The Rechabites - Glenn Conjurske
The Rechabites
by Glenn Conjurske
We read in the first ten verses of Jeremiah 35,
“The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites, and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any, but all your days ye shall dwell in tents, that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; nor to build houses for us to dwell in. Neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed, but we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.”
This passage is singularly rich and full and important. It establishes some matters of very great importance concerning the nature of authority. Yet I fear that the modern church is generally unable to understand its content, for it reads the passage with a veil over its eyes, or rather two veils. The first veil is the prevailing belief that it is sinful to drink wine. The modern church is generally able to find nothing more here than that the Rechabites did well to refuse to drink wine. But this is certainly not the point of the passage, even if it were the truth. More on that anon.
The second veil which blinds men to the content of this passage consists of the prevailing principles of independence and democracy, which have almost entirely blotted out the scriptural doctrine of authority from the modern church. I was of course raised and educated in those same principles of democracy myself, but many years ago I plainly saw that there was no trace of democracy in the Bible, except only in the clay in the feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s image. This clay is democracy, and these feet are the final form of the devil’s kingdom on the earth, which will be destroyed without mercy by Christ at his coming. “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Daniel 2:34-35). God has no more to do with the feet of clay than with the head of gold, except to destroy them both.
Let us therefore establish this point at the outset, that the theme of this chapter is submission to authority. The Rechabites say in verse 6, “Jonadab the son of Rechab commanded us,” and in verse 8, “Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he charged us.”
The application which the prophet makes of all this is, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the Lord. The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father’s commandment: notwithstanding, I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me. I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me. Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me, therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.” (Verses 13-17). The commandment of Jonadab was obeyed. The commandment of God was not. All this relates to authority.
Moreover, the obedience of the Rechabites to the commandment of their father meets with the evident approval of God, for Jeremiah speaks further, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you, therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” (Verses 18-19). This is a very strong commendation, and it is a commendation of obedience to authority.
Observe, Jonadab did not advise them to do such and such things, but commanded them, as the chapter affirms again and again. Neither is it said that he persuaded or convinced them to do these things. He commanded them. This is an act of authority. Their performance of them was an act of obedience, as the chapter also affirms again and again.
But this necessarily raises the question, Has a father the right to command his children for many generations to come? In this instance it has the evident sanction of God. So it has in another instance also. God says of Abraham, “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.” (Gen. 18:19). Again, this is authority. He will command them. He will command his children after him, evidently for generations to come.
Has every father, then, the right to command his sons when they are grown, and his sons’ sons to all generations? The real question here may not be whether a man has the right to command his children after him, but whether he has the ability to do so. The effectual use of authority depends largely, if not entirely, upon the moral weight and worth of the man who holds it. An unworthy man in a place of authority—-an immoral, unrighteous, or self-serving man—-weakens not only his own authority, but contributes to weaken men’s regard for authority as such. On the other hand, a worthy man wins respect not only for himself, but for his office. Every man in any place of authority ought to be able to command the respect of those who are under him, but we suppose it must be a man of a peculiar greatness who can command the obedience of future generations. He must be revered and trusted, and that to such an extent that that reverence and confidence will be passed down from generation to generation. He must be a Martin Luther or a John Wesley. Whatever right they might be supposed to possess, lesser men have no ability to command future generations, and we suppose that most of them would never be so presumptuous as to make the attempt.
Jonadab, then, was evidently a great man. He was a man who could command his children for generations to come, and secure their obedience. He was not only revered, but trusted. His children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren for many generations, deferred to his judgement. They trusted him to command what was good and right, and obeyed because he had commanded.
And this is a fact the more remarkable when we consider the nature of his commandments. In the first place we may remark that these commandments were not easy. They required a life of self-denial, as “pilgrims and strangers on the earth.” In all this the Rechabites are a picture of the church of God.
But there is something much deeper here, as it concerns the nature of authority. The sons of Rechab were forbidden a variety of things, none of which were wrong. They were forbidden to drink wine. They were forbidden to build houses, to sow seed, to plant vineyards, nor were they allowed to have any of those things. None of those things were wrong. Those who suppose the point of the passage consists in the fact that it is wrong to drink wine have missed its message entirely. Even if we were to grant that it is wrong to drink wine, and so make a sinner of our Saviour, who will contend that it is wrong to dwell in houses, or to sow seed, or to have a field or vineyard? These were as much forbidden by Jonadab as the wine was. The wine is prominent in the passage in Jeremiah simply because the necessity of the case required it. Jeremiah could not gather the Rechabites together and require them to build houses or to sow seed, when they had no lands on which to do so, and perhaps no money with which to do so. The wine was the only thing among those forbidden them which would afford an easy test of their obedience, but if Jeremiah had required them to sow seed, to buy fields, or to build houses, they would have refused that also. The Rechabites did none of these things, not because any of them were wrong, but because they were forbidden by their father. They did not determine that such things were wrong—-doubtless they understood very well that they were not wrong—-but they submitted to the authority of their father. They obeyed his commandment.
