Hospitality

VIEW:35 DATA:01-04-2020

HOSPITALITY.—In the life of the East there are no more attractive features than those that centre in the practice of hospitality. The virtue of hospitality ranked high in the ancient Orient, and the laws regulating its observance hold undisputed sway in the desert still. The pleasing picture of the magnanimous sheik, bidding strangers welcome to his tent and to the best he owns (Gen_18:1-33), is often repeated to this hour in the Arabian wilderness. It was to Lot’s credit and advantage that he had preserved this virtue amid the corruptions of Sodom (Gen_19:2 ff.). To shirk an opportunity for its exercise was shameful (Jdg_19:15; Jdg_19:18). A man’s worth was illustrated by his princely hospitality (Job_31:31 f.). Jesus sent forth the Twelve (Mat_10:9 f.), and the Seventy (Luk_10:4 ff.), relying on the hospitality of the people. Its exercise secured His blessing; woe threatened such as refused it. The Samaritans’ churlish denial of hospitality to Jesus excited the wrath of His disciples (Luk_9:53). The guest had a right to expect certain attentions (Luk_7:44 ff.). The practice of hospitality distinguished those on the right from those on the left hand (Mat_25:35; cf. Mat_10:40, Joh_13:20). It is commended by precept (Rom_12:13; Rom_12:20, 1Ti_3:2 etc.), and also by example (Heb_13:2).
Hospitality was highly esteemed amongst other ancient peoples. In Egypt its practice was thought to favour the soul in the future life. By kindness to strangers the Greeks secured the approval of Zeus Xenios, their protector. For the Romans hospitality was a sacred obligation.
In its simplest aspect, hospitality is the reception of the wayfarer as an honoured guest, providing shelter and food. In the ancient, as indeed for the most part in the modern, Orient, men journey only under necessity. Travel for purposes of pleasure and education is practically unknown. Save in cities, therefore, and in trading centres along the great highways, there was little call for places of public entertainment. Villages probably always contained what is called the medâfeh—properly madyafah—a chamber reserved for guests, whose entertainment is a charge upon the whole community. From personal experience the present writer knows how solicitous the humblest villagers are for the comfort and well-being of their guests. If the chief man in a village be well off, he greatly adds to his prestige by a liberal display of hospitality.
In the desert, every tent, however poor its owner, offers welcome to the traveller. In the master’s absence the women receive the guests, and according to their means do the honours of the ‘house of hair.’ It is the master’s pride to be known as a generous man; any lack of civility or of kindness to a guest meets severe reprobation. In the guest’s presence he calls neither his tent, nor anything it contains, his own. During his sojourn the visitor is owner. The women bake bread; the master slays a ‘sacrifice,’ usually a lamb, kid, or sheep, which is forthwith dressed, cooked, and served with the bread. The proud son of the wilds has high ideas of his own dignity and honour; but he himself waits upon his guest, seeking to gratify with alacrity his every wish. If his visitors are of superior rank he stands by them (Gen_18:8), and in any case sits down only if they invite him. The safety and comfort of the guests are the first consideration; many place them before even the honour of wife and daughter (Gen_19:8, Jdg_19:24; cf. Lane, Mod. Egyp. 297). If a guest arrives after sunset he is entitled only to shelter, as the host might then be unable to prepare a meal creditable to himself. If food is offered, it is of the host’s goodwill (Luk_11:5 ff.). The guest, careful of the host’s honour, will indicate that more than he requires has been provided by leaving a portion in the dish.
The open hand, as the token of a liberal heart, wins the respect and esteem of the Arabs. Leadership does not of necessity descend from father to son. Right to the position must be vindicated by wisdom, courage, dignity, and not least by generous hospitality. For the niggard in this regard there is nothing but contempt. It is a coveted distinction to be known as a ‘coffee sheik,’ one who without stint supplies his visitors with the fragrant beverage.
The Arabs are sometimes charged with want of gratitude; justly, as it seems from our point of view. But what seems ingratitude to us may be due simply to the influence of immemorial custom, in a land where the necessities of life are never sold, but held as common good, of which the traveller may of right claim a share. The ‘right of a guest’ may be taken, if not freely offered. The man who refuses covers himself with perpetual shame. The guest enjoys only his right; therefore no thanks mingle with his farewell.
