We don’t know much about the Rekabites. Their clan would not drink wine, build houses, or settle in the land. They led a nomadic lifestyle because their forefather had commanded them to do so. Many commentators understand these self-imposed vows as their own religious expression about God, connecting a settled, agricultural lifestyle with Canaanite Baal worship. At least from 2 Kings 10:15–17 we know that their ancestor Jonadab was staunchly opposed to Baal worship.

1. JEREMIAH 35 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Rekabites
I TRODUCTIO
1. MOODY'S TODAY I THE WORD, "Every culture has had
countercultural groups. Hasidic Jews retain a lifestyle distinct from
other Jews; the Amish maintain an agricultural, nonmodern, way of
living; and monks take vows of poverty and chastity for life. In a
flashback to the beginning of the Babylonian invasion, Jeremiah 35
presents a similar group in Judah: the Rekabites.
We don’t know much about the Rekabites. Their clan would not drink
wine, build houses, or settle in the land. They led a nomadic lifestyle
because their forefather had commanded them to do so. Many
commentators understand these self-imposed vows as their own
religious expression about God, connecting a settled, agricultural
lifestyle with Canaanite Baal worship. At least from 2 Kings 10:15–17
we know that their ancestor Jonadab was staunchly opposed to Baal
worship.
The importance of the Rekabite illustration had to do with their
generational faithfulness to the vows. Even when Jeremiah invited them
to the temple and offered them large bowls of wine, they refused to
drink, citing their longstanding tradition and the command from
Jonadab. Their spokesman explained that since that time, none of them
had violated their way of life, and the only reason they were in
Jerusalem was to escape the invading armies of Babylon.
God used this group as an indictment of Judah’s lack of obedience. The
argument moved from the lesser to the greater. If the Rekabites had
obeyed a smaller, human command faithfully for generations, why had
Judah not obeyed far more important commands from God Himself,
even after the repeated reminders from the prophets? As a result, God
promised punishment for Judah’s generational faithlessness and

2. blessing for the steadfast Rekabites."
1. This is the word that came to Jeremiah from
the Lord during the reign of Jehoiakim son of
Josiah king of Judah:
1. ET BIBLE OTES, “The introductory statement here shows that this incident
is earlier than those in Jer 32–34 which all take place in the reign of Zedekiah.
Jehoiakim ruled from 609/8 b.c. until 598/97 b.c. and his brother Zedekiah followed
him after a brief reign of three months by Jehoiakim’s son who was captured by
ebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon. Zedekiah ruled from 598/7 b.c. until the
kingdom fell in 587/86. The position of this chapter is out of chronological order
emphasizing the theme of covenant infidelity (Jer 34; 35:12-17) versus the
faithfulness to his commands that God expected from Israel as illustrated by the
Rechabites’ faithfulness to the commands of their progenitor. This is thus another
one of those symbolic acts in Jeremiah which have significance to the message of the
book (compare Jer 13, 19). This incident likely took place during the time that
people living in the countryside like the Rechabites were forced to take shelter in the
fortified cities because of the raiding parties that ebuchadnezzar had sent against
Jehoiakim after he had rebelled against him in 603 b.c. (compare v. 11 and Jer 4:5
with 2 Kgs 24:1-2).
2. Clarke, “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.
3. Gill, “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;

3. 4. Henry, “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 (Jer_35:1); 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 (Jer_35:11), which seems to refer to the invasion mentioned 2Ki_24:2,
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.
5. Jamison, “Jer_35:1-19. Prophecy in the reign of Jehoiakim, when the Chaldeans, in
conjunction with the Syrians and Moabites, invaded Judea.
By the obedience of the Rechabites to their father, Jeremiah condemns the
disobedience of the Jews to God their Father. The Holy Spirit has arranged Jeremiah’s
prophecies by the moral rather than the chronological connection. From the history of
an event fifteen years before, the Jews, who had brought back their manumitted servants
into bondage, are taught how much God loves and rewards obedience, and hates and
punishes disobedience.
6. CALVI O 1-7, “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

