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. Jeremiah 35 The Rechabites J. Parker, D. D. Did the Lord make a proposal to total abstainers to drink wine? Did he send for them to a kind of wine festival? Is this the meaning of the Lord's Prayer, "Load us not into temptation"? Is not the Lord always thus leading men into temptation? — not in the patent and vulgar sense in which that term is generally understood, but in a sense which signifies drill, the application of discipline, the testing of principles and purposes and character? Is not all life a temptation? The Lord tries every man. There need be no hesitation in offering the prayer, "Lead us not into temptation." People have tried to soften the words. They have said instead of "lead" "leave us not in temptation"; but these are the annotations of inexperience and folly, or superficiality. We are not men until we have been thus moulded, tried, qualified. We can do little for one another in that pit of temptation. We must be left with God. There is one Refiner; He sits over the furnace, and when the fire has done enough He quenches the cruel, flame. Think it no strange thin that temptation hath befallen you; yea, think it not strange that God Himself has given you opportunities by which you may be burned. He never gives such an opportunity without giving something else. Alas, how often we see the opportunity and not the sustaining grace! The drinking of wine in this case was to be done in "the house of the Lord." Now light begins to dawn. Mark the limitations of our temptation. The Lord is never absent from His house. Let God tempt me, and He will also save me; let Him invite me into His own house, that there, under a roof beautiful as heaven, He may work His will upon me, and afterwards I shall stand up, higher in nature, broader in manhood, truer in the metal of the Spirit. Observe the details of this mysterious operation. The men who were taken were proved men (ver. 3). When the Lord calls for giants to fight His battle and show the strength of His grace, they are chosen men. All these men were conspicuous witnesses for the truth: they were identified with the faith of Israel; they were the trustees of the morality of society. It is so in all ages. There are certain men whom we may denominate our stewards, trustees, representatives; as for ourselves, we say, it is not safe to trust us; we are weaker than a bruised reed; we cannot stand great public ordeals; we were not meant to be illustrations of moral fortitude: spare us from the agony of such trial! There are other men in society whom God Himself can trust. What did the sons of Rechab say? Herein is a strange thing, that children should obey the voice of a dead father. Yet this is a most pleasing contention; this is an argument softened by pathos. The men stood up, and did not speak in their own name; they said, We be the sons of a certain man, who gave a certain law, and by that law we will live, and ever will live. The trial took place in the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah. The father of Maaseiah was Shallum, who was the husband of Huldah the prophetess, who had taken an active part in the reformation wrought in the reign of Josiah. So all these were so many guarantees of probity, and strength, and success. There will be no evil wrought in that chamber I Not only are the Rechabites there, but their fathers are with them in spirit. Though our fathers, physical and spiritual, be dead, yet they may live with us in the spirit, and may go with us and sustain us in all the trials and difficulties of life. "We will drink no wine." Note the definiteness of the answer. No inquiry is made about the kind of wine. Men are saved by their definiteness. A strong, proud, decisive answer is the true reply to all temptation. An oath that strikes as with a fist of iron, a denial that is like a long, sharp two-edged sword, — these must be our policies and watchwords in the time of danger. The reason is given (ver. 6). It is a filial argument. Good advice is not always thrown away; and men should remember that though exhortation may be rejected for a long time, yet there are periods when it may recur to the memory and come upon the whole life like a blessing sent from God. The argument is a fortiori. The Lord has shown how the sons of Jonadab can refuse wine: now He will take this example and apply it to the whole host of Judah, and He will say, See what one section of your country can do; if they can do this, why cannot you be equally loyal and true? why cannot you be equally obedient to the spirit of righteousness? for three hundred years this bond has been kept in this family; never once has it been violated: if one family can do this, why not a thousand families? if one section of the country, why not the whole nation? This was God's method of applying truth to those who needed it. Thus we teach one another. One boy can be obedient; why not all boys? One soul can be faithful; why not all souls? God in His providence says: See what others can do, and as they toil and climb and succeed in reaching the highest point, so do ye follow them: the grace that made them succeed will not fail you in the hour of your trial and difficulty. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us. The Rechabites Bishop Hacket. St. Austin says of the Syrophenician woman, who was both hardly spoken of by our Saviour at first, and anon commended highly before her face; she that took not her reproach in scorn, would not wax arrogant upon her commendation; so these Rechabites who lived with good content in a life full of neglect, may the better endure to have their good deeds scanned, without fear of begetting ostentation. And therefore I will branch out my text into four parts, in every of which they will justly deserve our praise, and in some our imitation. First, when the prophet Jeremiah did try them with this temptation, whether they would feast it and-drink wine, they make him a resolute denial, a prophet could., draw them. to no inconvenient act. Some are good men of themselves, but easily drawn aside by allurements; such are not the Rechabites. He that will sin to please another, makes his friend either to be a God that shall rule him, or a devil that shall tempt him. Three things, says , do preserve the life of friendship. 1. To answer love with like affection. 2. Some similitude and likeness of condition. 