Jonadab: Original Data

The following was sent me as a response to my views on the Rechabites. (Which are not ‘my’ views, but I will address that as time goes on.). I am posting it here, but not sending it out, so that we will have it as a resource, to ensure I am not taking things out of context.

So, note, the following is NOT my view, nor does it represent my view, it is is RESPONSE to my view.

The Misinterpretation of the Rechabites

I have a good friend who has for many years desired to see Chapter 35 of Jeremiah get more attention than it does. He thinks it is neglected because he believes people don’t like what it teaches. To him, this passage teaches a radical and unapologetic doctrine of the authority of the Father. I think it does not. And as my friend has desired further interaction on this passage, I have been happy to oblige him. While there are problems with interpreting this passage, I think you will see that the problems arise simply because we don’t allow the rest of the Bible to interpret it for us. Once you bring in other passages of scripture, this passage becomes clear. But as this paper has become quite lengthy, and I don’t want any part of it to be ignored, I am going to break it into numbered sections to make it easy to respond to as well as easier to keep track of responses. I’ll break it down like so…

1. Patriarchy, an initial look.

2. Jeremiah 35

   1. Jonadab’s sin

   2. An illustration of Jonadab’s sin

   3. The contrast and true lesson of Jeremiah 35

   4. An illustration of the Rechabites obedience

   5. The blessing

3. Further Considerations

4. Final Thoughts

I think it should be easy to track arguments against this outline and it gives a convenient baseline to refer to during any back and forth argumentation we may have. So let’s get at it shall we?

Patriarchy, an Initial Look.

Let me start by trying my level best to clearly define my position on Parental authority and then I will proceed to provide my exegesis of Jeremiah 35. I fully believe in Patriarchy as a principle that is taught in the bible. The Father is the head of the home and he indeed has authority that extends to all of his children for life. However, unlike my friends who hold to the more extreme view of patriarchy, I understand the authority a father has been given is restricted in scope, timeframe, and quality. This is particularly true during a certain point in a child’s life. In this paper I will identify my friends view as “extreme patriarchy”. I don’t know if he would accept that identification or not. Perhaps he would prefer “biblical patriarchy” but that is the entire question of this debate. Therefore, “extreme patriarchy” it is for now.

As I see it, a parents authority is not as easy to describe as my extreme patriarch friends would have us believe. On one hand, the Parent carries an authority that is ultimate for the child. But that authority ends at a certain time which we will see. The parent also has an authority that is for all time which is of a very different quality. For instance, no parent has authority to tell his 40 year old son who is married with 6 children that he has to eat his peas. However, his parent does have that authority when the child is 4. I hope we can all agree on that. This is the authority a parent has in “bringing up” his children. And that authority ends at a certain point. If a parent were to try to demand obedience in that sense of his grown children he would quickly have his children rebel and say, “don’t treat me like a child”. And they would be right. However, there is also a sense in which the parents authority continues past the point of being “brought up”. But that is not the same type of authority. It’s an authority that is largely advisory. I say “largely” advisory, because there are certain things fathers always have authority over children with. Those things are the very same things that God demands. So we can with authority command our children to be modest, but we cannot demand they wear a certain color or type of clothing. The first command is God-like, the second is childish.

More on this later. But right now I want to explore where this idea comes from. The bible, and thus God, demands that we “Honor” our Parents. I have heard this appealed to ad nauseum from the Extreme Patriarchy group. However, while I agree that the bible is clear in this command, I think that the use of this command to prove their point not only backfires, but renders the scriptures unintelligible. The fifth commandment tells us,

Ex 20:12

“Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you.”

But what exactly does it mean to “Honor” one’s father? The answer to that question is not as easy as you may think. I’m not going to bother to define the word, I’m only going to say that whatever it means to “honor” the father, whatever definition we see fit to assign to that word, we must also assign the same meaning to it when it refers to the mother, not just the father. This, of course, is because the Bible always includes the mother in this command. Note the following:

Lev 19:3

Each of you must respect his mother and his father, and you must keep my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.

Lev 20:9

“‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself.

Deu 21:18&19

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.

Deu 27:16

'Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.' "And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'

Prov 1:8

Listen, my child, to the instruction from your father, and do not forsake the teaching from your mother.

Pro 6:20

My son, keep your father's command, And do not forsake the law of your mother.

Pro 20:20

Whoever curses his father or his mother, His lamp will be put out in deep darkness.

Prov 28:24

The one who robs his father and mother and says, “There is no transgression,” is a companion to the one who destroys.

Prov 30:11

There is a generation who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers.

Prov 30:17

The eye that mocks at a father and despises obeying a mother – the ravens of the valley will peck it out and the young vultures will eat it.

Eze 22:7

In you they have made light of father and mother; in your midst they have oppressed the stranger; in you they have mistreated the fatherless and the widow.

Eph 6:1

Children, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, “that it may go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.”

Col 3:20

Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord.