4. 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 2 Kings 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

5. commands of the Prophet.
Go, said he, to the house of Rechab, (we have said that they dwelt then at Jerusalem,
and this will appear hereafter) and bring them unto the house of Jehovah But we
must inquire why the Prophet was ordered to lay wine before them in the Temple
rather than in a private house. The reason, indeed, is evident; for God’s purpose
was to shew how wicked and perverse the Jews were, for not even the priests
abstained from wine except when they were performing their duties. The Law
commanded them to abstain then from wine; but the Levites, who took care of the
Temple, and also the priests, when not engaged in the discharge of their office, were
fully allowed to drink wine. As, then, the priests were permitted to drink wine even
in the Temple, that is, in the chambers adjoining the priests’ court, what excuse
could have been made when the Rechabites, who were yet of the common people,
and even aliens among the Jews, refused wine according to the command of their
father Jenadab? Had God forbidden the whole people the use of wine, the Law
might have appeared too rigid; but God not only permitted the people to drink
wine, but also the priests; nay, no religious reverence prevented them from drinking
wine close to the Temple when they were not engaged in their duties. We now, then,
perceive why the place has been mentioned, that is, that the Prophet relates that he
brought the Rechabites into the Temple.
Go, then, and bring them into the house of Jehovah, into one of the chambers, and
offer them wine to drink We have said that the chambers were nigh the priests’
court; for many of the Levites were always keeping watch, guarding the Temple,
and also some of the priests. The priests, while serving their turn, alone abstained
from wine; but a permission was given by the Law to the Levites to drink wine, and
in those very chambers, which were on both sides a sort of appendages to the
Temple.
ow the Prophet adds that he took Jaazaniah, who was a chief man, and as it were
the head of the family. And he names his father, even Jeremiah, the son of
Habaziniah; and he then says, his whole house It is added, that he brought them
into the Temple, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man
of God The Prophet no doubt chose a well-known place, that the report of this
might spread through the whole city, and even throughout Judea, and also that the
dignity of the place might add credit to the report; for we know that when a thing is
done in an obscure corner, it may be regarded as doubtful or fabulous. But the
Prophet brought the Rechabites into an honorable place, even into the chamber of
the sons of Hanan And he afterwards says, that he was the son of Igdaliah, a man of
God Doubtless such was the reverence in which this man was held, that no one
dared to call into question what had been done there. Then he adds that the
chamber was nigh the chamber of the princes, which was over the chamber of the
keeper of the treasury Some render the last word, “the entrance,” 99 the word
means a vessel; and it signifies here the sacred furniture; and there is a change of
number, for this word included all the vessels of the Temple. We hence see that the
place was select, superior to other places, so that it might be as a notable theater,
and that the prophecy might thus gain more credit among all the Jews.
He says, that he set wine before them and requested them to drink when full cups
were placed before them. Then he adds that they refused, We will not drink wine,
because Jonadab our father commanded us, saying, Drink ye no wine, nor build

6. houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, nor have any such thing as your own We
see that four things were commanded the Rechabites by their father, to drink no
wine, to cultivate no fields, and to plant no vineyards, — these were three; and the
fourth was, not to build houses, but to be content with tents. Here is also added a
promise, that ye may live long in the land where ye are strangers Then Jonadab
promised to his sons and his posterity a long life, if they obeyed his precepts, that is,
to live without wine all their life, and not to possess anything, nor build houses.
Their saying that they had obeyed their father’s precept, shall be hereafter
considered, for we cannot take in everything at once.
But let us now see whether Jenadab did what was right in forbidding his posterity to
drink wine and to cultivate land. Agriculture is in itself a mode of living not only
honest and innocent, but also remote from ambition, fraud, and plunder: in short, it
seems to be of all kinds of living the simplest and the most innocent. Then the advice
of Jenadab to keep his sons from agriculture might in this instance be blamed and
condemned. But the probability is, that when he saw the Jews and the Israelites
despising the Law of their God, he thought of the vengeance, which, though it
followed not for a long time, yet ought then to have been dreaded. He also saw the
sources of vices, even that the Israelites especially gave themselves up to luxuries,
and indulged themselves, as it clearly appears from the Prophets, in all manner of
excesses. When, therefore, he saw, on the one hand, the corruptions of the land, and
that on the other he dreaded punishment, he wished his posterity to accustom
themselves to an austere mode of living, so that they might more easily move here
and there, and also that they might with more tranquil minds endure any adversity
that might happen, being neither rich nor used to delicacies. Jenadab then did not
condemn agriculture, nor the use of wine, nor commodious habitations, when he
commanded his posterity to be contented with tents and water, and wished them to
buy wheat and to follow only a pastoral life; but as we have said, he had another
object in view. This, then, is what we are, in the first place, to bear in mind.
But we must observe, at the same time, that the posterity of Jenadab did not live on
plunder, nor spend their time in idleness; for they were shepherds, who with great
labor and many watchings gained their own living. But it was their father Jonadab’s
wish that they should in a manner be separated from the common affairs of life, on
account of the corruptions which prevailed, and which he saw rampant before his
eyes; so that he had no doubt as to what was to be, when the Israelites abandoned
themselves more and more to all kinds of excesses, and when all integrity was
disregarded. This then was the reason why Jenadab restrained his posterity from
following the common way of living.
His counsel is, however, not commended, but the obedience which his sons
rendered; and this is here proposed as an example, in order to make the Jews
ashamed, because they so perversely rejected the Law of God and the doctrine of the
Prophets: and it is an argument from the less to the greater; for if the authority of a
mortal man prevailed so much with his posterity as to cause them to abstain from
wine, and not only to live frugally, but also to endure cold and want and other hard
things, how much more it behoved the Jews to do what was right and easy, when
God commanded them: This is one thing, even a comparison between God and
mortal man. And then there is another, — that this precept continued in force for
three hundred years, and kept posterity from neglect; but the Law of God, which

7. continually sounded in the ears of the people, had no power to influence them. Here
is another comparison. The third is, that God acted equitably, and did not press too
much on the Jews, so as to make the rigor of the law odious and wearisome: as then
God used moderation in his Law, so as to require from the people nothing but what
was easy to be borne, he says that Jonadab was rigid and austere, for he forbade the
use of wine and did not allow his posterity to cultivate fields, nor to dwell in houses.
This threefold comparison ought then to be borne in mind, and these three parts of
the contrast ought to be well considered, even that God had not obtained from his
people what Jonadab had from his posterity; and also that God, continually
admonishing, prevailed nothing, when a regard for a dead man retained posterity in
their duty; and further, that the Law of God, which required nothing but what
might be easily done, had been perversely rejected by the Jews, when the
Rechabites, in honor to their dead father, suffered themselves to be deprived of all
luxuries, and dreaded not an austere, rustic, and, as it were, a savage kind of life;
for they not only abstained from wine, but also dared not to shelter themselves from
cold by dwelling in houses, and were forbidden all the comforts of life.
ow that. the Prophet was ordered to offer them wine, and that they refused, a
question here arises, Was their continency in this respect laudable? They seemed
thus to prefer Jonadab to God, for they knew that Jeremiah, who offered them
wine, was sent by God. But the Rechabites, no doubt, modestly excused themselves,
when they said that it was not right for them to drink wine, because they had been
forbidden by their father. It was not then their purpose to give more honor to their
father than to God or to his Prophet, but they simply answered for the sake of
excusing themselves, that they had abstained from wine for three hundred years,
that is, that the whole family had done so. This, then, is the solution of the question.
But what the Papists do in bringing against us the Rechabites, first to support their
tyrannical laws, and secondly, in order to torment miserable consciences at their
pleasure, is frivolous in the extreme. As I have already said, the advice of Jonadab is
not commended, as though he had rightly forbidden his sons to drink wine; but only
his sons are spoken of as having reverently and humbly obeyed the command of
their dead father. Then this passage gives no countenance to the Papists, as though
the object of it was to bind the consciences of the faithful to their laws; for what is
here spoken of is, that the Rechabites proved by their obedience how base and
wicked was the obduracy of the people, as they shewed less reverence and honor to
God than these did to a man that was dead.
But the Papists, however, dwell much on another point, — that whatever has been
handed down from the fathers ought to be observed; and thus they reason, “The
authority of the whole Church is greater than that of a private man; now the
Rechabites are commended for having followed the command of a private
individual, much more then ought we to obey the laws of the Church.” To this I
answer, that we ought to obey the fathers and the whole Church: nor have we a
controversy with them on this subject; for we do not simply say, that everything
which men have delivered to us ought to be rejected; but we deny that we ought to
obey the laws of men, when they bind the conscience without any necessity. When,
therefore, a religious act is enjoined on us, men arrogate to themselves what is
peculiar to God alone; thus the authority of God is violated, when men claim so
much for themselves as to bind consciences by their own laws. We must then