3. But above either, neither to sin ourselves, nor for our sakes to lay the charge of sin upon our familiars.No, he is too prodigal of his kindness, that giveth his friend both his heart and his conscience. I may not forget how Agesilaus' son behaved himself in this point toward his own father: the cause was corrupt wherein his father did solicit; the son answers him with this modesty: Your education taught me from a child to keep the laws, and my youth is so inured to your former discipline, that I cannot skill the latter. Here let rhetoricians declaim Whether this were duty or disobedience. But let us examine the case by philosophy. I am sure that no man s reason is so nearly conjoined to my soul as my own appetite, although my appetite be merely sensitive. And must I oftentimes resist my own appetite, and enthral it as a civil rebel: and have I not power much more to oppose any man's reason that Persuades me unto evil, his reason being but a stranger unto me, and not of the secret council of my soul! Yes, out of question. How it pities me to hear some men say, that they could live as soberly, as chastely, as saintlike as the best, if it were not for company! Fie upon such weakness: says St. Austin , If thy mother speak thee fair, if the wife of thy bosom tempt thy heart, beware of Eve, and think of Adam. The serpent was a wise creature ( Genesis 3 ), and Eve could not but take his word in good manners. Fond mother of mankind, so ready to believe the devil, that her posterity ever since nave Dean slow to believe God. Never can there be a better season for nolumus , for every Christian to be a Rechabite, than when any man reacheth out a cup of intemperance unto us, to say boldly, We will not drink it. Now I proceed to the second part of my text, which hath a strong connection with the former; for why did they resist these enticements, and disavow the prophet (ver. 8)? Their obedience is the second part of their encomium, they will obey the voice of Jonadab their father. The name of father was that wherewith God was pleased to mollify our stony hearts, and bring them into the subjection of the fifth commandment. Surely as a parricide, that killed his father, was to have no burial upon the earth, but sewed in an ox hide and east headlong into the sea; so he that despiseth his father deserves not to hold any place of dignity above others, but to be a slave to all men. For what are we but coin that hath our fathers' image stamped upon it? and we receive our current value from them to be called sons of men. And yet the more commendable was the obedience of the Rechabites, that their father Jonadab being dead, his law was in as good force as if he had been living. Concerning this virtue of obedience, let us extend our discourse a little further, and yet tread upon our own ground. Obedience is used in a large sense, for a condition, or modus, annexed unto all virtues. As the magistrate may execute justice dutifully under his prince, the soldier may perform a valiant exploit dutifully under his captain; but strictly, and according to the pattern of the Rechabites, says Aquinas . It is one peculiar and entire virtue, whereby we oblige ourselves, for authority's sake, to do things indifferent to be done, or omitted; for sometimes that which is evil may be hurtful prohibito to the party forbidden: as the laws forbid a man to murder himself: sometimes a thing is evil prohibenti , so treasons, adulteries, and thefts are interdicted: but sometimes the thing is no way in itself pernicious to any, but only propounded to make trial of our duty and allegiance, as when Adam was forbid to eat the apple; and this is true obedience, not to obey for the necessity of the thing commanded, but out of conscience and subjection to just authority. Such obedience, and nothing else, is that which hath made the little commonwealth of bees so famous: for are they not at appointment who should dispose the work at home, and who should gather honey in the fields? they flinch not from their task, and no creature under the sun hath so brave an instinct of sagacity. Let us gather up this second part of my text into one closure: we commend the Rechabites for their obedience, and by their example we owe duty to our parents, natural and civil, those that begot us, those that govern us. We owe duty to the dead, after our rulers have left us in the way of a good life, and changed their own for a better. We owe duty to our rulers in all things honest and lawful; in obeying rites and ceremonies indifferent, in laws civil and ecclesiastical. But where God controls, or wherein our liberty cannot be enthralled, we are bound ad patiendum , and happy if we suffer for righteousness' sake. Now that the obedience of the Rechabites was lawful and religious, and a thing wherein they might profitably dispense with freedom and liberty, the third part of my text, that is their temperance, will make it manifest, for in this they obeyed Jonadab. To spare somewhat which God hath given us for our sustenance, is to restore a part of the plenty back again; if we lay hands upon all that is set before us, it is suspicious that we expected more, and accused nature of frugality. And though the vine did boast in Jotham's parable, that it cheered up the heart of God and man, though it be so useful a creature for our preservation, that no Carthusian or Caelestine monk of the strictest order did put this into their vow to drink no wine, yet the Rechabites are contented to be more sober than any, and lap the water of the brook, like Gideon's soldiers. Which moderation of diet did enable them to avoid luxury and swinish drunkenness, into which sin whosoever falls makes himself subject to a fourfold punishment. First, The heat of too liberal a proportion kindles the lust of the flesh. Lot, who was not consumed in Sodom with the fire of brimstone, drunkenness set him on fire with incestuous lust in Zoar. What St. Paul hath coupled ( 2 Corinthians 6 .), let us not divide; lastings go first, then follows pureness and chastity. Secondly, How many brawls and unmanly combats have we seen? Thirdly, Superfluity of drink is the draught of foolishness. Such a misery, in my opinion, that I would think men had rather lose their right arm than the government of their reason, if they knew the royalty thereof. Lastly, Whereas sobriety is the sustentation of that which decays in man, drunkenness is the utter decay of the body. The Rechabites had encouragement to take this vow upon them for three reasons: 1. As being but strangers to the true commonwealth of Israel. 2. To make the better preparation for the captivity of Babylon. 3. To draw their affections to the content of a little, and the contempt of the world.Now I follow my own method to handle the second consideration of this vow, that these circumstances were not only well foreseen, but that the conditions of the thing vowed are just and lawful. Not to tumble over all the distinctions of the schoolmen, which are as multiplicious in this cause as in any; of vows, some are singular, which concern one man and no more, as when David vowed to build an house unto the Lord, this was not a vow of many associated in that pious work, but of David only. Some are public when there is a unity of consent in divers persons to obtest the same thing before the presence of God. And such was this vow in my text, it concerned the whole family of the Rechabites. That this vow was of some moment in the practice of piety, appears by God's benediction upon them. For as it was said of ' goodness, that it stood the common. wealth of Athens in more stead than all their warlike prowess by sea and land, so that religious life of the Rechabites was the best wall and fortress to keep Judah in peace and safety. And almost who doth not follow Christ rather to be a gainer by Him than a loser. Behold, we have left all and followed Thee; that was the perfection of the apostles, that was the state of the Rechabites; not simply all, everything that belonged to the maintenance of a man, and so to live upon beggary, they have learned to ask nothing but a gourd to cover their head, a few flocks of sheep to employ their hands, the spring water to quench their thirst. They that must have no more, have cut off superfluous desires, that they can never ask more. And so piety and a godly life were chiefly aimed at in the vow of the Rechabites. The end and last part of all is this: That forasmuch as God was well pleased with these abstemious people that would drink no