and thus he describes their defection from him.
As a result of this preaching the people begin to devise plans for taking Jeremiah (Jer 18:18 ). They decide that his preaching must stop. They must get rid of him. They concocted a scheme against him once before and he was saved from their trap. Now they concoct another scheme. They said, “Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for [even though he be dead] the law shall not perish from the priests, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words.” Now what is the use of listening to this preacher of calamity? We have the law. We will not lose the book of wisdom. We will always have these with us. Then Jeremiah begins to pray to the Lord to punish these plotters, verses Jer 18:19-20 : “Give heed to me, O Lord, . . . Shall evil be recompensed for good? Remember how I stood before thee to speak good for them,” and now they plan to kill me.
He had been standing there and preaching the truth to these men and now he fears the Lord is going to let them kill him. He says, “I have tried to help them. I would give my life to save them. And now this is what they are doing.” He prays that God will punish them; that he will give them over to the sword and destroy their children. “Let their women become childless.” Now, was that an expression of mere bitterness? No! It was not mere human anger; it was a deep sense of outraged justice. Verse Jer 18:23 : “Jehovah, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me; forgive not their iniquities, neither blot out their sin from thy sight.” That reminds us of Psa 109 . It seems contrary to the spirit of Christ, yet it reminds one of the spirit of Jesus when he says to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
We have here another lesson from the potter (Jer 19:1-13 ). Jeremiah is told to go and buy an earthen bottle made also by a potter. He bought it. We do not know what sort; it may have been a good one. Then the Lord said, “Take of the elders of the people, and of the elders of the priests; and go forth into the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the gate of Harsith, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee.” That place was just outside the walls of the city, the place where the rubbish was thrown, perhaps where the potters and their factories were. Now, go down there, Jeremiah, with that vessel.
This is what he was to say: “Hear ye the word of Jehovah, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; . . . Behold, I will bring evil upon this place.” Then he goes on to give the reasons. They had worshiped idols continually. They had done evil repeatedly. “This place,” as a result, “shall no longer be called the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the place of slaughter.” Verse Jer 19:8 : “I will make this city an astonishment, and a hissing.” Destruction shall come. “Every one that passeth by shall be astonished and hiss and they shall eat the flesh of their children.” Then he took the elders and the priests and in their presence he broke the bottle to pieces. Then he said, “As I have broken this bottle, so will Jehovah break in pieces this city, so that it cannot be put together again.” The lesson is seen in Jer 19:11 : “It cannot be made whole again.” As that bottle is destroyed forever, so will I destroy this nation and I will destroy it forever, as far as human power is concerned.
Immediately after this incident Jeremiah comes back to the Temple and repeats the warning he had given, to the elders and the priests: “I stood in the courts of the Lord’s house and said to all the people, I will bring upon this city and this people all the evils that I have pronounced against them, because they have made their necks stiff that they hear not my words.” There are no people on earth so sure of doom as those who have simply made up their minds that they will not hear. These are they who are deaf by choice. These people had gone so far that they would not even listen. Of course, then, they could not hear. Even now sometimes people simply make up their minds that they will not hear and there is no hope for them.
Pashhur was the chief officer in the Temple. He was himself a prophet but a false one. He heard the words of Jeremiah and noted that threat. It enraged him. He set upon Jeremiah and struck him and put him in the stocks, till the following day. His smiting probably refers to whipping on the soles of his feet with the bastinado. He then put him in the stocks. His hands and feet put through openings in planks, he is forced into a stooping position. His head perhaps was put through a wooden stock or pillory. This is the first physical violence that Jeremiah had suffered.
“Then said Jeremiah unto him, the Lord hath not called thee Pashur, but Magor-missabib.” “Pashur” means a man in quietness or peace, and “Magor-missabib” means terror all around. Mr. Pashur, your name must be changed. You are going to be a terror to yourself. That is your fate. Thy friends shall fall by the sword and thine eyes shall behold it. “For thus saith Jehovah, I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon and he shall carry them captive to Babylon and shall slay them with the sword. I will give them the treasures of the Temple and this city. This shall happen to you and your friends who prophesy falsely.” And so they did. Very soon Mr. Pashur was taken captive to Babylon and died, surrounded by terrors. The rest of this chapter contains Jeremiah’s lamentation. We studied this in the chapter on “The Life and Character of Jeremiah.” I called attention to that section where Jeremiah cursed the day in which he was born. He accused God of alluring him into prophesying and then deserting him. Then God led him step by step out of his despondency and up to the plane of praise and joy.
About this time, when Jeremiah was at liberty, a great many enemies had overrun the land of Palestine and the people had flocked to Jerusalem for protection. Among this host came the Rechabites. When Jehu was carrying on his revolution he met Jonadab who had founded this order, or sect, of the Rechabites and invited him into his chariot. They were noted for three things: They vowed not to live in houses; to have no vineyards; and to drink no wine forever. This class of people took refuge in Jerusalem; Jeremiah goes to these Rechabites, takes their leaders into the Temple and sets bottles of wine before them.
Note Jer 35:3 (Jeremiah writes, this himself): “Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, . . . and I brought them into the house of Jehovah.” He goes on: “And I set before the sons of the Rechabites bowls of wine, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. “But they said, We will drink no wine; for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father, commands us.” They were faithful to the commands of their ancestor. Jeremiah seized upon this occasion as a basis for addressing the people. He goes on to say that Jonadab had commanded this people so and so. “They kept that command, but ye would not obey God who commanded you to serve him.” He outlines the punishment that will come upon the people, but makes a promise unto the sons of Jonadab, verse Jer 35:19 : “Therefore saith the Lord of hosts, . . . Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.”
He inculcates the principle of righteousness and justice in Jer 22:1-9 . The king is to be the instrument of righteousness and justice. There is no doubt that Jehoiakim, the vassal of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, sat on the throne. Jeremiah appeals to him to do right and be just. In Jer 22:4 he says, “If you do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants and his people. But if ye will not do these things, I swear by myself, that this house shall come to desolation.” And thus he goes on with his message of destruction. He repeats it over and over again.
The fate of Shallam, or Jehoahaz, is described in Jer 22:10-22 : “Weep for him that goeth away; for he shall return to his native land no more.” Then a charge against Jehoiakim is found in Jer 22:13-23 . This king was a heartless tyrant. He had a passion for building. He had a magnificent palace. He built by using the people unjustly. He was without conscience or principle: “Woe unto him that buildeth a house with unrighteousness.” The son of this king succeeded him and the prophet goes on to describe the ruin coming upon this house (Jer 22:20-23 ).
Then follows judgment on Jehoiachin (Jer 22:24-30 ). This was doubtless written after the death of Jehoiakim. Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon, and it may have been written immediately preceding that event. We cannot be sure as to the exact time this section was penned. Verse Jer 22:24 : “As I live, saith Jehovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were a signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.” He then goes on to describe the fate of the house; how Jehoiachin with his mother should be cast out and die in a foreign land, never to return to Judah. The king was to have no heir to sit upon his throne.
The message of Jer 23:1-8 is one regarding the princes, or shepherds. These princes of Judah and Jerusalem are spoken of as the shepherds of the people. They were the political and civil shepherds. God called them the shepherds of his pasture. He charged them with neglect of duty: “Therefore saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Ye have scattered my flock.” They had not provided them spiritual pasture. But a time is coming when they shall come together again and shall have good shepherds. Jer 23:5 is a messianic prophecy: “I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, . . . Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely.”
The prophet’s own title of Jer 23:9-40 is, “Concerning the Prophets.” We discussed this in a former chapter. We showed Jeremiah’s charge against these false prophets. They were caterers and time-servers. They preached what the people wanted them to preach. They felt the pulse of the people and then shaped their messages accordingly.
The prophecy of Jer 25 is a prophecy concerning Judah and the surrounding nations. This was in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, 604 B.C., after Jeremiah had been preaching twenty-three years. Note some details here:
1. In Jer 25:1-14 Jeremiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would take Palestine, Judah, and Jerusalem; that he would lead them captive to Babylon; that there should be desolation; that this nation should serve the king of Babylon seventy years; that when the seventy years was accomplished, then Jehovah would punish the king of Babylon, and that nation for their iniquity and their land should be a desolation forever.
2.Jer 25:15-26 show that the cup of the wrath of Jehovah must be drunk by all the nations surrounding Judah. He said that they should drink the cup of the wine of his fury. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, shall drink it; the land of Uz, the Philistines, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, those of the Grecian Archipelago, Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia, Zimri, Elam, the Medes, and Sheshack shall drink of it.
3.Jer 25:27-29 show that the nations must drink it. This is the substance of that passage. The doom is inevitable. The last part of the chapter, verses 30-38, gives a description of the conquest of the Babylonians, and the terrible destruction which should come upon the nations.