8. distinguish between civil laws, such as are introduced to preserve order, or for some
other end, and spiritual laws, such as are introduced into God’s worship, and by
which religion is enjoined, and necessity is laid on consciences.
7. EBC, “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, Jeremiah’s interview with the Rechabites may have followed
pretty closely upon the destruction of Baruch’s 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 Jehoiakim’s reign, and sufficient time had
elapsed to allow the king’s 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.
2 “Go to the Rekabite family and invite them to
come to one of the side rooms of the house of the
Lord and give them wine to drink.”

9. 1. BAR ES, "The house - The family.
The Rechabites - The Rechabites were a nomadic tribe not of Jewish but of Kenite
race, and connected with the Amalekites Num_24:21; 1Sa_15:6, from whom however
they had separated themselves, and made a close alliance with the tribe of Judah Jdg_
1:16, on whose southern borders they took up their dwelling 1Sa_27:10. While, however,
the main body of the Kenites gradually adopted settled habits, and dwelt in cities 1Sa_
30:29, the Rechabites persisted in leading the free desert life, and in this determination
they were finally confirmed by the influence and authority of Jonadab, who lived in
Jehu’s reign. He was a zealous adherent of Yahweh 2Ki_10:15-17, and possibly a
religious reformer; and as the names of the men mentioned in the present narrative are
all compounded with Yah, it is plain that the tribe continued their allegiance to Him.
The object of Jonadab in endeavoring to preserve the nomad habits of his race was
probably twofold. He wished first to maintain among them the purer morality and
higher feeling of the desert contrasted with the laxity and effeminacy of the city life; and
secondly he was anxious for the preservation of their freedom. Their punctilious
obedience Jer_35:14 to Jonadab’s precepts is employed by Jeremiah to point a useful
lesson for his own people.
The date of the prophecy is the interval between the battle of Carchemish and the
appearance of Nebuchadnezzar at Jerusalem, Jer_35:11 at the end of the same year. It is
consequently 17 years earlier than the narrative in Jer_34:8 ff
1B. MEYER, “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.”
2. Clarke, “The house of the Rechabites - The Rechabites were not descendants
of Jacob; they were Kenites, 1Ch_2:55, a people originally settled in that part of Arabia
Petroea, called the land of Midian; and most probably the descendants of Jethro, the
father-in-law of Moses. Compare Num_10:29-32, with Jdg_1:16; Jdg_4:11.
Those mentioned here seem to have been a tribe of Nomades or Scenite Arabs, who
fed their flocks in the deserts of Judea; they preserved the simple manners of their
ancestors, considering the life of the inhabitants of cities and large towns as the death of
liberty; believing that they would dishonor themselves by using that sort of food that
would oblige them to live a sedentary life. Jonadab, one of their ancestors, had required
his children and descendants to abide faithful to the customs of their forefathers; to
continue to live in tents, and to nourish themselves on the produce of their flocks; to

