The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, saying,
The verse gives only a date and a source: a word from the Lord to Jeremiah while Jehoiakim reigned in Judah. What follows is a strange errand. God sends His prophet to offer wine to a family sworn never to touch it. Why this moment, and why these people?
The events belong to Jehoiakim's reign, yet the chapter stands out of order. Writers see purpose in that, not carelessness:
During the reign of Jehoiakim the incident of this chapter happened. Critics may rage at the "unchronological" way Jeremiah jumps from one period into another. But in that arrangement we see the guiding hand of the Spirit. It is exactly right that this comes next to the chapter that tells of the broken covenant.
Chapter 34 had just shown Judah breaking its word to God. The placement sets a broken covenant beside a kept one.
Jeremiah 35 contrasts the obedience of the house of the Rechabites with the disobedience of the house of Israel. This illustrative incident is introduced here from the time of Jehoiakim. It most suitably follows the subject of the previous chapter.
The word that came to Jeremiah did not send him to preach. It sent him to stage a living picture.
It is striking how much trouble God takes with His people. He stoops to use the example of men — earlier, of birds and animals — as a parable to teach His people, if only they are willing to listen. We learn that at this time there was a tribe of the sons of Rechab in the holy land. By race they were Kenites, the people Moses' wife came from, and so there was a friendly feeling between Israel and them.
Jonadab, the ancestor whose word this family kept, lived generations earlier. One writer asks what moved him to give up settled life:
Did Jonadab see how hopeless things were on the outside, and so live as a stranger and a pilgrim among his own people? Did he feel that, standing like Abraham on divine ground, he was just as separate from everything around him? Did he see that where the Lord was rejected and His word despised there was no settling place for him? … For him and his children, the life of strangers. No building of houses, no planting of vineyards — nothing to tie him to this earth, nothing that even looked like a portion here.
God chose the setting with care — not a back alley, but His own house.
This was bound to impress the Rechabites deeply. A prophet of the Lord sets cups of wine in front of them, and in the temple too … But the Rechabites were faithful. They had pledged themselves to their father long before, and that pledge had governed how they lived ever since the days of the man who gave the tribe its name.
Commentators are careful about what the offered cup was for:
The test which God permitted Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God already knew their principles and how faithfully they kept them. He wanted to bring out their obedience to their father's word, set against Israel's disobedience to His laws.
Judah had every advantage and ignored it. A wandering family kept a rule no prophet ever backed up.
Israel was now in such a state that God uses all sorts of pictures. The birds of the heavens know their appointed times. Even the cattle of the earth are truer to their masters than the children of Israel are to the Lord. And here were these strangers, not of Israel, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How they honoured their father! Israel just as plainly refuses to listen to the Lord. God had certainly taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard or so patiently with his sons; he had no prophets to send to them.
The gap between the command and the test makes the contrast sharper still:
Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign … So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience — 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that time counted for nothing with God in this respect.
The chapter ends with a promise no prophet made to Judah that day:
God approves the obedience of children to parents, and of descendants to the good word of their forefathers. "Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before Me for ever." What a high honour! To have your family represented at court before the king would be a mark of dignity. To be represented before God Himself, and for ever, is a far greater honour. This shows how highly God values obedience.
One writer adds a caution. A rule handed down from a father has its limits:
In a day of ruin or of judgment, only the word of the living God can give strength to the soul and shed divine light on the path … The Rechabites' rule of life could not be adjusted to the new circumstances that fell on them. This is where any human creed or system shows its weakness. They could not consult their father in the emergency, as the believer can go to God now.
- Timing. The word came in Jehoiakim's reign, and the chapter sits right next to Judah's broken covenant.
- Object lesson. God took pains with His people. He used the example of men — and before them, birds and animals — to teach those willing to listen.
- Test, not temptation. The wine in the temple displayed a loyalty God already knew was there.
- The contrast. Strangers kept one man's word for 250 years. Judah ignored prophet after prophet.
- The honour. Obedience won a standing before God forever — the value He sets on it.
Go to the house of the Rechabites, and speak with them, and bring them into the house of Jehovah, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.
God tells Jeremiah to gather a whole family, bring them into the temple, and set wine in front of them. Every detail of this strange errand is deliberate: the guests, the room, and the drink.
One commentator notes how far God will go to reach His people, and who this family was.
It is striking what pains God takes with His people. It is striking too that He stoops to use the example of men — earlier it was birds and beasts — as a parable to instruct His people, if only they are willing to listen. We learn that there was at this time in the holy land a tribe of the sons of Rechab. By race they were Kenites, the same people that Moses' wife came from. Because of that, as we know, there was a friendly feeling between Israel and them.
The wine is not offered in a tavern. Three details stack up: a prophet gives the invitation, the temple is the place, and the room stands beside the chambers of the priests and princes.
The way the Lord presses the lesson home is worth noticing. "Go," He says to Jeremiah, "to the house of the Rechabites … bring them to the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers; then offer them wine to drink." This was bound to make a strong impression on the Rechabites. A prophet of Jehovah sets cups of wine before them, and in the temple too… It was not some out-of-the-way place in the temple either, but the room of one of the priests. It was right beside the chamber of the heads of the priesthood and of the princes.
God Himself gives the order, which raises a question about the wine.
The test which God allowed Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God knew their principles and their faithfulness to them. He wanted to bring out their obedience to their father's word, in contrast to Israel's disobedience to His laws.
Jonadab's rule covered wine. It also covered houses, seed and vineyards. That second half shows what the command was really about.
Clearly God does not tempt anyone to evil. He told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them and tell them to drink. That fact alone shows that no moral evil was in question… Here is the convincing proof that the point is not moral evil. Along with the charge to drink no wine, their father had also commanded them, "Neither shall you build a house, nor sow seed, nor plant a vineyard, nor have any: but all your days you shall dwell in tents." There is nothing wrong in itself in a man owning a house or sowing seed in a field. Yet these were tests of their obedience. They were as much bound to keep from sowing and planting as from drinking wine.
Behind the rule lay a judgment about the times their ancestor lived in:
He refused to share in the pleasures of those around him. He refused to have any portion at all in the land in the condition it was then in. That was his protest against that condition. If Jehovah was rejected, and was like a stranger in His own land and among His own professing people, Jonadab would be a stranger too.
What makes their obedience so striking is the gap of time between the command and the cup.
What is most impressive here is the span of time. Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign, roughly 850 years before Christ's birth. The incident in Jeremiah 35 happened much later. It fell in the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience — some eight to ten generations. They had understood that the passing of time made no difference to God in this matter. God took note of the Rechabites' faithfulness, and it stood in sharp contrast to the disobedience of Judah.
Commentators do not treat the Rechabites as flawless. One writer points to the limit of a rule handed down from a father.
What served the sons of Jonadab as a rule of life could not stretch to fit the new circumstances that came upon them. This is exactly where any human creed or system shows its weakness. The Rechabites could not consult their father in the emergency, as the believer may now; and so it seems they did the very worst thing possible.
- Errand. God sends His prophet to a family of Kenite descent. They become His living parable for a nation that would not listen to words.
- Setting. God stacks the pressure: the temple, a priest's room beside the princes, and a prophet handing out the cups.
- Test. The wine is not bait for sin. God knew their principles and staged the moment to show their loyalty to their father's word.
- Scope. Wine stood alongside no houses, no seed, no vineyards — one instruction about living as strangers, not a rule about drink.
- Verdict. Two hundred and fifty years of obedience to a man exposed a nation that would not obey God. Yet an inherited rule had no answer when a new crisis came; the believer can still ask God.
And I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites,
God told Jeremiah to fetch a family, not a crowd: three generations by name, plus every son and brother of the house of the Rechabites. Why gather them, and why in the temple?
The gathering was deliberate, and so was the room.
Notice how the Lord presses the lesson home. "Go," He says to Jeremiah, "to the house of the Rechabites and speak with them and bring them to the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers; then offer them wine to drink." This was designed to make a strong impression on the Rechabites. A prophet of the LORD sets cups of wine before them, and in the temple too… It was not into some obscure place in the temple either, but to one of the priests… It was right beside the chamber of the heads of the priesthood and of the officials.