wine, therefore promise unto the Lord, and do the deed; for that is my final conclusion, that a vow justly conceived is to be solemnly performed. When we have breathed out a resolved protestation before God, it is like the hour we spake it in, past and gone, and can never be recalled. Says David, "I have poured out my soul in prayer," as if upon his supplication it were no longer his, but God s for ever. Surely if our soul be gone from us in our prayers, then much more in our vows they are flown up to Heaven, like Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham, they cannot, they should not return to earth again. He that changed his sex in the fable is not so great a wonder, as he that changeth any covenant which is drawn between God and his conscience. He that hath consecrated himself to God, doth, as it were, carry heaven upon his shoulders. Support your burdens in God's name, lest if you shrink the wrath of God press you down to the nethermost pit. I will give a brief answer to one question. Is Christ so austere that He doth reclaim against all dispensation? no, says Aquinas, you are loose again, if the thing in vow be sinful, nay if it be unuseful, nay if it cross the accomplishment of a greater good. This is good allowance, and well spoken. The careful pilot sets his adventure to a certain haven, and would turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, if the winds were as constant as the loadstone, but they blow contrary to his expectation. Suppose a Rechabite protesting to drink no wine, had lived after the institution of our Saviour's Supper, when He consecrated the fruit of the grape, and said, Drink ye all of this, would it pass for an answer at the Holy Communion to say, We will drink no wine? No more than if he had sworn before not to eat a paschal lamb, or any sour herbs, quite against the institution of the passover. There is enough in this chapter to stride over this doubt if you mark it. Jonadab indented with God, that he and his seed should live in tabernacles for ever; and in tabernacles they did live for three hundred years. Then comes the king of Babylon with an army into the country to invade the land. It was dangerous now to live in tabernacles; there was no high priest, I assure you, to absolve them; no money given to the publicans of the Church for a dispensation: but they said, "Come and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans and Syrians, and let us dwell at Jerusalem." The vow was unprofitable, tabernacles dangerous, and so the bond is cancelled. Yet, do not take all the liberty due unto you, if I may advise you: there are two things which you may choose to untie the knot of a vow. The peremptory rejecting of a bad vow, and that is lawful, and the changing thereof into some other vow, and that is more expedient, that God may have some service done unto Him, by way of a vow. ( Bishop Hacket. ) Obedience to parental authority C. E. Searle, D. D. The first and principal commandment of the moral law, Honour thy father and thy mother, begins with obedience to parents; but must of course be interpreted in a wider sense so as to apply to all who have a right to obedience — the persons to be honoured in that famous and excellent summary of the Catechism are the King, and all in authority under him, my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters, and last of all "my betters"; the falling into disuse of such an instructive word is a fact of very great significance and needs no comment. But duty to parents comes clearly first, which an old writer has called "the band and firmament of Commonwealths"; for society is near its dissolution when this obligation is loosened or weakened in any way. The stability of an empire like that of China is an illustration in point, and I was struck some time ago by hearing a missionary of long experience select this one virtue of reverence for parents as that which has for so many centuries preserved the cohesion of that people. Affection may indeed be missing, but obedience and respect for authority are, I believe, universal. So it has come to pass that a nation that we despise outdoes us in the discharge of one of the most elementary moral duties; not that Confucius is a better teacher than Moses, or made any advance upon him, but that we are somehow drifting from a commandment of God, and seem powerless to enforce it. To arrest the widespread mischief we must go back to first principles, and seek to re-establish authority in the family, in the elementary schools, in places of higher education, and perhaps in the university itself. Authority must be taught to be a trust delegated by God to some for the good of the whole body, and the applications of the Christian precept: "All of you be subject one to another," in its several relations, must be laid down fearlessly and with distinctness by teachers and preachers as the safeguard of society. To revert to filial reverence. It was once, I believe, a characteristic of Englishmen, for even as late as the last century sons would address their fathers by the reverential title of "sir." The virtue is not exotic, it can stand our rude climate, and it must not be thought for a moment to be a poor sickly plant, that has no root in strong and masculine natures. On the contrary, take a specimen of it from the most robust of our own countrymen. To most of us is known the compunction of Dr. Johnson which has formed the subject of an historical picture. He has related of himself, how when a young man he refused to stand at his father's stall to sell books; it was, he says, through pride he disobeyed, a trivial circumstance to a less sensitive man, but it was a burden to him for fifty years, until on the very day he went to the very spot where his father's stall used formerly to be, and on a day of business stood in Uttoxeter market, bareheaded, for an hour exposed to the gibes of the passers-by, and the inclemency of the weather. "This was a penance by which I trust I have propitiated heaven for the only instance I believe of contumacy to my father." Upon which Mr. Leslie Stephen, by no means a sentimental writer, remarks: "The anecdote cannot be read without emotion, and if it illustrates a touch of superstition in Johnson's mind, it reveals too that sacred depth of tenderness which ennobled his character." To both parents we are debtors. Mothers are to be esteemed as highly as fathers, and dutiful obedience rendered to them. Take care you despise them not in their old age or in lonely widowhood. Value them all the more if they are alone. Do not think that you have outgrown their wisdom, for in his mature years Solomon could stamp his own maxims with the authority of his mother's mint, and give them currency as the words which his mother had taught him. The wishes of parents are also to be attended to, for wise fathers dealing with grown-up children will not burden them with commands, but will leave them to act upon what their sons know they would wish done. In a book that furnished my vacation reading I lighted upon a passage in the undergraduate life of Dr. Corrie that will interest some of us. "When he first came up, his father, knowing his son's great love for horses, and fearing the scenes of temptation into which this taste might lead him, expressed a strong desire that he would not go to Newmarket. This injunction was faithfully respected. Though he was fully aware that his father would never ask him whether his wish