The right, however, is limited. ‘Whoever,’ says the Prophet, ‘believes in God and the day of resurrection must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and if after that he does it longer, he benefits him more: but it is not right for the guest to stay in the house of his host so long as to incommode him’ (Lane, Arabian Society in the Middle Ages, 143). After three days, or, some say, three days and four hours, the host may ask if he proposes to honour him by a longer stay. The guest may wish to reach some point under protection of the tribe. If so, he is welcome to stay; only, the host may give him work to do. To remain while refusing to do this is highly dishonourable. But the guest may go to another tent at the expiry of every third day, thus renewing his ‘right,’ and sojourn with the tribe as long as is necessary.
Hospitality involves protection as well as maintenance. ‘It is a principle alike in old and new Arabia that the guest is inviolable’ (W. R. Smith, Kinship2, 48). That this provision applies to enemies as well as to friends shows the magnanimity of the desert law. Every stranger met in the open is assumed to be an enemy: he will owe his safety either to his own prowess or to fear that his tribe will exact vengeance if he is injured. But the stranger who enters the tent is daif Ullah, the guest whom God has sent, to be well entreated for His sake. In an enemy’s country one’s perils are over when he reaches a tent, and touches even a tent peg. A father’s murderer may find sure asylum even in the tent of his victim’s son. When he has eaten of the host’s bread, the two are at once bound as brothers for mutual help and protection. It is said that ‘there is salt between them.’ Not that literal salt is required. This is a term covering milk, and indeed food of any kind. A draught of water taken by stealth, or even against his will, from a man’s dish, serves the purpose. When protection is secured from one, the whole tribe is bound by it (W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 76).
To understand this we must remember (1) that in Arabia all recognition of mutual rights and duties rests upon kinship. Those outside the kin may be dealt with according to each man’s inclination and ability. (2) Kinship is not exclusively a matter of birth. It may be acquired. When men eat and drink together, they renew their blood from the one source, and to that extent are partakers in the same blood. The stranger eating with a clansman becomes ‘kinsman’ to all the members of the clan, as regards ‘the fundamental rights and duties that turn on the sanctity of kindred blood’ (Wellhausen, Reste Arab. [Note: Arabic.] Heid. 119f.; W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 273 n. [Note: . note.] ). This sanctity may be traced to the ancient belief that the clan god shared its life, and when an animal was slain for food took part in the common meal. The clan’s friends were therefore the god’s friends, whom to injure was to outrage the deity. That the slaughter of the victim was a religions act involving the whole kin is borne out (a) by the fact that when an animal is slain all have an undisputed right to come to the feast; (b) by the name dhabîhah, ‘sacrifice,’ still applied to it. The present writer was once entertained in the camp of a rather wild and unkempt tribe. His attendants supped with the crowd. Fearing this might not be agreeable to a European, the chief’s son, who presided in his father’s absence, with innate Arab courtesy, asked him to cup with him in the sheik’s tent. Bringing in a portion of the flesh, the youth repeatedly remarked, as if for the stranger’s re-assurance, edh-dhabîhah wâhideh, ‘the slaughtering—sacrifice—is one’; i.e. the tribesmen and he ate from the same victim.
The bond thus formed was temporary, holding good for 36 hours after parting. By frequent renewal, however, it might become permanent. ‘There was a sworn alliance between the Lihyân and the Mostalic: they were wont to eat and drink together’ (RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 270 f.). A man may declare himself the dakhîl—from dakhala, ‘to enter,’ i.e. to claim protection—of a powerful man, and thus pass under shelter of his name even before his tent is reached. Whoever should injure him then would have to reckon with the man whose name he had invoked. The rights of sanctuary associated with temples, and until recently with certain churches, originated in an appeal to the hospitality of the local deity. The refugee’s safety depended on the respect paid to the god. Joab would have been safe had he not outlawed himself in this regard (1Ki_2:31 ff.). Jael’s dastard deed could be approved only in the heat of patriotic fanaticism (Jdg_4:17; Jdg_5:24).