An account of the writing, reading, burning, and rewriting of the roll is given in Jer 36:1-32 . This is an interesting incident. In the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, 604 B.C., the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah and told him to write his prophecy. Doubtless the persecution was so intense that he had to stop preaching. Jeremiah was a faithful prophet, but be could not preach any more in the open, and so the Lord told him to write his prophecies in a book, or roll. That was a wonderfully wise suggestion. If Paul had not been imprisoned two years at Caesarea, it is possible Luke would not have written his Gospel. If the same great apostle had not suffered his Roman imprisonment, we would doubtless never have had his matchless epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. If Bunyan had not gone to jail, doubtless Pilgrim’s Progress would never have been written. And so it is here, if Jeremiah had not been persecuted, we would in all probability never have had his written prophecy. He ordered Baruch to write it down as he dictated it to him. It was the substance of his twenty-three years of ministry. How long he was in writing it, we do not know, doubtless some months. After he had written it the next thing was to read it to the people. We cannot go into details. Here is the story in substance: Baruch took the roll and went to the Temple where the people passed, stood in the door with the princes and the friends of Jeremiah at his back and read the prophecy. It made a deep impression on the princes and the people. It had a different effect on others. They resented it and hated Jeremiah the more. Some of them went and told the king about it. In brief, he had it brought to him. Jehudi read it and the king cut it to pieces and soon every shred of it was a heap of ashes. Then he ordered the arrest of Jeremiah, but he had securely hidden himself. Then Jeremiah and Baruch wrote the prophecies again.
We have certain admonitions of Jeremiah to Baruch in Jer 45 . After all his heroism this man Baruch grew despondent. This faithful scribe who had stood by Jeremiah through all his troubles now becomes troubled. We are told about it in chapter Jer 45:3 : “Thus didst thou say, Woe is me, for Jehovah hath added sorrow to my pain.” Jeremiah tells him that the Lord breaks down that which he has planted: “Behold, I will pluck up this whole land.” Baruch, have you thought that there were great things coming to you? Did you expect better things? “Seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not.” I am going to bring evil upon this whole land. You are not going to be a great man but your life is going to stand. What fine advice that was to this faithful secretary and scribe. Do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not. Your life will be spared, that is enough.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the subject of this chapter of this INTERPRETATION? And what are the dates of these several chapters of Jeremiah?
2. What, in general, are the contents of these chapters?
3. What is the story of the potter in Jer 18:1-4 ?
4. What is the prophet’s application of the incident of the potter to Israel and what, in particular, is the meaning of God’s repentance here toward Israel for good or evil? (Jer 18:5-12 .)
5. What is the lesson here drawn from nature by the prophet? (Jer 18:13-17 .)
6. What is the result of the prophet’s preaching (Jer 18:18 ) and what his response? (Jer 18:19-23 .)
7. What is the second incident of the potter’s vessel and what its application? (Jer 19:1-13 .)
8. What is the prophet’s message in the Temple immediately following the second lesson from the potter’s vessel?
9. Give an account of Pashhur’s persecution.
10. Who were the Rechabites, what were their characteristics and what was the lesson enforced by Jeremiah based upon their history?
11. Who addressed in Jer 22:1-9 and what is the message to him?
12. Who is spoken of in Jer 22:10-12 and what is there said of him?
13. What is the charge against Jehoiakim and what is the result (Jer 22:13-23 )?
14. What is the contents of Jer 22:24-30 ?
15. What is the message of Jer 23:1-8 and how are the shepherds here characterized?
16. What is the prophet’s own title of Jer 23:9-40 and what is the charge of Jeremiah here against these false prophets?
17. What is the prophecy of Jer 25 and what are the essential points noted?
18. Give an account of the writing, reading, burning, and rewriting of the roll (Jer 36:1-32 ).
19. What are the admonitions of Jeremiah to Baruch in Jer 45 and what is their lesson?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Jer 35:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,
Ver. 1. The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord. ] The eighteenth sermon, ordine tamen arbitario non naturali, delivered various years before the former, and here placed, not in its proper order, but as it pleased him that collected them into this book.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jeremiah Chapter 35
It is striking the pains God takes with His people and the way in which He condescends to employ the example of men (before of birds and beasts) for a parable for instructing His people, if they are but willing to listen. We learn that there was in the holy land at this time a tribe of the sons of Rechab. They were Kenites as to their race – the same people of whom Moses’ wife came: there was, as we know, a friendly feeling between Israel and them in consequence.
The manner too in which the Lord presses home the lesson is much to be observed: “Go,” says He to Jeremiah, “unto the house of the Rechabites and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.” This was calculated to impress the Rechabites strongly. A prophet of Jehovah sets before them cups of wine, and this too in the temple. “Then I took Jaazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; and I brought them into the house of the Lord.” It was not into some obscure place either in the temple, but unto one of the priests – “into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah, the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door.” It was by the chamber even of the heads of the priesthood and of the princes. And there it is added, “I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.” But the Rechabites were faithful; they had pledged themselves to their father a long while before. It was no new feeling; it had governed their conduct ever since his time who gave the tribe its name; and now even, under circumstances such as pressed Judea, when there was no lack of dangers and sorrow, though a prophet of the Lord bid them drink, though the wine was set before them in the temple of the Lord, they still refuse. “They said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons for ever.”
It would be too much to assume that there was any direct purpose of pleasing God, or anything morally good in simply taking wine or not. It is plain God does not tempt anyone to evil: the very fact therefore that Jehovah bade the prophet bring them into the temple and set wine before them and bade them drink, shows that it is no question of moral evil. But it would have been unbecoming in those who had pledged themselves not to take it, had they done SO. They were obedient to their father – this was what was right. Their father was entitled to test their obedience if he liked, and he did so; and they were true to their father and to their own filial obligation. This was what pleased the lord, and what He uses for the correction of Israel. What is a convincing proof that the point is not one of moral evil is this: – besides the charge to drink no wine, it had also been commanded them “Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents.” It is evident there is nothing at all wrong in itself in a man’s having a house or sowing seed in a field: no one thinks so at least none but a madman. Yet these being tests of their obedience, they were as much bound to abstain from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine. But the particular test here employed was drinking wine, because I suppose the others could not have been applied so readily. Jonadab put all this before them as a motive of obedience on the earth – “that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: but we have dwelt in tents and have obeyed, and have done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.” There is no moral excellence in dwelling in a tent, any more than in a house; but there are circumstances where it would be more congruous and becoming. It was a beautiful sign of pilgrimage in the fathers to dwell in tents.
And so here: whatever may have been the motive in Jonadab for laying this precept upon his children, we do not know; but still they were right in dutiful obedience to him. “We have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.” It is true there was now an exception. “But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.” It may be questioned whether they were called upon to make this an exception, and whether it was any better for them to be in Jerusalem than in the land as before. It is good always to hold fast the principle on which we are called to act; it is dangerous to allow ourselves to change. God of course is entitled to bring in new principles for new circumstances, but we must take care that it is God who does so.
“Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Go and tell the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the Lord. The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father’s commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me. I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend you doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers; but ye have not inclined your ear nor hearkened unto me. If Such was now the condition of Israel, that God employs all sorts of figures, principally in the mouth of Jeremiah. The birds of the heavens know their appointed times, the cattle of the earth even are truer to their masters than the children of Israel to Jehovah. And here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father’s command. How faithful they were to their promise! how honouring to their father! while Israel as plainly refuses to hearken to Jehovah. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never toiled so hard nor so perseveringly with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them. It was not called for, even if it had been in his power. But as for Jehovah, rising up early He had spoken to them and had sent His prophets; yet they had not hearkened. Nevertheless He was ready to begin afresh and to forgive all – “Amend your doings and go not after other gods to serve them.” Yet they had not inclined their ear nor hearkened to Him. Disobedience is as the sin of witchcraft: there is nothing more derogatory to God, nor is anything else more ruinous to man. And God shows that in His government of the world He notices obedience, and especially to parents too: it has His signal blessing. “Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me: therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because 1 have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and 1 have called unto them, but they have not answered. And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not a man to stand before me for ever.”
God is always thus, I think I may say, with the parental respect and with filial obedience, unless it be in direct opposition to Himself. It has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand. And so it is that when – solemn sight! – the children of Israel would be given up to destruction (only not final because of the reserve of grace), Jonadab the son of Rechab was not to want a man to stand before God for ever.
