before Me for ever” (Jer. 35:19).

There is a strange and interesting people associated with Israel all through its Old Testament history. They first appear in Genesis 15:19, as the leading name in a list of ten nations whose land Abraham is promised he will later receive. They are the Kenites.

This reference shows they were already a nation at the time of Abraham. We know nothing of them at this time, but we do know Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, was there. There must have been some faithful people to whom Melchizedek ministered. Several of the nations in this list were descended from Ham through Canaan, but there is no way of determining which branch of Noah’s family the Kenites came from. This silence concerning them is perhaps significant.

Their next appearance is in Exodus 2:16. When Moses fled from Egypt, he came into contact with Reuel the priest of Midian, and his seven daughters. They are not identified as Kenites in this passage, but they are several times later. Once they are called Midianites, apparently from their dwelling at this time in the land of Midian among that people. Usually they are called Kenites.

The Midianites (descended from Abraham) always appear as bitter enemies of Israel: the Kenites always as faithful friends.

One unusual aspect of the Kenites is their habit and ability of peaceful association with, and living in the area of, other peoples, as we shall see in many cases. They usually appear as simple and harmless strangers and nomads-on good terms with neighbors but not entering into their conflicts: a strange people set apart.

Reuel was a “priest of Midian,” but he certainly does not seem to have been in a position of power or authority, for it was obviously customary for the local shepherds to harass his daughters with impunity. He was surprised on this occasion when his daughters came home early as a result of Moses’ intervention for them against the bullying shepherds. Reuel may have been a “preacher of righteousness” among the Midianites for any who would hear.

In verses 21-22 (Ex. 2) he gives his daughter Zipporah to Moses to wife. She bares him two sons. Moses lived with Reuel forty years. There is no indication when during that period he married Zipporah, or when his sons were born. The natural impression the record gives is that his sons were quite young at the end of the forty years when he returned to Egypt, but there is no certainty of this.

In verse 18 we read that Reuel was Moses’ father-in-law. Beginning chapter 3 we read of Jethro his father-in-law, and later on in Judges of Hobab Moses’ father-in-law. There is some uncertainty about whom these three names apply to. The term translated “father-in-law” simply means “in-law,” and can be also “brother-in-law” or “son-in-law.”

The most likely solution (though not positive) is that Reuel and Jethro were the same person-Moses’ father-in-law-REUEL (Friend of God) being his name, and JETHRO (Excellency, or his Excellency) being his title. Hobab was most probably the son of Jethro, and thus Moses’ brother-in-law.

In Exodus 4:24-26, we find Moses on his way back to Egypt with his wife and two sons. At a certain stopping place for the night, God “sought to kill him”-probably Moses but possibly his son. Zipporah quickly circumcised the son, and said, “Thou art a bloody husband” or “a husband or bridegroom of blood.”

“So He (God) let him go.” And she said again, “A husband of blood, because of the circumcision.”

A strange incident, though not quite so strange if Jethro was a Kenite among Midianites, and not actually a Midianite. For he was a faithful man and acceptable to God. Therefore if he had been a Midianite (of the seed of Abraham), circumcision would have been natural and inevitable in his family. There was no law at the time that any not Abraham’s seed must be circumcised to approach God.

It appears from Zipporah’s action and statements that she had been the deterrent to the circumcision of the son, though we cannot be positive. The fault may have been entirely with Moses. Certainly the responsibility was his. Clearly Moses was at fault-and to a degree that God considered very serious. Moses was on his way to lead a whole nation to God, and he had neglected his own basic obedience in his own family-his own personal affairs. How human! If Jethro was a priest of God without circumcision, then Zipporah’s reluctance and apparent objection is understandable.

The fact that Zipporah immediately knew what was wrong and what must be done would indicate it had been an issue between them. Moses’ position may have been very difficult, especially for a “meek” man, but he had a clear duty.

Zipporah’s double exclamation seems to indicate recognition and acceptance of the Abrahamic Covenant as a result of the open manifestation of God’s anger: “a Bridegroom of blood”-the Blood of the Covenant.

Apparently because of this incident, it appears Moses sent Zipporah and his sons back to Jethro, and went on toward Egypt by himself, for in Exodus 18 Jethro comes out with Zipporah and the sons to meet Moses and Israel. This was very soon after Israel had left Egypt-as they approach Sinai. There are several interesting points-

Verse 7: Moses did obeisance to Jethro. This is fitting if Jethro was Moses’ father-in-law, and the same person as Reuel. It does not appear so fitting if Jethro was the son of Reuel, and therefore Moses’ brother-in-law, as some suggest.