In OT times it can hardly be said that inns in the later sense existed. The ordinary traveller was provided for by the laws of hospitality. The mâtôn of Gen_42:27 etc. was probably nothing more than a place where caravans were accustomed to halt and pass the night. A building of some kind may be intended by the ‘lodge of wayfaring men’ in the wilderness (Jer_9:2). For gçrûth (Jer_41:17) we should probably read gidrôth, ‘folds’ (cf. Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. X. ix. 5). Great changes were wrought by Greek and Roman influence, and there can be no doubt that in NT times, especially in the larger centres of population, inns were numerous and well appointed. The name pandocheion = Arab. [Note: Arabic.] funduq, shows that the inn was a foreign importation. Those on the highways would in some respects resemble the khâns of modern times, and the buildings that stood for centuries on the great lines of caravan traffic, before the sea became the highway of commerce. These were places of strength, as well as of entertainment for man and beast. Such was probably the inn of the Good Samaritan (Luk_10:34), identified with Khân Hadrûr, on the road to Jericho. The inns would be frequented by men of all nationalities and of all characters. Rabbinical references show that their reputation was not high. It was natural that Christians should, for their own safety, avoid the inn, and practise hospitality among themselves (1Pe_4:9 etc.).
In Luk_2:7 ‘inn’ (katatuma) probably means, as it does in Mar_14:14 and Luk_22:11, the guest-chamber in a private house. Such guest-chambers were open freely to Jews visiting Jerusalem at the great feasts (Aboth R. Nathan, cap. 34). It is reasonable to suppose that they would be equally open on an occasion like the registration, requiring the presence of such numbers. If Joseph and Mary, arriving late, found the hoped-for guest-chamber already occupied, they might have no resort but the khân, where, in the animal’s quarters, Jesus was born.
In modern Palestine hotels are found only at important places on the most popular routes of travel.
W. Ewing.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

The law as to strangers and the poor encouraged it (Lev_19:33-34; Lev_25:14-15; Lev_25:23, etc.; Deu_15:7). Exemplified in Abraham, Genesis 18; Lot, Genesis 19; Reuel, Exo_2:20; Manoah, Jdg_13:15; the old man of Gibeah (its inhospitality is instanced as a sign of how lost to all right feeling its people were), Jdg_19:17-21. The Lord Jesus illustrates it in the good Samaritan, promises to reward it, and regards its exercise toward His disciples as being towards Himself, and will count it as one proof of the love whose crowning joy shall be the invitation, "Come ye blessed of My Father," etc. (Luk_10:30-37; Mat_10:42; Mat_25:43). The apostles urge the duty (Rom_12:13; 1Ti_5:10; 1Ti_3:2; Tit_1:8; Heb_13:2; 1Pe_4:9).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Hospitality. Hospitality was regarded by most nations of the ancient world as one of the chief virtues. The Jewish laws respecting strangers, Lev_19:33-34, and the poor, Lev_23:14, seq. Deu_15:7, and concerning redemption, Lev_25:23, seq., etc. Are framed in accordance with the spirit of hospitality. In the law, compassion to strangers is constantly enforced by the words "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Lev_19:34. And before the law, Abraham's entertainment of the angels, Gen_18:1, seq., and Lot's, Gen_19:1, are in exact agreement with its precepts, and with modern usage. Compare Exo_2:20; Jdg_13:15; Jdg_19:17; Jdg_19:20-21.
In the New Testament, hospitality is yet more markedly enjoined; and in the more civilized state of society which then prevailed, its exercise became more a social virtue than a necessity of patriarchal life. The good Samaritan stands for all ages as an example of Christian hospitality. The neglect of Christ is symbolized by inhospitality to our neighbors. Mat_25:43. The apostles urged the Church to "follow after hospitality," Rom_12:13, compare 1Ti_5:10, to remember Abraham's example, Heb_13:2, to "use hospitality one to another without grudging," 1Pe_4:9, while a bishop must be a "lover of hospitality. Tit_1:8; compare 1Ti_3:2.
