Drinking wine was common practice in Israel. Cultivating vineyards and making wine were major industries for Israel through much of its ancient history. Apparently God did not disapprove, except in violation of moderation. The general culture assumed the uses of wine, and looked upon teetotalers as odd, perhaps disconnected from society. At the same time the leaders of Israel warned generations of dangers in drunkenness, not merely because it robbed an individual of control of his senses, but also caused other negative effects. The wine analogy, in this chapter from Jeremiah, was not reporting about wine, but on a marginal cultural fact that a father of the Recabites, Jonadab, ordered his sons and descendants to never drink wine. Loyal to the order, they begged to be excused from Jeremiah’s invitation to its social amenity. There were other family prohibitions as well, such as not to build houses, but dwell in tents. The Recabites were Israel’s Amish. Although the invitation to tasting wine was both inviting and intimidating, they retained prohibition, even in the context of the revered Jeremiah’s hospitality.
Jeremiah used the non-event as God’s message to Israel – that a family had kept meticulously the commands of a human father that may have been interpreted by the public as arbitrary, but Israel had not kept the commandments of the Lord, which were not arbitrary. The faithfulness of the Recabites was favorably recognized by the Lord, with promise for family survival. The family was honored by God and Jeremiah, not in the event, but in the faithfulness of family members. One wonders why Jonadab ordered the prohibition, and why his family acquiesced? To speculate we may assume, safely assume I believe, that Jonadab had seen the folly of a backsliding people who had become, in a significant percentage, drunkards. To avoid the problem he decided to just say: No. Others would argue for balance and moderation. He faced the issue with simplicity – total abstinence of strong drink. There are often found several solutions to a problem, any one of which may work, if the participants are firm enough in supporting the agreed upon answer.
We are told by researchers that alcoholism multiplies social ills. We know well how persons fail themselves, their families, and society with alcoholism, leading to death. The story for women is becoming as tragic as it is for males. Women get drunk faster than men, and are more at risk to contract liver and brain damage. They suffer depression, sexual trauma, escapism, and may accent the problems of their childhood. Women abusing alcohol are more likely than other women to have had mothers who were also alcoholics; are more likely to have run away from home as teen agers; and, are more likely to have been victimized by sexual assault. As the habit grows, they increase their anxiety, and eating disorders. Health is threatened, and relationships fail. They withdraw, feeling they are bad persons – poor mothers and/or wives. The Scriptures offer self-control as a life pattern. For the self-disciplined, moderation invites the best human control for life’s permissible conducts, but it is not the only biblical solution to threatening temptation. To be so concerned about one’s conduct that abstinence becomes the considered choice for better life makes sense. To eliminate any possibility of violating the model of one’s life by living on the safest side of an issue must be seen as wise and effective, not necessarily legalistic. The point is that some permissive matters may be met with total refusal of them because of possible misuse. There is also another point in this type of context, and that is there may be different solutions to the same problem. God is practical with persons serious to find the good life. For some the practical matter is abstinence, for others it is moderation – disciplined life. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020