10. abstain from the cultivation of the ground, and from that particularly of the vine and its
produce. His descendants religiously observed this rule, till the time when the armies of
the Chaldeans had entered Judea; when, to preserve their lives, they retired within the
walls of Jerusalem. But even there we find, from the account in this chapter, they did not
quit their frugal manner of life: but most scrupulously observed the law of Jonadab their
ancestor, and probably of this family.
When the children of Hobab, or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, were invited by
him to accompany them in their journeying to the Promised Land, it is very likely that
they continued their ancient usages, and lived a patriarchal life. Their property,
consisting in nothing but their cattle and tents, was easily removable from place to place;
and their manner of living was not likely to excite the envy or jealousy of those who had
learnt to relish the luxuries of life; and therefore we may naturally conclude that as they
were enemies to none, so they had no enemies themselves. Nature has few wants. Most
of those which we feel are factitious; and howsoever what we call civilization may furnish
us with the conveniences and comforts of life, let us not deceive ourselves by supposing
that these very things do not create the very wants which they are called in to supply;
and most certainly do not contribute to the comfort of life, when the term of life is
considerably abridged by their use. But it is time to return to the case of the Rechabites
before us.
3. Gill, “Go unto the house of the Rechabites,.... Or "family" (c); these are the same
with the Kenites, who descended from Hobab or Jethro, Moses's father in law, Jdg_1:16;
these, as their ancestors, became proselytes to Israel, and always continued with them,
though a distinct people from them; these here had their name from Rechab, a famous
man in his time among those people:
and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord; into the
temple; for they were worshippers of the true God, though foreigners and uncircumcised
persons; and so might be admitted into places belonging to the temple:
into one of the chambers; of the temple, where there were many; some for the
sanhedrim to sit in; others for the priests to lay up their garments and the vessels of the
sanctuary in; and others for the prophets and their disciples to converse in together
about religious matters:
and give them wine to drink; set it before them, and invite them to drink of it, and
thereby try their steady obedience to their father's commands. Now this family was
brought to the temple either in vision, as it seemed to the prophet; or really, which latter
is most probable; and that for this reason, that this affair might be transacted publicly,
and many might he witnesses of it, and take the rebuke given by it; and, as some think,
to reproach the priests for their intemperance.
4. Henry, “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 1Ch_2:55,
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, Jdg_1:16. We find them separated from the
Amalekites, 1Sa_15:6. See Jdg_4:17. One family of these Kenites had their denomination

11. 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.
Jeremiah took them into the temple (Jer_35:2), 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.
5. Jamison, “Rechabites — a nomadic tribe belonging to the Kenites of Hemath (1Ch_
2:55), of the family of Jethro, or Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law (Exo_18:9, etc.; Num_
10:29-32; Jdg_1:16). They came into Canaan with the Israelites, but, in order to preserve
their independence, chose a life in tents without a fixed habitation (1Sa_15:6). Besides
the branch of them associated with Judah and extending to Amalek, there was another
section at Kadesh, in Naphtali (Jdg_4:11, Jdg_4:17). They seem to have been proselytes
of the gate, Jonadab, son of Rechab, whose charge not to drink wine they so strictly
obeyed, was zealous for God (2Ki_10:15-23). The Nabatheans of Arabia observed the
same rules [Diodorus Siculus, 19.94].
bring ... into ... house of ... Lord — because there were suitable witnesses at hand
there from among the priests and chief men, as also because he had the power
immediately to address the people assembled there (Jer_35:13). It may have been also
as a reproof of the priests, who drank wine freely, though commanded to refrain from it
when in the discharge of their duties [Calvin].
chambers — which were round about the temple, applied to various uses, for
example, to contain the vestments, sacred vessels, etc.
6. K&D, “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. ‫ית‬ ֵ , Jer_35:2, Jer_35:3,
Jer_35:18, is exchanged for ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫כ‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ָ‫ית־ה‬ ֵ‫,ב‬ 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 ‫ב‬ ָ‫כ‬ ֵ‫ית־ר‬ ֵ . 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

