THIS IS THE word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD during the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah: 2“Go to the Recabite family and invite them to come to one of the side rooms of the house of the LORD and give them wine to drink.”
3So I went to get Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his sons—the whole family of the Recabites. 4I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah the man of God. It was next to the room of the officials, which was over that of Maaseiah son of Shallum the doorkeeper. 5Then I set bowls full of wine and some cups before the men of the Recabite family and said to them, “Drink some wine.”
6But they replied, “We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jonadab son of Recab gave us this command: ‘Neither you nor your descendants must ever drink wine. 7Also you must never build houses, sow seed or plant vineyards; you must never have any of these things, but must always live in tents. Then you will live a long time in the land where you are nomads.’ 8We have obeyed everything our forefather Jonadab son of Recab commanded us. Neither we nor our wives nor our sons and daughters have ever drunk wine 9or built houses to live in or had vineyards, fields or crops. 10We have lived in tents and have fully obeyed everything our forefather Jonadab commanded us. 11But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded this land, we said, ‘Come, we must go to Jerusalem to escape the Babylonian and Aramean armies.’ So we have remained in Jerusalem.”
12Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying: 13“This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go and tell the men of Judah and the people of Jerusalem, ‘Will you not learn a lesson and obey my words?’ declares the LORD. 14‘Jonadab son of Recab ordered his sons not to drink wine and this command has been kept. To this day they do not drink wine, because they obey their forefather’s command. But I have spoken to you again and again, yet you have not obeyed me. 15Again and again I sent all my servants the prophets to you. They said, “Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions; do not follow other gods to serve them. Then you will live in the land I have given to you and your fathers.” But you have not paid attention or listened to me. 16The descendants of Jonadab son of Recab have carried out the command their forefather gave them, but these people have not obeyed me.’
17“Therefore, this is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Listen! I am going to bring on Judah and on everyone living in Jerusalem every disaster I pronounced against them. I spoke to them, but they did not listen; I called to them, but they did not answer.’”
18Then Jeremiah said to the family of the Recabites, “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘You have obeyed the command of your forefather Jonadab and have followed all his instructions and have done everything he ordered.’ 19Therefore, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Jonadab son of Recab will never fail to have a man to serve me.’”
Original Meaning
CHAPTER 35 IS set in the reign of King Jehoiakim (609–598 B.C), a period earlier than the events described in the previous chapter. Nevertheless, the two chapters have a common theme (the significance of obedience to one’s word) and a common setting (Jerusalem and pressure from outside forces).
This chapter has two major parts. In verses 1–11 God commands Jeremiah to go to the Recabites and to bring them to the temple complex. He commands them to drink wine, and they protest. In verses 12–19 God commands Jeremiah to speak hard words to Judah and Jerusalem, based on the prophet’s interaction with the Recabites. The prophet contrasts Recabite obedience to communal standards with the faithlessness of Judah and Jerusalem.
35:1–11. Uncertainty remains over how best to describe the Recabites.1 Some scholars have seen them as an anti-Canaanite faction and also as conservative representatives of a “nomadic ideal” from Israel’s past. This is due mainly to their rejection of wine, agriculture, and houses (cf. 35:6–10), plus the account in 2 Kings 10 that links Jonadab, the founder of the Recabites, with Jehu’s revolt against the Omrides. Others have seen them more as an alternative community or commercial guild associated with the design and building of chariots. The Hebrew term rkb means “(to) ride,” and the noun merkaba refers to a chariot. Since the Kenites (to whom the Recabites are related; 1 Chron. 2:55) may have been smiths, the combination of name and possible vocation suggests the possibility that the Recabites were itinerant metalworkers.