"The whole house of the Rechabites" names a people, not a household in one street. Their way of life is reported in their own words later in the chapter.
They were descendants of Rechab, the father of Jonadab. They give their own account: they drank no wine, and they did not build houses or sow seed. They were nomads, so they planted no vineyards and owned none. They lived in tents all their days. They are called Rechabites, but they trace their way of life back to what their ancestor Jonadab had commanded.
Tent-dwellers do not belong in a city. An invading army drove them there, and Kelly questions whether they should have gone.
It is true there was now an exception. "But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the land, we said, 'Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans…' So we are living in Jerusalem." We may ask whether they needed to make this exception, and whether it was any better for them to be in Jerusalem than out in the land as before. It is always good to hold fast the principle we are called to act on; it is dangerous to let ourselves change. God has every right to bring in new principles for new circumstances, but we must make sure it is God who does so.
Another writer reads their move to the city as an alarming misstep, since Jerusalem itself was under sentence — yet God used their presence there anyway, "without either approving or condemning the manner of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under pressure of fear."
A prophet set the wine in front of them, in God's own house. That looks like pressure to sin — until you see what the test was for.
The test which God allowed Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God knew their principles and their faithfulness to them. He wanted to bring out their obedience to their father's word in contrast to Israel's disobedience to His laws.
The rest of Jonadab's instruction proves the same thing.
Besides the charge to drink no wine, Jonadab had also commanded them: "You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard; but you shall live in tents all your days." Anyone can see there is nothing wrong in itself with owning a house or sowing seed in a field… Yet since these were tests of their obedience, they were as much bound to abstain from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine… There is no moral excellence in living in a tent, any more than in a house. Yet it was a beautiful sign of pilgrimage when the forefathers lived in tents.
The family standing in the chamber was an exhibit.
Jeremiah 35 sets the obedience of the Rechabites before the men of Judah. It was meant to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more reverence for an earthly father than Israel showed for God Himself.
God did not only use them. He honoured them, and the honour runs on for ever.
On the other hand we have an instructive word about the Rechabites. It shows how the blessed God approves the obedience of children to parents, or of descendants to the good word of their forefathers… To be represented at court before a king would be a mark of dignity. But to be represented before God Himself, and that for ever, is a surpassing honour. This strikingly shows the value God sets on obedience.
- A word kept. Jonadab told his sons to drink no wine, build no house, sow no seed, and live in tents; generations later they still did it.
- A house gathered. Jeremiah summoned brothers, sons and the whole house — one obedience running down a family line, standing in one room.
- A test, not a trap. Wine is not evil, and neither is a house or a field; God was measuring whether a father's word still held.
- A contrast drawn. Some men honoured an earthly father more than Israel honoured God — that was the accusation the scene made.
- An honour given. God honours obedience: to be represented before Him for ever outweighs standing before any king.
and I brought them into the house of Jehovah, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the threshold.
God tells Jeremiah to bring a whole family into the temple and offer them wine. The room is named with care — beside the officials' chamber, above the doorkeeper's — so why did God want this test seen?
The setting was part of the pressure. A prophet was pouring the wine, and the place was the house of God itself.
Notice how the Lord drives the lesson home. He tells Jeremiah to go to the house of the Rechabites, bring them into the house of the LORD, and give them wine to drink. This was calculated to impress the Rechabites strongly. A prophet of the LORD sets cups of wine before them, and in the temple too… It was not into some obscure place in the temple either, but to one of the priests — the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God. That room stood right beside the chamber of the heads of the priesthood and of the officials.
Two names in this verse carry meaning. They come at a moment when the nation had drifted after a revival.
In Judah's history, departure from God's chosen centre of worship came after a special revival under King Josiah. At that time we meet Hanan. His name, meaning "gracious giver," reminds us of God's sovereign grace, which is available to us too. His father's name, Igdaliah, means "God will grow great." It suggests that in the greatness of God we can find a lasting remedy and safeguard for our hearts.
The men present gave the invitation weight. Refusing meant refusing a prophet, a man of God, and the temple setting all at once.
The Spirit of God uses their coming to that very place as a testimony to the nation. He does so without either approving or condemning the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under pressure of fear. It must have been a strong temptation. After all, God's faithful and suffering servant took them into the sacred house of God, with witnesses who included a "man of God." They might have thought that in such a holy place, and invited by such men, they could be released from their usual obligation. But they stood the test.
Since God does not lead anyone into sin, the wine itself cannot have been the issue. The point was whether a promise would hold.
We cannot assume that drinking wine or refusing it was morally good in itself, or a direct way of pleasing God. God plainly does not tempt anyone to evil. He Himself told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them, and tell them to drink. So no moral evil was involved. But it would have been unfitting for people who had pledged themselves not to take it. They were obedient to their father — that was what was right. Their father was entitled to test their obedience if he wished, and he did.
The Rechabites lived in tents. An army had driven them into the city.
It is open to question whether they were called on to make this an exception. Was it any better for them to be in Jerusalem than out in the land as before? It is always good to hold fast the principle we are called to act on; it is dangerous to let ourselves change. God is of course entitled to bring in new principles for new circumstances. But we must make sure it is God who does so.
The scene was arranged so Judah would watch it and feel the contrast with their own record toward God.
Jonadab had never worked so hard or so persistently with his sons; he had no prophets to send to them.
- Place. The verse names the chamber exactly — beside the officials' room, above the doorkeeper's. God meant the test to be seen.
- People. Hanan means "gracious giver," Igdaliah "God will grow great." Grace and greatness stand on record in a time of decline.
- Pressure. A prophet, a man of God, and the temple itself all seemed to permit the drink. The Rechabites still refused, and they stood the test.
- Point. Wine was never the moral issue — a father had a right to test his sons, and they kept their word.
- Purpose. Jonadab sent no prophets to his sons, yet they obeyed. God sent prophet after prophet to Judah, and Judah would not listen.
And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites bowls full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink wine.
God sent Jeremiah to bring a whole family into a room of the temple, set jugs of wine and cups in front of them, and tell them to drink. Why would God push people to break a rule their ancestor gave them? And what was their answer meant to prove?
The pressure of the moment came from where it happened and who was doing it. One writer traces how carefully the scene was arranged.
Notice the way the Lord presses the lesson home. He says to Jeremiah: "Go to the house of the Rechabites and speak with them and bring them to the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers; then offer them wine to drink." This was meant to make a strong impression on the Rechabites. A prophet of the LORD sets cups of wine before them, and this in the temple... It was not into some obscure place in the temple either, but to one of the priests... It was by the chamber even of the heads of the priesthood and of the princes.
Another writer notes the same weight in the invitation, and how easily the men could have argued themselves into accepting.
It must have been a strong temptation, because God's faithful and suffering servant took them to the sacred house of God, with witnesses among whom was a "man of God." They might have thought that in such a holy place, and invited by such men, they could be released from their usual obligation. But they stood the test.
The command to drink was not God trying to trip anyone up. It was staged to bring something already true out into the open.
The test which God permitted Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God, who knew their principles and their faithfulness to them, wished to bring out their obedience to their father's word in contrast to the disobedience of Israel to His laws.
Nothing morally wrong was being offered. The proof lies in the rest of what Jonadab had commanded his family.
It is plain God does not tempt anyone to evil... Here is convincing proof that the point is not one of moral evil: besides the charge to drink no wine, they had also been commanded, "You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard; but you shall live in tents all your days." Clearly there is nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field... Yet these were tests of their obedience. They were just as bound to avoid sowing seed and planting vineyards as to avoid drinking wine. But the test used here was drinking wine, because I suppose the others could not have been applied so easily.
Behind the ban on wine stood a whole way of life, and commentators read its motive from the times Jonadab lived in.
Was it his sense that things were hopeless on the outside that led Jonadab to live as a stranger and a pilgrim among his own people?... For him and his children, the life of strangers. For him, no building of houses, no planting of vineyards — nothing to tie him to this earth, nothing even to seem like a portion here. He waited for the time when God alone would set up a new order of things on earth.