It is the more important to distinguish this, because it is on the same principle that God blesses even where the condition of people may be indifferent or otherwise bad. Supposing you take even a pious Catholic, God will always bless what is good. He will bless among any except where Christ is utterly rejected. The evil of Popery is not the outward rejection of Christ, but the bringing in of priesthood and ordinances between the soul and God; not taking away from the true God and the Lord Jesus, but rather the adding of something of man’s own. It is idolatrous. It is not openly and profanely infidel. Profane infidelity denies the true God; but the religious infidelity of Romanism shows itself in putting things between the soul and God, and thus sharing the glory which belongs to God alone with other mediators, such as the saints, the Virgin Mary, and in fact the old sacrificial system. Nevertheless, spite of all that, God will always honour men according to their fidelity. Take, for instance, such a man as Martin Booz, in the course of this very century. He was greatly used of God in the conversion of souls, though he lived and died in Romanism. It is a part of the divine government, that He will bless what is faithful in individuals even where the public state of things is far from being according to His mind; whereas, where things may be according to His word, He will withhold His blessing if hearts are not practically faithful. In the very best position God will withhold His hand where souls are untrue to Him. On the other hand, He will bless individual fidelity in positions utterly foreign to the word of God. This is a great comfort, especially in the present condition of Christendom.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 35:1-11
1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, 2Go to the house of the Rechabites and speak to them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. 3Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his sons and the whole house of the Rechabites, 4and I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was near the chamber of the officials, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the doorkeeper. 5Then I set before the men of the house of the Rechabites pitchers full of wine and cups; and I said to them, Drink wine! 6But they said, We will not drink wine, for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, ‘You shall not drink wine, you or your sons, forever. 7You shall not build a house, and you shall not sow seed and you shall not plant a vineyard or own one; but in tents you shall dwell all your days, that you may live many days in the land where you sojourn.’ 8We have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he commanded us, not to drink wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons or our daughters, 9nor to build ourselves houses to dwell in; and we do not have vineyard or field or seed. 10We have only dwelt in tents, and have obeyed and have done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the land, we said, ‘Come and let us go to Jerusalem before the army of the Chaldeans and before the army of the Arameans.’ So we have dwelt in Jerusalem.
Jer 35:1 Jehoiakim When one compares Jer 34:2 it is easy to see how the book of Jeremiah is out of chronological order (chapters 35-36 precede 32-34). Someone compiled and edited his work, probably Baruch (cf. Jer 32:12-13; Jer 32:16; Jer 36:4-5; Jer 36:8; Jer 36:10; Jer 36:13-16; Jer 43:3; Jer 43:6; Jer 45:1-2).
Jer 35:2 the house of This idiom means the family of.
Rechabites We do not know much about them (cf. 1Ch 2:55; Jdg 1:16). They seem to be a nomadic Arab tribe related to Midionites or Kenites, the in-laws of Moses’ first wife. Moses’ father-in-law goes by four names Jethro, Jether, Reuel, Hobab (cf. Exo 2:18; Exo 3:1; Exo 4:18; Num 10:29; Jdg 4:11 and two titles the Kenite, Jdg 1:16 and priest of Midian, Exo 3:1; Exo 18:1).
It is obvious that YHWH is commanding the testing of the family traditions of this family group. The test is intensified by
1. bring them to the temple
2. take into a private chamber
3. tempt them with an abundance of wine to drink (IMPERATIVE in Jer 35:5)
Jer 35:4 the man of God This phrase is used of Moses (cf. Deu 33:1; Jos 14:6) and prophets (cf. 1Ki 12:22; 1Ki 17:18; 1Ki 17:24; 1Ki 20:28) but here it is used of one of their godly ancestors (i.e., Hanan).
the door keeper This phrase (BDB 1036 CONSTRUCT 706 II) denoted a very important position in the temple (cf. Jer 52:24; 2Ki 12:9; 2Ki 25:18).
Jer 35:5 pitchers This Egyptian loan word (BDB 149, cf. Gen 44:2; Gen 44:12) refers to very large bowls.
Jer 35:6 Jonadab This man is mentioned in 2Ki 10:15-27).
Jer 35:6-7 There is a series (Qal IMPERFECTS) of things the original father of the family commanded his descendants not to do (i.e., stay nomadic).
1. do not drink wine, Jer 35:6 c
2. do not build a house, Jer 35:7
3. do not sow seed
4. do not plant a vineyard
5. do not own a vineyard
6. live in tents
Jer 35:7 that you may live many days in the land This phrase is similar to the phrase in Deuteronomy about honoring parents, not a long life (cf. Deu 5:16; Deu 5:33; Deu 4:40; Deu 11:9).
Jer 35:11 Like so many of the people of the land, this family fled into the walled city of Jerusalem for protection.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
The Thirtieth Prophecy of Jeremiah (see book comments for Jeremiah).
came. Jeremiah goes back here to insert a preceding event (See Jer 25:1; Jer 26:1), in order to complete the correspondence by introducing the second illustration, as shown in the Structure, (Jer 34:8-16) and (Jer 35:1-11).
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
in the days, &c. Immediately before Nebuchadnezzar’s advance, in his fourth year.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 35
The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim ( Jer 35:1 )
So we’re going back even further now, even before Zedekiah was the king. This prophecy came way back in the time of Jehoiakim.
the son of Josiah the king of Judah, saying, Go to the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and set before them wine to drink. Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brothers, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door ( Jer 35:1-4 ):
So a lot of names that don’t mean much to us. But what he’s saying is that God said, “Go to the Rechabites and bring them into this particular chamber in the temple and set wine before them.” So he did it.
And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups; and I said unto them, Drink some wine. But they said, We will not drink wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, You shall drink no wine, neither your sons for ever: Neither shall you build houses, nor are you to plant fields, or vineyards, nor have any: but all of your days you are to dwell in tents; that you may live many days in the land wherein you are strangers. So we have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he charged us, not to drink wine all our days, we, nor our wives, nor our sons, nor our daughters; Nor have we built houses for us to dwell in: neither have we any vineyards, nor fields, nor seeds: But we have dwelt in tents, and obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has come into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem because we fear the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we are dwelling at Jerusalem ( Jer 35:5-11 ).
So here is this Nomadic group of people. They are Bedouin types who are living in tents. They don’t drink wine. And you’ll find today around Jerusalem and around Israel still you’ll find these Bedouins living in tents. Now the Israeli government tried to build houses for them and a housing settlement. But the people just don’t like living in houses. And the houses that were built for them by the Israeli government are vacant. They won’t… They prefer their tents still. These Bedouins are still around the area. They’re interesting people to observe. They don’t drink wine or they don’t plant fields. They are, most of them, just shepherds. They don’t have vineyards. They just move from place to place living in tents. And so they’re interesting people indeed. The Bedouins are similar to these Rechabites who way back one of the fathers said, “Hey, don’t drink wine, don’t build houses, live in tents, don’t plant vineyards,” you know. And so here they’re keeping it. They’re obeying this guy of hundreds of years ago who gave the command to the family. So here they’re still following it.
So the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD. The words of Jonadab ( Jer 35:12-14 )
Just this ancestor of these people.
the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they don’t drink any wine, but obey their father’s commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but you did not hearkened unto me ( Jer 35:14 ).
Now God is showing the incongruency of this whole thing. “Look, here are these people. I’m offering them wine, they won’t drink.” Why? Because way back in their ancestry, one of their dads says, “Now don’t drink wine, son, and don’t let your children drink wine.” And to this day they are obeying the voice of Jonadab. And God said, “I have spoken unto you but you haven’t listened to My voice. You haven’t hearkened to Me. Now here is a group of people hearkening unto one of their fathers. But here I have spoken and you won’t hearken to Me.”
I have also sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and you shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but you have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me. Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me: Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered ( Jer 35:15-17 ).
So I’m going to bring upon them all of the evil.
And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because you have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and you have kept all of his precepts, and done all that he commanded you: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever ( Jer 35:18-19 ).
So these people still exist. God says, “I won’t let them get wiped out. They’ll remain.” They do. The Rechabites who still obey Jonadab their ancestor and follow after his orders and refuse to live in houses but dwell in tents and don’t plant vineyards. An interesting class of people, and God says, “They’ll remain. My people they’re going to get wiped out. They’ll be scattered and all. But these Rechabites they can stay.”
Now these things were all written for our instruction. It’s not that we are to look at the people of Israel and say, “Oh, isn’t that horrible? The things that they did. How they refused to obey God and they turned their backs on God and not their face. Isn’t that awful that they broke the covenant of God? Isn’t that awful that they worshipped these false gods? Isn’t that terrible that God had to bring judgment on them?” It’s not so that we can criticize them. It’s so that we will learn not to follow after false idols ourselves. That we will learn to hearken to the voice of God and to obey His voice. That we will seek the Lord with all of our hearts. That we will live a life that is pleasing unto Him. That we will not follow their example of turning away from God, but will live unto God a life of righteousness before Him.
So may God be with you and bless you and help you this week to live a life that is pleasing before the Lord. Doing the work of God. Obeying the commandment of His voice. Walking in fellowship with Him. God be with you and bless you and keep you and give you a beautiful week in Christ Jesus. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Jer 35:1-11
Jer 35:1-5
The word which came unto Jeremiah from Jehovah in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of Jehovah, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; and I brought them into the house of Jehovah, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the threshold. And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites bowls full of wine, and cups; and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.