Verse 3 raises an interesting question with respect to the formation of the Recabite community. Jeremiah reports that he went to Jaazaniah, the head of the community, to offer them the opportunity to drink wine. That community is comprised of Jaazaniah’s brothers and sons, “the whole family2 of the Recabites.” One cannot tell from this description whether the community is literally comprised of Jaazaniah’s biological extended family or whether the kinship terminology of brothers and sons serves to identify a close-knit community. Jonadab, the founder of the Recabites, is described as the group’s “forefather” in verse 8. Literally, the term can be translated as “father” (’ab in Heb.).3
Whatever the origin of the Recabites, their constancy regarding their community’s values becomes a prophetically appropriated sign against the lack of integrity in Judah and Jerusalem. According to their self-designation, Recabites do not live in houses, plant crops, or drink wine. Instead, they live in tents (and apparently trade goods for grain and other agricultural products). Their presence in Jerusalem is the result of pressure put on the Judean countryside by the Babylonian army and their Aramean companions (v. 11). Jerusalem is a place of refuge for them because of its stout walls. This indicates that otherwise the Recabites would normally have lived in tents outside the city in obedience to the command of their founder, Jonadab.
The prophetic symbolism of the account is accentuated by the scene of wine cups set before the Recabites in the chambers of Hanan’s sons (v. 4; their family was founded by Igdaliah, “a man of God” = prophet). Their reply—that they do not drink wine—is narrated for the effect such a scene will have on the larger community of Judah and Jerusalem.
35:12–19. God instructs Jeremiah to report the encounter with the Recabites to the people of Judah and Jerusalem. The fact that Jeremiah has invited the Recabites to meet him at a room near the temple (v. 4) ensures that they are observed by other members of the community. The incident contrasts Recabite obedience to their community standards with the faithlessness of Judeans to theirs. It is part of a history of disobedience, for Judah has consistently disobeyed the word of God’s servants, the prophets (v. 15). The prophetic communication, therefore, concludes that a call to repentance is neither timely nor warranted. God spoke (in the past), but Judah did not listen; he called, but they did not answer.
The final word of the chapter is addressed to the Recabites. They are promised that they will always have someone to “stand before” the Lord; that is, they will never be forgotten by God, and their place with him is secure.4
Bridging Contexts
THE LESSON OF THE RECABITES. Surprisingly, nothing directly is said about the piety of the Recabites, although one can safely assume that they believe in the Lord, the God of Israel. The main issue, rather, is obedience to a lifestyle to which the Recabite community has committed itself. That the Recabites pursue their lifestyle as part of their piety is clear by the chapter’s conclusion, but the emphasis is on their constancy and commitment to the integrity of their community. The particulars of their vows are not universally applicable in Jeremiah’s day any more than they would be in modern times. Houses, for example, are neither good nor bad in themselves; but the manner in which houses are used is a moral and spiritual matter. The same can be said of wine, vineyards, and fields. Jeremiah was not a Recabite. Moreover, he owned property, probably lived in a house, and probably drank wine. He affirms the Recabite lifestyle without himself being bound by its requirements.
The Recabites, therefore, pursue their communal ideals within a society that has not adopted all of their ways. Some of their activities may have been related to the particulars of their vocation. If, for example, they itinerated as smiths, their avoidance of houses (or house ownership) is understandable. They may also have carried out certain responsibilities as part of a vow of dedication to the Lord, and their service may have related them to prophets or priests in ways not preserved for later readers. They may have functioned like Nazirites, who took certain vows of abstinence as part of a community ideal.
Nevertheless, their value as an example for Judah may be like that of the “unjust steward” in Jesus’ parable (Luke 16:1–13), who is praised for his industry and shrewdness (16:8), even if the particulars of his actions are not to be emulated. Obedience to the community’s standards, even if the broader populace is indifferent or hostile, is the key characteristic of the Recabites. This kind of commitment can be understood by an individual or a church in a variety of settings.
Contemporary Significance
CHRIST AND CULTURE. Just after World War II, H. Richard Niebuhr published a series of essays on the subject of Christian faith as it is defined and exercised in a cultural context.5 It has become something of a classic in Western Christianity because it takes up an issue central to Christian faith: How does the church offer its witness within its cultural context? In the volume Niebuhr takes up five different models of the relationship between Christian faith and its cultural context: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture. Since the shape of corporate human existence varies so dramatically, the response of Christian faith to and within any particular culture may also vary. The relationship, however, between faith and culture is symbiotic. There is no cultureless Christianity any more than there is cultureless human existence. In any given context, the issue turns on the exercise of faithful living on the part of the believing community.