The refusal that followed the offered cup became a public argument against the nation.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is set before the men of Judah to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more reverence for an earthly father than Israel showed for God Himself.
Their own way of life had already slipped under pressure. God still used them.
The Spirit of God takes advantage of their being in that very place, as a testimony to the nation. He does this without either approving or condemning the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under the pressure of fear. That was not the point. Their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews. It gave force to an earnest appeal to the conscience of the nation at a time when the Judge was at the door.
- Setting: the cup came in God's own house, from a prophet, beside the rooms of princes and priests. Every detail made refusal costly.
- Test: God was not tempting them to evil but proving a principle He already knew was there.
- Wine: it was chosen because it could be tested on the spot. The same rule forbade houses and seed, so nothing sinful was in view.
- Reason: Jonadab's rule trained his family to live as strangers, with no portion on earth.
- Point: their refusal exposed Judah. Men honoured a human father's word, while the nation would not listen to God.
And they said, We will drink no wine; for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, ye nor your sons for ever;
Jeremiah 35 stages a test in the temple: the prophet sets wine before a clan called the Rechabites and tells them to drink. They refuse, and the chapter asks why these outsiders kept a father's word for centuries while Judah would not keep God's.
Jonadab, also spelled Jehonadab, lived when Ahab ruled Israel. One writer reads the rule he gave his family as a response to the state of the nation around him.
Jeremiah 35:6 tells us that Jehonadab commanded his sons not to drink wine, not to build houses, not to sow seed or plant a vineyard, but to live in tents. The reason is clear. He saw that the state of Israel under Ahab was offensive to God, and he wanted to keep himself and his family separate from it.
It is easy to read the refusal as a rule about alcohol. One writer points out that the same command bans things nobody calls sinful.
It is plain God does not tempt anyone to evil. The very fact that the Lord told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them and tell them to drink shows that this is no question of moral evil. Here is convincing proof. Besides the charge to drink no wine, Jonadab had also commanded them not to build a house, not to sow seed, not to plant a vineyard, but to live in tents all their days. There is clearly nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field. These were tests of their obedience, so they were as much bound to keep from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine. The test used here was wine, I suppose because the others could not be applied so easily.
The setting made it easy to give in. The place was holy, the man offering the wine was God's servant, and witnesses stood by.
It must have been a strong temptation. God's faithful and suffering servant took them into the sacred house of God, and among the witnesses was a "man of God." In such a holy place, and invited by such men, they might have thought they were released from their usual obligation. But they stood the test.
Their father Jonadab was a distant ancestor, and his charge said "forever." One writer counts the years it had already run.
Jonadab lived during Ahab's reign, about 850 years before Christ's birth. What happens in Jeremiah 35 comes much later, in the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, about 600 years before Christ's birth. So some 250 years lie between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience, which is 8–10 generations. They had understood that the passing of time made no difference to God here.
God's target was Israel, not the clan. The sting lay in who these obedient people were: outsiders.
And here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How they honoured their father! Meanwhile Israel refuses just as plainly to listen to the Lord. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never toiled so hard nor so persistently with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them.
One writer marks where a rule handed down from a father runs out.
God fully acknowledged their loyalty as sons, and rewarded it. But in a day of ruin or judgment, only the word of the living God can give strength to the soul and shed divine light on the path. The sons of Jehonadab could not do this. Their rule of life could not be adjusted to the new circumstances that came upon them. This is where any human creed or system shows its weakness.
God answered their refusal with a promise sworn on His own name. One writer turns that promise back on the reader.
The Lord was so pleased with their obedience to their father, and with their faithfulness to their pilgrim life, that He pledged His own name to keep a line of "sons of Jonadab" going to the end of time. The question for us is, are we among them? Do we chase the intoxicating pleasures of this world that wine stands for? Do we build houses, as though we were here to stay?
- Command — Jonadab barred his family from wine, houses, fields and vineyards. That kept them separate from a nation that had become offensive to God.
- Content — Building and sowing are not sins, so the ban on wine was never about wine. The whole charge was a test of obedience.
- Constancy — About 250 years and eight to ten generations later, the family still kept that command. They refused even when a prophet offered the cup inside the temple.
- Contrast — Outsiders honoured a dead father's word. Judah ignored a living God who kept sending prophets. That gap was the whole point.
- Crown — God pledged His own name that Jonadab would never lack a man to stand before Him. That is how much He values obedience. Yet a rule handed down from a father could not replace God's own word when disaster came.
neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor shall ye have [any]; but all your days ye shall dwell in tents, that ye may live many days in the land where ye sojourn.
Jonadab's charge to his family covered far more than wine. It reached to houses, crops, vineyards, and tents. Why would a father bind his children to a life like that, and why does God praise it centuries later?
Wine draws the attention here, but it is one clause of a single instruction. One writer warns against pulling it out on its own:
It is obvious that you cannot make this a teetotal question. The whole instruction is one. It relates as much to house-building, seed-growing and fruit-growing as it does to wine.
Sowing a field or owning a house breaks no law of God, and that is exactly the point. The value of the rule lay in the obedience it drew out, not in the things themselves. A promise went with it:
Here is convincing proof that the point is not moral evil. Besides the charge to drink no wine, their father had also commanded them, "You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard, but you shall live in tents all your days." There is clearly nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field. No one thinks so — no one but a madman. Yet these were tests of their obedience. They were as much bound to keep from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine. The test used here was wine, I suppose, because the others could not have been applied so easily. Jonadab put all this before them as a motive for obedience on the earth: "that you may live many days in the land where you sojourn."
Taken together, the five refusals sketch a whole way of life. One writer takes them one at a time, and finds the marks of a Nazarite — a person set apart to God by vow:
Firstly, to abstain from wine, which represents the intoxicating covetousness of the world. Secondly, to refrain from building a house. That is, to refrain from settling down on the earth for good. Thirdly, to refrain from sowing grain, as if one were expecting something, even if it were only a year of harvest. Fourthly, to refrain from planting a vineyard. That is, to refrain from growing what would sooner or later lead to giving up one's Nazariteship. How many believers have lost theirs by failing to watch this point! Fifthly, to dwell in tents, as true sons of Abraham, as pilgrims and sojourners in the land of promise.
The phrase "where you sojourn" is striking, because this was their own country. The choice to stay unsettled in it was deliberate:
Was it the sense of the hopelessness of things outwardly that led Jonadab to be a stranger and a pilgrim among his own people? Did he realise that a land which rejected the Lord and despised His word was no place for him to settle? For him and his children, the life of strangers. For him, no building of houses and no planting of vineyards. Nothing tied him to this earth, and nothing here even looked like a portion for him.
How far should children copy such a rule? An inherited rule is the easier road, and it carries its own risk:
It is always easier to follow tradition than the written word of God. Tradition does not exercise the conscience, and it spares us the difficulty — sometimes a serious one — of giving reasons for what we do... What a father hands down to his son may not be bad in itself; it may have been good, at least for a time. But it sets up a false standard and a human authority in the soul. Even if this human authority does not deny the authority of God's word, it will certainly give His word second place.
The way to honour Jonadab is not to copy his tent. It is to share the judgment about his times that produced it:
He saw the evil and the general ruin that followed the glorious reigns of David and Solomon. That sight made him feel the need of a very narrow walk, and of a return to "what was from the beginning," taught by the patriarchs, in contrast to the looseness around him. May we also be true children of Jehonadab the son of Rechab in this time of the end. Not by outward practices that leave the heart far from God, but by the moral conduct those practices pictured.
- One rule. Wine, houses, seed and vineyards form one command. Pull out the wine alone and you miss the point.
- One test. Nothing on the list is wrong in itself. That proves the issue was obedience, not morality.
- One picture. Each clause paints a refusal to settle: no craving for the world, no foothold, no crop to wait for, no vineyard.
- One protest. Living as strangers in their own land was Jonadab's verdict on a country that despised God's word.
- One caution. A family tradition, however good, can take the place that belongs to God's word. Hold the principle, not just the practice.
And we have hearkened unto the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he commanded us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters,
The Rechabites answer Jeremiah: their father Jonadab told them never to drink wine, and the whole family has kept his word. The striking thing is what God does with it — He holds up their loyalty to a long-dead ancestor to shame a nation that would not listen to Him.