So, firstly, whatever it means to “honor” and “obey” our fathers must mean the same thing to “honor” and “obey” our mothers. Let’s not leave them out of it. After all, they are but an extension of the father (one flesh), so they are deserving of the same honor. But as obedience is much easier to define than honor, the debate tends to focus on that concept. I will not depart from that focus as honor carries so much meaning it would take a book to explain. Honor is not obedience, although it includes it, it is much more. So, whatever it is, I’m only going to focus on the obedience aspect of it. The obedience we owe to our fathers we owe equally to our mothers. This one fact, as I think you will see, introduces a level of complication to the extreme patriarchy view that renders it doubtful at best, and absurd at worst.

Is this obedience which is owed to both Father and Mother, whatever it may look like, perpetual? Temporary? Or both? Is it limited or unlimited in scope? How so? My contention is that the obedience we owe to our parents is both perpetual and temporary. Both unlimited and limited. You see, parents are endowed with the responsibility to command their children in two different ways. One is for educational purposes, the other is moral. When our parents are enforcing the standards of God for our behavior, then we owe perpetual obedience. But in an educational sense, obedience is only owed until we are considered emancipated persons. Parents only have this educational authority for a time, it is not perpetual. Educational authority is that authority over a child that allows for the training of the Child unto righteousness. Outside of educational purposes, if God would not command it, it is not a just command. For instance, would God command a temporary restriction from his blessings for the purposes of training and education? Of course He would. He has many times. But would he command the perpetual abstinence of such a blessing? No. Then neither may parents make such a command justly. Children in that case are free to disobey those commands when emancipated but not before.

Notice how this is equivalent to the authority of the other spheres of government. Secular and church. We are perpetually required to obey our state governing authorities, except for that which directly contradicts God’s word. When the United States instituted prohibition, it was not a just law. Even though the government had, what seemed to them, good intentions, they were wicked for instituting that law. However, the Christians that obeyed that law were by no means wicked for obeying their governors. Before God they were free to consume wine, but many of them wrongly thought that because God tells us to obey our governing authorities, we must obey even unjust laws. If the secular government commands abstinence from sin, then you are never free from that command. They command you not to murder, well, you are never allowed to murder. This is because those commands predate both government and your family. They are from God.

Now, to be clear, I believe in the biblical concept of Patriarchy. I, as the father of my house, am in charge of my house. I also believe that I can authoritatively command my children even though they may be in their 40’s and expect their obedience. But I also believe per the word of God that my authority over them is strictly limited by God. I have no authority to command my children to abstain from something that God commanded to be received with thanksgiving unless there is a biblical reason to do so. For instance, I have every right of authority to tell my son to put away his beer when he has a weak brother around, because God would command him to do that. But I don’t have the authority to tell him he can NEVER partake of beer. I have every authority to command my children to dress modestly even though they are in their 50’s. But I have absolutely no authority to tell them what color they are to wear or what type of modest clothing to wear, because God doesn’t tell us that. No man can bind our conscience like that, Father or not. More on that soon.

The true authority of the father is twofold. The first is the enforcement of God’s standards. The second is the education and discipline of his unemancipated children unto the voluntary obedience of those standards. The first is perpetual, the second ends at such a time when the child becomes emancipated. I know an objection will come up. Is emancipation a biblical concept? Does the bible teach that a child is no longer under the educational obedience of the father after they start their own family? I think so. And quite frankly, everyone thinks so. Some may try to deny it in order to support their theory, but they end up having to redefine things to make them fit. We’ll discuss more soon, but for now let’s look at the passage at hand.

Jeremiah 35

Jeremiah 35 records the story of the Rechabites. To my friends point, it is certainly not one of the most quoted passages of scripture. Few people can tell you what the chapter is about or who the Rechabites were. But for those who do know what this is all about, it introduces a number of challenges to its proper interpretation. But apart from those challenges we also have complete agreement that, whatever else this passage teaches, it teaches that obedience to one’s father is laudable.

So, let’s actually read the text of Jeremiah 35. (NIV)

(1) The Lord spoke to Jeremiah when Jehoiakim son of Josiah was ruling over Judah. (2) “Go to the Rechabite community. Invite them to come into one of the side rooms of the Lord’s temple and offer them some wine to drink.” (3) So I went and got Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah the grandson of Habazziniah, his brothers, all his sons, and all the rest of the Rechabite community. (4) I took them to the Lord’s temple. I took them into the room where the disciples of the prophet Hanan son of Igdaliah stayed. That room was next to the one where the temple officers stayed and above the room where Maaseiah son of Shallum, one of the doorkeepers of the temple, stayed. (5) Then I set cups and pitchers full of wine in front of the members of the Rechabite community and said to them, “Have some wine.” (6) But they answered, “We do not drink wine because our ancestor Jonadab son of Rechab commanded us not to. He told us, ‘You and your children must never drink wine. (7) Do not build houses. Do not plant crops. Do not plant a vineyard or own one. Live in tents all your lives. If you do these things you will live a long time in the land that you wander about on.’ (8) We and our wives and our sons and daughters have obeyed everything our ancestor Jonadab commanded us. We have never drunk wine. (9) We have not built any houses to live in. We do not own any vineyards, fields, or crops. (10) We have lived in tents. We have obeyed our ancestor Jonadab and done exactly as he commanded us. (11) But when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invaded the land we said, ‘Let’s get up and go to Jerusalem to get away from the Babylonian and Aramean armies.’ That is why we are staying here in Jerusalem.”