Verse 9: Jethro rejoiced at God’s goodness to Israel. This is typical of the Kenites throughout their whole history.

Verse 12: Jethro took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron and the elders of Israel came to eat bread with him “before God.” This fellowshipping together and God accepting his sacrifice is conclusive evidence that Jethro was a true priest of God, and accepted by God as such. He was host to Israel’s leaders, and offered sacrifices in which they joined. They ate with him “before God.” It would seem from this incident that Jethro stood in a special relation to God. He is similar to Job and Melchizedek, though not of course in the same exalted category as the latter.

Verses 13-26: Jethro gives advice concerning the appointing of subordinate judges to take the burden off Moses. Here again there is a very strong recognition of God: almost an indication of inspiration-

“Hearken to me . . . and God shall be with thee” (v. 19);

“If thou do this, and God command thee so . . .” (v. 23);

“So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father-in-law, and did ALL that he had said” (v. 24).

Moses did all that Jethro said, and clearly God approved. Recognizing the exalted position of Moses before God, and his direct contact with God, and that he was the leading figure in the primary work of God in the earth at that time, even the eternal divine purpose-this incident gives unique stature to Jethro. We cannot draw the parallel too closely, but we are reminded of Abraham before Melchizedek. Jethro departs (v.Ê27), and this is the last we hear of him.

* * *

Numbers 10 describes the setting forth of Israel from Sinai at the beginning of the second year-

Verse 29: Moses invites his brother-in-law Hobab to go with them, promising him good. Jethro had returned to his home a year earlier, but Hobab had either stayed on with them at Sinai, or had come in the meantime. Jethro must have now been quite aged.

Verse 30: Hobab declines the invitation. Perhaps this was just a polite preliminary formality, as in the case of Abraham paying for his burying place.

Verse 31: Moses presses the appeal, showing it is not just a courteous form but an actual desire for the benefitting of Hobab’s help.

We are not here told Hobab’s decision, but from later circumstances it seems clear that a considerable body of Kenites did go with Israel-probably the whole group, for we have no reason to think they split their community. This would be natural and fitting, (and providentially beneficial to Israel in later years), for they were worshipers of the true God, and God had now especially chosen Israel to place His Name and Presence among. Israel hereafter were to be the center of the worship and knowledge of God.

There was reason to expect, too, that Israel would be a righteous and highly blessed nation in the earth-but perhaps the Kenites had already seen enough of them to be too confident on this score. Perhaps Hobab recognized that it was God’s will that the Kenites be helpers of God’s people, for that is the part they play hereafter.

* * *

In Numbers 12, very soon after this, comes the incident of Miriam and Aaron speaking against Moses because of his “Ethiopian” wife. This comes into our present consideration if the wife in question is Zipporah, and this seems to be the case. This is the simplest explanation. “Ethiopian” (R. V.: Cushite) could well apply to the Midian area. Cush and Midian are associated in Habakkuk 3:7 in relation to this very area (when Christ, like Moses, advances from Sinai with his newly constituted nation). Cush, a son of Ham, begat Nimrod, the first great conqueror (Gen. 10:8-10), whose kingdom began in the Euphrates valley. Cush (or Ethiopia-same word) is applied in Scripture to Asiatic areas and peoples before it is applied to Africa. Many of the nine other nations mentioned with the Kenites in Genesis 15 were Hamitic. Cush was the ancestor of Sheba, Seba, Dedan and Havilah-all in the Arabian area. So there is no difficulty in applying “Cushite” to Zipporah the Kenite who lived in Midian.

Furthermore, it is hardly probable Moses would take another wife. It is even less probable that, as the faithful and God-appointed leader of a people to whom he repeatedly conveyed warnings from God about foreign marriages, he would at this point himself take an alien wife. It would seem the poorest and most inconsistent example he could give. Yet God, in this very incident, commends and justifies him. We conclude, therefore, that the strongest possibilities are that the wife at issue was Zipporah.