12. 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. ‫ּות‬‫כ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫,ל‬ "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.
3 So I went to get Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah, the
son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his
sons—the whole family of the Rekabites.
1. Barnes, “Jaazaniah was the chief of that portion of the tribe which had taken refuge
in Jerusalem.
2. Clarke, “The whole house of the Rechabites - That is, the family - the chiefs of
which are here specified.
3. Gill, “Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah,....
Who was, no doubt, the most famous and leading man in this family:
and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites;
the several branches of the family, especially the males; the women perhaps only
excepted; whom it might not be so decent to gather together on such an occasion, to
drink wine; or at least offer it to them.
4. Jamison, “Jaazaniah — the elder and chief of the clan.
5. K&D, “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

13. God," an honourable title of the prophets - see e.g., 1Ki_12:22 - for, according to the
usual mode of construction, ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ּה‬‫ל‬ ֱ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ַ ִ‫מ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫,ל‬ "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 ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּמ‬‫שׁ‬ ‫ף‬ ַ ַ‫,ה‬ "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 ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ , cf. Jer_
52:24 with Jer_37:3; Jer_29:25, and Jer_21:1.
6. HAWKER, “Jeremiah 35:3-11
Reader! after paying due attention to the filial reverence and charity of this house of the
Rechabites, pause over the history, to gather another profitable instruction from it of a
spiritual nature; and consider the blessedness of minds, like the Rechabites, who live
detached and unconnected, and have only moveable tents to dwell in here below. The
sorrows and exercises of the world are made tenfold grievous, from the large circle in
which they take in those, who are ingulphed in the world and encumbered with many
cares. If we are weaned from the earth, and the things of the earth, when called upon to
depart from it, we shall be soon ready, for there are then few cords to tie the soul down.
The believer may say with Jonadab’s posterity, let me go up to the Jerusalem which is
above, where Jesus is, the Chaldeans and the Syrians are nothing to me. Oh! the
blessedness of such a frame!
7. NET BIBLE NOTE, "Most scholars agree in equating the Jonadab son of Rechab
mentioned as the leader who had instituted these strictures as the same Jonadab who
assisted Jehu in his religious purge of Baalism following the reign of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:15,
23-24). If this is the case, the Rechabites followed these same rules for almost 250 years
because Jehu’s purge of Baalism and the beginning of his reign was in 841 b.c. and the
incident here took place some time after Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 603 b.c.
4 I brought them into the house of the Lord, into
the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah the
man of God. It was next to the room of the
officials, which was over that of Maaseiah son of