The obedience described here had no living voice behind it. Jonadab was long gone, yet his words still shaped a household's daily life.
What impresses here is the span of time. Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign (2 Kings 10:15, 23), about 850 years before Christ's birth. The events of Jeremiah 35 came much later, during the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah (Jer. 35:1), about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience — some 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that time made no difference to God in this respect.
The chapter is often used as an argument for never drinking alcohol. Commentators reject that reading and point to what God was drawing out.
Campaigners against alcohol have, of course, made much of their bold refusal of wine, and have bent their history to serve the cause of total abstinence. This seems to me to miss the whole point of the chapter. The test which God permitted Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God, who knew their principles and their faithfulness to them, wished to bring out their obedience to their father's word in contrast to the disobedience of Israel to His laws.
Wine was only one of several commands Jonadab gave. The rest of the list settles the question.
Clearly there is nothing wrong in itself with a man having a house or sowing seed in a field. No one thinks there is — at least, no one but a madman. Yet since these were tests of their obedience, they were just as bound to avoid sowing seed and planting vineyards as to avoid drinking wine. But the test used here was drinking wine, because I suppose the others could not have been applied so easily.
Jonadab lived during Ahab's reign. His rule was not about health or self-denial. It was his answer to the state of the nation around him.
He refused to take part in the pleasures of those around him. He also refused to have any share at all in the land in the condition it was then in. This was his protest against that condition. If Jehovah was rejected, and like a stranger in His own land and among His own professed people, so would Jonadab be.
A tent held no virtue of its own.
There is no moral excellence in living in a tent, any more than in a house. But there are circumstances where it fits better. It was a beautiful sign of pilgrimage when the fathers lived in tents.
God's point was never the Rechabites themselves. He set their quiet loyalty beside the nation's record.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is set before the men of Judah. The point was to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more respect for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself.
Commentators also note the limits of a rule handed down from a parent.
It seems the Rechabites had kept their father's commands as long as they could. Their loyalty as sons was fully recognised and rewarded (Jer. 35:19). But in a day of ruin or judgment, only the word of the living God can give strength to the soul and shed divine light on the path. It meets us in all circumstances and conditions.
- Command. Jonadab's words bound a whole household — wives, sons and daughters alike. They were still obeyed 250 years later, eight to ten generations on.
- Not wine. The rule covered houses, seed and vineyards too. Wine was just the easiest part to test.
- Protest. Life in tents was Jonadab's refusal to take any share in a land where God was treated as a stranger.
- Contrast. God set that loyalty beside Judah's record: these men honoured a human father more than Israel honoured Him.
- Limit and reward. In a day of ruin, only God's own word can give strength and light — yet their loyalty was still fully recognised and rewarded.
and not to build houses for us to dwell in; neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed;
Jeremiah 35 sets one family of tent-dwellers in front of a nation that would not listen. Here the Rechabites list what they have never owned, and the chapter asks why God was pleased with such a rule.
The wine is the part of the chapter people remember, but this verse shows the ban ran much wider. One writer insists you cannot lift the wine out and leave the rest behind:
First of all, it is obvious that you cannot make this a question of total abstinence. The whole instruction is one; it relates as much to house-building, and seed-growing, and fruit-growing, as it does to wine. You cannot do what Jehoiakim did in the next chapter, and cut out with your penknife what you do not wish to hear.
Nothing in this verse is wrong in itself. A man can build a house and plant a field with a clear conscience. So why the ban?
They were obedient to their father — this was what was right. This is what pleased the Lord, and what He uses to correct Israel. What is a convincing proof that the point is not one of moral evil is this: besides the charge to drink no wine, their father had also commanded them not to build a house, sow seed, or plant or own a vineyard, but to live in tents all their days. It is clear that there is nothing at all wrong in itself in a man's having a house or sowing seed in a field; no one thinks so, at least no one but a madman. Yet these being tests of their obedience, they were as much bound to abstain from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine… There is no moral excellence in living in a tent, any more than in a house. But there are circumstances where it is more fitting. It was a beautiful sign of pilgrimage in the fathers to live in tents.
Jonadab — also written Jehonadab — made a rule that reads like a list of ways not to settle down. One writer takes the items one by one:
First, to abstain from wine, which stands for the intoxicating greed of the world. Second, to refrain from building a house, that is, to refrain from establishing oneself upon the earth in a permanent way. Third, to refrain from sowing grain, as if one were expecting something, even if it were only a year of harvest. Fourth, to refrain from planting a vineyard… Fifth, to dwell in tents, as true sons of Abraham, as pilgrims and sojourners in the land of promise. Jehonadab understood that this land given to God's people was in no way a present possession. It could not be, while the people stayed in moral ruin, with the material disorder that came from it. His faith was still waiting for a rest for the people of God, and he and his sons showed this by the way they lived.
Owning nothing in the land was not withdrawal for its own sake. It said something about the state of the land itself:
He would not share in the pleasures of those around him. He would hold no portion at all in the land while it stayed in the condition that marked it then. That refusal was his protest against that condition. The people had rejected the Lord, so He was like a stranger in His own land and among the people who claimed to be His. Jonadab would be a stranger too.
One writer brings the tent into Christian life today. He links a strong testimony with holding little here:
The strongest and most successful testimony for Christ is not usually found with those who "buy houses and plant vineyards" here, with those who own their own property on this earth… We can easily see that it is best to be rid of what weighs us down.
Commentators differ in emphasis here. Kelly praises the obedience. Another writer notes what a rule handed down from a father cannot do in an emergency:
They could not adjust their rule of life to the new circumstances that came upon them. And this is where any human creed or system betrays its weakness. The Rechabites could not consult their father in the emergency, as is the believer's privilege now.
- Whole command. One command covered house, field, vineyard and wine. Keep one part and cut the rest, and you miss the chapter.
- Not morality. Building and sowing are not wrong in themselves. That shows the test was obedience, not right and wrong.
- Separation. Each refusal was a refusal to settle: no permanent home, no harvest to wait for, no roots in a land in ruin. The tent had no merit in itself, but it was a beautiful sign of pilgrimage.
- Protest. His own people treated God as a stranger, so Jonadab chose to live as a stranger too.
- Limit. A father's rule could not answer a new emergency. A believer can still consult God, which the Rechabites could not do.
but we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.
A family called the Rechabites has just refused Jeremiah's offer of wine. In one sentence they sum up their whole way of life: tents, and all that their ancestor Jonadab commanded. Why stage such a test inside the temple? And what does loyalty to a long-dead father have to do with Judah's coming judgment?
Nothing here is about right and wrong in itself. Houses, seed, vineyards and wine are all ordinary things.
We should not assume that taking wine or refusing it was in itself aimed at pleasing God, or morally good. It is plain that God does not tempt anyone to evil. The Lord told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them and tell them to drink. That very fact shows this is no question of moral evil… They were obedient to their father — this was what was right… Clearly there is nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field. No one thinks there is — no one but a madman. Yet these were tests of their obedience. They were as much bound to keep from sowing seed and planting vineyards as from drinking wine.
So is this chapter about alcohol?
In the first place, it is obvious that you cannot make this a teetotal question. The whole instruction is one. It covers building houses, growing seed and growing fruit just as much as it covers wine.
So what lay behind Jonadab's rule? One writer traces it to the state of the land itself.
He refused to share in the pleasures of those around him. He refused to have any part at all in the land in the condition that then marked it. That was his protest against that condition. If the Lord was rejected, and like a stranger in His own land and among His own professed people, then so would Jonadab be.
The same writer shows how God answered that faithfulness, then turns the questions on us.
So pleased was the Lord with their obedience to their father, and their faithfulness to their pilgrim principles, that He pledged His own Name to secure a line of "sons of Jonadab" down to the end of time. The question for us is, are we among them? Do we seek after the intoxicating pleasures of this world which wine symbolises? Do we build houses, as though we were fixtures here? Are our hopes held down here by things we should gladly push aside, if we thought the Lord were coming tomorrow?