Miriam, as Moses’ sister, was very prominent at the Exodus. But at Sinai Jethro met them bringing Zipporah. Moses was extremely respectful to Jethro, and adopted without change all his suggestions for judging Israel. Now he pleads with his brother-in-law Hobab to help him lead the way. It is quite natural that Miriam and Aaron would feel that Moses’ non-Israelite in-laws were becoming much too influential and prominent in the affairs of God’s people.

The objections of Aaron and Miriam to the Gentile bride of Israel’s leader and savior is a type of Israel’s reaction to the taking in of the Gentiles. In fact, the Kenites as a whole-a faithful Gentile group taken into Israel through a marriage with Israel’s leader-are a type of the Bride of Christ. Miriam’s deathlike leprosy, and her being excluded from the camp for a period of punishment and purification, and also Moses’ unique meekness and loving appeal to God on her behalf, all add beauty to the type.

The next reference to the Kenites is in Numbers 24-the prophecies of Balaam as he looked down from a neighboring height upon the vast, orderly encampment of the children of Israel in the plains of Moab, nearly forty years after the above incident (vs. 21-22)-

“And he looked on the Kenites and took up his parable and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock: nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.”

This immediately follows the prediction of the extermination of Amalek for their enmity toward Israel. Amalek was the typical arch-enemy, while the Kenites are always friendly and helpful associates. According to a good authority, this can be translated-

“The Kenite shall not be destroyed, until . . .”

Either way, there is a contrast: Amalek to be exterminated; Kenites to continue all through Israel’s history, and to be taken captive with them. There is no point in Balaam’s being caused to mention the Kenites at all, except as they are related to Israel. Their relations with Israel are always good, so this can hardly be a pronouncement of doom or punishment, as for Amalek.

Another question: Is Balaam looking at the encampment of the Kenites who are accompanying Israel, or the Kenites already in the land? It would seem most likely and most fittingly the former. Though they are among the nations of Canaan in Abraham’s time, there is no mention of them being there in the history of this time. They are hardly likely to be, as the nations of Canaan are to be utterly destroyed. If Balaam is looking at the Kenites with Israel, this adds deeper meaning to his statement-

“Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a (R. V.: the) Rock.”

This would be in harmony with the imagery of his other prophecies. In Hebrew, “nest” is ken, and there is a play here on the name.

We wonder, too, whether from his lofty viewpoint, Balaam sees Amalekites lurking on the outskirts of the camp, ready to harass those who wander outside its protection. It would be very fitting.

* * *

The Kenites appear next just after the conquest of the land-

“And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees (that is, Jericho) with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad: and they went and dwelt among the people” (Jdgs. 1:16).

This is the beginning of the indications throughout the record that Hobab and a group of Kenites-probably the whole community-did accompany, or finally join, Israel. It would appear therefore that some of them, led by Hobab, stayed with Israel all through the terrible forty years in the wilderness-a remarkable token of faithfulness and friendship.

We learn here that after the subduing of the Canaanite nations by Israel, the Kenites went from the vicinity of Jericho to the southern wilderness of Judah, near the Dead Sea. Apparently they stayed in the Jericho area during the period of Joshua’s conquests. This would be natural and logical, and in keeping with their later history. It was not their war, nor their land. They were close and friendly associates, but not actually of Israel.

Throughout the record they appear in a rather unique position of dwelling among and at peace with various nations, though those nations were natural enemies.

We met them first with the nations of Canaan. Then with the Midianites. Now they are with Israel. Later we find them with both Amalek in the south and with the northern Canaanites-not allies, but apparently at peace and unmolested. There is much food for thought here. They seem to have been a different kind of people, living on a different plane, with different inter-ests, seeking little in this life, bothering no one, envying no one, at peace among warring elements-like God’s people today.

Should they not have joined in more completely with Israel? Was not this expected of faithful aliens seeking God? Would they not then be expected to help in the war? In some ways they were unique. They appear to have been true servants of God before their contact with Israel.

From the very beginning of their association with Israel, Israel was rebellious and disobedient to God-all through the wilderness and as soon as they got into the land. The Kenites witnessed the whole sad picture, from the golden calf on.

We do not know to what degree they qualified themselves to enter into the national worship. Perhaps they went all the way. Perhaps the strange incident of the circumcision of Moses’ son gives us a clue here (though in that case it was one actually married into Israel, so we cannot draw too close a parallel).

But as for their way of life, they doubtless felt that because of Israel’s national proneness to rebellion and idolatry, it was best to maintain their separateness and distinction.