The house of the Rechabites. the house of Jehovah …..
(Jer 35:2; Jer 35:4). Here is an example of the way in which the same word has multiple meanings. In the case of the Rechabites, the reference is to their group; but in the case of the temple it refers to a literal building.
Of the persons whose names are given in Jer 35:3, Ash declared that “nothing is known.”
Into the chamber of the sons of Hanan…
(Jer 35:4). By reason of Haman’s having a chamber in the Temple itself, and his being called, the man of God, it is supposed that he was a prophet, his sons being a reference to his disciples. The fact that the whole house of the Rechabites, or at least, representatives of all their families could be seated in a single chamber indicates that the whole number of that community was probably not very large. The fact that he lent this room to Jeremiah for the purpose of this meeting indicates a measure of sympathy with the prophet.
I said unto them, Drink ye wine…
(Jer 35:5). By the inspiration of God, Jeremiah already knew what the outcome of this test would be. He did not command them to drink wine but politely offered it to them, making it available in sufficient quantifies to allow all to have plenty.
The force of this temptation was reinforced by the fact of the group’s having been signally honored by this reception in the Temple itself, and by the famed prophet Jeremiah himself having been the one who offered it.
Note also that their dwelling in Jerusalem at this time did not mean that they had violated the ancestral order not to live in houses, a violation which some of the group might have been forced into by reason of the shortage of space to pitch tents within Jerusalem. The very fact that one of the ancestral tenets might have been being violated at this time would have also added to the temptation to drink wine. Once a rule of conduct is broken in a single particular, it is easier to break it in another.
Beyond this, there was the fact of their being in strange circumstances in a city not their own. Matthew Henry noted that the very situation suggested: “Go ahead and drink wine. It’s free. You have broken one rule of your order by moving into Jerusalem, why may you not break this rule also?” Who has not heard exclamations such as, “Well, everyone is doing it!” or “When in Rome, do as Rome does!”
The keeper of the threshold…
(Jer 35:4). There were three of these keepers in the Temple, answering to the outer and inner courts of the Temple, and to the entrance of the Temple itself. These were officers of high rank, having precedence next to the High Priest and his deputy.
Jer 35:6-11
But they said, We will drink no wine; for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons, for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any; but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land wherein ye sojourn. And we have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, or our daughters; nor to build houses for us to dwell in; neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: but we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians; so we dwell at Jerusalem.
We have obeyed. in all that he commanded us …..
(Jer 35:8). The obedience of the Rechabites to their principles was indeed astounding. All of their days, they had obeyed all of Jonadab’s injunctions; all of them obeyed at all times and in all particulars. No greater contrast to the disobedience of Israel could possibly have been imagined.
It should be noted that, “What is praised here is not Jonadab’s injunctions, but the faithful obedience of his sons.”
The superiority of the obedience of the Rechabites over that of Israel is inherent in a number of elements: (1) the person they obeyed was only a mortal man; Israel was disobeying God. (2) Jonadab had long been dead, some 250 years in fact; God lives forever. (3) There was no one to repeat the commands of Jonadab and insist upon their obedience; but God had sent prophet after prophet to reaffirm God’s commandments and to urge Israel to obey. (4) Jonadab gave no great blessings to his children; but God had endowed Israel with an entire kingdom. (5) Jonadab’s orders were very difficult to obey and had caused much hardship upon the Rechabites, but God’s commandments for Israel were not encumbered with such great difficulties. “And yet Jonadab’s orders were obeyed; and God’s were not!”
Jer 35:11 is an explanation by the Rechabites that their dwelling in Jerusalem was of necessity and not because they were willing to violate the injunctions of their ancestor.
The following verses of this chapter stress the contrasts between the obedient Rechabites and the disobedient Israelites, which we have just enumerated.
AN ILLUSTRATION FROM AN EARLIER PERIOD CHAPTER 35
At this point Jeremiah or the final editor of the book introduces an incident from an earlier period of the prophets ministry to illustrate the disobedience of the people. Chapter 35 is unconnected chronologically with the preceding and following chapters. The event here narrated dates back to the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 34:1; Jer 34:11) who ruled from 609 to 598 B.C. It is difficult to place the episode more precisely with the reign of that king. Jehoiakim started his reign as an Egyptian vassal (2Ki 23:35). After the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. he swore allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar and remained faithful to him for three years, from 604 to 601 B.C. (2Ki 24:1). Encouraged by an Egyptian defeat of Nebuchadnezzar late in 601 B.C. Jehoiakim rebelled against his overlord. Nebuchadnezzar, having returned to Babylon to lick the wounds of defeat, was unable to return to Jerusalem to deal with his rebellious vassal. In the meantime he sent local garrisons of Chaldean troops along with Syrian, Ammonite and Moabite mercenaries to raid Judah and harass Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:2). It was probably to this period of Jehoiakims reign (599 or 598 B.C.) that the present episode is to be assigned.
The Fidelity of the Rechabites Jer 35:1-11
Jeremiah used many different methods to communicate Gods truth to men. In the present instance he uses a dramatic demonstration involving a whole clan to drive home the truth to the people of Judah. The Rechabites are one of the most interesting groups mentioned in the Bible. They were apparently of Kenite descent (1Ch 2:55) and had joined the Israelites at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Jdg 1:16). It was Jehonadab (or Jonadab) the son of Rechab who gave to the name Rechabite its special connotation.
Jehonadab first appears in 2Ki 9:15-31 as a militant worshiper of Yahweh. He participated in the revolution of 841 B.C. when the zealot Jehu overthrew the dynasty of Omri in the northern kingdom of Israel. Apparently the excesses of Ahab and Jezebel, the importation of the worship of the Tyrian Baal, the disintegration of ancient social patterns and the wide-spread debauchery so completely upset certain conservative elements of the population that they were ready to take drastic steps to preserve the old values. Jehonadab had imposed rather strict regulations upon his descendants. But even though some 200 years had elapsed the Rechabites were still living by the rule of their father. Normally a nomadic group, the Rechabites had recently sought refuge in Jerusalem from the roving bands of Chaldeans and Syrians which were making repeated raids on the Jews living outside the walled cities (Jer 35:11).
The narrative begins with Jeremiah receiving instruction to seek out the members of the Rechabite community. Literally, Go to the house of the Rechabites. House here does not refer to a dwelling but to members of a clan or, better still, a community. In obedience to this command Jeremiah contacted Jaazaniah, the present leader of the sect, and invited him and the members of his clan to come to the Temple (Jer 35:2). Scripture does not state whether or not Jeremiah informed Jaazaniah as to the purpose of the Temple visit but the impression is left that what transpired there came as somewhat of a surprise to the Rechabites.
Jeremiah chose the chamber of the sons of Hanan the man of God as the spot for the demonstration (Jer 35:4). The title man of God was an honorable title of the prophets. It was applied to Samuel (1Sa 9:6-10), Elijah (2Ki 1:9-13), Elisha (2 Kings 4-13) and others. The term occurs only here in Jeremiah. Perhaps Hanan was a prophet. If so, his sons may have been his disciples. A number of chambers were arranged around the courts of the Temple and served partly as storehouses and partly as residences for priests and other Temple personnel. See 1Ch 9:27; Eze 40:17; Neh 10:37-39. No doubt this particular chamber was able to accommodate several persons. It certainly was located in a prominent place being next to the chamber of the princes and just above the chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper of the door. The keeper of the door was an important priestly function. There were three of these officials corresponding to the number of gates of the Temple (Jer 52:24; 2Ki 25:18). They seem to have been in charge of money contributed for the Temple (2Ki 12:9). This would be a most advantageous spot for an object lesson to be seen by the leaders of Jerusalem. The fact that Hanan (or his sons) lent the room to Jeremiah on this occasion indicates that some high ranking officials of the nation were in sympathy with the prophet.
After a crowd of witnesses, probably including Temple officials, had assembled Jeremiah placed before the Rechabites large bowls of wine together with drinking cups and told them to drink (Jer 35:5). This is no example of placing a temptation before a weaker brother. It was not Jeremiahs intention to entice these ascetics into sin. He knew that the Rechabites had committed themselves to a rigorous rule of life that included the abstinence from all fruit of the vine. At this point the Rechabites have something in common with the Nazarites who also abstained from all fruit of the vine. There is no indication, however, that the Rechabites did not cut their hair or avoided contact with dead bodies as was the case with the Nazarites. It was their loyalty and obedience to this way of life that Jeremiah wished to vividly portray before the national leaders. So he offered them wine and, as expected, the Rechabites vigorously declined the invitation to drink. The use of the Hebrew imperfect in the Rechabite refusal implies customary action and can be translated: We never drink wine. They offered a reason for their refusal. Jonadab, the ancestor of their clan, had commanded them (1) not to drink wine; (2) not to build houses; and (3) not to engage in agricultural pursuits (Jer 35:6-7). The descendants of Jonadab had compiled with these commandments for over 200 years (Jer 35:8-10). Surely this is one of the most noted examples of the influence of a father in all the annals of history! They wish it to be clearly understood that their presence in Jerusalem does not indicate unfaithfulness to principle. Only for the sake of self-preservation had they sought refuge in the city. Bands of Chaldeans and Syrians pillaging the countryside had forced these gentle people to temporarily take Up residence behind the protective walk of the capital (Jer 35:11).