The practice of the early Christians was in accord with these precepts. They held all things in common, and their hospitality was a characteristic of their belief. In the patriarchal ages, we may take Abraham's example as the most fitting, as we have of it the fullest account. "The account," says Mr. Lane, "of Abraham's entertaining the three angels related in the Bible, presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment." The Oriental respect for the covenant of bread and salt, or salt alone, certainly sprang from the high regard in which hospitality was held.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

Instances of ancient hospitality occur frequently in the Old Testament. So in the case of Abraham, Genesis xviii, where he invites the angels who appeared in the form of men to rest and refreshment, “And he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” “Nothing is more common in India,” says Mr. Ward, “than to see travellers and guests eating under the shade of trees. Even feasts are never held in houses. The house of a Hindoo serves for the purposes of sleeping and cooking, and of shutting up the women; but is never considered as a sitting or a dining room.” “On my return to the boat,” says Belzony, “I found the aga and all his retinue seated on a mat, under a cluster of palm trees, close to the water. The sun was then setting, and the shades of the western mountains had reached across the Nile, and covered the town. It is at this time the people recreate themselves in various scattered groups, drinking coffee, smoking their pipes, and talking of camels, horses, asses, dhourra, caravans, or boats.” “The aga having prepared a dinner for me,” says Mr. Light, “invited several of the natives to sit down. Water was brought in a skin by an attendant, to wash our hands. Two fowls roasted were served up on wheaten cakes, in a wooden bowl, covered with a small mat, and a number of the same cakes in another: in the centre of these were liquid butter, and preserved dates. These were divided, broken up, and mixed together by some of the party, while others pulled the fowls to pieces: which done, the party began to eat as fast as they could: getting up, one after the other, as soon as their hunger was satisfied.” “Hospitality to travellers,” says Mr. Forbes, “prevails throughout Guzerat: a person of any consideration passing through the province is presented, at the entrance of a village, with fruit, milk, butter, fire wood, and earthen pots for cookery; the women and children offer him wreaths of flowers. Small bowers are constructed on convenient spots, at a distance from a well or lake, where a person is maintained by the nearest villages, to take care of the water jars, and supply all travellers gratis. There are particular villages, where the inhabitants compel all travellers to accept of one day's provisions: whether they be many or few, rich or poor, European or native, they must not refuse the offered bounty.”
“So when angelic forms to Syria sent
Sat in the cedar shade, by Abraham's tent, A spacious bowl th' admiring patriarch fills
With dulcet water from the scanty rills;
Sweet fruits and kernels gathers from his hoard, With milk and butter piles the plenteous board; While on the heated hearth his consort bakes Fine flour well kneaded in unleavened cakes,
The guests ethereal quaff the lucid flood, Smile on their hosts, and taste terrestrial food;
And while from seraph lips sweet converse spring, They lave their feet, and close their silver wings. DARWIN.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

Most people in Bible times recognized that they had a responsibility to practise hospitality. The custom was to welcome both friends and strangers and to give them food, water and other provisions to make them comfortable (Gen_18:1-8; Gen_24:32; Exo_2:20; Deu_10:18-19; Deu_23:4; Jdg_13:15; Jdg_19:16-21; 2Ki_4:8; Job_31:32; Luk_7:44-45; Act_9:43; Act_16:15). A mark of special honour was to wash the guest’s feet or to anoint the head with oil (Psa_23:5; Luk_7:37-38; Luk_7:44-46). Hosts were responsible to protect all those who stayed with them (Gen_19:1-11; Jdg_19:22-23).
God’s people must be ready always to practise hospitality to those in need, whether close friends or people they have never seen before. And they must do so without expecting anything in return. Those who fail in this matter are in danger of God’s chastisement (Isa_58:7; Mat_25:31-46; Luk_14:12-14; Rom_12:13; Gal_6:10; Heb_13:2; 1Pe_4:9). Church leaders in particular should be an example to the rest of the church by their hospitality (1Ti_3:2; 3Jn_1:5-6). If Christians have not practised generous hospitality to others, they are in no position to call upon the church for financial support when they themselves are in need (1Ti_5:9-10).
Christians have a special duty to give hospitality to travelling preachers and teachers of God’s Word (Rom_16:23; 1Co_9:4-5; Tit_3:13-14; Philem 22; 3Jn_1:5-8). They should give no hospitality at all to those who are false teachers (2Jn_1:9-11).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

The practice of receiving strangers into one's house and giving them suitable entertainment, may be traced back to the early origin of human society. It is not, however, confined to any age or to any country, but has been observed in all parts of the globe wherever circumstances have been such as to render it desirable?thus affording one among many instances of the readiness with which human nature, in its moral as well as in its physical properties, adapts itself to every varying condition. Hospitality is therefore not a peculiarly Oriental virtue. It was practiced, as it still is, among the least cultivated nations. It was not less observed, in the early periods of their history, among the Greeks and Romans. With the Greeks, hospitality was under the immediate protection of religion. Jupiter bore a name signifying that its rights were under his guardianship. In the Odyssey we are told expressly that all guests and poor people are special objects of care to the gods. There were both in Greece and Italy two kinds of hospitality, the one private, the other public. The first existed between individuals, the second was cultivated by one state towards another. Hence arose a new kind of social relation: between those who had exercised and partaken of the rites of hospitality an intimate friendship ensued?a species of freemasonry, which was called into play wherever the individuals might afterwards chance to meet, and the right, duties, and advantages of which passed from father to son, and were deservedly held in the highest estimation.