The Rechabites were not the real audience that day.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is put before the men of Judah. It was meant to make them feel this: some men, at least, showed more reverence for an earthly father than Israel showed for God Himself.
The verse claims unbroken obedience. Yet these men had moved into Jerusalem to escape an invading army. Commentators treat that as a real difficulty.
It is fair to ask whether they had any call to make this exception. Was it any better for them to be in Jerusalem than in the land as before? It is always good to hold fast the principle we are called to act on. It is dangerous to let ourselves change. Of course God has the right to bring in new principles for new circumstances. But we must take care that it is God who does so.
Another writer finds the flaw in the rule itself. A fixed rule cannot answer a new question.
Their rule of life could not be adjusted to the new circumstances that came upon them. This is where any human creed or system shows its weakness. The Rechabites could not consult their father in the emergency, as a believer can now. So it seems they did the very worst thing possible. Jerusalem, the holy city, must surely be a haven of refuge… But Jerusalem was doomed.
God rewarded their faithfulness. But a day of crisis asks more than a rule handed down.
It seems the Rechabites kept their father's commandments as long as they possibly could. God acknowledged and rewarded their obedience as sons. But in a day of ruin or of judgment, only the word of the living God can give strength to the soul and shed divine light on the path… It answers every question. It lets a person walk the path of obedience and dependence with more confidence than ever.
- Test, not temptation. Wine in the temple was never about moral evil; it was a check on whether a word given long ago still governed them.
- Whole, not partial. One command covered tents, houses, seed and vineyards. You cannot keep the wine part and drop the rest.
- Tents as protest. Refusing to settle was Jonadab's protest: his Lord was a stranger in His own land, so he would be one too.
- Sons shame the nation. Men who honoured a dead father outdid a people who would not hear the living God.
- The gap in the record. Their one exception was flight into doomed Jerusalem. A rule handed down cannot be asked a new question. Only the living word of God can direct the path.
And it came to pass when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come and let us go into Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans, and because of the army of Syria; and we dwell at Jerusalem.
The Rechabites are answering a prophet who has just offered them wine. Here, for the only time in their account, they admit to a change: men pledged to tents now live inside a city. Their reason is an invading army. Did fear move them off the ground their family had held for generations, and does God fault them for it?
The speakers belong to a family known for a way of life, not a homeland. They trace all of it back to one ancestor.
They are descendants of Rechab, the father of Jonadab. These people give their own account: they drank no wine, and they did not build houses or plant crops. They were nomads, so they had no vineyards and planted none. All their days they lived in tents. They are called Rechabites, but they trace their way of life to what their ancestor Jonadab commanded. Fear of the Chaldeans and the Syrians forced them to live in Jerusalem. There Jeremiah called them together and offered them wine. They refused to drink any, and gave the explanation above.
The reason lies in what Jonadab saw around him: a land that had rejected the Lord.
Did Jonadab see that things were hopeless on the outside, and so live as a stranger and a pilgrim among his own people? Did he feel that if, like Abraham, he stood on divine ground, then like Abraham he stood apart from everything around him? Did he realise that a place where the Lord was rejected and His word despised was no place to settle? … For him and his children, the life of strangers. For him, no building of houses, no planting of vineyards. Nothing tied him to this earth, and nothing here even looked like a portion for him.
This verse records the one break in their record. Commentators do not treat it as clearly right.
It is true there was now an exception. … We may ask whether they had any call to make it, and whether Jerusalem was any better for them than the land where they had lived before. It is always good to hold fast the principle we are called to act on. It is dangerous to let ourselves change. God has every right to bring in new principles for new circumstances. But we must make sure it is God who does it.
Jonadab was long dead. His sons had his words but not his voice, and the choice of where to run was one his words had never covered.
They were not to adjust their rule of life to the new circumstances that came upon them. This is where any human creed or system shows its weakness. The Rechabites could not consult their father in the emergency, as a believer may now consult God. So it seems they did the very worst thing possible. Jerusalem, the holy city, must surely be a safe refuge, a sacred place the Chaldean could not and dared not touch. But Jerusalem was doomed. It had great privilege, and that made it all the more guilty. The wrath of God fell heavily on it.
The move put them within reach of Jeremiah. God turned that into a message for the nation, without ruling on the move itself.
The Spirit of God used their flight to that very place as a testimony to the nation. He did this without approving or condemning the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under the pressure of fear. That was not the point. Their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews. It sharpened an earnest appeal to the conscience of the nation at a time when the Judge was at the door.
A besieged city gave them every reason to relax the rest of their father's rules. They did not take it, and Judah was told to watch them.
When the Rechabites took refuge in Jerusalem because of Nebuchadnezzar, their faithfulness to their father's request stands as a solemn condemnation of the disobedience of the children of Judah. The people of Jerusalem were told to learn from the sight of these Rechabites. Even with the siege coming, they would not depart from their father's rules. They could have used the circumstances as an excuse to disobey at that time, but they stayed faithful to their fathers.
- Tents. No house, no crops, no vineyard, nothing tying them to the earth. They lived as strangers in a land where God's word was despised.
- Threat. An invading army moved them. The verse gives fear as the reason they left the tents for city walls.
- Exception. Commentators question whether Jerusalem was any better for them than the land they left. Hold fast the principle you are called to act on. Only God may change it.
- Emergency. A dead father's rule cannot answer a new crisis. That is where every human system fails, and where a believer's access to God does not.
- Verdict. God neither approved nor condemned the move. He used their presence in the city, and the obedience they kept under siege, as His appeal to a nation about to be judged.
And the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah, saying,
God speaks to Jeremiah, and the lesson he has just watched becomes his sermon. Outsiders kept a human father's word for generations; Judah ignored God's.
God had Jeremiah bring the Rechabites into the temple and set wine before them. Only after they refused did He tell the prophet to go and speak.
In Jeremiah 35, God puts the obedience of the Rechabites before the men of Judah. They were meant to feel this: some men, at least, showed more respect for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself. The Rechabites were a certain class of Arabs — Bedouins of the desert, as we say — who were true to the requirement of their father. He had bound them neither to build houses nor to drink wine, and these men had carried out the will of their father for a long time.
The timing sharpens it. The test came while an invading army was in the land.
The Rechabites came into Jerusalem for safety because of Nebuchadnezzar. Their faithfulness to what their father asked stands as a solemn condemnation of the disobedience of the children of Judah. God told the people of Jerusalem to take instruction from the sight of these Rechabites. Even with the siege coming, they would not depart from the regulations of their father.
Wine is not the issue, and God is not laying a trap. The rule was simply a measure of whether these sons would do what their father said.
It would be too much to assume that there was any direct purpose of pleasing God, or anything morally good in simply taking wine or not. It is plain God does not tempt anyone to evil. The Lord told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them and tell them to drink. That very fact shows this is no question of moral evil. But it would have been unfitting for those who had pledged themselves not to take it, had they done so. They were obedient to their father — this was what was right. Their father was entitled to test their obedience if he liked, and he did so... Here is convincing proof that the point is not one of moral evil. Besides the charge to drink no wine, they had also been commanded, "You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard; but you shall live in tents all your days."
One man gave one instruction. God had spoken for years and sent messenger after messenger.
And here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! how honouring to their father! while Israel just as plainly refuses to listen to the Lord. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard nor so persistently with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them.
The gap between the command and the obedience is worth measuring.
Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience lay some 250 years apart. That is 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that the passing of time made no difference to God in this respect. God took note of the Rechabites' faithfulness, which stood in stark contrast to the disobedience of Judah.
God uses their faithfulness without either approving or condemning how they lived. Their obedience is the point, not their rule of life.
The Spirit of God takes advantage of their coming to that very place, and makes it a testimony to the nation. He neither approves nor condemns the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under the pressure of fear. This was not the point. Their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews. It gave force to an earnest appeal to the conscience of the nation at a time when the Judge was at the door.
There is a warning here too. Copying those who went before us is easier than facing God's word:
It is always easier to follow tradition than the written word of God. Doing so leaves the conscience unexercised... A false standard and a human authority are then set up in the soul. Even if this does not deny the authority of the word of God, it will certainly give that word second place.