In recent years, especially in the evangelical communities of North America, one hears the expression “culture wars” being used to describe the polarizing debates in Western society about morality and education. Since Christians have convictions about morality and education that can run counter to the relativistic pluralism endemic to Western culture, the issue of Christian witness in society is a “hot topic.”
Several things can be said about the nature of faithful witness on the basis of Jeremiah 35 (and the book of Jeremiah as a whole). (1) Faith in God is expressed by living in community with other believers. The community of faith (i.e., the church) helps give shape not only to what one believes but how one lives responsibly as a result of faith. (2) God has called people to lead public lives of obedience to his revealed will. Obedience is not just pleasing to God; it can be an effective witness to the larger culture in which believers find themselves. (3) The exercise of the Christian faith may entail giving up certain practices common to a culture for the sake of the gospel.
To separate or not to separate. Separation from society is not by definition a good thing or a bad thing for Christians; like so many other things, the value of separation depends on the motives and circumstances of the community that separates itself. In Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox churches, orders and monasteries give expression to the devotion of prayer, holiness, seclusion, and service to God. Protestants of various persuasions have not often followed this model, preferring instead to engage society more directly with the claims of the gospel. Perhaps a Protestant or free-church analogy to the Recabites would be the Amish—Mennonite pacifists who live in communities that forego certain characteristics of modern life in order to serve God more faithfully.
A visit to a monastery, however, often reminds Christians (whether Catholic or not) how influenced they are by the society and culture in which they live. The Amish (Pennsylvania Dutch as some have called them) are heirs of the radical Reformation movements in Europe of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the radically pluralistic North American culture, these Christian pacifists have refused to participate in segments of the larger institutional life of the United States because those elements divert them from pursuing their path of discipleship and communal life. Instead, they practice a form of corporate discipline and separateness that reflects well on their commitments.
The shape of the monastic life, the discipline of an order dedicated to the service of God, or the influence of alternative Christian communities can serve as effective witnesses to the power of God in directing his people to fulfill their calling as disciples. In any case, it is a great question to ask: Just what are the marks of the church that announce its commitments within the broader culture in which it takes root?
In 1993 the horror of the Branch Davidian separatists was revealed to the world. A self-appointed leader, David Koresh, named a farmstead near Waco, Texas, as Ranch Apocalypse. His followers separated themselves from the evils of society to follow him. The community had discipline, strict rules about behavior, and time set aside for worship and teaching from the Bible. Many of the community’s members simply wanted to live in a Christian community untainted by the world and uncompromising in its commitments to uphold the word of God.
So what went so tragically wrong? The people were misled by Koresh, who saw himself as a messiah6 and whose authority was used to twist biblical teaching and to engage in sexual relations with many of the women in the community. Instead of a holy love, he used fear to motivate his flock. Instead of pointing to Christ as the cornerstone of faith, he pointed to himself as the interpreter of God’s will. In April 1993, the community was largely consumed by fire that broke out when the FBI bungled a raid on the Ranch headquarters.
The Branch Davidians (and other groups could be named) are testimony that a strong, religiously based community is not infallible. Neither the Recabites of old nor more modern counterparts reflect perfection. One can cite examples of both healthy and sick communities that seek to bind themselves to a religious ideal. Obedience to fundamental values is in and of itself instructive. But how much more pleasing to God is joyful obedience to the kingdom values revealed in his Son!
The Recabites lived according to the standards of their founder. They did so as faithfully as they could, depending on the circumstances of the society in which they lived. It seems too simple to say, but the church is called to the same task. Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, is the foundation of the community of faith we call the church. The life of the church provides a witness to the larger society, whether it withdraws in protest or actively engages its cultural context. The promise of the risen Lord is even grander than that of God to the Recabites, for the gates of hell will not prevail against the community that confesses Christ.