(12) Then the Lord spoke to Jeremiah. (13) The Lord God of Israel who rules over all told him, “Go and speak to the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem. Tell them, ‘I, the Lord, say: “You must learn a lesson from this about obeying what I say! (14) Jonadab son of Rechab ordered his descendants not to drink wine. His orders have been carried out. To this day his descendants have drunk no wine because they have obeyed what their ancestor commanded them. But I have spoken to you over and over again, but you have not obeyed me! (15) I sent all my servants the prophets to warn you over and over again. They said, “Every one of you, stop doing the evil things you have been doing and do what is right. Do not pay allegiance to other gods and worship them. Then you can continue to live in this land that I gave to you and your ancestors.” But you did not pay any attention or listen to me. (16) Yes, the descendants of Jonadab son of Rechab have carried out the orders that their ancestor gave them. But you people have not obeyed me! (17) So I, the Lord, the God who rules over all, the God of Israel, say: “I will soon bring on Judah and all the citizens of Jerusalem all the disaster that I threatened to bring on them. I will do this because I spoke to them but they did not listen. I called out to them but they did not answer.”’”

(18) Then Jeremiah spoke to the Rechabite community, “The Lord God of Israel who rules over all says, ‘You have obeyed the orders of your ancestor Jonadab. You have followed all his instructions. You have done exactly as he commanded you.’ (19) So the Lord God of Israel who rules over all says, ‘Jonadab son of Rechab will never lack a male descendant to serve me.’”

Jonadab’s Sin

Some would have us believe that this passage is proof that any of us fathers of today can give equivalent commands to our children and that our children would be in sin not to obey us. I do not believe that to be the case. Interestingly, there was a time in history when this passage was hotly debated. During the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church used this very passage to justify the Church making unreasonable commands and demanding obedience. Of course, the Reformed Church disagreed. This passage cannot be used that way. The commands Jonadab gave his children were unjust as perpetual commands, and so God did not require obedience to those commands from Jonadab’s posterity. As a matter of fact, it was sin of Jonadab to give such commands to his children and sin for us to give such commands to our children. Of course, I’m not referring to our little children. We give commands to them that are not meant to be permanent for instructional purposes like, “Don’t ever cross the road without holding someone’s hand”, “Eat all the food on your plate”, or even “Always walk away from a fight”. Those are good commands, but not meant to be perpetual. Making those commands perpetual would be neither good nor righteous. And such a command would certainly not perpetually bind my children to obedience simply because I gave the command. This should be an obvious conclusion to Christians who love the liberty that Christ has given to us. The “commands of men” can come from our fathers as well as from religious teachers. Wherever they come from they are not binding on a Christian. Note:

Col 2:20-23

If you have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world, why do you submit to them as though you lived in the world? “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body – a wisdom with no true value – they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.

Timothy 4:1-5

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Please note that in these texts there is no differentiation between commands from fathers or false teachers. If they are not the commands of God, they are “human commands”. Jonadab was one of those men who “required abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving.” Jonadab told his children “Do not handle! Do not touch!” It may have had the “appearance of wisdom” but it was “founded on human commands and teachings” not God’s. Therefore, the Apostle Paul declares Jonadab to be giving the “doctrine of demons”.

Also please note well that the Apostle Paul puts “forbidding to marry” and “commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” in the same category. Why can’t we? If I’m not mistaken, my good friend that wanted this interaction on Jeremiah 35 happens to think fathers cannot justly “forbid” their children “to marry”, but he then thinks that Jonadab was just to “command to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving”. Scripture puts both of those on the same footing.

Let’s look at some bible background to establish some groundwork. The building of houses and the drinking of wine are blessing that the Lord bestows upon His people.

Isa 65:21

They will build houses and live in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build a house only to have another live in it, or plant a vineyard only to have another eat its fruit, for my people will live as long as trees, and my chosen ones will enjoy to the fullest what they have produced.

Amos 9:14

I will bring back my people, Israel; they will rebuild the cities lying in rubble and settle down. They will plant vineyards and drink the wine they produce; they will grow orchards and eat the fruit they produce. I will plant them on their land and they will never again be uprooted from the land I have given them,”

Ez 28:26

“‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: When I regather the house of Israel from the peoples where they are dispersed, I will reveal my sovereign power over them in the sight of the nations, and they will live in their land that I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live securely in it; they will build houses and plant vineyards. They will live securely when I execute my judgments on all those who scorn them and surround them. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God.’”