Jericho was the first point of entrance into the land. The people and city of Jericho were wiped out by divine decree in the first strike of Israel against the Canaanites. With the inhabitants gone, and the area well suited for flocks, this was the natural place for the Kenites to stay while Israel was subduing the land. The main Israelite camp was very close by, at Gilgal.

None of this story is actually explained. We have to piece it together. But this is almost inevitably the place the Kenites would temporarily wait, as we are told they did, until they could go into the open desert area of the land more suited to their way of life. Consequently, when the tribes were settled in their inheritances, the Kenites moved to the very southern extremity of Judah, south of Arad (which was about twenty miles south of Hebron).

They may have particularly chosen to be with Judah, but it is more likely they chose this area because it abutted the open desert and suited their way of life. It was the only place in the land of this nature. Their actual affinity may have been (through Moses’ family and their own inclinations) more with Levi than Judah. In one later reference some Kenites are spoken of as scribes-a Levitical occupation. There were Levitical cities nearby, and not only Levitical cities in general, but of the family of Aaron and Moses (Jdgs. 21:10-16). This is the area in which the priest Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth lived in New Testament times.

* * *

In Judges 4 (about 150 years later) we find one family of Kenites separated from the rest (v. 11)-

“Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father-in-law (R. V.: brother-in-law) of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, by Kedesh.”

This is on the furthest north border of the land, above the Waters of Merom, near the Dan settlement at Laish. Heber had moved from the extreme south to the extreme north, still on the open border. Again we see the characteristics of this people, choosing the less frequented border areas. And we note his dwelling is a tent, though Israel were now long settled in cities and houses.

The occasion is that of Deborah and Barak against Sisera and Jabin king of Hazor. In verse 17 we learn-

“There was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.”

It may seem strange that there should be peace between this cruel Canaanite oppressor of Israel and a member of the Kenites who had always been on such close and sympathetic terms with Israel. But it was just peace: not a league or alli-ance. It is in complete harmony with the general history of the Kenites who appear at peace with many discordant elements.

Certainly there is no doubt where Jael’s sympathies lay in the conflict, and it would be unnatural to assume she was acting contrary to the sentiments of her husband Heber. She was not betraying an alliance: she was merely bringing to justice a vicious criminal. Generally the Kenites seemed to dwell apart from the conflicts and rivalries of their more powerful and settled neighbors, but on two significant occasions in Israel’s history, of which this was one, they struck a decisive blow for the people of God. Many times it would have been inappropriate for them to intervene, for God was frequently deservedly punishing Israel. On the two occasions they are recorded as intervening, it was in support of a man God had demonstrably raised up and was working with against current evils.

The Kenites next appear in 1 Samuel 15, when Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekites, in fulfilment of Moses’ curse and Balaam’s prophecy. With our familiarity with the coarse surliness of most of Saul’s actions as king, he seems rather out of character as we find him taking the trouble (v. 6), apparently on his own initiative, to gently warn the Kenites to get out of the way of danger, lest some harm befall them. Here we find them, again, dwelling in unmolested peace among the fierce and warlike Amalekites.

* * *

In 1 Samuel 27, David, while under the service of Achish the Philistine king of Gath, raided (v. 8) the alien tribes on the south borders of Judah, but in reporting this to Achish (v. 10) he says it was-

“Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites.”

This was true, but Achish understood him to mean he had attacked this part of Judah-not the nations south of it. We see the Kenites are still living on the south borders of Judah, and in sufficient numbers to give their designation to an area.

A little later, in 1 Samuel 30, when David is distributing the spoils of the Amalekites to the cities and areas that had befriended him when he was a fugitive from Saul in the wilderness of Judea, we find (v. 29) the “cities of the Kenites” among the recipients. The mention of “cities of Kenites” may be an indication that by this time they had begun to adopt a more settled form of life. This fits in with later events. We are now about five hundred years after the Exodus.

This incident is a clear indication that the sympathies of the Kenites were with David, though we have seen that-true to their pattern-they were on good terms with Saul. There must have been something about their simple and separate way of life that largely insulated them from the conflicts of the times. They apparently had little themselves, and coveted nothing others had, and were therefore left in peace.

We now come to the two most interesting and instructive episodes of their long and unique history. About one hundred and fifty years after the time of David, we fine Jehu anointed by Elisha to destroy the wicked, idolatrous house of Ahab, and to reign in his stead in the northern kingdom of Israel.