The Rechabites were a people who desired the simple pastoral life. But there is more involved. By their practices they were protesting the corruption which they observed in the sedentary population about them. The excessive drinking and wild harvest-time orgies associated with Baal worship were repulsive to Jonadab. Since Baal was an agricultural deity, the god of the farmer, Jonadab refused to allow members of his clan to sow seed, to plant or to own vineyards. By their austerity the Rechabites were a constant rebuke to those Israelites who succumbed to the tantalizing temptation to join in the sensual worship of Baal. Like the Nazarites, the Rechabites set an example of commitment to God. Even when forced to temporarily seek the safety of Jerusalem, even when confronted by the command of a prophet within the house of God these noble nomads refused to compromise their convictions. Along with their meager belongings the Rechabites had brought their principles to the big city with them. Such convictions and courage were as rare in the sixth century before Christ as they are today. May God grant that the lives of His people today will be a perpetual protest against the debauchery and drunkenness of this world.
Jeremiah commends the Rechabites for being faithful to their vow. This does not, of course, mean that Jeremiah shared their sentiments in every respect or regarded their way of life as a model that all should follow. Jeremiah spent most of his life in Jerusalem, lived in a house, presumably drank wine (it was the common daily beverage), and owned land (Jer 32:1-15). The main point here is that the faithful obedience of the Rechabites is pleasing to God. They were a living rebuke to a faithless and disobedient nation.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The last of these prophecies of the siege consists of telling the story of the Rechabites and applying it to the existing conditions. Jeremiah told how in the days of Jehoiakim he had been charged to bring the Rechabites into the house of Jehovah and test them in the matter of drinking wine. This he had done, but they, in loyalty to the command of their father, refused. They declared that they had been true to the instructions of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, taking no wine, sowing no seed, and dwelling in tents until the armies of Nebuchadnezzar had come into the land. On account of their presence, they had come into Jerusalem, but still refused to drink wine.
Jeremiah then placed the loyalty of these men to the commands of Jonadab in contrast with the disloyalty of his people to Jehovah. He had spoken the word of Jehovah to them with perpetual earnestness, but they had refused to listen or obey. Therefore Jehovah had determined judgment against them for their disobedience and persistent rebellion.
The prophecy ends with a promise made by Jeremiah to the Rechabites on behalf of Jehovah that because they had been true to the commandment of Jonadab they would have continued representation before Jehovah.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Lesson from the Rechabites
Jer 35:1-19
Among the refugees from the neighboring country who sought asylum within the walls of Jerusalem, was a group of Arabs, known as Rechabites. Probably they encamped in one of the open spaces. They clung tenaciously to the regulations promulgated by Jonadab some three hundred years before. See Jdg 1:16; 2Ki 10:15; 1Ch 2:55. They drank no wine, did not cultivate the ground, and lived in tents. We do well not to touch alcohol; not to strike our roots two deeply into this world, where we are pilgrims and strangers; and to cultivate the pilgrim spirit, which looks for and travels toward the city that hath foundations. Israel had not been as true to the divine precepts as the Rechabites to those of their founder. Therefore the Chosen People would be dispossessed and scattered; while the Rechabites have preserved their independence to the present day. Obedience is the only source of permanence. He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
CHAPTER NINETEEN
THE HOUSE OF THE RECHABITES
(Chap. 35)
In striking contrast to the story of vacillation and treachery, recorded in the chapter we have just been considering, is the very instructive incident now brought to our notice.
The prophet is bidden to go to the house of the Rechabites, and, after saluting them, to “bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink” (Jer 35:1-2).
This was sometime during the reign of Jehoiakim; therefore a number of years before the broken covenant of the last chapter. There is, however, a beautiful moral order in presenting it in this connection, utterly precluding the impious assumption that the various parts of this book have been thrown together haphazard by some later editor.
These Rechabites were not originally of the stock of Israel. They were Kenites, a tribe, the origin of which is shrouded in mystery. It is commonly supposed that they were Midianites by extraction, as Jethro the father-in-law of Moses belonged to the Kenites (Jdg 4:11). Heber the Kenite, with his wife Jael, took the part of Israel in the war with the Canaanites headed by Sisera, who was slain by Jael when he sought refuge in her tent.
In 1Ch 2:55 we find the Rechabites numbered with the children of Judah. “These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”
It is through their valiant representative Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, that they first acquired special prominence.
It was he who went out to meet Jehu after he had been anointed king of Israel by the nameless prophet sent by Elisha to Ramoth-Gilead. Having destroyed the vile house of Ahab, and likewise many of the house of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehu was riding towards Samaria when “he lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him: and he saluted him, and said to him, Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? And Jehonadab answered, It is” (2Ki 10:15).
Dramatically Jehu cried, “If it be, give me thy hand.” Upon his doing so, he took him up with him into the chariot, saying, “Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.”
The conclusion is irresistible that Jehu already knew Jehonadab well as a man devoted to the worship of the Lord, and an abhorrer of idolatry. The piety of his father Rechab is expressed in the name given to his son, the meaning of which is, “the Lord freely gave.” In company with the zealous but cruel king, Jehonadab is found commanding the search to see that no servants of the Lord were mingled with the worshipers of Baal in the temple of Samaria, prior to their massacre at the order of Jehu. He is not again mentioned until we come down to our present chapter.
In accordance with the word of the Lord, Jeremiah took Jaazaniah, the son of another Jeremiah, and his brethren, and the whole house of the Rechabites, and brought them into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, a man of GOD, in the temple. Here he set before them pots full of wine, and said, “Drink ye wine” (Jer 35:3-5).
Nobly they refused the invitation, giving as a reason for their conduct the fact that this very Jehonadab (called here Jonadab the son of Rechab) had, nearly three hundred years before, commanded them neither to drink wine, nor to build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant nor own vineyards, but to dwell ever in tents, that they might live many days in the land where they were strangers. This command they had literally obeyed from his days until the overrunning of the country by Nebuchadrezzar.
The presence of his troops had made it impossible for them to live in their former unguarded manner; so, to save their lives, they had moved into Jerusalem: but although thus obliged to dwell in a walled city, they would not violate the command forbidding them to drink of the fruit of the vine (Jer 35:6-11). Their reverence for and obedience to their great ancestor is all the more striking when the dissolute state of Israel and Judah is taken into consideration.
They were a living sermon on subjection to the law, for any who would take cognizance of them. Hence Jeremiah is bidden to “Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to My words? saith the Lord” (Jer 35:12-13).
Alas, their record had ever been that they only knew His law in order to break it. From the day when they made the calf in the wilderness until the time in which Jeremiah ministered to them, their history had been one long, shameful account of disobedience and willful rejection of His Word. Long ere this, He, through Isaiah, had cried,
“Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken; I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider” (Isa 1:2-3).
Less responsive than the beasts that perish, they had turned away their ears from His law, and refused to walk in the way of His commandments.
Has not this awful indictment a solemn message for Christians? How widespread is the same willful spirit even among those who are “bought with a price,” (1Co 6:20, 1Co 7:23) even the precious blood of CHRIST! How many of us act as truly knowing our Owner? We are not our own, but His who sold all that He had to purchase us! What kind of a bargain has He had?
What is our Master’s crib but the holy Word of GOD, so often neglected and uncared for in Christian homes! What an abundance of good provender does it contain, and all for the sheep of CHRIST! Yet how is it turned from, while the husks of this world are sought instead! It is to be feared there is very little moral difference between the state of Judah in the days of her downfall and the house of GOD today. Let us see to it that we learn the lesson of these faithful Rechabites.
Wine, in Scripture, is the symbol of joy (Jdg 9:13; Psa 104:15).
The Nazarite of old was to refrain from it, for he found not his joy in a ruined creation. The sons of Rechab, as strangers and pilgrims, touch not that which comes from the vine of the earth. They speak, in type, of those who seek a higher, deeper, more lasting joy than this world can ever offer. Having here no continuing city, dwelling in the pilgrim’s tent, sinking no foundations in this terrestrial scene, they reach out for that which is to come.
What a contrast to the time-serving trucklers to the present age, as well as to the faithless people and princes of the times of Jeremiah!