But though not peculiarly Oriental, hospitality has nowhere been more early or more fully practiced than in the East. It is still honorably observed among the Arabs, especially at the present day. An Arab, on arriving at a village, dismounts at the house of someone who is known to him, saying to the master, 'I am your guest.' On this the host receives the traveler, and performs his duties, that is, he sets before his guest his supper, consisting of bread, milk, and bulgur, and, if he is rich and generous, he also takes the necessary care of his horse or beast of burden. Should the traveler be unacquainted with any person, he alights at any house, as it may happen, fastens his horse to the same, and proceeds to smoke his pipe until the master bids him welcome, and offers him his evening meal. In the morning the traveler pursues his journey, making no other return than 'God be with you' (good bye).
We find hospitality practiced and held in the highest estimation at the earliest periods in which the Bible speaks of human society (Gen_18:3; Gen_19:2; Gen_24:25; Exo_2:20; Jdg_19:16). Express provision for its exercise is made in the Mosaic law (Lev_19:33; Deu_14:29). In the New Testament also its observance is enjoined, though in the period to which its books refer the nature and extent of hospitality would be changed with the change that society had undergone (1Pe_4:9; 1Ti_3:2; Tit_1:8; 1Ti_5:10; Rom_12:13; Heb_13:2). The disposition which generally prevailed in favor of the practice was enhanced by the fear lest those who neglected its rites should, after the example of impious men, be subjected by the divine wrath to frightful punishments. Even the Jews, in 'the latter days,' laid very great stress on the obligation: the rewards of Paradise, their doctors declared, were his who spontaneously exercised hospitality.
The guest, whoever he might be, was on his appearing invited into the house or tent (Gen_19:2; Exo_2:20; Jdg_13:15; Jdg_19:21). Courtesy dictated that no improper questions should be put to him, and some days elapsed before the name of the stranger was asked, or what object he had in view in his journey (Gen_24:33). As soon as he arrived he was furnished with water to wash his feet (Gen_18:4; Gen_19:2; 1Ti_5:10); received a supply of needful food for himself and beast (Gen_18:5; Gen_19:3; Gen_24:25; Exo_2:20; Jdg_19:20); and enjoyed courtesy and protection from his host (Gen_19:5; Jos_2:2; Jdg_19:23). The case of Sisera, decoyed and slain by Jael (Jdg_4:18, sq.), was a gross infraction of the rights and duties of hospitality. On his departure the traveler was not allowed to go alone or empty-handed (Jdg_19:5). As the free practice of hospitality was held right and honorable, so the neglect of it was considered discreditable (Job_31:32; Odyss. xiv. 56); and any interference with the comfort and protection which the host afforded, was treated as a wicked outrage (Gen_19:4 sq.). Though the practice of hospitality was general, and its rites rarely violated, yet national or local enmities did not fail sometimes to interfere; and accordingly travelers avoided those places in which they had reason to expect an unfriendly reception. So in Jdg_19:12, the 'certain Levite' spoken of said, 'We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel.' The quarrel which arose between the Jews and Samaritans after the Babylonish captivity destroyed the relations of hospitality between them. Regarding each other as heretics, they sacrificed every better feeling. It was only in the greatest extremity that the Jews would partake of Samaritan food, and they were accustomed, in consequence of their religious and political hatred, to avoid passing through Samaria in journeying from one extremity of the land to the other. The animosity of the Samaritans towards the Jews appears to have been somewhat less bitter; but they showed an adverse feeling towards those persons who, in going up to the annual feast at Jerusalem, had to pass through their country (Luk_9:53). At the great national festivals hospitality was liberally practiced so long as the state retained its identity. On these festive occasions no inhabitant of Jerusalem considered his house his own; every home swarmed with strangers; yet this unbounded hospitality could not find accommodation in the houses for all who stood in need of it, and a large proportion of visitors had to be content with such shelter as tents could afford.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Hospitality
(φιλοξενία). The practice of receiving strangers into one's house and giving them suitable entertainment may be traced back to the early origin of human society. It was practiced, as it still is, among the least cultivated nations (Diod. Sic. 5:28, 34; Caesar, Bell. Gall. 6, 23; Tacit. Germ. 21). It was not less observed, in the early periods of their history, among the (greeks and Romans. With the Greeks, hospitality (ξενια) was under the immediate protection of religion. Jupiter bore a name (ξένιος) signifying that its rights were under his guardianship. In the Odyssey (6, 206) we are told expressly that all guests and poor people are special objects of care to the gods. There were, both in Greece and Italy, two kinds of hospitality, the one private, the other public (see Smith's Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Hospitium). The first existed between individual, the second was cultivated by one state towards another. Hence arose a new kind of social relation: between those who had exercised and partaken of the rites of hospitality an intimate friendship ensued, which was called into play whenever the individuals might afterwards chance to meet, and the right, duties, and advantages of which passed from father to son, and were deservedly held in the highest estimation (Potter's. Greek Antiquities, 2, 722 sq.).