14. Shallum the doorkeeper.
1. Barnes, “The title man of God, i. e., prophet, belongs to Hanan, identified by many
with Hanani 2Ch_16:7. The sons of Hanan were probably his disciples. If so, we find a
religious school or sect, regularly established in the precincts of the temple, of whose
views and modes of interpretation we know nothing. Plainly however, the Hananites
were friendly to Jeremiah, and lent him their hall for his purpose.
The chamber of the princes - Probably the council-chamber in which the great
officers of state met for the despatch of business.
The keeper of the door - There were three of these keepers, answering to the outer
and inner courts of the temple, and the entrance to the temple itself. They were officers
of high rank, having precedence next to the high priest and his deputy.
2. Clarke, “Igdaliah, a man of God - A prophet or holy man, having some office in
the temple.
3. Gill, “And I brought them into the house of the Lord,.... Into the temple, as he
was ordered; that is, he invited them thither, and they came along with him, having, no
doubt, a respect for him as a prophet; and the rather, as it is highly probable he came in
the name of the Lord to them:
into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God; a
prophet, as the Targum and Syriac version; and so Jarchi and Kimchi interpret it. This
must be understood of Hanan, and not Igdaliah, as the accents show: he is thought by
some to be the same with Hanani the seer, in the times of Asa, 2Ch_16:7;
which was by the chamber of the princes; these were not the princes of the blood,
the sons of Jehoiachim; their chambers or apartments were not in the temple, but in the
royal palace; but these were the princes or rulers of the people, as they are called, Act_
4:8; the sanhedrim, whose this chamber was, as Dr. Lightfoot (d) has observed:
which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of
the door: a porter, whose chamber or lodge was under that in which the sanhedrim sat.
The Targum calls him a treasurer; one of the seven "amarcalim", who had the keys of
several chambers, where the vessels of the sanctuary and other things were put; and
Kimchi observes, the word we render door comprehends the vessels of the sanctuary,
and the vessels of wine, and other things.
4. ET BIBLE, “This refers to one of the rooms built on the outside of the temple
that were used as living quarters for the priests and for storage rooms (cf. eh 13:4-
5; 1 Kgs 6:5; 1 Chr 28:12; 2 Chr 31:11 and compare Ezek 41:1-14).

15. 5. Jamison, “man of God — a prophet (Deu_33:1; 1Sa_2:27; 1Ki_12:22; 2Ki_4:7), also
“a servant of God” in general (1Ti_6:11), one not his own, but God’s; one who has parted
with all right in himself to give himself wholly to God (2Ti_3:17). He was so reverenced
that none would call in question what was transacted in his chamber.
keeper of the door — Hebrew, “of the vessel.” Probably the office meant is that of
the priest who kept in charge the capitation money paid for the use of the temple and the
votive offerings, such as silver vessels, etc. There were seven such keepers [Grotius].
Compare 2Ki_12:9; 2Ki_25:18; 1Ch_9:18, 1Ch_9:19, which support English Version.
I said ... Drink — Jeremiah does not say, The Lord saith, Drink: for then they would
have been bound to obey. Contrast the case in 1Ki_13:7-26.
5 Then I set bowls full of wine and some cups
before the Rekabites and said to them, “Drink
some wine.”
1. Barnes, “Pots - “Bowls,” to fill the cups.
2. Clarke, “Pots full of wine, and cups - The cups were to draw the wine out of the
pots, in order to drink it.
3. Gill, “And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of
wine, and cups,.... Which the prophet might have out of the chambers where these
vessels were, and particularly from Maaseiah, if he was a keeper of them, as before
observed. The number of men gathered together was probably very large; and therefore
pots, or large vessels of wine, were prepared, and set before them, and cups, lesser
vessels, to drink out of:
and I said unto them, drink ye wine; he invited them to it, and bid them welcome;
nay, more, he might not only encourage, but enjoin them to drink it; though, as Gataker
observes, he does not say unto them, "thus saith the Lord, drink wine"; for then they
must have done it, and doubtless would; since it is right to obey God rather than man,
even parents.
4. K&D, “Jer_35:5-7
There, Jeremiah caused bowls filled with wine to be set before the Rechabites, and
commanded them to drink. (‫ים‬ ִ‫יע‬ ִ‫ב‬ְ are large goblets, bowls, out of which drinking-cups

16. [‫ּות‬‫ס‬ּⅴ] 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. ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ְ‫ו‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ם‬ ֶ‫כ‬ ָ‫,ל‬ "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: Νόµος ᅚστᆳν αᆒτοሏς µήτε σίτον σπείρειν, µήτε φυτεύειν µηδᆯν
φυτᆵν καρποφόρον, µήτε οᅺνሩ χρᇿσθαι, µήτε οᅶκίαν κατασεκυάζειν; 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.
5. J. PARKER, “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, “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