Alongside the coming judgment stands a reward, and its terms are striking.
How high an honour! To be represented at court before the king would be a mark of dignity. To be represented before God Himself, and that for ever, is an exalted and surpassing honour. This strikingly shows what value God sets upon obedience.
- Test — The wine set before them proved nothing about wine; it proved whether sons would keep a father's word.
- Contrast — Outsiders kept one man's word for 250 years. Judah would not keep God's.
- Patience — Jonadab had no prophets to send; God sent His servants again and again, and still was not heard.
- Witness — God used their faithfulness to press the nation's conscience, not to approve their rule of life. Following tradition instead of His word leaves that word in second place.
- Honour — Judgment came on Jerusalem. Obedience won a standing before God that lasts for ever.
Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel Go and say to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken unto my words? saith Jehovah.
The Rechabites have just refused Jeremiah's cup of wine. Now God sends him out of the room with a question for the people of Judah and Jerusalem. It is the sharpest question in the chapter. Why does a wandering family keep a father's word for generations, while God's own people will not keep His?
God does not hand Jeremiah a new argument. He hands him a living example to hold up in front of Judah.
In Jeremiah 35, God sets the obedience of the Rechabites in front of the men of Judah. He wants them to feel that some men, at least, showed more respect for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself. The Rechabites were a group of Arabs — desert nomads, as we would say — who stayed true to what their father asked of them. He had bound them neither to build houses nor to drink wine, and these men had carried out their father's will for a long time.
Jonadab said little, and his sons kept it. God said much, and Judah ignored Him.
It was not that God had failed to take pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard or so steadily with his sons. He had no prophets to send to them, and none were needed, even if sending them had been in his power. But the Lord rose up early. He spoke to Israel and He sent His prophets, and still they would not listen.
The people Jeremiah points to are outsiders. That is part of the sting.
The birds of the sky know their appointed times. The cattle of the earth are even truer to their masters than the children of Israel are to the Lord. And here were these foreigners, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How they honoured their father! Meanwhile Israel openly refuses to listen to the Lord.
A siege was closing in on the city. Hard times make a reasonable cover for bending a rule, and they did not use it.
The people of Jerusalem were told to take instruction from the sight of these Rechabites. Even with the siege coming, they would not leave their father's rules. They could have used the circumstances as an excuse to disobey just then, but they stayed faithful to their fathers.
The test involved a cup of wine, so many read the chapter as a lesson about drink. One writer calls that a misreading.
Campaigners against alcohol have, of course, made much of their firm refusal of wine, and have bent their history to serve the cause of total abstinence. This seems to me to miss the whole point of the chapter. The test God allowed Jeremiah to put to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God already knew their principles and their faithfulness to them. He wanted to bring out their obedience to their father's word, in contrast to Israel's disobedience to His laws.
Commentators differ on how far the Rechabites are a model. One adds a caution: an inherited rule is easier to keep than a word from God, because it asks less of the conscience.
It is always easier to follow tradition than the written word of God. Tradition does not exercise the conscience, and it saves us the difficulty, sometimes a serious one, of giving reasons for what we do… What has been handed down from father to son may not be bad in itself. It may even have been good, at least for its time. But it sets up a false standard and a human authority in the soul. That authority may not deny the authority of God's word, but it will surely put it second.
The verse is a question, and a question still expects an answer. Judah's case was not yet closed when Jeremiah asked it.
Still, He was ready to begin again and to forgive everything… Yet they would not turn an ear to Him or listen. Disobedience is like the sin of witchcraft. Nothing insults God more, and nothing ruins a person more.
- Instruction. God's question asks Judah to learn from a family standing in front of them, not from a new argument.
- Instruction refused. God rose early, spoke, and sent prophet after prophet. Jonadab never had to work that hard, and his sons still obeyed.
- Instruction shamed. Strangers living in tents kept their father's word. The people who had God's word would not listen.
- Instruction misread. The test was never about wine; it was about whether a word once given would still hold.
- Instruction offered. God was ready to begin again and forgive everything. That is why the verse comes as a question, not a verdict.
The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; and to this day they have drunk none, for they have obeyed their father's commandment. But I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking, and ye have not hearkened unto me.
God points the men of Judah to a family of desert-dwellers. They had kept one rule from a long-dead ancestor for generations, while Judah would not listen to a God who spoke again and again.
The chapter works by comparison, and the comparison is meant to be felt.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is set before the men of Judah. They were meant to feel that some men, at least, showed more reverence for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself. The Rechabites were a certain class of Arabs — Bedouins of the desert, as we say. They were true to what their father required. He had bound them neither to build houses nor to drink wine, and they had carried out their father's will for a long time.
The verse does not simply say Judah disobeyed. It says God spoke, and kept on speaking.
And here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How honouring to their father! Yet Israel just as plainly refuses to listen to Jehovah. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard nor so persistently with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them.
Where the ESV says God spoke "persistently", older translations read "rising up early and speaking". That way of speaking runs through Jeremiah's preaching, and it carries a warning.
How untiring the patience of the Lord is! He pledged that He would turn back from the disaster He had to threaten, if only they would listen and turn from their evil doings. But if they persisted in their rejection of His prophets whom He had sent (as He says, "rising up early and sending them"), let them prepare for the worst.
The verse says they drink none "to this day". That day stood centuries away from Jonadab's.
Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign (2 Kings 10:15, 23), roughly 850 years before Christ's birth. The incident in Jeremiah 35 happened much later, during the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah (Jer. 35:1), about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years passed between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience. That is 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that the time factor played no part for God in this respect.
The mention of wine makes this verse a favourite in arguments about drinking. Commentators here reject that use of it.
The Rechabites obeyed in neither building nor sowing, quite as much as in drinking no wine. Their case, if it applies at all, would prove far too much. If it proved that men ought to drink no wine, it would prove that they ought to build no houses. (Jer. 35.)
If the rule was not about wine, what was it about?
Was it for him a question of partial abstinence or of total abstinence? No, surely not. He refused to share in the pleasures of those around him. He refused to have any portion at all in the land while it was in that condition. That refusal was his protest against it. If Jehovah was rejected, and like a stranger in His own land and among His own professed people, so would Jonadab be.
God does not point to their record only to shame Judah. He values obedience itself, sets one limit on it, and repays it.
God is always like this, I think I may say, with respect for parents and with obedience from children, unless it stands in direct opposition to Himself. It has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand. And so, when Israel was given up to destruction — a solemn sight, though not a final destruction, because grace was held in reserve — Jonadab the son of Rechab would never lack a man to stand before God for ever.
- One word kept. Jonadab spoke once. His descendants still obeyed eight to ten generations later. Time took nothing from his word.
- Many words refused. God did not speak once. He kept speaking and sent prophet after prophet. Judah would not listen, and He told them to prepare for the worst.
- The contrast convicts. Outsiders honoured a human father more than God's own people honoured God. That is why God set their case before Judah.
- Not a wine rule. The command covered building and sowing too. Read as a rule about drinking, it proves too much and misses Jonadab's protest.
- Obedience is beautiful to God. God honours respect for a father wherever He finds it. The one limit: never when it stands directly against Him.
And I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them; and ye shall dwell in the land that I have given to you and to your fathers but ye have not inclined your ear nor hearkened unto me.
The chapter opens with a wandering family who refuse a cup of wine, and God turns their refusal into His case against Judah. Verse 15 is the heart of that case: everything God sent and said before judgment fell.
The whole chapter turns on one comparison.
Jeremiah 35 puts the obedience of the Rechabites in front of the men of Judah. They should feel it: some men, at least, showed more reverence for an earthly father than Israel showed for God Himself.
Time sharpens the contrast. Count the years between the command and the obedience.
Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign, roughly 850 years before Christ's birth. The incident in Jeremiah 35 happened much later, during the reign of Jehoiakim, about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and their obedience — 8–10 generations. They had understood that the passing of time counted for nothing with God in this matter.
The phrase "sending them persistently" reads in older translations as "rising up early and sending them." Picture someone getting up at dawn, day after day, to try again. That picture appears elsewhere in Scripture. It carries a motive, and it sits beside a plain fact about what Israel's blessings rested on.
