Ch. Jeremiah 35:1-19. The incident of the Rechabites and its application

The settlement of Israel in Canaan, involving as it did the adoption of agricultural pursuits, led to a certain amount of recognition of local deities (Baals) supposed by the Canaanites to bestow the produce in return for appropriate rites. The adoption of such local rites was considered by the majority of the people as quite consistent with the worship of Jehovah as the national God or “Baal,” lord. In this way the licentious practices connected with the service paid to the local Baals were extended to the worship of Jehovah Himself. Jehu, in his bloodthirsty zeal for the extermination of the Tyrian Baal, Melkart by name, was supported by Jehonadab son of Rechab (2 Kings 10:15 ff.), whose object in insisting on his followers refusing an agricultural as opposed to a nomadic life was simply to maintain strict loyalty to Jehovah as the wilderness God, and so to abolish all other worship whether imported from without or otherwise. Thus the significance of his action was solely of a religious character and not a protest against luxury. There is no real reason to doubt (with Schmidt) the historical character of the narrative. It contains details not likely to be invented.

We may summarize the account as follows. (i) Jeremiah 35:1-11. Jeremiah brings the Rechabites into one of the Temple chambers and offers them wine. They decline the offer, on the ground that their ancestor Jonadab had forbidden them any practices inconsistent with a strictly nomadic life. They add that they are now in Jerusalem only for self-preservation. (ii) Jeremiah 35:12-19. The prophet is bidden to point the moral for the people. The Rechabites have held Jonadab’s precept binding ever since. Jerusalem and Judah on the contrary have ignored the repeated warnings of Jehovah through His prophets against idolatry and other sins. Therefore punishment shall come on the rebellious people; while the Rechabites shall never want descendants to serve Jehovah.

1. The word which came … in the days of Jehoiakim] This and the following chapter form a remarkable break in the narrative of chs. 32–44. They at once bring us back from the tenth year of the reign of Zedekiah to the later part of Jehoiakim’s reign, when the Babylonian army had entered Palestine and compelled many of its inhabitants to take refuge within Jerusalem. Among these were the Rechabites.

2. Go unto the house] The family (so in 3, 5, 18; Genesis 7:1, etc.) are meant, not the dwelling-houses. See Jeremiah 35:7. It was some years after the burning of the Roll (in Jehoiakim’s fourth year), and it appears that the prophet could again appear in public without risk (see Jeremiah 36:19; Jeremiah 36:26).

of the Rechabites] They were a wandering tribe of Kenite descent (1 Chronicles 2:55) and thus connected with Moses’ brother-in-law (Jdg 1:16). Some of that family had settled in the south of Judah (ib.), others near Kedesh in Naphtali (Jdg 4:11). This branch however were nomad.

4. The particularity in description points to the narrative being contemporary with the events it describes.

and I brought them into the house of the Lord] that so what was to follow might be made most prominent and be most widely known.

Maaseiah] probably father of the Zephaniah (Jeremiah 21:1, Jeremiah 29:25, Jeremiah 37:3) who is mentioned as “second priest” in Jeremiah 52:24.

keeper of the door] lit. threshold. There were three of these officers (Jeremiah 52:24; 2 Kings 25:18). They seem to have stood next in rank after the high-priest and his deputy (ib.), and were charged with the care of the money contributed for the restoration of the Temple (2 Kings 12:9).

5. bowls] large vessels, from which drinking cups were filled.

7. neither shall ye build house, etc.] Cp. the description of the Nabataeans by Diodorus Siculus who says (19:94) that they neither sow seed, nor plant fruit-tree, nor use wine, nor build a house. In their case, however, it was not from religious motives, but to avoid risk at the hands of powerful neighbours.

11. Syrians] allies of the Chaldaeans at this period. See 2 Kings 24:2.

12. unto Jeremiah] LXX, better, unto me. It is more natural to retain the 1st person in accordance with the previous context, thus taking the proper name as a gloss.

12–19. See introd. summary to the section. This portion, which forms the application of the preceding narrative, seems to have received considerable later additions. The LXX seem to present it in practically its original form.

13. instruction] or, correction. See on Jeremiah 17:23.

17. the Lord … Israel] This accumulation of Divine names (abs. from LXX), though it can scarcely be called strange, is without parallel elsewhere.

18. And Jeremiah said … Rechabites] The LXX, doubtless rightly, omit these words (see on Jeremiah 35:12), and seem to have preserved the original form, “Therefore thus saith the Lord, Inasmuch as the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have obeyed the commandment of their father to do as their father commanded them,” while the MT. has been compelled by the insertion to change the 3rd person into the 2nd.

19. to stand before me] It is by no means necessary to understand the expression here as implying priestly functions (cp. Jeremiah 15:19), although the hint that the Rechabites were employed in some capacity in connexion with the Temple is supported by (i) the LXX heading of Psalms 71; (ii) the account of the martyrdom of James the Just (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. II. 23) where “priests of the sons of Rechab” are spoken of. Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the 12th century, mentions a body of Jews who were called Rechabites, and whose customs corresponded with those detailed in Jeremiah. Dr Wolff (Journal, 1829) describes a body of Rechabites near Mecca who claimed to be sons of Jonadab. But it is by no means clear that the title in these three cases meant anything more than a certain amount of asceticism.