had been observed, his loyalty would not permit him to trifle with the confidence thus placed in him." A characteristic anecdote of a man who was known as the soul of honour, who if he lacked sons of his own, was looked up to and reverenced by hundreds of pupils and others, who felt their own principles of duty strengthened by his unswerving fidelity to old traditions. Obedience to a father's law is the whole idea of the incarnation. Not to please Himself at all, but to surrender Himself wholly to the Divine will, runs through all Christ's life. When He cometh into the world He saith, "I am come to do Thy will, O God," and when He is about to leave the world in that great fight of conflicting emotions the thought of submission alone rules His prayer, "Not My will, but Thine be done." Not only as a son, but as a citizen, as a member of the Jewish synagogue and nation, He is obedient to the law, to every ordinance of man, for His Father's sake. Conscious of His Divinity, of His real relation to God at twelve years old, He goes meekly home to be subject to earthly parents and to learn His trade. When the time of His manifestation has come, He allows John to baptize Him, to fulfil an ordinance of God, and by His obedience He approves John's commission in the eyes of the people. Though, as Son of God, He is free from the temple tax, yet He works a miracle to pay the due, that He might give no offence to the rulers who sat in Moses' seat. He even acknowledges that the civil power of the Roman Governor is of God. Under the terms of the new covenant we are no mere slaves but sons, and can claim the spirit of adoption, the will to wish all things in conformity with God's will, and the power to perform the same. I have heard myself from the lips of those whose whole life has been most wilful and contrary such a confession as this, "I love now as much to do things for God as at one time I did everything against God," for the love of Christ converts and subdues a stubborn temper, which to its harm would kick against the pricks into a service where there is no heavy burden, no galling yoke, but all is perfect freedom. ( C. E. Searle, D. D. ) The obedient Rechabites C. M. Southgate. I. THE AUTHORITY OF THE FAMILY. The power of human descent and family tradition in moulding a career is well illustrated in the case of the Rechabites. 1. It controlled the natural tastes. Its members must renounce pleasure, comfort, and fixed habitation; their inheritance was the loss of those very things which sons expect, and parents delight to bequeath. But with the loss came a better gain, — health of body, purity of morals, loyalty of conscience. They had that best possession, — noble character. 2. The authority of the family also controlled their external alliances; those entering it by marriage must accept its obligations. A man may leave father and mother to cleave unto his wife, but may not leave truth and virtue. 3. In the same way the family tradition proved superior to surrounding influences. They were as faithful in the city as in the country, as loyal among strangers as where well known. So from lonely farmhouses among the hills, young men and young women have gone to seek an easier fortune in the great city, or in the lawless West, and been delivered from evil by the abiding influence of their sanctified homes. 4. The faithfulness of the Rechabites displays the normal influence of the family in transmitting a tendency to virtue, and confirming that inherited disposition by congenial surroundings and careful training. This is what God means the family to be, — His surest and mightiest agency for spreading righteousness on the earth. II. THIS HIGHER AUTHORITY OF GOD. If human descent and family tradition exert authority over the individual, the Divine Creator and Governor holds a far higher claim upon him. Whatever depravity sin may breed into the race, virtue is always its normal life, holiness its ideal. The Scriptures describe man as directly connected with God in his origin. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." When the clay was shaped, He "breathed into his nostrils thy breath of life, and man became a living soul." The characteristics of our Divine origin are as discernible as the marks of our human descent. Our intellect is made after the likeness of the Divine mind, else the universe would be to us an insoluble mystery. In our tastes we can trace kinship with Him who has adorned the earth with beauty. Pure human affection gives us our worthiest conception of the Divine love. Misfortune cannot turn it, ingratitude cannot chill it, death itself cannot overcome it, The Heavenly Father uses this earthly tie to symbolise His own regard; the Saviour describes His fostering care and close union with the Church by naming it His "bride." Our moral nature is plainly Divine in origin. Conscience is the voice of God in man. He who obeys it is lifted to the plane of Divine action, is made a co-worker with God. Over this lordly realm, crowned its regent by the Creator Himself, is the Personal Soul, the "Self," the "I." Self-consciousness is its throne, self-determination its sceptre. By this solemn conviction "I am," "I will," man separates himself from all the universe around him; through this he balances his soul against the whole world and weighs it down; with it he faces eternity. He is his own, something for which the Infinite asks, and he may give. It is here that man's Divine origin finds its explanation; for the glad choice of God, all the dignity of human nature was given; to this end converge the constant teachings of the revealing universe, the open instructions of the inspired Word, the solemn persuasions of the Holy Spirit. Lessons — 1. The responsibility of parents. One writer on heredity declares that the dispositions of Bacon and Goethe were formed by the simple addition of the dispositions of their ancestors. We know that passionate temper, fretfulness, and despondency may be inherited. Let a parent beware how he sins. 2. The responsibility resting upon the child of godly parents. When one who has had a virtuous ancestry seeks out vice and courts godlessness, he has not long to wait before every red drop in his veins will turn against him and curse him traitor. There is something back of his own will, — an authority he knows not how to resist and cannot defy. 3. The ultimate responsibility of each soul to God. When Samuel J. Mills was struggling against the convictions of the Spirit, he exclaimed, "I wish I had never been born!" His mother replied, "But you are born, my son, and can never escape your accountability to God." The glad choice of the holy God is the highest exercise of the created will. ( C. M. Southgate. ) The obedience of the Rechabites H. Johnson, D. D. I. WHEREIN IT RESEMBLES CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE. 1. It was total. They did not consult their preferences or their "affinities." They did not proceed upon any law of "natural selection." They did not show punctilious fidelity with reference to one commandment, and great laxity concerning another. This is one essential characteristic of Christian obedience. It is total. If we can make choice of such commands as we feel like obeying and disregard the rest, what are we but masters instead of subjects, dictating terms instead of receiving orders? 