The Lord goes on to say that the words of Jonadab were performed by his descendants in all faithfulness; but although He had given His Word, “rising early and speaking,” (Jer 35:14) His people had not hearkened. Prophets, one after another, had been sent, bidding them refrain from their evil ways and amend their doings by turning truly to Himself from all their false gods. If they would thus obey His voice, He would prosper them still, and preserve them in their land. But there was no response. They inclined not the ear, nor hearkened to His entreaties.
Once more, therefore, it becomes the painful duty of the man who loved them so dearly that his heart was pained for them, to declare the doom that must soon be meted out to them. All the evil that the Lord had pronounced against them must shortly fall upon the city and the country, because, when He spake, they listened not; when He called, they answered not (Jer 35:16-17).
This is the opposite of what we get in Pro 1:28. There the wayward are warned of a time coming of which GOD says, “Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer; they shall seek Me early, but they shall not find Me.” This is the fearful result of such a course as that pursued by treacherous Judah, and by an equally treacherous Christendom.
As to the house of the Rechabites, it was declared to them, by the authority of the Lord Himself, that because of their faithful adherence to the commandments of Jonadab their father, he should not want a man to stand before the Lord forever (Jer 35:18-19).
The family of this devoted man has long since been lost to history, both sacred and profane, but we gather from this promise that somewhere in this world his descendants still exist; and, doubtless, in the Millennium, when all the prophecies regarding Israel and Judah are fulfilled, the house of Rechab will once more appear upon the scene, a testimony to the faithfulness of Him who is “not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” (Num 23:19).
In that day the Rechabites shall drink the pure joys that flow through the scene of Immanuel’s presence; nor will it appear as a hardship that they were denied the fruit of the vine while the curse rested upon the earth for man’s sake.
~ end of chapter 19 ~
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Jer 35:18-19
The Rechabites are introduced into the Word of God to reprove bad men in the Church, by contrasting them with good men out of the Church.
I. The popular criticism upon the Church is true: “Better men are out of it than some men in it.”
II. The contrast between apostates in the Church and good men out of it is an exception to the general fact.
III. The concessions which Christians make to cynical critics of the Church need often to be qualified by loyalty to the brotherhood.
IV. The virtues of good men, who are not Churchmen, are due largely to the salutary influence of the Church upon them.
V. While God blesses goodness and the truth wherever He finds them, He still depends for them chiefly from the Church which He has created for all time.
VI. These principles suggest that heaven is full of surprises for those who reach it.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 201.
References: Jer 35:18, Jer 35:19.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 84.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 35
The Faithful Rechabites and the Unfaithful Jews
1. The command concerning the Rechabites (Jer 35:1-11)
2. The lesson for the Jews (Jer 35:12-19)
The Rechabites were Kenites and were numbered with the children of Israel 1Ch 2:55. During the reign of Jehoiakim the incident of this chapter happened. The critics may rave against the unchronological construction of Jeremiah jumping from one period into another, but there we see the guiding hand of the Spirit in the arrangement of these events. It is perfectly in order that this should come next to the chapter which relates the broken covenant. A careful reading and study of this chapter will bring out the lesson of their faithfulness to their fathers command, and the unfaithfulness of the Jews to Gods command.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 3397, bc 607
The word: This discourse was probably delivered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, when the king of Babylon made war against him.
in the: Jer 1:3, Jer 22:13-19, Jer 25:1, Jer 26:1, Jer 36:1, Jer 36:9, Jer 36:29, Jer 46:2, 2Ki 23:35, 2Ki 24:1-6, 2Ch 36:5-8, Dan 1:1
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jer 35:1. Again the book drops back several years and stops at the reign of Jehoiakim. A glance at verse 11 will tell us this writing was in the days when Nebuchadnezzar had come against the land of Judah.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
MORE MESSAGES FOR JEHOIAKIM
This lesson opens with the story of the Rechabites (chap. 35). Jer 35:6-7 show the origin of their name and their order, to quote a modern term. The principles of the latter were (1) abstinence form strong drink; (2) voluntary poverty; and (3) a nomadic life.
Jer 35:11 gives the explanation of their presence in Jerusalem. Jer 35:12-17 furnish the cause for Jeremiahs action in the premises, who is to use these followers of Rechab as a kind of object-lesson for Judah. Jer 35:18-19 are a benediction on them for fidelity to their vows. These vows were severely tested in one particular at least, as we see in Jer 35:3-6. By comparing 2Ki 10:15 it will be seen that the founder of the Rechabites was prominent in Jehus time, and a maintainer of the true worship who assisted in the overthrow of Ahabs power.
Chapter 36 requires little explanation. Jer 36:1-4 witness to Jeremiahs authorship. Jer 36:5 shows him again a prisoner. At Jer 36:9 a new section begins, in that Baruch who previously read the book in the court of the temple now has another opportunity to do so, the immediate outcome of which is stated in Jer 36:11-15. From this incident grows another, namely, the interest of the princes both in the words of the book and the human author of them (Jer 36:16-19). At last their contents are set before the king (Jer 36:20-22), whose contemptuous treatment of them in the face of earnest protest is recorded (Jer 36:23-25). What divine judgment is pronounced against him (Jer 36:29-31)? And what is the further history of the words given to the prophet (Jer 36:27-28; Jer 36:32)? Not that in this new collection of writings we have more than a copy of the old, a much fuller record of Jehovahs revelations to the prophet. Note also the last clause of Jer 36:26. How the Lord may have hid them is not revealed, but the fact recalls how Martin Luther was protected by God through the friendly and powerful Elector in the Wartburg.
QUESTIONS
1. Give your recollection of the founder of the Rechabites as recorded in 2 Kings?
2. What were the principles of their order?
3. How did they happen to be in Jerusalem?
4. Tell the story of Jesuss testing of them; 5. What object had he in view?
6. What lessons may be gathered from the story?
7. Tell the story of chapter 36 in your own words.
8. What lessons may be gathered from it?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Jer 35:1. The word which came unto Jeremiah in the days of Jehoiakim, &c. Here we have another evidence that the prophecies of this book are not placed in that order wherein they were delivered, for all the intermediate prophecies from chap. 26. belong clearly to the reign of Zedekiah; and consequently are posterior to this chapter and the next, which are dated in the reign of Jehoiakim, together with chap. 45., which is closely connected with the latter of these two chapters. This may most probably be referred to the fourth year of Jehoaikims reign, when Nebuchadnezzar, having beaten the king of Egypts army at Euphrates, (see Jer 46:2,) marched toward Syria and Palestine, to recover those provinces again which the king of Egypt had conquered, in which expedition he laid siege to Jerusalem.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jer 35:2. Go to the house of the Rechabites, then come up to Jerusalem with their flocks for fear of the Chaldean army. This family is often named in the scriptures, as descended from Jethro, priest of Midian. They were descendants of Midian, son of Cush. They are called Kenites by Moses. Numbers 24. Jdg 1:16. Jonadab was the son of Rechab in a near or remote line, and sheik or prince of his people at the time when Jehu ascended the throne. Abhorring the crimes of the late reign, he came early to congratulate Jehu, and was as a prince admitted to ride in his chariot. 2 Kings 15. They had followed the Hebrews on the invitation of Moses, Num 10:29, and their lot of land fell to the west of Amalek.
In habits, rather than worship, they differed from the Hebrews, preferring the ancient life of their fathers, who like the Bedouin Arabs, dwelt in tents. This illustrious Jonadab imposed a paternal injunction on his house, not to drink wine nor strong drink, by which metheglin, or bee-wine may be understood. When the rulers, the priests, and the prophets erred through wine; when all tables were full of vomit, and no place clean, Isaiah 27:7, 8, 14, the Lord would reprove them by the temperance of the Rechabites. And I am happy to add from printed documents, that about a million of persons in England have subscribed the books to abstain from spirituous liquors, except in cases of need.
Jer 35:6. Jonadabcommanded, saying, ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons for ever. This injunction was founded, no doubt, on high authorities of primitive example. And what is the base of all spirits? Is it not corn, grapes, or other fruits? Is not all spirit the result of fermentation, which raises a heat in the mass to seventy degrees? This spirit is taken off by distillation; and all the vessels being made of copper, abundance of mineral poison is combined with the liquor, and remains in it in a state of solution. If this be done by a chemical process, is there any chemical process equal to the natural preparations of chyle in the stomach? Do not the horse which works extremely hard grow fat by living on corn and water? It must therefore be a vulgar error to suppose that man needs concoction of spirits to strengthen him for the labours of life. On the contrary, does not destruction follow to the constitution, wretchedness to families, and ruin to the whole scale of public morals, from the filthy habits of smoking and drinking drams.
Jer 35:7. Ye shall dwell in tents, as Jael did, and all their fathers, and as the Bedouins do to the present day; that ye may live many days, which is not the case with drunkards and licentious citizens.
