Yes, 1 the descendants of Jonadab son of Rechab have carried out the orders that their ancestor gave them. But you people 2 have not obeyed me!
The descendants of Jonadab son of Recab have carried out the command their forefather gave them, but these people have not obeyed me.’
‘Indeed, the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have observed the command of their father which he commanded them, but this people has not listened to Me.’"’
The families of Recab have obeyed their ancestor completely, but you have refused to listen to me.’
The descendants of Jonadab son of Recab carried out to the letter what their ancestor commanded them, but this people ignores me.'
Though the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have done the orders of their father which he gave them, this people has not given ear to me:
The descendants of Jonadab son of Rechab have carried out the command that their ancestor gave them, but this people has not obeyed me.
"Surely the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them, but this people has not obeyed Me."’
Because the sons
of their father
which he commanded
them; but this people
hath not hearkened
|NET © [draft] ITL|
, the descendants
have carried out the orders
. But you people
|NET © Notes||
1 tn This is an attempt to represent the particle כִּי (ki) which is probably not really intensive here (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e) but is one of those causal uses of כִּי that BDB discusses on 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c where the cause is really the failure of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to listen/obey. I.e., the causal particle is at the beginning of the sentence so as not to interrupt the contrast drawn.
2 tn Heb “this people.” However, the speech is addressed to the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem, so the second person is retained in English. In addition to the stylistic difference that Hebrew exhibits in the rapid shift between persons (second to third and third to second, which have repeatedly been noted and documented from GKC 462 §144.p) there may be a subtle rhetorical reason for the shift here. The shift from direct address to indirect address which characterizes this verse and the next may reflect the