2. It was constant. It kept an unbroken path. It bore the stress of storms and tests. And herein it was marked by another essential characteristic of Christian obedience — a beautiful constancy. Enlistment in the Lord's army is for life, and there is no discharge in that war. II. WHEREIN THIS RECHABITE OBEDIENCE WAS UNLIKE CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE. 1. The Rechabites obeyed Jonadab: Christians obey God. This is a substantive difference. And we must not confound things that radically differ. The source of a command has a great deal to do with the value of obedience to it. The lower relation must give way to the higher when the two conflict. 2. Jonadab's commands, so far as we know, were for temporal and material ends, in the interests of a rugged manhood and a sturdy independence. God's commands are for spiritual ends, for good of soul, and they stand vitally connected with those higher interests that relate not only to the life that now is, but to that which is to come. Rechabite obedience, therefore, conserves temporal good; Christian obedience conserves eternal good. 3. Rechabite obedience was not necessary to salvation; Christian obedience is indispensable. III. WHEREIN IT SHAMES CHRISTIAN DISOBEDIENCE. 1. These Rechabites are obedient to their father Jonadab, a mere man who had been dead nearly three hundred years, while Judah is in open and flagrant disobedience to the Most High God. 2. Jonadab commanded but once, and he had instant and constant heed, generation upon generation, for centuries. "But I," saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel — "I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking. I have also sent unto you," &c. 3. Obedience to Jonadab was at a cost, and it brought at the best only power to endure and the spirit of independence. It left the Rechabites poor and homeless. Obedience to God was also at a cost, but it gave His people assured possessions, peace of conscience, protection from their enemies, and all the exceeding riches of an eternal inheritance in God's kingdom of grace and glory. Yet the Rechabites obeyed Jonadab with a beautiful constancy, while Judah hearkened not to the voice of the Lord.Practical suggestions — 1. The very essence of Christian fidelity is obedience. 2. A true obedience has two infallible signs. It will have no reservations, and it will never cry "Halt!" 3. See the shame and guilt of disobedience under the Gospel. 4. In respect to one particular in this Rechabite obedience, namely, abstinence from wine — three things are clear. (1) Abstinence from wine is not here made obligatory. (2) Abstinence from wine is not wrong. (3) Abstinence from wine for the sake of the stumblers is lifted by the New Testament to the sublime height of a duty, and made imperative ( Rom

Benson Commentary Jeremiah 35:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, Jeremiah 35:1 . The word which came unto Jeremiah in the days of Jehoiakim, &c. — Here we have another evidence that the prophecies of this book are not placed in that order wherein they were delivered, for all the intermediate prophecies from chap. 26. belong clearly to the reign of Zedekiah; and consequently are posterior to this chapter and the next, which are dated in the reign of Jehoiakim, together with chap. 45., which is closely connected with the latter of these two chapters. This may most probably be referred to the fourth year of Jehoaikim’s reign, when Nebuchadnezzar, having beaten the king of Egypt’s army at Euphrates, (see Jeremiah 46:2 ,) marched toward Syria and Palestine, to recover those provinces again which the king of Egypt had conquered, in which expedition he laid siege to Jerusalem. Jeremiah 35:2 Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Jeremiah 35:2-4 . Go to the house of the Rechabites — “The Rechabites, as may be collected from Jeremiah 35:7 , were not of the children of Israel, but strangers of another race that dwelt among them. From 1 Chronicles 2:55 , they appear to have been Kenites, a people originally settled in that part of Arabia Petræa which was called the land of Midian. At what time Rechab lived, who gave his name to the family, is not certain, nor whether he was the immediate father, or remote ancestor of Jonadab; for the word Song of Solomon often denotes nothing more than a lineal descendant. But it is most likely that the Jonadab here spoken of, as having dictated a rule of living to the Rechabites, was the same person of whom mention is made 2 Kings 10:15 . For that this latter was a man of considerable eminence is manifest from the respect shown him by Jehu; and his being taken along with that prince to witness his zeal for the honour of the true God, shows him to have been a man of right and religious principles. The institutions he left with his posterity bespeak a principal concern for the purity of their morals, which he might rightly suppose would be less liable to be corrupted whilst they adhered to the simplicity of their ancient usages, than if they adopted the refinements of modern luxury. He, therefore, enjoined them not only to abstain from the use of wine, but to live as the patriarchs did of old, and as many of their countrymen, the Scenite Arabs, continue to do at this day, without any fixed habitations or possessions, far from the society of cities, in the open country, feeding their flocks, and maintaining themselves by the produce of them.” — Blaney. And bring them into the house of the Lord — Into one of the chambers adjoining to the temple. By this it appears that the Rechabites were not idolaters, for it was not lawful for such persons to come within the precincts of the temple. I brought them into the chamber of the sons of Hanan — The chambers adjoining to the temple, of which there were several, were for the use of the priests and Levites, during the time of their ministrations. They were also used as repositories for laying up the holy vestments, and vessels, and whatever stores were necessary for the daily sacrifices, and the other parts of the temple service. The son of Igdaliah, a man of God — That is, as this name usually imports, a prophet, or one who had been employed upon a divine commission. Which was by the chamber of the princes — The chamber where the princes, or the members of the sanhedrim, or great council, used to assemble. Above the chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper of the door — That is, one of the keepers; for there were several Levites appointed to that office, both to open and shut the gates of the temple in due time, and likewise to attend at them all day, for preventing any thing that might happen to the prejudice of the purity, or safety of that holy place. Some of these officers had likewise the custody of the holy vessels. Jeremiah 35:3 Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; Jeremiah 35:4 And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: Jeremiah 35:5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. Jeremiah 35:5-7 . I set before the sons of the Rechabites pots full of wine, &c. — In obedience to God’s command, ( Jeremiah 35:2 ,) and that the prophet might have full proof of their fixed resolution to adhere to the injunction of their progenitor Jonadab, which no temptation could prevail with them to violate. But they said, We will drink no wine — They peremptorily refused, and all agreed in the refusal. The prophet knew very well they would refuse, and therefore when they did so, urged them no further. For Jonadab, our father, commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink, no wine — Concerning the probable reasons of this command, and of those in the following verse, see note on Jeremiah 35:2 . Jeremiah 35:6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: Jeremiah 35:7 Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any : but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. Jeremiah 35:8 Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; Jeremiah 35:8-11 . Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab our father — We have conformed ourselves to his injunctions, and governed our lives by them, during the space of nearly three hundred years. But when Nebuchadrezzar came, &c., we said, Come, let us go to Jerusalem — The Rechabites appear to have retired within the walls of Jerusalem upon the hostile approach of Nebuchadnezzar and his army, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Calmet, indeed, supposes it was not till the latter end of Jehoiakim’s reign that the Rechabites were driven into the city for shelter, grounding his opinion upon its being said in this verse, that they entered it for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and of the army of the Syrians, and comparing this with 2 Kings 24:2 , where the Lord is said to have sent bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, against Judah to destroy it. “But this reasoning,” says Blaney, “will not hold, for, 1st, Nebuchadnezzar might have been, and most probably was, joined by the Syrians in his first expedition against Jerusalem, after the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish, which brought on the submission of Syria. And, 2d, Nebuchadnezzar does not appear to have come in person a second time, at least till after Jehoiakim was taken prisoner, and his generals had closely invested Jerusalem.” So we dwell at Jerusalem — Having retired to Jerusalem upon the Chaldean invasion, they were forced to continue there during the siege of the place. In such an extraordinary case, they did not think themselves obliged to a strict observance of the injunction of Jonadab respecting dwelling in tents, because all human laws admit of an equitable construction, and may be superseded in cases of necessity, or when the observance of them is attended with such great inconveniences as the lawgiver himself, if he could have foreseen them, would probably have excepted. Jeremiah 35:9 Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: Jeremiah 35:10 But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. Jeremiah 35:11 But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem. Jeremiah 35:12 Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying, Jeremiah 35:12-16 . Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah — As the trial of the constancy of the Rechabites was only intended for a sign, so now we have the application of it made by God himself. Tell the men of Judah, Will ye not receive instruction? &c. — Will nothing enlighten or affect you? Will nothing prevail to make you sensible of your sin and duty? You see how obedient the Rechabites are to their father’s commandment; but you have not hearkened unto me — Though it might have been more reasonably expected that my people should have obeyed me, than that the sons of Jonadab should have obeyed him. Thus the Rechabites’ observance of their father’s charge to them is made use of by God as an aggravation of the disobedience of the Jews to him: and the aggravation was certainly very high. For, 1st, The Rechabites were obedient to one that was but a man like themselves, and had only the wisdom and power of a man, and was only the father of their flesh; but the Jews were disobedient to the infinite and eternal God, that had an absolute authority over them, as the father of their spirits. 2d, Jonadab was long since dead, and was ignorant of his posterity, and could neither take cognizance of their disobedience to his orders, nor give any correction for it; but God lives for ever to see how his laws are observed, and is in readiness to punish all disobedience. 3d, The Rechabites were probably seldom or never put in mind of their obligations to their progenitor; but God often sent his prophets to his people, to remind them of, and excite to, their duty to him, yet they would not comply with it. This is insisted on here as a great aggravation of their disobedience, Jeremiah 35:14 ; Jeremiah 15:4 th, Jonadab had not conferred, nor could confer, any such favours on his seed as God had bestowed on his people, nor had laid them under any such obligations, from duty and interest, to obey him, as God had laid Israel and Judah under to observe his laws. 5th, God did not oblige his people to so much hardship, and to such instances of self-denial and mortification, as Jonadab enjoined to his seed, and yet Jonadab’s orders, were obeyed, and God’s were not. Jeremiah 35:13 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. Jeremiah 35:14 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. Jeremiah 35:15 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. Jeremiah 35:16 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: Jeremiah 35:17 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. Jeremiah 35:17 . Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, &c. — Because they have not obeyed the precepts of my word, I will therefore perform the threatenings of it. I will bring upon Judah, &c. — Namely, by the Chaldean army; all the evil that I have pronounced against them — Both in the law and in the prophets; because I have spoken unto them, and called unto them — Tried all ways and means to convince and reduce them; spoken by my word, called by my providence, and both in order to the same end; and yet all to no purpose: they have not heard nor answered. Jeremiah 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: Jeremiah 35:18-19 . Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, &c. — Mercy is here promised to the family of the Rechabites for their steady and unanimous adherence to the laws of their house. Though it was only for the shaming of Israel that their constancy was tried, yet, being unshaken, God takes occasion from it to tell them that he had blessings in reserve for them. Jonadab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever — “The meaning of this promise,” says Blaney, “in its full extent, seems to be, not only that the race of Jonadab should never fail or be extinct, but that some of the family should ever be found among the worshippers of the true God. For to stand in the presence of a prince, implies an attendance, in some degree, upon his person and service. So the queen of Sheba, speaking of Solomon’s court, says, Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, 1 Kings 10:8 ; and therefore, to stand before God, must denote at least the privilege of treading his courts, and of worshipping him among the train of his chosen servants and people.” Jeremiah 35:19 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. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Jeremiah 35:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, CHAPTER IV THE RECHABITES Jeremiah 35:1-19 "Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever."- Jeremiah 35:19 THIS incident is dated "in the days of Jehoiakim." We learn from Jeremiah 35:11 that it happened at a time when the open country of Judah was threatened by the advance of Nebuchadnezzar with a Chaldean and Syrian army. If Nebuchadnezzar marched into the south of Palestine immediately after the battle of Carchemish, the incident may have happened, as some suggest, in the eventful fourth year of Jehoiakim; or if he did not appear in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem till after he had taken over the royal authority at Babylon, Jeremiah’s interview with the Rechabites may have followed pretty closely upon the destruction of Baruch’s roll. But we need not press the words "Nebuchadnezzar came up into the land"; they may only mean that Judah was invaded by an army acting under his orders. The mention of Chaldeans and Assyrians suggests that this invasion is the same as that mentioned in 2 Kings 24:1-2 , where we are told that Jehoiakim served Nebuchadnezzar three years and then rebelled against him, whereupon Jehovah sent against him bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, and sent them against Judah to destroy it. If this is the invasion referred to in our chapter it falls towards the end of Jehoiakim’s reign, and sufficient time had elapsed to allow the king’s anger against Jeremiah to cool, so that the prophet could venture out of his hiding place. The marauding bands of Chaldeans and their allies had driven the country people in crowds into Jerusalem, and among them the nomad clan of the Rechabites. According to 1 Chronicles 2:55 , the Rechabites traced their descent to a certain Hemath, and were a branch of the Kenites, an Edomite tribe dwelling for the most part in the south of Palestine. These Kenites had maintained an ancient and intimate alliance with Judah, and in time the allies virtually became a single people, so that after the Return from the Captivity all distinction of race between Kenites and Jews was forgotten, and the Kenites were reckoned among the families of Israel. In this fusion of their tribe with Judah, the Rechabite clan would be included. It is clear from all the references both to Kenites and to Rechabites that they had adopted the religion of Israel and worshipped Jehovah. We know nothing else of the early history of the Rechabites. The statement in Chronicles that the father of the house of Rechab was Hemath perhaps points to their having been at one time settled at some place called Hemath near Jabez in Judah. Possibly too Rechab, which means "rider," is not a personal name, but a designation of the clan as horsemen of the desert. These Rechabites were conspicuous among the Jewish farmers and townsfolk by their rigid adherence to the habits of nomad life; and it was this peculiarity that attracted the notice of Jeremiah, and made them a suitable object lesson to the recreant Jews. The traditional customs of the clan had been formulated into positive commands by Jonadab, the son of Rechab, i.e., the Rechabite. This must be the same Jonadab who cooperated with Jehu in overthrowing the house of Omri and suppressing the worship of Baal. Jehu’s reforms concluded the long struggle of Elijah and Elisha against the house of Omri and its half-heathen religion. Hence we may infer that Jonadab and his Rechabites had come under the influence of these great prophets, and that their social and religious condition was one result of Elijah’s work. Jeremiah stood in the true line of succession from the northern prophets in his attitude towards religion and politics; so that there would be bonds of sympathy between him and these nomad refugees. The laws or customs of Jonadab, like the Ten Commandments, were chiefly negative: "Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons forever: neither shall ye build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land wherein ye are strangers." Various parallels have been found to the customs of the Rechabites. The Hebrew Nazarites abstained from wine and strong drink, from grapes and grape juice and everything made of the vine, "from the kernels even to the husk." { Numbers 6:2 } Mohammed forbade his followers to drink any sort of wine or strong drink. But the closest parallel is one often quoted from Diodorus Siculus, (19:94) who, writing about B.C. 8, tells us that the Nabatean Arabs were prohibited under the penalty of death from sowing corn or planting fruit trees, using wine, or building houses. Such abstinence is not primarily ascetic; it expresses the universal contempt of the wandering hunter and herdsman for tillers of the ground, who are tied to one small spot of earth, and for burghers, who further imprison themselves in narrow houses and behind city walls. The nomad has a not altogether unfounded instinct that such acceptance of material restraints emasculates both soul and body. A remarkable parallel to the laws of Jonadab ben Rechab is found in the injunctions of the dying highlander, Ranald of the Mist, to his heir: "Son of the Mist, be free as thy forefathers. Own no lord-receive no law-take no hire-give no stipend-build no hut-enclose no pasture-sow no grain." The Rechabite faith in the higher moral value of their primitive habits had survived their alliance with Israel, and Jonadab did his best to protect his clan from the taint of city life and settled civilisation. Abstinence from wine was not enjoined chiefly, if at all, to guard against intoxication, but because the fascinations of the grape might tempt the clan to plant vineyards, or, at any rate, would make them dangerously dependent upon vine dressers and wine merchants. Till this recent invasion, the Rechabites had faithfully observed their ancestral laws, but the stress of circumstances had now driven them into a fortified city, possibly even into houses, though it is more probable that they were encamped in some open space within the walls. Jeremiah was commanded to go and bring them into the Temple, that is, into one of the rooms in the Temple buildings, and offer them wine. The narrative proceeds in the first person, "I took Jaazaniah," so that the chapter will have been composed by the prophet himself. In somewhat legal fashion he tells us how he took "Jaazaniah ben Jeremiah, ben Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and all the clan of the Rechabites." All three names are compounded of the Divine name Iah, Jehovah, and serve to emphasise the devotion of the clan to the God of Israel. It is a curious coincidence that the somewhat rare name Jeremiah should occur twice in this connection. The room to which the prophet took his friends is described as the chamber of the disciples of the man of God Hanan ben Igdaliah, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of the keeper of the threshold, Maaseiah ben Shallum. Such minute details probably indicate that this chapter was committed to writing while these buildings were still standing and still had the same occupants as at the time of this incident, but to us the topography is unintelligible. The "man of God" or prophet Hanan was evidently in sympathy with Jeremiah, and had a following of disciples who formed a sort of school of the prophets, and were a sufficiently permanent body to have a chamber assigned to them in the Temple buildings. The keepers of the threshold were Temple officials of high standing. The "princes" may have been the princes of Judah, who might very well have a chamber in the Temple courts; but the term is general, and may simply refer to other Temple officials. Hanan’s disciples seem to have been in good company. These exact specifications of person and place are probably designed to give a certain legal solemnity and