All Israel's blessings depended on the faithfulness of both king and people. Their evil ways forfeited everything, despite the earnest warnings and protests of their God. God even speaks of Himself as "rising up early, and sending messengers to them, because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling-place" (2 Chronicles 36:15; Jeremiah 35:15). But it was of no use.
Now put the two sides together.
Here were these outsiders, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise, and how they honoured their father! Meanwhile Israel plainly refuses to listen to the LORD. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard or so persistently with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them. Yet God was ready to begin again and to forgive it all: "Amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to serve them." Still they did not incline their ear or listen to Him.
The message the prophets carried was not a sentence already passed. It was an offer with an "if" attached — turn, mend your ways, drop the other gods, and the land stays yours.
Jeremiah's prophecies are more conditional than any other, except only Jonah's. In fact they are even more conditional than Jonah's. Jonah did not put forward a condition — "If you repent, God will spare Nineveh." But Jeremiah does state the condition: "If you repent, God will relent of what He means to do."
The verse ends with the failure: they would not incline the ear. God's patience was real, but it had a limit.
With infinite patience the Lord still waited for His people to return. Judgment is His strange work, but He delights in mercy. He sent them messengers who urged them and brought the messages of God, because He had compassion. But they mocked the messengers. They despised God's gracious offers and mistreated His prophets, till there was no remedy. An awful statement.
The Rechabites kept a rule from their father, not the law of Israel. God counted it anyway.
God is always like this, I think, where children respect their parents and obey them, unless that obedience stands in direct opposition to Himself. It has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand.
The warning reaches past Judah. Let go of truth you once held, and the blessing that went with it goes too.
Know this for certain, dear friends. If we have drifted away from the truth we once knew and practised, we shall know no outward and visible blessing from God. His word is, "Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds" (Jeremiah 18:11).
- Contrast — One family kept a human command for 8–10 generations. Judah refused a God who never stopped speaking.
- Compassion — "Rising early and sending" shows pity, not anger. God sent His messengers because He had compassion on His people.
- Condition — Jeremiah's message was an offer, not a verdict: turn, mend, drop the idols, and the land stays yours.
- Refusal — The one thing Judah would not do was incline the ear. Repeated long enough, that refusal reached the point where there was no remedy.
- Reward — God honours obedience wherever He finds it, even in outsiders. The same standard still measures anyone who drifts from truth once held.
Yea, the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father which he commanded them, but this people hath not hearkened unto me;
Jeremiah 35 sets one small family beside the whole nation of Judah. The sons of Jonadab kept a rule handed down to them generations earlier. Judah would not listen to God Himself. Why does a human word carry more weight with people than God's word?
The comparison was meant to sting, and one writer says why.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is put in front of the men of Judah. The aim is to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more respect for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself.
Judah could not claim they were badly taught. Outsiders kept their promise, while the people God had laboured over would not.
Here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How honouring to their father! Meanwhile Israel just as plainly refuses to listen to the Lord. It was not that God had not taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never toiled so hard or so steadily with his sons: he had no prophets to send to them.
The gap between the man who gave this command and the sons who kept it was enormous.
What is especially impressive here is the span of time. Jonadab had lived during Ahab's reign (2 Kings 10:15, 23), about 850 years before Christ's birth. The incident in Jeremiah 35 occurred much later during the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah (Jer. 35:1), about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience. That is 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that the passing of time made no difference to God here.
Nothing sinful was on offer, and Jonadab's other rules show the same.
It would be too much to assume that there was any direct purpose of pleasing God, or anything morally good in simply taking wine or not. It is plain God does not tempt anyone to evil. The Lord told the prophet to bring them into the temple, set wine before them and tell them to drink — which shows this was no question of moral evil... They were obedient to their father — this was what was right... besides the charge to drink no wine, they had also been commanded: "You shall not build a house, or sow seed, or plant a vineyard, or own one; but all your days you shall live in tents." Clearly there is nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field.
Another writer explains what such a test is for.
It was not a temptation to evil, but a test of principle, and it found them firm and true. You train a horse to jump. When he has practised, and you know what he is made of, you take him to the five-barred gate. Your aim is not to break his leg or throw him, but to show that the training and discipline have done their work.
The chapter praises their faithfulness without approving every detail of how they lived.
The Spirit of God used the very fact that they had come to that place, and made them a testimony to the nation. He did this without either approving or condemning the way the Rechabites lived, or their partial departure from it under the pressure of fear. That was not the point. Their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews. It gave force to an earnest appeal to the conscience of the nation at a time when the Judge was at the door.
Judah's disobedience brought judgment. The obedience of the Rechabites brought a promise, and the honour in it is easy to miss.
This is an instructive word about the Rechabites. It shows how the blessed God approves the obedience of children to parents, or of descendants to the good word of their forefathers... To be represented at court before the king would be a mark of dignity. To be represented before God Himself, and that for ever, is a high and surpassing honour. This strikingly shows what value God sets upon obedience.
- Contrast. One family kept a human father's word. A whole nation would not keep God's word. Judah was meant to feel the difference.
- Effort. Jonadab spoke once and his sons obeyed. God spoke early and often through His prophets, and Judah did not obey.
- Duration. About 250 years and eight to ten generations lay between the command and the obedience. Time made no difference to God.
- Test. The wine set before them was no temptation to sin. It was a test of principle, since Jonadab's other rules forbade nothing wrong in itself.
- Account. Judgment stood at the door for Judah. Obedience drew a promise for the Rechabites — a place before God that lasts.
therefore thus saith Jehovah the God of hosts, the God of Israel Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken unto them, but they have not hearkened, and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.
A family of tent-dwellers had kept their father's word for generations, and they refused wine when Jeremiah set it before them. This verse is God's verdict on that scene: He spoke and He called, and Judah did not listen or answer.
The chapter sets up a comparison on purpose. The sentence of judgment in this verse is what the comparison is for.
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is set before the men of Judah. It is meant to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more reverence for an earthly father than Israel showed for God Himself. The Rechabites were a group of Arabs — desert Bedouins, as we say. They were true to the requirement of their father. He had bound them not to build houses and not to drink wine. These men had carried out their father's will for a long time.
The test Jeremiah applied was never about the drink itself.
The test which God permitted Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God knew their principles and their faithfulness to them. He wished to bring out their obedience to their father's word, in contrast to the disobedience of Israel to His laws.
"I have spoken to them and they have not listened" is not a complaint about one missed warning. It points back to centuries of effort that no human father ever matched.
And here were these Gentiles, these strangers, living in tents in obedience to their father's command. How faithful they were to their promise! How they honoured their father! Yet Israel just as plainly refuses to listen to the LORD. God had certainly taken pains with Israel. Jonadab had never worked so hard or so persistently with his sons. He had no prophets to send to them.
Elsewhere Scripture describes that same patience and names the point where it ends.
And the LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising His words and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against His people, until there was no remedy.
That is the force of the "therefore" in this verse. Judgment comes at the end of a long road of refused appeals.
The Rechabites' example cuts deep because of its span.
What is especially impressive here is the span of time. Jonadab had lived during the reign of King Ahab, about 850 years before Christ's birth. The incident in Jeremiah 35 happened much later. It falls in the reign of King Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, about 600 years before Christ's birth. So some 250 years lie between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience. That is 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that the time factor played no part for God in this respect.
God does not only use their loyalty to shame Judah. He rewards it too.
On the other hand we have an instructive word about the Rechabites. It shows how the blessed God approves the obedience of children to parents, or of descendants to the good word of their forefathers. God declares that Jonadab the son of Rechab will never lack a man to stand before Him for ever. What a high honour! To have someone represent you at court before the king would be a mark of dignity. To have someone represent you before God Himself, and that for ever, is a far higher honour. This strikingly shows what value God sets upon obedience.
The Rechabites are not a complete model. Their rule came from a man, and a man's rule cannot meet every new situation.