17. 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
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? 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.)
6. HAWKER, "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!
6 But they replied, “We do not drink wine,
because our forefather Jehonadab[a] son of

18. Rekab gave us this command: ‘ either you nor
your descendants must ever drink wine.
1. Barnes, “Wine is the symbol of a settled life, because the vine requires time for its
growth and care in its cultivation, while the preparation of the wine itself requires
buildings, and it then has to be stored up before it is ready for use. The drink of nomads
consists of the milk of their herds.
Jer_35:7
Strangers - Because not of Jewish blood, though wandering in their territory.
2. Clarke, “We will drink no wine - The reason is given above. Their whole religious
and political institution consisted in obedience to three simple precepts, each of which
has an appropriate spiritual meaning: -
1.
Ye shall drink no wine - Ye shall preserve your bodies in temperance, shall use
nothing that would deprive you of the exercise of your sober reason at any time; lest in
such a time ye should do what might be prejudicial to yourselves, injurious to your
neighbor, or dishonorable to your God.
2.
Neither shall ye build house - Ye shall not become residents in any place; ye shall
not court earthly possessions; ye shall live free from ambition and from envy, that ye
may be free from contention and strife.
3.
But - ye shall dwell in tents - Ye shall imitate your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs, who dwelt in tents, being strangers and
pilgrims upon earth, looking for a heavenly country, and being determined to have
nothing here that would indispose their minds towards that place of endless rest, or
prevent them from passing through temporal things so as not to lose those that are
eternal.
There must necessarily be more in these injunctions than meets the eye in the letter of
this account.
3. Gill, “But they said, we will drink no wine,.... Or "we do not drink wine" (e); we
are not used to it; we never do drink any; it is not lawful for us to do it; nor will we, let
who will solicit us:
for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father; not their immediate father, but their
progenitor; perhaps the same Jonadab is meant who lived in the times of Jehu, and rode
with him in his chariot; by which it appears he was a man of note and figure, and who
lived near three hundred years before this time, 2Ki_10:15; which is more likely than

19. that he should be a descendant of his, and the proper father of the present Rechabites,
which is the opinion of Scaliger (f):
commanded us, saying, ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons, for
ever; as long as any of them were in the world. What was the reason of this command,
and of what follows, is not easy to say; whether it was to prevent quarrels and
contentions, luxury and sensuality; or to inure them to hardships; or to put them in
remembrance that they were but strangers in the land in which they lived; or to retain
them in the original course of life their ancestors had lived in, feeding cattle; be it what it
will, these his sons thought themselves under obligations to observe it; and perhaps
finding, by experience, it was for their good so to do.
4. Henry, “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, 1Ti_5:23. (2.) He appointed them to dwell in tents,
and not to build houses, nor purchase lands, nor rent or occupy either, Jer_35:7. 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, Jer_35:11. 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 (Exo_2:16), 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_46:34. 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_10:32); but, it seems they were not; they
were still strangers in the land (Jer_35:7), 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

20. 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_26:14), 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.
5. HACKET, “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.

21. 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 man’s 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 authority’s 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

22. 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 Jotham’s 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 Gideon’s
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 God’s 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

23. 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 God’s 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 Saviour’s 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.)
6. SEARLE, “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.

24. 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 man’s 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 authority’s 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

25. 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 Jotham’s 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 Gideon’s
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 God’s 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

26. 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 God’s 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 Saviour’s 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.)
7. SOUTHGATE, "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

27. 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 man’s 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.)

28. 8. JOH SO , "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 Lord’s 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. Jonadab’s commands, so far as we know, were for temporal and material ends, in
the interests of a rugged manhood and a sturdy independence. God’s 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 God’s 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

29. 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.)
9. LEWIS, "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