importance to the incident, and seem to warrant us in rejecting Reuss’ suggestion that our narrative is simply an elaborate prophetic figure. After these details Jeremiah next tells us how he set before his guests bowls of wine and cups, and invited them to drink. Probably Jaazaniah and his clansmen were aware that the scene was intended to have symbolic religious significance. They would not suppose that the prophet had invited them all, in this solemn fashion, merely to take a cup of wine; and they would welcome an opportunity of showing their loyalty to their own peculiar customs. They said: "We will drink no wine: for our father Jonadab the son of Rechab commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons forever." They further recounted Jonadab’s other commands and their own scrupulous obedience in every point, except that now they had been compelled to seek refuge in a walled city. Then the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah; he was commanded to make yet another appeal to the Jews, by contrasting their disobedience with the fidelity of the Rechabites. The Divine King and Father of Israel had been untiring in His instruction and admonitions: "I have spoken unto you, rising up early and speaking." He had addressed them in familiar fashion through their fellow countrymen: "I have sent also unto you all My servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them." Yet they had not hearkened unto the God of Israel or His prophets. The Rechabites had received no special revelation; they had not been appealed to by numerous prophets. Their Torah had been simply given them by their father Jonadab; nevertheless the commands of Jonadab had been regarded and those of Jehovah had been treated with contempt. Obedience and disobedience would bring forth their natural fruit. "I will bring upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered." But because the Rechabites obeyed the commandment of their father Jonadab, "Therefore thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever." Jehovah’s approval of the obedience of the Rechabites is quite independent of the specific commands which they obeyed. It does not bind us to abstain from wine any more than from building houses and sowing seed. Jeremiah himself, for instance, would have had no more hesitation in drinking wine than in sowing his field at Anathoth. The tribal customs of the Rechabites had no authority whatever over him. Nor is it exactly his object to set forth their merit of obedience and its certain and great reward. These truths are rather touched upon incidentally. What Jeremiah seeks to emphasise is the gross, extreme, unique wickedness of Israel’s disobedience. Jehovah had not looked for any special virtue in His people. His Torah was not made up of counsels of perfection. He had only expected the loyalty that Moab paid to Chemosh, and Tyre and Sidon to Baal. He would have been satisfied if Israel had observed His laws as faithfully as the nomads of the desert kept up their ancestral habits. Jehovah had spoken through Jeremiah long ago and said: "Pass over the isles of Chittim, and see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there be any such thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit." { Jeremiah 2:11 } Centuries later Christ found Himself constrained to upbraid the cities of Israel, "wherein most of His mighty works were done" "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you." { Matthew 11:21-22 } And again and again in the history of the Church the Holy Spirit has been grieved because those who profess and call themselves Christians, and claim to prophesy and do many mighty works in the name of Christ, are less loyal to the gospel than the heathen to their own superstitions. Buddhists and Mohammedans have been held up as modern examples to rebuke the Church, though as a rule with scant justification. Perhaps material for a more relevant contrast may be found nearer home. Christian societies have been charged with conducting their affairs by methods to which a respectable business firm would not stoop; they are said to be less scrupulous in their dealings and less chivalrous in their honour than the devotees of pleasure; at their gatherings they are sometimes supposed to lack the mutual courtesy of members of a Legislature or a Chamber of Commerce. The history of councils and synods and Church meetings gives colour to such charges, which could never have been made if Christians had been as jealous for the Name of Christ as a merchant is for his credit or a soldier for his honour. And yet these contrasts do not argue any real moral and religious superiority of the Rechabites over the Jews or of unbelievers over professing Christians. It was comparatively easy to abstain from wine and to wander over wide pasture lands instead of living cooped up in cities-far easier than to attain to the great ideals of Deuteronomy and the prophets. It is always easier to conform to the code of business and society than to live according to the Spirit of Christ. The fatal sin of Judah was not that it fell so far short of the ideals, but that it repudiated them. So long as we lament our own failures and still cling to the Name and Faith of Christ, we are not shut out from mercy; our supreme sin is to crucify Christ afresh, by denying the power of His gospel, while we retain its empty form. The reward promised to the Rechabites for their obedience was that "Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me forever"; to stand before Jehovah is often used to describe the exercise of priestly or prophetic ministry. It has been suggested that the Rechabites were hereby promoted to the status of the true Israel, "a kingdom of priests"; but this phrase may merely mean that their clan should continue in existence. Loyal observance of national law, the subordination of individual caprice and selfishness to the interests of the community, make up a large part of that righteousness that establisheth a nation. Here, as elsewhere, students of prophecy have been anxious to discover some literal fulfilment; and have searched curiously for any trace of the continued existence of the Rechabites. The notice in Chronicles implies that they formed part of the Jewish community of the Restoration. Apparently Alexandrian Jews were acquainted with Rechabites at a still later date. Psalm 71:1-24 is ascribed by the Septuagint to "the sons of Jonadab." Eusebius mentions "priests of the sons of Rechab," and Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the twelfth century, states that he met with them in Arabia. More recent travellers have thought that they discovered the descendants of Rechab amongst the nomads in Arabia or the Peninsula of Sinai that still practised the old ancestral customs. But the fidelity of Jehovah to his promises does not depend upon our unearthing obscure tribes in distant deserts. The gifts of God are without repentance, but they have their inexorable conditions; no nation can flourish for centuries on the virtues of its ancestors. The Rechabites may have vanished in the ordinary stream of history, and yet we can hold that Jeremiah’s prediction has been fulfilled and is still being fulfilled. No scriptural prophecy is limited in its application to an individual or a race, and every nation possessed by the spirit of true patriotism shall "stand before Jehovah forever." The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.