Jer 32:15

For the Lord God of Israel who rules over all says, “Houses, fields, and vineyards will again be bought in this land.”’

What honor is there in giving a command to perpetually abstain from something God intends for us to receive with thanksgiving?

So given that these were direct blessings from God, how is it righteous to forbid them from your children?

Note that the opposite to the blessings are the curses…

Deut 28:30

You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her. You will build a house but not live in it. You will plant a vineyard but not even begin to use it.

Isa 5:9-10

The Lord who commands armies told me this: “Many houses will certainly become desolate, large, impressive houses will have no one living in them. Indeed, a large vineyard will produce just a few gallons, and enough seed to yield several bushels will produce less than a bushel.”

Zeph 1:13

Their wealth will be stolen and their houses ruined! They will not live in the houses they have built, nor will they drink the wine from the vineyards they have planted.

Amos 5:11

Therefore, because you make the poor pay taxes on their crops and exact a grain tax from them, you will not live in the houses you built with chiseled stone, nor will you drink the wine from the fine vineyards you planted.

Micah 6:15

You will plant crops, but will not harvest them; you will squeeze oil from the olives, but you will have no oil to rub on your bodies; you will squeeze juice from the grapes, but you will have no wine to drink.

OK, so now we see that houses and wine and full crops are blessings from the Lord, and the absence of houses, wine and harvests are curses of the Lord. So how can you think that what Jonadab did was right? Can there be any righteousness to give a perpetual command that brings the curses of the covenant on a people and robs them of the blessings God wishes to bestow on His people? The commands Jonadab gave his posterity were unrighteous and sinful. It would be the same if a father commanded his children to never be married. The Lord clearly says that marriage and children are blessings just as he does gardens, wine and houses. These Rechabites were refused the blessing of so much as a vegetable garden because of their foolish father. But extreme patriarchs somehow turn this into a good story? It’s not. This is easily shown to be the case if we turn Jonadab into the church. Let’s do that and see what happens.

An Illustration of Jonadab’s Sin

Our Church authorities have authority over us for our entire lives. But their authority is limited by the word of God. No Church can righteously forbid their members to own houses, grow gardens or drink wine. If a Church does try to forbid any of those things from their members then they have overstepped their authority and a Christian is not in bondage to it. A Christian can obey out of ignorance of their freedom or fear of reprisal and yet God could use their obedience in the same way he used the Rechabites. Note:

(1) The Lord spoke to Jeremiah when Jehoiakim son of Josiah was ruling over Judah. (2) “Go to the The First Baptist Church. Invite them to come into one of the side rooms of the Lord’s temple and offer them some wine to drink… (5) Then I set cups and pitchers full of wine in front of the members of the First Baptist Church and said to them, “Have some wine.” (6) But they answered, “We do not drink wine because our Pastor of First Baptist Church commanded us not to. He told us, ‘You and your children must never drink wine. (7) Do not build houses. Do not plant crops. Do not plant a vineyard or own one. Live in tents all your lives. If you do these things you will live a long time in the land that you wander about on.’ (8) We and our wives and our sons and daughters have obeyed everything The Pastor of First Baptist Church commanded us. We have never drunk wine. (9) We have not built any houses to live in. We do not own any vineyards, fields, or crops. (10) We have lived in tents. We have obeyed The Pastor of First Baptist Church and done exactly as he commanded us…

(12) Then the Lord spoke to Jeremiah. (13) The Lord God of Israel who rules over all told him, “Go and speak to the Church in America. Tell them, ‘I, the Lord, say: “You must learn a lesson from this about obeying what I say! (14) The Pastor of First Baptist Church ordered his Church members not to drink wine. His orders have been carried out. To this day his Church members have drunk no wine because they have obeyed what their Elder commanded them. But I have spoken to you over and over again, but you have not obeyed me! (15) I sent all my servants the prophets to warn you over and over again. They said, “Every one of you, stop doing the evil things you have been doing and do what is right. Do not pay allegiance to other gods and worship them. Then you can continue to live in this land that I gave to you and your ancestors.” But you did not pay any attention or listen to me. (16) Yes, First Baptist Church have carried out the orders that their Pastor gave them. But you people have not obeyed me! (17) So I, the Lord, the God who rules over all, the God of Israel, say: “I will soon bring on the Church in America all the disaster that I threatened to bring on them. I will do this because I spoke to them but they did not listen. I called out to them but they did not answer.”’”

Churches actually have done exactly what Jonadab did, and nobody would suggest that they were right in what they did. None of the members of the churches that make commands like this owe obedience to those commands. If they obey, they obey out of ignorance or fear. The obedience is laudable, but it’s not required by God. Let me be clear, it is not sin to obey a command to abstain from something God has given as a blessing, but it is absolutely sin to command perpetual abstinence from a blessing God has given. And it is also no sin to disobey those commands. No man, church or government has that authority.

The Contrast and True Lesson of Jeremiah 35

Now, let’s focus on what exactly is being taught in Jer 35. Is God teaching us that we owe perpetual obedience to the educational commands, or even the foolish commands of our fathers? Or is it something else entirely? Please note that the contrast of this passage is this:

• The Rechabite’s obeyed their father’s harsh commands even when they didn’t have to.

• Judah had not obeyed reasonable commands from God meant to bless them.

Now, I want you to think about that contrast. The Lord could have found plenty of families in Israel that had obeyed their fathers commands to… let’s say… memorize the Psalms. That would have been a hard command, but a great blessing to them as well. God could have used a family like that, and a command like that to show the contrast, but he didn’t. He instead gave an example of a father giving commands that are unrighteous and yet their children obeyed. Note how this contrast is actually pointed out by the Lord in the text:

1. “Jonadab son of Rechab ordered his descendants not to drink wine.”

2. “His orders have been carried out. To this day his descendants have drunk no wine because they have obeyed what their ancestor commanded them.”

3. “I sent all my servants the prophets to warn you over and over again. They said, “Every one of you, stop doing the evil things you have been doing and do what is right. Do not pay allegiance to other gods and worship them. Then you can continue to live in this land that I gave to you and your ancestors.”

4. “But you did not pay any attention or listen to me.”

It’s clear as day. Jonadab’ command was perpetually “not to drink wine”. The Lord’s command was “stop doing evil and don’t worship other gods”. The first was obeyed, the second was not. The one was an earthy father’s command who had been dead for 300 years, the other was the almighty God’s command who was alive and well. The one was an unrighteous command, the other perfectly righteous. The one leads to a hard life, the other an easy life. The 300 year dead father who gave unrighteous commands which led to a hard life was obeyed and the Living God of the Universe who gave perfectly righteous commands which led to an easy life was disobeyed. That is the clear contrast in the passage and the obvious lesson. Note what one commentator from the Reformation era say’s this…

“There is a transparent delight here. In fact, the Jews are convicted here, because they are less obedient to their heavenly Father than the Rechabites were to their father in the flesh. And he only says, like Malachi, “If I am your father, where is my honor?” This is an unnatural perseverance; in that you refuse to hear the word of your God: “Am I in no way better to you than Jonadab is to the Rechabites? Truly I do not prohibit the drinking of wine, but I only demand that which is far easier, that you give up foreign gods, who are not able to help you. I do not drive you into tents, but I permit the free inhabitation of the land. Jonadab commanded this a single time, while every day I am warning and exhorting you through the prophets. He promised little things, which he was not able to give; I promise the greatest things through these commands, which I also provide to you most generously. And I don’t even get you to incline your ears to me, since you both destroy the prophets and mock them” This is a more tolerable refutation that the other one in which God refuted them-the argument taken from the nations that do not change their own gods and from the beasts that know their time. In fact, Israel is ignoring its time of visitation.”

Johannes Oecolampadius, (1531) Commentary on Jeremiah

This is the lesson of the passage. He also makes an excellent point which I had not thought of, Jonadab could not give what he promised. Another example of the commands being unrighteous.

Now, I’m sure my friend will be happy to supply many commentators who take the simple way out and just say, “Well, Jonadab must have been righteous, because of the blessing.” And then they try to apologize for the clearly evil commands Jonadab gave. You may never have a house? Really? How on earth can that be justified? We also see that various commentators have wrestled with this passage because on the one side they certainly see what I’ve presented above and yet it appears that God is pleased with Jonadab, so instead of just taking the word of God as the solution, they postulate reasons why Jonadab’s commands might not have been the evil commands the bible says they are. “Oh yeah” they will say, “He must have been prescient and known their houses would have been destroyed.” Garbage. If all you can do is imagine an uninscripturated circumstance in order to make your theory make sense, then it’s clear that your viewpoint is not scriptural. At the very least you could never hold anyone to your viewpoint because you made it up. Note how even John Calvin notices how Jonadab’s commands were unrighteous, but then makes excuses for him…

But let us now see whether Jonadab did what was right in forbidding his posterity to drink wine and to cultivate land. Agriculture is in itself a mode of living not only honest and innocent, but also remote from ambition, fraud, and plunder: in short, it seems to be of all kinds of living the simplest and the most innocent. Then the advice of Jonadab to keep his sons from agriculture might in this instance be blamed and condemned. But the probability is, that when he saw the Jews and the Israelites despising the Law of their God, he thought of the vengeance, which, though it followed not for a long time, yet ought then to have been dreaded. (John Calvin’s Commentary on this passage.)

You see? He admits that what Jonadab did seems wrong, but he can’t bring himself to condemn him because the passage pronounces blessing on his people, so he postulates how Jonadab might have been righteous to make the unrighteous commands. His error, and the error of those who hold similar views, will be seen below.

An Illustration of the Rechabites Obedience

Now, to illustrate how Jonadab’s commands were unrighteous, and yet how his children can be praised for their obedience, let’s look at a modern equivalent of the Rechabites. The Mennonites and Amish. Every different sect has different traditions based upon what their fathers commanded them to do. Are they to be lifted up as heroes for the Patriarchy? One sect shaves their mustache, another wears caps, another wears a certain belt, another condemns buttons, and yet others have all sorts of traditions which no man can bind another man to. So my question is this, when you see a Mennonite dutifully keeping the command of his Father to have no buttons or no electricity, can we applaud them for their obedience? Of course we can. It is truly laudable. Just like the Rechabites. But the Mennonite forefathers were still wrong to command those things.

So let’s do a thought experiment to make this clear. If one of those Mennonites were to leave the Mennonite community and get electricity, would anyone think he was in any way sinful for not obeying his fathers? Of course not. His father gave a sinful command which the child does no evil by disobeying. If a Mennonite were to learn that their fathers had no jurisdiction to place unbiblical commands on them and they were not afraid of reprisal from their community then there would be no sin for one of them to grow a mustache. The evil is in the fathers for commanding perpetual obedience to such a silly thing. Now do the same for the case at hand. What if a young Rechabite learned that the agrarian life was a blessing from God and he wanted to settle down and raise his family on a farm with a big garden and a cute house with a white picket fence? Would anyone accuse him of sin for breaking with his Fathers command to perpetual abstinence of those things? Is it somehow dishonoring to the father to disobey an unrighteous command of his? The Rechabites, just like modern Mennonites, should not have perpetuated the errors of their father. They should have progressed enough in their faith to know that they would bring no dishonor on anyone by buying or building a house. They were honored for their zeal to obey, not their keen intellect. Ditto for the Mennonites. The Rechabite children are those that would have slain Agag and his entire kingdom without hesitation, unlike Saul. That zeal to obedience is laudable and praiseworthy. But, unfortunately, they are also they that would persecute the Church of Jesus Christ because of their Zeal for the Law. A Zeal without knowledge. Their ignorance is not praiseworthy.

The Blessing

So what about the blessing? I know people will look at all the bible says about this and still try to say that Jonadab was righteous in giving those commands because “the Lord rewards him”. But this also is no mystery. God did not honor Jonadab for giving those commands to his children. God honored Jonadab’s children because they obeyed him. The children of Jonadab got a blessing. It had nothing to do with Jonadab other than that he was the overbearing patriarch to whom they gave obedience. As a matter of fact, Jonadab could have easily made those commands and gone into oblivion without ever having his name recorded in the Holy Scripture if it were not for the fact that his children were obedient to his foolish commands. Please read the text again.

35:18 Then Jeremiah spoke to the Rechabite community, “The Lord God of Israel who rules over all says, ‘You have obeyed the orders of your ancestor Jonadab. You have followed all his instructions. You have done exactly as he commanded you.’ 35:19 So the Lord God of Israel who rules over all says, ‘Jonadab son of Rechab will never lack a male descendant to serve me.’”

Please note that it was not Jonadab himself that was honored for what he commanded, but his descendants were honored because they were obedient. The Lord was in effect telling them that someone from among their descendants were always going to be a minister of the Lord. Now, I’m sure there are some who will scream, “But the text literally say’s “Jonadab!” not his children!” I know that. But please note that the phrase “Jonadab son of Rechab” is equivalent to saying, “the Rechabites”. It is a tribal saying. It’s a covenantal saying. Every Rechabite who heard that blessing took it as a blessing on himself and his family. It is the Rechabites as a tribe that had the promise that they will always have a male descendant who stands before the Lord. It is they who were rewarded for their obedience, not their 300 year dead father. This was an actual blessing, not a theoretical blessing which somehow gave a mystical blessing to a 300 year dead man. It was a real blessing given to hundreds of actual living people. In the bible a personal name is used interchangeably throughout scripture for the descendants of that person. Jonadab the person, who was 300 years dead, received no blessing here. His name is used to represent the people receiving the blessing. The parents who were there listening to Jeremiah, they received the blessing. Note that even today this story is related as the story of the Rechabites. Not the story of Jonadab. Nobody even knows who Jonadab is today, rightly so, he gave unjust commands.

For a perfect parallel of this, let’s look at Numbers 32:40.

“So Moses gave Gilead to Machir the son of Manasseh, and he dwelt in it.”

We see here that Moses gave a gift to Machir the son of Manasseh. And it says that “he”, that is, Machir the son of Manasseh, dwelt in the land Moses gave him. The problem is that at this point in history Machir the son of Manasseh was dead. So how can it say that the land was given to Machir the son of Manasseh? I can boldly say that Machir the son of Manasseh did not receive the land of Gilead! Because it was given to his living children. He was speaking covenantally. Note,

“And the children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites who were in it.” (Num 32:39)

It was the children of Machir the son of Manasseh that were blessed with the gift of the land of Gilead, not Machir himself. And so it was also the living children of Jonadab that were blessed by God, not Jonadab himself.

You see? The proper name of the father is many times used to speak of the people that came from him. “Let Reuben live, and not die, Nor let his men be few." Reuben was dead. It was talking about his children. You can see the rest of Deuteronomy 33 for many other examples of this type of usage. And of course it would be tedious to describe how this applies to “Jacob”, “Israel”, “David” and many others.

Now, before I move on from this, perhaps we should look at what the blessing was. It was that Jonadab (the living tribe) would not lack a man to “stand before” the Lord forever. This has been the foolish delight of commentators for centuries. They have spent an inordinate amount of time looking into and searching for this elusive people of the Rechabites that they know MUST be still around. Well, no. They don’t. Let me explain.

First, to “stand before” simply means to be a minister and a counselor. A servant for sure, but essentially a counselor to the King. Abraham appears to have been the first that God sought “council” from. In Genesis 18 God famously confers to Abraham what He is about to do, and Abraham councils Him. That is what those who stand before a King do. They council and give advice. Notice,

Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, and he said, "How do you advise me to answer these people?"

And they spoke to him, saying, "If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever."

But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. (1Ki 12:6-8)

So the blessing God gave them was that someone from their loins would always be a trusted counselor and “stand before” Him forever. But shouldn’t that mean that the Rechabites are alive today? No. By no means. David was also told his sons would sit on the thrown of Israel “forever”. But there were hundreds of years that that was not so. We all know that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, and yet Jesus is occupying the “thrown” from Heaven. So why are we obliged to believe God has kept an elusive people alive instead of just believing that there is someone in heaven who is fulfilling that role? I see no necessity to believe that God has kept alive a lone Rechabite somewhere in the world who happens to be a good Christian as well. No, God can fulfill that promise any number of ways. Even if it were one person from that tribe, that promise can be considered fulfilled. Perhaps we’ll find in the end that one from the genealogy of Jesus married a Rechabite woman? Who’s to say that that couldn’t be? After all, he has two other gentile women in his Genealogy, why not a Rechabite?

Further Considerations

I’ll point out the reason why I believe the mistakes of the extreme patriarchy group are made. I believe they have a deficient doctrine of children. To an extreme patriarch a “child” is always a “child” and is never out from under the authority of the Father. While the said “child” may be a grown adult, he has no right to go against the commands of his father unless it’s a clearly sinful command. To the extreme patriarch the father is not just an advisor to his adult children, but an advisor who also gets to command and expect obedience. The biblical doctrine of Children presents another picture. The Biblical doctrine of children is such that places them in a special category of being “in” their parents. (It’s not surprising that most of those who hold an extreme view of patriarchy are Baptists and don’t follow the full extent of federal headship.) This category of federal headship is not only found in the family. It is also found in the Church, in businesses, and in governments. All of these organizations have a people that are represented by the few or one. And in all of those cases those who are “in” the few or one who is their federal head are in a special relationship of obedience to those federal heads. A child, a church member, an employee, and a citizen owes a certain obedience to all of those appointed over them. And in each case the obedience they owe stops at a certain point if they wish it to. We all admit that in each case obedience is not owed to anyone who requires disobedience to God. So leaving that exception out of the picture is there any other time at which a church member does not need to submit to his elders? An employee to his boss? A citizen to their governors? Or even a child to his parents? The answer is yes to all. In each case those who are in submission to their superiors are in that submission for a limited time and scope. If I am an employee I have every duty to obey my boss, but if I leave the job and get another I am no longer under that boss and have no further obligation to obey him. Nor do I need obey him if he tries to command that which is not in his authority to command. If I am a church member I have every obligation to obey my elders, but upon leaving that church and joining another I have no obligation to obey those elders in my former church, and again, I also have no need to obey any command that is not in their authority to command. As a citizen of the USA I have the obligation to obey my elected rulers, but upon a reelection or my revoking my citizenship and moving to another country I no longer have any obligation to obey my former governors, nor do I need to obey any command which is not in their authority to command. The same is true for the family. Children have every obligation to obey their Parents while they are in their household. But if they leave and start their own household they have no further obligation of obedience to them on everything. On the contrary, there will come a time when the parents will have to obey their children. Once the parents have to live with the children for care they are then under the care and guidance of their children and owe obedience to them. (As Jesus gave his mother to John) You owe the same obedience to your mother that you owe to your father, so how is that supposed to work when you have a widow that you have to care for? Is she really able to come in and rule your house? We all know the answer to that.

An objection can be expected. We happen to find the patriarchs obeying their parents even when they are adults. Of course, we find the opposite also, but let’s not confuse the issue yet further. Let me just point out what may not be so obvious to the casual reader of the bible. The Patriarchs that we see being obeyed were not just parents, they were princes. They were the rulers of their clans which included much more than just their children. And of course any adult must obey their rulers. So to point to a patriarch and say “see, he was an adult and he obeyed his father!” is irrelevant. The father was also the secular governor. So it doesn’t prove what they think it proves. If my father were also my king I would of course be bound to obedience as my king even though I might be emancipated as a son. There were a myriad of other fathers in each of the tribes that did not have the same authority over their adult children as Jacob had over his, or Abraham has over his. When other fathers in Jacob’s clan needed food they did not send their children to Egypt to get food, they besought their clan chief and he sent people to Egypt.

The more moderate patriarchs agree that the Parents have authority over their children for all time in so far as they can command their children what the Lord requires (the same is true for all spheres of government) and yet they have only the advisor roll on all other maters once the child is emancipated. The time of emancipation is much debated and should be decided with much Christian wisdom and reasoning. But the fact of emancipation is not up for debate. To think otherwise is to make scripture absurd. Let’s use the Rechabites for an example. Think for instance, what if one of the other fathers in the Rechabite tribe decided it was good for his children to have the good things God has provided for them and allowed them to have a garden. Let’s say it’s Jonadab’s Great great great grandson Bildad. And Bildad wanted his grandchildren to have a better life. Would the children then be disobedient to have a garden? Who are they disobedient to? Their father? Or their great great great great grandfather? Why does Jonadab get to out rank all the other fathers that come after him? Because he lived before them? Is that what determines rank among fathers? Even though they are dead? Would that mean that these children who were obedient to their father, but not to their great great great great grandfather would not have the blessing of the fifth commandment? This leads to more and more absurdities. For instance, if we are all bound to obedience to our long dead grandfathers then we are of all men most pitiable. Many of us would not even be able to partake of the Lord’s Supper because somewhere along the way we are probably all related to Jonadab or some overzealous teetotaler who banned his children from drinking wine. Then we are all in sin for taking the Lord’s Supper. If emancipation never happens even after death, then we are all bound today to many things we rejoice in as blessings of God. Why? Because somewhere along the way some overzealous tyrant of a Father forbade some blessing to his Children forever. There are people who think Jonadab still has some Rechabite children running around the world still in obedience to Jonadab and still serving the Lord. Think again, any Rechabite of today would have to choose to either not partake of the Lord’s Supper or be disobedient to their father. And of course, if there is such a person, which I doubt and scripture does not demand, then they are definitely living as a sheep herder somewhere in abject poverty living in his tent. What a bunch of hooey. The Rechabites live on only in those ignorant few that believe their human tradition is greater than the Word of God.

Final Thoughts

“A father can command perpetual obedience of even something hard and the children are required to obey to all generations.” This, of course, is what the extreme patriarchs are saying if they think Jeremiah 35 is supposed to be normative. I think that idea renders God’s word absurd. And when I have pointed out the absurdities of what this view can lead to they will typically say, “well a wise father would not do that.” So then it becomes an argument for the sake of argument. “Yes, they have the authority to command even foolish things, but wise fathers wouldn’t.” How does that fix the issue?

So allow me to make a few more observations to show the absurdity of what I’m arguing against.

1Ti_3:4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence

1Ti_3:12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So, given the Extreme Patriarch view that we owe perpetual obedience to even our fathers fathers, like Jonadab, does this mean that we must inspect the households of all of prospective Elder’s Children as well? After all, if they are bound to obedience of the father generations after he’s dead, I would think that we ought to examine all of his Children’s households to see if they are all in submission as well?

Eph_6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

OK, so if a Fathers authority never stops, what does “bring them up” mean? After all, “bring them up” carries the idea that they will eventually be “up”. It is a widely held belief, perhaps universally held belief, that at some point children are considered “brought up”. What does that even mean if they are still bound to obey their parents whims forever?

1Ti_5:4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God.

I find this text almost unintelligible if the extreme Patriarch view is correct. How can it be that the Apostle has to encourage children to “show piety” by caring for their widowed mother when they are bound to obey her forever. If the children are bound to obey their mother and father for life, then certainly the apostle should just say so. Why does he appeal to the children to do what is “good and acceptable before God” to care for her?

Eph 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Col 3:21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Do you think forbidding your children from enjoying the blessings of God could “provoke them to wrath” or “discourage” them? It sure seems to me that Jonadab did just this very thing. Don’t lie to yourself and say that all of his progeny for 300 years loved the fact that they could never have a house or garden. Remember, a wife that only submits when she agrees with her husband is not really submissive. The same is true here. If the Rechabites actually preferred the way they lived and never desired wine or a house or a garden, then they would never really have been obedient. They would have just agreed with grandpa.

At long last, I finish my thoughts on Jeremiah 35. Jonadab’s commands were sinful, the Rechabites obedience to those sinful commands was laudable, but not required by God. God blessed the living Rechabite tribe because they drew the contrast He wanted to show His people. None of it is normative.