In 2 Kings 10, Jehoram, Ahaziah and Jezebel have been slain, and Jehu is in process of wiping out the remnants of the family. In the course of this slaughter, on his way from Jezreel to Samaria (v. 15)-

“He lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him.”

Elisha had earlier prophesied that Ahab’s house should be destroyed. This was public knowledge, as Jehu made clear in verse 10. Elisha had recently anointed Jehu, and said he was the one to do the work. This would not yet be public knowledge, but it seems clear that Jehonadab knew it. From their known characters and interests, it seems certain that Elisha and Jehonadab were acquainted. From some cause, whether direct instruction or not, Jehonadab was coming to meet and help Jehu-apparently from Judah, for all we ever hear of the Kenites they are in Judah, both before and after this, except for the single case of Heber who it specially says had “severed” himself from the main body. The Kenites, as worshipers of God, would certainly not move to the wicked, idolatrous kingdom of Israel, especially in the times of Ahab and Jezebel.

Verse 15 indicates that Jehu knew Jehonadab, but that they had had no previous intercourse about this matter. Jehonadab was a leader of the Kenites, and it is very probable he was widely known and respected as a righteous man. It is apparent from the subsequent history that he was a very outstanding character, and a strong and dominant personality. He left such a deep impression on his people that regulations he made were faithfully kept for at least two hundred and fifty years.

On meeting, Jehu blessed Jehonadab, and said-

“Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”

Jehonadab said, “It is, it is!”-as the original has it. Jehu was saying-

“Are you with me in the destruction of Ahab’s house and the Baal worship, as I am with you in the worship of the Lord?”

We know that Jehu was not a righteous man, but it was not apparent at this time. In the divinely appointed work of destruction he appeared very zealous for God, as many do. For the flesh, criticism and destruction are very pleasant and gratifying, but God requires faithful builders.

Jehu said, “Give me thine hand.” Jehonadab did so. This was a joining together in the work. Jehonadab got up into Jehu’s chariot and went with him (v. 17) as he killed the remnants of Ahab’s house.

Then came the incident of the slaughter of all the worshipers of Baal by calling them to a supposed sacrifice to Baal. In this, Jehonadab was not only an approving supporter of Jehu, but an active partner, as we see in verse 23. It was a basic and necessary law of God that worshipers of false gods must be put to death. This was the second time when the normally peaceful and separate Kenites took a dramatic part in the history of Israel.

We hear no more of Jehonadab at this time. Immediately after the slaughter of the Baal worshipers we read (v. 29) that Jehu departed not from the sins of Jeroboam who had at the beginning of the northern kingdom set up the calf worship. The revelation of Jehu’s unfaithfulness would be a great disappointment to Jehonadab, and would immediately end any association between them.

With the divinely decreed destruction at the hands of the seemingly so zealous Jehu of the two wicked kings of both Israel and Judah, and Jezebel, and all the Baal worshipers-Jehonadab doubtless looked forward happily to a reform throughout the whole land. Instead, wicked Jehu ruled in Israel, promoting the calf-worship; and even more wicked Athaliah ruled in Judah, promoting Baal worship, and the people were always ready to follow wicked rulers into the pleasant and fleshly corruptions of idolatry.

It may well have been at this time that Jehonadab renewed and reinforced the separated position of his people the Kenites, binding them to it in perpetuity. He doubtless could sadly see that national reformation was a hopeless dream that could not possibly endure, even if it should briefly happen.

In 1 Chronicles 2:55 we have the identification of Jehonadab, as father of the Rechabites, with the Kenites. This is in the midst of the genealogy of Judah, just before going into detail about David-

“And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

It is very interesting that they are spoken of as “scribes.” Throughout their history we find them a pastoral people, choosing the open country and tent life, but this is no indication that they were rustic and ignorant. The shepherd David was the world’s greatest poet. Scribes were usually associated with study and teaching of God’s law.

In Jeremiah 35 we learn more of this house of Rechab of the Kenites, and of Jehonadab’s relation to it. He is there called Jonadab, so we will use that form hereafter. This is the most detailed and intimate picture we get of this unusual people, and the most significant.