Jer 35:19. Jonadabshall not want a man to stand before me for ever. Three hundred years had now elapsed from the days of Jonadab, and a thousand from the time of Hobab; and here is still a promise of continuance.After the captivity, it is generally allowed that the Assideans, who came to Judas Maccabeus, are the same as the Rechabites. 1Ma 2:42; 1Ma 7:13, 2Ma 14:6.
Some have supposed the Essenes to be successors of the Rechabites. Josephus names them for their virtues in the most honourable manner. Wars of the Jews, book 2. chap. 12. Their life was full of piety and devotion, somewhat like the solitaries of later times. They had a community of temporal goods, and carried on no merchandize, though they abhorred idleness. They wore white clothes, which they never changed till they were worn out. They regarded an oath as a great crime, accounting a simple affirmation quite sufficient. They believed the soul to be immortal, and affirmed that after death it passed the bounds of the ocean to enjoy Elysian delights.
It is no way likely that so remarkable a people should escape the notice of the elegant Pliny. He names them as abhorrent of marriage, as needing no money, as residing under palm trees; and yet, though pressed with miseries, their nation had supported all privations for more than a thousand years. Plin, lib. 5. cap. 17. A religious order may exist, but a nation cannot exist in a state of celibacy. The long continuance of this nation, agrees very much with the character of the Rechabites, who might have among them a sect of solitaries: and a people of those habits might make an easy association with the christian church.
REFLECTIONS.
The love of God, ever watchful of motives to bring sinners to recollection and repentance, availed itself of the temperance of the Rechabites to reprove the Jews. Here we cannot but remark the high character of Jonadab, who had saluted Jehu two hundred and seventy seven years previous to the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. He was attached to the independent life and the industrious and temperate habits of his fathers; he despised the effeminacy and voluptuous pleasures of towns; and there is no trace that this family was ever contaminated with idolatry.
He was moreover a prudent man. Trusting in the God of his fathers, and in the patriarchal covenant, he not only avoided vice, but war also, by a rigid adherence to patriarchal habits. Hence his house, was preserved in health, in peace, and in prosperity. His children also revered his memory, as a father beloved and counselled of God. Christians, whose lot is cast in great towns, are not circumstanced to preserve their children from a daily sight of vice, but let us do our best. Let us insolate our families from those who revere not the maxims of God, and then we can pray with greater confidence for covenant blessings.
Jeremiah, to make the case more conspicuous, and to reprove the drunken priests and rulers with more effect, was directed to take the Rechabites into a chamber of the temple. And behold, though tempted by a prophet, they would drink no wine! The sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah a prophet, were no doubt present to attest their temperance and filial obedience. Here was Jeremiahs text for a new sermon. Here was a family who obeyed their father, but Judah obeyed not the God of their fathers. This fact he pressed with an emphasis which imposed conviction and silence on a guilty audience; yet we do not hear that any converts were made by the power of his word. It is however some consolation to a minister when vice is shamed, and put out of countenance. All ministers ought therefore to avail themselves of recent and local occurrences to attack the vices of the age with advantage and effect.
By honouring our father and mother we claim the promise of long life: and the happiest way of honouring them is to imitate their virtues. Here we have an illustrious instance. The Rechabites obeyed their father, and God blessed them with family prosperity, and promised to bless them to the end; for his eyes are always over the righteous for good, and for a sure defence.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jeremiah 35. A Lesson in Obedience from the Rechabites.These were the descendants of that Jonadab who, in 842, aided Jehu to overthrow the house of Ahab and the cult of Baal of Tyre (2Ki 10:15-23*); they were connected with the Kenites (1Ch 2:55), from whom the worship of Yahweh may have passed to Israel (cf. Jdg 1:16). The incident here described is to be dated c. 598 (cf. Jer 35:11 with 2Ki 24:2), i.e. after the events of Jeremiah 36.
Jer 35:1-11. Jeremiah is told to bring the family (house) of the Rechabites into one of the rooms (cf. Jer 36:12, Eze 40:17, etc.) erected round the Temple courts, and to offer them wine, which he does. They reply that it is an ancestral rule with them to drink no wine, and to dwell in tents, having no share in vine-culture, agriculture, or housebuilding (i.e. they are loyal to the nomadic tradition; the civilisation of Canaan, involving the cult of the Baalim, they regard as an influence corrupting the true worship of the desert God, Yahweh, see pp. 74, 85, 87, 2Ki 10:15 f.*). The Rechabites explain their (exceptional) presence in Jerusalem as due to flight before the invaders.
Jer 35:2. The incident takes place in the Temple, in order to give it publicity and solemnity.
Jer 35:4. the keeper of the door: Jer 52:24, where three of these high officials are named after the second priest.
Jer 35:12-19. Jeremiah proceeds to contrast the loyal obedience of the Rechabites to the commands of Jonadab with the disobedience of Judah and Jerusalem generally to the commands of Yahweh Himself, given through a line of prophets (Jer 18:11, Jer 25:5 f.); hence the coming punishment. To the Rechabites is guaranteed the continuance of their line (Jer 35:19; cf. Jer 33:17) as servants of Yahweh.
Jer 35:14. I is emphatic.
Jer 35:19. stand before me: see on Jer 15:19.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
35:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the days {a} of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,
(a) For the disposition and order of these prophecies. See Geneva “Jer 27:1”
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The meeting with the Rechabites 35:1-11
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
This oracle came to Jeremiah during King Jehoiakim’s reign (609-598 B.C.) after the Babylonians had begun to invade Judah (Jer 35:11). 2Ki 24:1-2 reads, "In his [Jehoiakim’s] days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him [in 602 B.C]. And the LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Syrians, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it . . ." This seems to be the setting for what follows. The year was probably 602 or 601 B.C. (cf. Jer 12:7-13).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER IV
THE RECHABITES
Jer 35:1-19
“Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever.”- Jer 35:19
THIS incident is dated “in the days of Jehoiakim.” We learn from Jer 35:11 that it happened at a time when the open country of Judah was threatened by the advance of Nebuchadnezzar with a Chaldean and Syrian army. If Nebuchadnezzar marched into the south of Palestine immediately after the battle of Carchemish, the incident may have happened, as some suggest, in the eventful fourth year of Jehoiakim; or if he did not appear in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem till after he had taken over the royal authority at Babylon, Jeremiahs interview with the Rechabites may have followed pretty closely upon the destruction of Baruchs roll. But we need not press the words “Nebuchadnezzar came up into the land”; they may only mean that Judah was invaded by an army acting under his orders. The mention of Chaldeans and Assyrians suggests that this invasion is the same as that mentioned in 2Ki 24:1-2, where we are told that Jehoiakim served Nebuchadnezzar three years and then rebelled against him, whereupon Jehovah sent against him bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, and sent them against Judah to destroy it. If this is the invasion referred to in our chapter it falls towards the end of Jehoiakims reign, and sufficient time had elapsed to allow the kings anger against Jeremiah to cool, so that the prophet could venture out of his hiding place.
The marauding bands of Chaldeans and their allies had driven the country people in crowds into Jerusalem, and among them the nomad clan of the Rechabites. According to 1Ch 2:55, the Rechabites traced their descent to a certain Hemath, and were a branch of the Kenites, an Edomite tribe dwelling for the most part in the south of Palestine. These Kenites had maintained an ancient and intimate alliance with Judah, and in time the allies virtually became a single people, so that after the Return from the Captivity all distinction of race between Kenites and Jews was forgotten, and the Kenites were reckoned among the families of Israel. In this fusion of their tribe with Judah, the Rechabite clan would be included. It is clear from all the references both to Kenites and to Rechabites that they had adopted the religion of Israel and worshipped Jehovah. We know nothing else of the early history of the Rechabites. The statement in Chronicles that the father of the house of Rechab was Hemath perhaps points to their having been at one time settled at some place called Hemath near Jabez in Judah. Possibly too Rechab, which means “rider,” is not a personal name, but a designation of the clan as horsemen of the desert.
These Rechabites were conspicuous among the Jewish farmers and townsfolk by their rigid adherence to the habits of nomad life; and it was this peculiarity that attracted the notice of Jeremiah, and made them a suitable object lesson to the recreant Jews. The traditional customs of the clan had been formulated into positive commands by Jonadab, the son of Rechab, i.e., the Rechabite. This must be the same Jonadab who cooperated with Jehu in overthrowing the house of Omri and suppressing the worship of Baal. Jehus reforms concluded the long struggle of Elijah and Elisha against the house of Omri and its half-heathen religion. Hence we may infer that Jonadab and his Rechabites had come under the influence of these great prophets, and that their social and religious condition was one result of Elijahs work. Jeremiah stood in the true line of succession from the northern prophets in his attitude towards religion and politics; so that there would be bonds of sympathy between him and these nomad refugees.