This is a consideration of very great importance, for it plainly establishes the right of God-given authorities to forbid things which are not wrong. Things which are not wrong may be inexpedient. What is expedient at one time may be inexpedient at another. God-ordained authorities are presumed to have the ability to determine such things, and also the right to command concerning them. We do not believe it is wrong to drink wine, but we suppose it generally inexpedient in America today, and we surely believe the elders in the church have the right to forbid it. Modern man, however, intoxicated as he is with the notions of liberty and independence, has very little understanding of what authority is, or of why it exists, or of what its prerogatives are. He has little idea of submitting to authority as such, but will usually submit only so far as his reason can see. He must be taught and persuaded, but refuses to be commanded. Teaching and persuasion are surely in order also, yet they are not effectual in every case, and it is therefore the prerogative of authority to command. Those parents who attempt to persuade their children to obey make themselves contemptible, especially in the eyes of their children. A child may not be able to understand his parents’ reasons. He is therefore obliged to obey, reason or no reason. A child of God may not be able to understand the reasons of the elders in the church. He does not stand on an equal plane with them, in understanding or spirituality. He is therefore obliged, as Paul says, to “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” This is authority, and authority does not merely advise or persuade. It commands, and those who are under that authority are obliged to obey. And we certainly believe that parents, elders, masters, and governors have the right to forbid things which are not wrong.
When that is done, it is not the business of subordinates to divine the reason of the authorities, but rather to submit to them, and obey their commandments. It was no concern of the Rechabites to know certainly why their father Jonadab had forbidden them houses and fields and seed and wine. They may or may not have understood the reasons. They could obey whether they understood or not. Jonadab assigned a reason, namely, “that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers,” but what the connection was between the commandments given and the end to be secured may not have been clear. For that they must trust the superior wisdom of their father. This may be done easily enough, when the man in the place of authority is fit to be there. His moral worth commands the respect and confidence of those over whom he has the rule, and therefore secures their ungrudging obedience. It is questionable whether an angel from heaven could generally command that confidence in this day of liberty and democracy and independence and pride and self-will, but such at any rate is the proper pattern of the working of God-ordained authority.
And as said above, the submission of the Rechabites, generation after generation, to the authority of their father Jonadab—-their obedience to his commandments, by which he forbade their use of things which were not wrong—-met with the signal approbation of God. “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you, therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” This is a very strong commendation, but what does it mean? It must have reference to earth, not merely to heaven. The salvation of but one Rechabite would fulfill the prophecy, if all that were meant is that Jonadab would never want a man to stand before the Lord in heaven. It seems that such an interpretation must empty the promise of its meaning. I believe it refers to the family of the Rechabites on the earth.
But has it been fulfilled? We must certainly believe that it has, even though we may be unable to trace its fulfillment. God knows where the sons of Jonadab are today, though we may not. But for whatever it may be worth, I will at any rate lay before my readers a very striking testimony to the continuance of the Rechabites down to modern times. Recall that Jeremiah wrote about 600 years before Christ. The testimony which I am about to give was written about 1800 years after Christ, or 2400 years after the promise given to the Rechabites in the book of Jeremiah.
Joseph Wolff, a missionary in Jerusalem, thus records part of an interview between himself and Rabbi Mose Secot, a Talmudist Jew and a Pharisee, in 1822:
“I. I have heard of Jews (in Niebuhr’s Travels) who are wandering about like Arabs, near Mecca, do you know of them?
“Rabbi Mose Secot, They are called the Beni Khaibr.—-I was rejoiced to perceive that they are known by the Jews at Jerusalem, under the very name which Niebuhr gave to them! and I asked Rabbi Mose Secot, Did some of those Beni Khaibr ever come to Jerusalem?
“Rabbi Mose Secot. Yes, in the time of Jeremiah the prophet!
“I. How do you know this?
“Rabbi Mose Secot. Let us read the prophet Jeremiah. He then read Jeremiah xxxv,1—-11. You see by it that Rabbi Mose Secot is quite certain, that the Beni Khaibr are descendants of the Rechabites. They drink still at this present moment no wine, and have neither vineyard, nor field, nor seed, but dwell, like Arabs, in tents, and are wandering Nomades: they believe and observe the law of Moses by tradition, for they are not in the possession of the written law, and Mose Secot observed, that their name Khaibr is to be found in Judges iv,11. ‘Now Khaibr (the same as Heber) the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent in the plain of Zanaaim, which is by Kedesh.’ And it was among the Beni Khaibr where Sisera found his death! Judges iv,19, and of whom Deborah sang, ‘Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife of Heber (Khaibr) the Kenite be; blessed shall she be above women in the tent;’ and those Beni Khaibr are descendants of Jethro, the father-in-law to Moses, and Mose Secot proved it by Numbers x,29: ‘And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, we are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good. For the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel: and he said unto him, I will not go,’ &c. &c. Moses Secot has promised to me, to bring the next day the Talmud with him to make it more evident.”
On the following day Mr. Wolff writes, “Rabbi Mose Secot called again to-day; … He showed to me likewise the passage in the Talmud, which speaks of the Beni Khaibr, or rather of the Rechabites, as children of Jethro. The passage is in the treatise of Sota.”
It may be proper to explain how “Heber” may be equated with “Khaibr.” There are two H’s in the Hebrew, the He, which is soft, and written ä, and the Heth, which is hard, and written ç. The latter is nearer in sound to our hard “ch,” as in “Christ.” “Heber” in the fourth chapter of Judges is øáç, and in the LXX, caber, that is Chaber, which is easily seen to be the equivalent of “Khaibr.” The Beni Khaibr are the children of Heber.
I Chronicles 2:55 establishes the identity of “the house of Rechab” with “the Kenites.” It is interesting to observe also that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, was dwelling in a tent in the time of the judges, when the Israelites no doubt dwelt in houses. The Kenites were strangers in the land, and the things which Jonadab commanded them were all designed to maintain their position as strangers. Their obedience to those commandments is held up by the Lord as an example to wayward Judah, and it is doubtless an example to the people of God in all ages.
Glenn Conjurske