But, though not peculiarly Oriental, hospitality has nowhere been earlier or more fully practiced than in the East. It is still honorably observed among the Arabs, especially at the present day. (See Niebuhr, Arabia, p. 46; Burckhardt, 1, 331, 459; 2:651, 739; Jaubert, Trav. p. 43; Russel's Aleppo, 1, 328; Buckingham's Mesopot. p. 23; Robinson's Researches, 2, 331, 335, 603; Prokesch, Ermin. 2:245; Harmer, 2, 114; Schultens, Excerpt. p. 408, 424, 454, 462; Layard's Nineveh, 2nd ser. p. 317 sq.; Hackett's Ill. of Script. p. 64 sq.) An Arab, on arriving at a village, dismounts at the house of some one who is known to him, saying to the master, “I am your guest.” On this the host receives the traveler, and performs his duties, that is, he sets before his guest his supper, consisting of bread, milk, and borgul, and if he is rich and generous, he also takes the necessary care of his horse or beast of burden. Should the traveler be unacquainted with any person, he alights at any house, as it may happen, fastens his horse to the same, and proceeds to smoke his pipe until the master bids him welcome, and offers him his evening meal. In the morning the traveler pursues his journey, making no other return than “God be with you” (good-by) (Niebuhr, Reis. 2:431,462; D'Arvieux, 3:152; Burckhardt 1, 69; Rosenmüller, Morgenl. 6, 82, 257). The early existence and long continuance of this amiable practice in Oriental countries are owing to the fact of their presenting that condition of things which necessitates and calls forth hospitality. When population is thinly scattered over a great extent of country, and traveling is comparatively infrequent, inns or places of public accommodation are not found; yet the traveler needs shelter, perhaps succor and support. Pity prompts the dweller in a house or tent to open his door to the tired wayfarer, the rather because its master has had, and is likely again to have, need of similar kindness. The duty has its immediate pleasures and advantages, for the traveler comes full of news-false, true, wonderful; and it is by no means onerous, since visits from wayfarers are not very frequent, nor are the needful hospitalities costly. In later periods, when population had greatly increased, the establishment of inns (caravanserais) diminished, but did by no means abolish the practice (Josephus, Ant. 5:1, 2; Luk_10:34).
Accordingly, we find hospitality practiced and held in the highest estimation at the earliest periods in which the Bible speaks of human society (Gen_18:3; Gen_19:2; Gen_24:25; Exo_2:20; Jdg_19:16). Express provision for its exercise is made in the Mosaic law. (Lev_19:33; Dent. 14:29). In the New Testament also its observance is enjoined, though in the period to which its books refer the nature and extent of hospitality would be changed with the change that society had undergone (1Pe_4:9; 1Ti_3:2; Titus 1, 8; 1Ti_5:10; Rom_12:13; Heb_13:2). The reason assigned in this last passage (see Pfaff, Diss. de Hospitalitate, ad loc., Tübing. 1752), “for thereby some have entertained angels unawares,” is illustrated in the instances of Abraham and Lot (Gen_18:1-16; Gen_19:1-3); nor is it without a parallel in classical literature; for the religious feeling which in Greece was connected with the exercise of hospitality was strengthened by the belief that the traveler might be some god in disguise (Homer, Odyss. 17, 484). The disposition which generally prevailed in favor of the practice was enhanced by the fear lest those who neglected its rites should, after the example of impious men, be subjected by the divine wrath to frightful punishments (Lelian, Animalia, 11, 19). Even the Jews, in “the latter days,” laid very great stress on the obligation: the rewards of Paradise, their doctors declared, were his who spontaneously exercised hospitality (Schöttgen, Hor. Heb. 1, 220; Kype, Observ. Sacr. 1, 129).