The laws or customs of Jonadab, like the Ten Commandments, were chiefly negative: “Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons forever: neither shall ye build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land wherein ye are strangers.”
Various parallels have been found to the customs of the Rechabites. The Hebrew Nazarites abstained from wine and strong drink, from grapes and grape juice and everything made of the vine, “from the kernels even to the husk.” {Num 6:2} Mohammed forbade his followers to drink any sort of wine or strong drink. But the closest parallel is one often quoted from Diodorus Siculus, (19:94) who, writing about B.C. 8, tells us that the Nabatean Arabs were prohibited under the penalty of death from sowing corn or planting fruit trees, using wine, or building houses. Such abstinence is not primarily ascetic; it expresses the universal contempt of the wandering hunter and herdsman for tillers of the ground, who are tied to one small spot of earth, and for burghers, who further imprison themselves in narrow houses and behind city walls. The nomad has a not altogether unfounded instinct that such acceptance of material restraints emasculates both soul and body. A remarkable parallel to the laws of Jonadab ben Rechab is found in the injunctions of the dying highlander, Ranald of the Mist, to his heir: “Son of the Mist, be free as thy forefathers. Own no lord-receive no law-take no hire-give no stipend-build no hut-enclose no pasture-sow no grain.” The Rechabite faith in the higher moral value of their primitive habits had survived their alliance with Israel, and Jonadab did his best to protect his clan from the taint of city life and settled civilisation. Abstinence from wine was not enjoined chiefly, if at all, to guard against intoxication, but because the fascinations of the grape might tempt the clan to plant vineyards, or, at any rate, would make them dangerously dependent upon vine dressers and wine merchants.
Till this recent invasion, the Rechabites had faithfully observed their ancestral laws, but the stress of circumstances had now driven them into a fortified city, possibly even into houses, though it is more probable that they were encamped in some open space within the walls. Jeremiah was commanded to go and bring them into the Temple, that is, into one of the rooms in the Temple buildings, and offer them wine. The narrative proceeds in the first person, “I took Jaazaniah,” so that the chapter will have been composed by the prophet himself. In somewhat legal fashion he tells us how he took “Jaazaniah ben Jeremiah, ben Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and all the clan of the Rechabites.” All three names are compounded of the Divine name Iah, Jehovah, and serve to emphasise the devotion of the clan to the God of Israel. It is a curious coincidence that the somewhat rare name Jeremiah should occur twice in this connection. The room to which the prophet took his friends is described as the chamber of the disciples of the man of God Hanan ben Igdaliah, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of the keeper of the threshold, Maaseiah ben Shallum. Such minute details probably indicate that this chapter was committed to writing while these buildings were still standing and still had the same occupants as at the time of this incident, but to us the topography is unintelligible. The “man of God” or prophet Hanan was evidently in sympathy with Jeremiah, and had a following of disciples who formed a sort of school of the prophets, and were a sufficiently permanent body to have a chamber assigned to them in the Temple buildings. The keepers of the threshold were Temple officials of high standing. The “princes” may have been the princes of Judah, who might very well have a chamber in the Temple courts; but the term is general, and may simply refer to other Temple officials. Hanans disciples seem to have been in good company.
These exact specifications of person and place are probably designed to give a certain legal solemnity and importance to the incident, and seem to warrant us in rejecting Reuss suggestion that our narrative is simply an elaborate prophetic figure.
After these details Jeremiah next tells us how he set before his guests bowls of wine and cups, and invited them to drink. Probably Jaazaniah and his clansmen were aware that the scene was intended to have symbolic religious significance. They would not suppose that the prophet had invited them all, in this solemn fashion, merely to take a cup of wine; and they would welcome an opportunity of showing their loyalty to their own peculiar customs. They said: “We will drink no wine: for our father Jonadab the son of Rechab commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons forever.” They further recounted Jonadabs other commands and their own scrupulous obedience in every point, except that now they had been compelled to seek refuge in a walled city. Then the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah; he was commanded to make yet another appeal to the Jews, by contrasting their disobedience with the fidelity of the Rechabites. The Divine King and Father of Israel had been untiring in His instruction and admonitions: “I have spoken unto you, rising up early and speaking.” He had addressed them in familiar fashion through their fellow countrymen: “I have sent also unto you all My servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them.” Yet they had not hearkened unto the God of Israel or His prophets. The Rechabites had received no special revelation; they had not been appealed to by numerous prophets. Their Torah had been simply given them by their father Jonadab; nevertheless the commands of Jonadab had been regarded and those of Jehovah had been treated with contempt.
Obedience and disobedience would bring forth their natural fruit. “I will bring upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.” But because the Rechabites obeyed the commandment of their father Jonadab, “Therefore thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever.”
Jehovahs approval of the obedience of the Rechabites is quite independent of the specific commands which they obeyed. It does not bind us to abstain from wine any more than from building houses and sowing seed. Jeremiah himself, for instance, would have had no more hesitation in drinking wine than in sowing his field at Anathoth. The tribal customs of the Rechabites had no authority whatever over him. Nor is it exactly his object to set forth their merit of obedience and its certain and great reward. These truths are rather touched upon incidentally. What Jeremiah seeks to emphasise is the gross, extreme, unique wickedness of Israels disobedience. Jehovah had not looked for any special virtue in His people. His Torah was not made up of counsels of perfection. He had only expected the loyalty that Moab paid to Chemosh, and Tyre and Sidon to Baal. He would have been satisfied if Israel had observed His laws as faithfully as the nomads of the desert kept up their ancestral habits. Jehovah had spoken through Jeremiah long ago and said: “Pass over the isles of Chittim, and see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there be any such thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.” {Jer 2:11} Centuries later Christ found Himself constrained to upbraid the cities of Israel, “wherein most of His mighty works were done” “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you.” {Mat 11:21-22} And again and again in the history of the Church the Holy Spirit has been grieved because those who profess and call themselves Christians, and claim to prophesy and do many mighty works in the name of Christ, are less loyal to the gospel than the heathen to their own superstitions.
Buddhists and Mohammedans have been held up as modern examples to rebuke the Church, though as a rule with scant justification. Perhaps material for a more relevant contrast may be found nearer home. Christian societies have been charged with conducting their affairs by methods to which a respectable business firm would not stoop; they are said to be less scrupulous in their dealings and less chivalrous in their honour than the devotees of pleasure; at their gatherings they are sometimes supposed to lack the mutual courtesy of members of a Legislature or a Chamber of Commerce. The history of councils and synods and Church meetings gives colour to such charges, which could never have been made if Christians had been as jealous for the Name of Christ as a merchant is for his credit or a soldier for his honour.
And yet these contrasts do not argue any real moral and religious superiority of the Rechabites over the Jews or of unbelievers over professing Christians. It was comparatively easy to abstain from wine and to wander over wide pasture lands instead of living cooped up in cities-far easier than to attain to the great ideals of Deuteronomy and the prophets. It is always easier to conform to the code of business and society than to live according to the Spirit of Christ. The fatal sin of Judah was not that it fell so far short of the ideals, but that it repudiated them. So long as we lament our own failures and still cling to the Name and Faith of Christ, we are not shut out from mercy; our supreme sin is to crucify Christ afresh, by denying the power of His gospel, while we retain its empty form.
The reward promised to the Rechabites for their obedience was that “Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever”; to stand before Jehovah is often used to describe the exercise of priestly or prophetic ministry. It has been suggested that the Rechabites were hereby promoted to the status of the true Israel, “a kingdom of priests”; but this phrase may merely mean that their clan should continue in existence. Loyal observance of national law, the subordination of individual caprice and selfishness to the interests of the community, make up a large part of that righteousness that establisheth a nation.
Here, as elsewhere, students of prophecy have been anxious to discover some literal fulfilment; and have searched curiously for any trace of the continued existence of the Rechabites. The notice in Chronicles implies that they formed part of the Jewish community of the Restoration. Apparently Alexandrian Jews were acquainted with Rechabites at a still later date. Psa 71:1-24 is ascribed by the Septuagint to “the sons of Jonadab.” Eusebius mentions “priests of the sons of Rechab,” and Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the twelfth century, states that he met with them in Arabia. More recent travellers have thought that they discovered the descendants of Rechab amongst the nomads in Arabia or the Peninsula of Sinai that still practised the old ancestral customs.
But the fidelity of Jehovah to his promises does not depend upon our unearthing obscure tribes in distant deserts. The gifts of God are without repentance, but they have their inexorable conditions; no nation can flourish for centuries on the virtues of its ancestors. The Rechabites may have vanished in the ordinary stream of history, and yet we can hold that Jeremiahs prediction has been fulfilled and is still being fulfilled. No scriptural prophecy is limited in its application to an individual or a race, and every nation possessed by the spirit of true patriotism shall “stand before Jehovah forever.”