It seems the Rechabites kept their father's commandments as long as they could. God fully acknowledged their loyalty as sons, and rewarded it. But in a day of ruin or judgment, only the word of the living God can give strength to the soul and light for the path. The Rechabites could not consult their father in the emergency, as a believer can consult God now. So it seems they did the very worst thing possible. They took the holy city of Jerusalem to be a safe refuge, and Jerusalem was doomed — highly favoured, yet all the more guilty. The wrath of God fell heavily upon it.
- Spoken. God's charge is not neglect on His side. He worked with Israel harder and longer than Jonadab worked with his sons. He also had prophets to send, and Jonadab had none.
- Called. Judgment came only after they mocked God's messengers and despised His words, "until there was no remedy" — God's patience ran out at last; it was never absent.
- Compared. Strangers living in tents kept a man's word for eight to ten generations. Time made no difference to their obedience, and none to God's notice of it.
- Rewarded. The same chapter that sentences Jerusalem promises Jonadab a man to stand before God for ever. That is the measure of the value God sets on obedience.
- Corrected. Loyalty to inherited rules is not the same as hearing God. The Rechabites fled to a doomed city for safety. Only His living word gives light for the path.
And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his injunctions, and have done according unto all that he hath commanded you;
Jeremiah has just announced ruin on Judah. Then he turns to a small clan of tent-dwellers with praise, and we are left asking why God honours obedience to a human father.
The chapter sets this family beside Judah, and the comparison stings:
In Jeremiah 35, the obedience of the Rechabites is set before the men of Judah. It was meant to make them feel that some men, at least, showed more respect for a human father than Israel showed for God Himself. The Rechabites were a certain class of Arabs — Bedouins of the desert, as we say — who were true to their father's requirement. He had bound them not to build houses and not to drink wine. These men had carried out their father's will for a long time.
The wine set before them in the temple was not bait. It was there to bring into view what God already knew:
The test which God permitted Jeremiah to apply to them was not, as some might think, a temptation to drink. God, who knew their principles and their faithfulness to them, wished to bring out their obedience to their father's word in contrast to the disobedience of Israel to His laws.
God's praise covers the whole command, not just the wine:
Here is convincing proof that the point is not moral evil. Besides the charge to drink no wine, their father had also commanded them not to build a house, not to sow seed, and not to plant or own a vineyard, but to live in tents all their days. Clearly there is nothing wrong in itself in a man having a house or sowing seed in a field. Yet these were tests of their obedience. They were as much bound to avoid sowing seed and planting vineyards as to avoid drinking wine.
Behind the rule, one writer sees a deliberate refusal to settle down in a land that had rejected God:
Jonadab refused to share the pleasures of those around him. He refused to have any part at all in the land while it stayed in that condition. This was his protest against it. If the Lord was rejected and treated as a stranger in His own land and among His own professed people, then Jonadab would be a stranger too.
The words "done all that he commanded you" cover a span no single lifetime could fill:
What is most impressive here is the span of time. Jonadab lived during the reign of Ahab, about 850 years before Christ's birth. What happens in Jeremiah 35 comes much later, in the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience — some 8 to 10 generations. They had understood that time made no difference to God in this respect.
Fear had driven them into Jerusalem, so they were no longer living in tents. Commentators differ on how to read that. One leaves the question open:
We may ask whether they needed to make this an exception. Was it any better for them to be in Jerusalem than in the land as before? It is always good to hold fast the principle on which we are called to act; it is dangerous to allow ourselves to change.
Another writer sees God leaving the question aside:
The Spirit of God uses their coming to that very place as a testimony to the nation. He neither approves nor condemns the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under the pressure of fear. This was not the point; but their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews.
The "because" of this verse leads straight to a promise in the next verse:
God is always like this, I think, with respect for parents and obedience from children, unless it stands in direct opposition to Himself. It has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand. And so, at the very moment when — solemn sight! — God would give up the children of Israel to destruction, Jonadab the son of Rechab would never lack a man to stand before God for ever. That destruction was not final, because grace was held in reserve.
- Because — God's commendation rests on one word: they obeyed. The wine was never a moral question; it was where their obedience showed.
- All — He praises not part but the whole charge: no wine, no houses, no sowing, no vineyards. Each rule bound them as much as the wine did.
- Long — about 250 years and eight to ten generations lay between Jonadab's word and this test. Time had not weakened it.
- Contrast — their loyalty to a human father exposed Judah's refusal of God Himself.
- Honour — while the nation went to ruin, this family received a promise of a place before God for ever. Faithfulness has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand.
therefore thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, There shall not fail to Jonadab the son of Rechab a man to stand before me, for ever.
Jeremiah 35 ends with a promise that seems out of place in a book full of coming ruin. Judah is heading for disaster, yet God guarantees one family a lasting place before Him. Everything turns on why God singles out the sons of Jonadab, and on what it means to "stand before" Him.
The Rechabites lived in tents among God's people and kept their ancestor's rule against wine. God contrasts their obedience with the nation's refusal to listen, and He speaks this promise as Judah's fate is sealed.
God is always like this, I think I may say, with respect for parents and with obedient children, unless it goes directly against Himself. It has beauty in His eyes and honour from His hand. And so it is that when — a solemn sight! — God was about to give the children of Israel up to destruction, Jonadab the son of Rechab would never lack a man to stand before God for ever. That destruction was not final, because of the reserve of grace.
What God rewards here is not a rule about wine but obedience to a father's word. One writer ties it to the law's command about parents.
The specific command was, "Honour your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). This was one of the "ten words." It is called the "first commandment with promise" (Ephesians 5:2), because the Lord marked this instruction out with His own assurance: prosperity and long life would be the portion of those who obeyed it. See the special reward granted to the house of Rechab for a son's obedience (Jeremiah 35:18-19).
Some have read "a man to stand before me" as a promise of service in the sanctuary. One writer tests that reading against Scripture.
God instructed Jeremiah to hold up the obedience of the Rechabites as an example to the men of Judah. These men faithfully obeyed their father, while Judah had not obeyed their God. It was said of them that because of their faithfulness to their father's commands Jonadab should never lack a man to stand before God for ever. The Rabbis interpret this to mean that they should serve in the sanctuary. They say the Rechabites became joined to the Levites. But we find nothing of this in scripture.
(The ESV ends the verse with "to stand before me." Older translations add "for ever," which several of these writers keep.)
God secured a line of descendants, and He put His own Name behind it.
The Lord was so pleased with their obedience to their father, and their faithfulness to their pilgrim principles, that He pledged His own Name to secure a succession of "sons of Jonadab" down to the end of time. The question for us is, are we among them? Do we chase the intoxicating pleasures of this world that wine stands for? Do we build houses, as though we were fixtures here?
Jonadab gave his command generations before Jeremiah's day. The gap is worth measuring.
What impresses most here is the time involved. Jonadab lived during Ahab's reign (2 Kings 10:15, 23), about 850 years before Christ's birth. The events of Jeremiah 35 came much later, under Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah (Jeremiah 35:1), about 600 years before Christ's birth. So about 250 years lay between Jonadab's command and the Rechabites' obedience. That matches 8–10 generations. They had understood that the time factor played no part for God in this respect.
Their reward matched the life they lived. Nazarites were people under a vow of separation to God.
They were a standing order of Nazarites, more separated to God than even Israel. They kept their vows of consecration faithfully to the end. So when the Lord was pronouncing judgment on His own people, He pledged to them that they should never lack a man to stand before Him for ever.
Commentators differ on how much weight to give the Rechabite way of life itself. One writer keeps the focus on what God was showing the nation.
The Spirit of God uses their coming to the house of God as a testimony to the nation. He does this without either approving or condemning the way of life of the Rechabites, or their partial departure from it under fear. That was not the point; but their faithfulness was an object lesson for the Jews.
- Cause — God noticed obedience: a father's word kept for centuries, while the nation He had taught ignored His word.
- Gift — He pledged His own Name, not their record, to secure a line of Jonadab's sons standing before Him.
- Reach — Some 250 years and up to ten generations lay between the command and the obedience. That gap counted for nothing with God.
- Result — God gives this promise as judgment falls on Judah. He honours faithfulness even when everything around it collapses.
- Reminder — The lesson is their pilgrim spirit: they lived in tents and claimed nothing here as home.