The guest, whoever he might be, was, on his appearing, invited into the house or tent (Gen_19:2; Exo_2:20; Jdg_13:15; Jdg_19:21). Courtesy dictated that no improper questions should be put to him, and some days elapsed before the name of the stranger was asked, or what object he had in view in his journey (Gen_24:33; Odyss. 1, 123; 3, 69; Iliad, 6, 175; 9, 222; Diod. Sic. 5, 28). As soon as he arrived he was furnished with water to wash his feet (Gen_18:4; Gen_19:2; 1Ti_5:10; Odyss. 4, 49; 17, 88; 6, 215); received a supply of needful food for himself and his beast (Gen_18:5; Gen_19:3; Gen_24:25; Exo_2:20; Jdg_19:20; Odyss. 3, 464), and enjoyed courtesy and protection from his host (Gen_19:5; Jos_2:2; Jdg_19:23). SEE SALT, COVENANT OF.
The case of Sisera, decoyed and slain by Jael (Jdg_4:18 sq.), was a gross infraction of the rights and duties of hospitality. On his departure the traveler was not allowed to go alone or empty-handed (Jdg_19:5; Waginseil, ad Sot. p. 1020, 1030; Zorn, ad Hecat. Abder. 22; Iliad, 6, 217). This courtesy to guests even in some Arab tribes goes the length (comp. Gen_21:8; Jdg_19:24) of sacrificing the chastity of the females of the family for their gratification (Lane, Modern Eg. 1, 443; Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins, 1, 179). As the free practice of hospitality was held right and honorable, so the neglect of it was considered discreditable (Job_31:32; Odyss. 14, 56); and any interference with the comfort and protection which the host afforded was treated as a wicked outrage (Gen_19:4 sq.). Though the practice of hospitality was general, and its rites rarely violated, yet national or local enmities did not fail sometimes to interfere; and accordingly travelers avoided those places in which they had reason to expect an unfriendly reception (compare Jdg_19:12). The quarrel which arose between the Jews and Samaritans after the Babylonian captivity destroyed the relations of hospitality between them.
Regarding each other as heretics, they sacrificed every better feeling (see Joh_4:9). It was only in the greatest extremity that the Jews would partake of Samaritan food (Lightfoot, p. 993); and they were accustomed, in consequence of their religious and political hatred, to avoid passing through Samaria in journeying from one extremity of the land to the other. The animosity of the Samaritans towards the Jews appears to have been somewhat less bitter; but they showed an adverse feeling towards those persons who, in going up to the annual feast at Jerusalem, had to pass through their country (Luk_9:53). At the great national festivals, hospitality was liberally practiced as long as the state retained its identity. On these festive occasions no inhabitant of Jerusalem considered his house his own; every home swarmed with strangers; yet this unbounded hospitality could not find accommodation in the houses for all who stood in need of it, and a large proportion of visitors had to be content with such shelter as tents could afford (Helon, Pilgrim. 1, 228 sq.). The primitive Christians considered one principal part of their duty to consist in showing hospitality to strangers (1Pe_4:9; 1Ti_3:2;. Tit_1:8; compare Acts 2:44; 6:32, 35). They were, in fact, so ready in discharging this duty that the very heathen admired them for it. They were hospitable to all strangers, but especially to those of the household of faith (see Ambrose, De Abrahamo, 5; De Offic. 2, 21; 3:7; Augustine, Epist. 38, n. 2; Tertullian, Apologet. 39). Even Lucian praises them in this respect (De morte peregrin. 2, p. 766). Believers scarcely ever traveled without letters of communion, which testified the purity of their faith, and procured for them a favorable reception wherever the name of Jesus Christ was known. Calmet is of opinion that the two minor epistles of John may be such letters of communion and recommendation. (On the general subject, see Unger, De ξενοδοκί5 ejusque ritu untiquo, in his Annal. de Cingulis, p. 311 sq.; Stuck, Antiq. Conviv. 1, 27; De Wette, Lehrbuch der Archäologie; Scholz, Handb. der Bibl. Archäologie; Deyling, Observ. 1, 118 sq.; Jahn, Archäologie, I, 2:227 sq.; Küster, Erläuterung, § 202 sq.; Laurent, in Gronov. Thesaurus, 9, 194 sq.; Otho, Lex. Rabb. 283.) SEE CARAVAN; SEE ENTERTAINMENT; SEE GUEST.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores