Their long obedience and current refuge

This explanation comes in the middle of a narrative where Jeremiah has set up a public test: the Rechabites are offered wine, and they refuse because of Jonadab’s instructions (vv. 1–7). Verses 8–11 are their own speech, giving reasons and outlining the full scope of their rule of life. Immediately afterward (vv. 12–19), the account turns from their example to a direct message contrasting human responsiveness to a respected ancestor with Judah’s failure to listen to repeated prophetic warnings. These verses therefore function as the evidence portion of the scene.

The setting assumes the late seventh to early sixth century BC, when Babylon pressed into the region and smaller kingdoms were drawn into conflict. The Rechabites present themselves as a mobile, non-landholding group whose normal practice is to avoid settled agriculture and live in tents. Their move into Jerusalem is framed not as abandoning their identity but as a wartime refuge decision, prompted by fear of enemy forces. Mention of the “Chaldeans” points to Babylonian troops, and the “Syrians” suggests additional regional pressure that made open-country life dangerous.

Shared ground

The Rechabites present their way of life as deliberate, long-term obedience to the spoken instruction (“voice”) of Jonadab, described as their “father” (v.8). Explicitly, that obedience includes abstaining from wine for life, and it includes the whole household (men, women, and children) (v.8). It also includes refusing the normal markers of settled life: permanent houses and land-based agriculture (vineyard, field, seed) (v.9). They summarize this identity as tent-dwelling paired with ongoing compliance “in all” Jonadab commanded (v.10).

They also describe a crisis-driven move into Jerusalem. When Nebuchadnezzar’s forces advanced, and with another threatening army also in view, they entered the city out of fear for safety (v.11). The text frames this as refuge under pressure, not as a change of their underlying rule of life.

Where interpretation differs

One question is what “father” means here (v.8, v.10). Some take it as a direct biological ancestor; others as the founder whose authority functions like a patriarch for the group.

A second question is how to understand “so we dwell at Jerusalem” (v.11). Some read it as a temporary shelter that still fits their identity (they have not said they adopted houses or land). Others think the wording could allow for a more extended stay, even if it began as an emergency move.

Why the disagreement exists

The passage itself does not spell out family lineage details, and “father” can cover both ancestry and founding authority. Likewise, “dwell” can describe residence without specifying duration, so readers infer “temporary” or “extended” from the wartime setting and from the broader narrative purpose of Jeremiah 35.

What this passage clearly contributes

These verses supply the evidence for the larger scene: the Rechabites can explain their refusal of wine by pointing to a comprehensive, multi-generational discipline that shapes ordinary habits and economic life (vv.8–10). The passage also shows that severe external danger can force relocation without necessarily meaning a group has abandoned its core commitments (v.11). Within Jeremiah’s broader context, this sets up a comparison between responsiveness to a respected human founder and Judah’s failure to listen to repeated divine warnings in the next section Jeremiah 35:12–19.