It is now two hundred and fifty years after the time of Jonadab, in the reign of wicked Jehoiakim, near the end of the kingdom of Judah. The armies of Nebuchadnezzar are, or already have been, in the land. A group of Kenites of the family of Rechab has taken temporary refuge in Jerusalem, because of the Babylonian invasion. Whether or not this was a wise move we do not know, but it fitted in with God’s purpose at the time. They would be encamped in tents in some open place in the city, and would be an object of public interest because of the strangeness of their ways. Thus they were an ideal subject for God to use as a lesson to Israel.

God told Jeremiah to bring them to the Temple, and set wine before them, and invite them to drink. They refused the wine, saying-

“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. 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” (Jer. 35:6-7).

For two hundred and fifty years this family of the Kenites had been faithful and obedient to the instructions of their father Jonadab. For two hundred and fifty years they had been a sign and a warning to Israel, for any who had eyes and ears to perceive. Clearly Jonadab’s purpose was to keep their lives simple and separate from the settled inhabitants of the land, who were so easily given to idolatry and corruption.

No vineyards, no agriculture, a movable tent life such as faithful Abraham followed. No self-indulgence, few worldly possessions, no comfortable house or fixed abode: strangers and pilgrims in the earth. We live in very different times, but very similar in so many ways. It behoves us in these last corrupt and luxurious days of the Gentiles to examine ourselves in the light of these things, and take account of our stewardship. How much of God’s goods, entrusted to us for His service, do we unfaithfully squander on ourselves and our families?

No vineyards: no wine. The Nazarite condition was the ideal in Israel of complete separation and self-abnegation from the things of the world, and devotion to God. In all probability, this was the foundation of Jonadab’s regulations concerning wine. The end of verse 7-“that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers” (repeated from the fifth Commandment)-shows Jonadab’s recognition of the relation between righteousness and possessing the land.

He could see Israel itself, the chosen people, both north and south, sinking deeper and deeper into those conditions of wickedness that God from the beginning-through Moses and later through the prophets-had warned would bring their expulsion and dispersion. Jonadab wanted to preserve his own Kenite people from corruption and punishment, and also to make them a wholesome element of preservation for the nation, and an example that might prolong God’s mercy and forebearance toward them all.

It seems certain, too, in the light of Kenite history, that these were not on the whole new regulations, but were rather a calling back to, and making more firm and secure, a general way of life to which this people had always held, but which-with the passage of time and dangerous associations-was in danger of being lost, especially in the evil period in which Jonadab lived.

The addition of the Nazarite wine vow may have been Jonadab’s way of reinforcing and adding spiritual depth to the testimony of the Kenites’ separated way of life. There is much more power and dignity in the whole story if we can discern more in the Rechabite way of life than just blind, servile submission to arbitrary, man-made regulations. Certainly Jonadab had a purpose, and certainly his faithful descendants recognized that purpose. The closing words of the chapter-God’s words-surely testify to this (vs. 18-19)-

“Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab . . . 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.”

Usually, to “stand before God” means more than just to be under His care. It usually means to hold a position of responsibility before Him in His work. It was used frequently of the tribe of Levi as the especial ministers of God.

In the final reference to the Kenites, Nehemiah 3:14, we find a “Malchiah the son of Rechab” helping Nehemiah rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This reference is taken to indicate that, according to Balaam’s prophecy nearly a thousand years earlier, the Kenites were taken away in the captivity, and some returned after the proclamation of Cyrus. It is to be expected that the faithful Rechabites would be among those anxious to return and rebuild the city of God.

Some apply the genealogical reference in 1 Chronicles 2:55 to the period of return from the captivity. This is quite possible, as the next chapter takes the line of David down to the return from Babylon. In the reference in 1 Chronicles 2:55 to the Rechabites as “scribes”-a Levitical occupation-some see the fulfilment of God’s promise to the Rechabites of “standing before the Lord” as associated with the tribe of Levi in the Temple service.

It was through Moses, of the tribe of Levi, that the Kenites first became related to Israel. Jethro their father was priest of Midian and offered sacrifices of which Moses and the elders of Israel partook.

Certainly they were a very unusual people, and this final scriptural statement concerning them is a unique and high commendation in the direct words of God Himself.

Throughout their history they kept a separate path-a Gentile people drawn to Israel by the worship of Israel’s God, living a simple life at peace with all, as far as they were able, though at certain times of crisis they play a decisive role in the affairs of Israel, always-as far as we have any record-on the side of helpfulness and faithfulness and wisdom and truth.