Hospitality
HOSPITALITY
Is regarded by all oriental nations as one of the highest virtues. The following notices by modern travellers serve to illustrate very striking many passages of Scripture. Thus De la Roque says, “We did not arrive at the foot of the mountain till after sunset, and it was almost night when we entered the plain; but as it was full of villages, mostly inhabited by Maronites, we entered into the first we came to, to pass the night there. It was the priest of the place who wished to receive us; he gave us a supper under the trees before his little dwelling. As we were at the table, there came by a stranger, wearing a whit turban, who after have saluted the company, sat himself down to the table without ceremony, ate with us during some time, and then went away, repeating several times the name of God. They told us it was some traveller who no doubt stood in need of refreshment, and who had profited by the opportunity, according to the custom of the East, which is to exercise hospitality at all times and towards all persons.” This reminds us of the guests of Abraham, Gen 18:1-33, of the conduct of Job, Job 31:17, and of the frankness with which the apostles of Christ were to enter into a man’s house after a salutation, and there to continue “eating and drinking such things as were set before them,” Luk 10:7 . The universal prevalence of such customs, and of the spirit of hospitality, may help to explain the indignation of James and John against certain rude Samaritans, Luk 9:52-56, and also the stern retribution exacted for the crime of the men of Gibeah, Jdg 19:1 ; 20:48.Says Niebuhr, “the hospitality of the Arabs has always been the subject of praise; and I believe that those of the present day exercise this virtue no less than their ancestors did. When the Arabs are at table, they invite those who happen to come, to eat with them, whether they are Christians or Mohammedas, gentle or simple. In the caravans, I have often seen with pleasure a mule-driver press those who passed to partake of his repast; and though the majority politely excused themselves, he gave, with an air of satisfaction, to those who would accept of it, a portion of his little meal of bread and dates; and I was not a little surprised when I saw, in Turkey, rich Turks withdraw themselves into corners, to avoid inviting those who might otherwise have sat at table with them.”We ought to notice here also the obligations understood to be contracted by the intercourse of the table. Niebuhr says, “When a Bedaween sheik eats bread with strangers, they may trust his fidelity and depend on his protection. A traveller will always do well therefore to take an early opportunity of securing the friendship of his guide by a meal.” This brings to recollection the complaint of the psalmist, Psa 41:9, penetrated with the deep ingratitude of one whom he describes as having been his own familiar friend, in whom he trusted, “who did eat of my bread, even he hath lifted up his heel against me.”Beautiful pictures of primitive hospitality may be found in Gen 18:1-19 :38 Ex 2:20 Jdg 13:15 19:1-9. The incidents of the first two narratives may have suggested the legends of the Greeks and Romans, which represent their gods as sometimes coming to them disguised as travellers, in order to test their hospitality, etc., Heb 13:2 .The primitive Christians considered one principal part of their duty to consist in showing hospitality to strangers, 1Ch 12:13 1Ti 5:10 ; remembering that our Savior had said, whoever received those belonging to him, received himself; and that whatever was given to such a one, though but a cup of cold water, should not lose it reward, Mat 10:40-42 25:34-45. 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. Believers scarcely ever traveled without letters of communion, which testified the purity of their faith, and procured them a favorable reception wherever the name of Jesus Christ was known. Indeed, some supposed that the two minor epistles of John may be such letters of communion and recommendation.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Hospitality
(, lit. [Note: literally, literature.] love of strangers)
Hospitality, by which is meant the reception and entertainment of travellers, is and always has been regarded as one of the chief virtues in the East; it is therefore not surprising to find comparatively frequent references to the duty of its strict observance throughout the pages of the NT (Luk 7:44 ff., Rom 12:13; Rom 12:20, 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 5:10, Tit 1:8, Heb 13:2, 1Pe 4:9, 3Jn 1:5 ff.). The customs of hospitality were clearly recognized as binding in the time of Christ (Luk 7:44 ff.), and hospitality was regarded as the proof of righteousness, and the natural test of a mans character in the final judgment (Mat 25:35). The conditions of the time made hospitality practically a necessity for travellers, while it was vital to the very existence of the early Christian Church. The ordinary ties of friendship as well as kinship had in many cases been severed, and Christians regarded themselves and were regarded by the outside world as aliens, bound together as the members of one family. The coherence of that family required that, whenever a Christian migrated from one place to another, he should be received as a welcome guest by the Christians residing there (cf. Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 [International Critical Commentary , 1902], 363) and, indeed, without such hospitality missionary work would have been out of the question (cf. Act 10:6; Act 21:18, Rom 16:23). We accordingly find it commended and enjoined as a duty incumbent on the various Christian communities in the letters of the apostles, as well as in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. Clement* [Note: ad Cor. i. 17.] ). Thus St. Paul, in writing to the Romans, urges them to communicate to the necessities of the saints, and to be given to hospitality. The duty of entertaining the ordinary wayfarer was not indeed ignored. Thus in Heb 13:2 the faithful are enjoined not to forget to show love unto strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares, while later on, the heathen writer Lucian [Note: de Morte Peregrini, 16.] ridicules the liberality shown by Christians towards strangers. Discrimination must, however, be exercised, and no hospitality is to be accorded to those who come as the heralds of another gospel-receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed: for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2Jn 1:10 f.).
But the Christian, though under an obligation to strangers in general, was obviously under a greater obligation to his fellow-Christian. The distinction between these two obligations is recognized in 1Ti 5:10, where the writer, in his enumeration of the various virtues which qualify women to be enrolled as widows, says, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the saints feet, i.e. accorded especial hospitality to Christians as opposed to strangers. The washing of a guests feet by his host was a mark of honour to the guest and of deep humility on the part of the host (cf. 1Sa 25:41); hence the significance of our Lords rebuke to Simon the Pharisee (Luk 7:44), and of His own action at the Last Supper (Joh 13:4 ff.). Again, kissing was and is another act of courtesy usually accorded to strangers of distinction, but significantly denied to our Lord by His Pharisaical host (Luk 7:45). In Palestine to-day the natives may be seen kissing the mouth, the beard, and even the clothes of their honoured guests (cf. Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible, i. 143). They refuse all remuneration for their services, but, after three days, the host may ask his guest whether he intends to prolong his stay, and, if so, the host may provide him with work. For three days the hospitality accorded is regarded strictly as a right to which the guest is absolutely entitled, and the guest can, of course, on the expiration of three days, take up his abode in another tent in the same place, and thus renew his right. During his sojourn, the person of the guest is inviolable, and this is the case even if he be the sworn enemy of the man of whose hospitality he is partaking. The Oriental view of the binding nature of this virtue is well expressed in the two local proverbs-every stranger is an invited guest, and the guest while in the house is its lord.
Literature.-B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1889, p. 429; E. C. Wickham, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1910, p. 123; C. J. Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul3, 1864, pp. 73f., 185; Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 (International Critical Commentary , 1902), 363; Speakers Commentary: Romans to Philemon, 1881, p. 786; C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentary , 1901), 173; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, pp. 288, 368; W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, new. ed., 1910; J. C. Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible, 1887, i. 143, 306, 443; H. C. Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Social Life, 1894, pp. 73-142; A. Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 1908; G. Robinson Lees, Village Life in Palestine, new ed., 1905; Smiths Dict. of the Bible , ed. Fuller, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 1401-03; Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible 365-67; Dict. of Christ and the Gospels i. 751.
P. S. P. Handcock.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
HOSPITALITY
Kindness exercised in the entertainment of strangers. This virtue, we find, is explicitly commanded by, and makes a part of the morality of the New Testament. Indeed, that religion which breathes nothing but charity, and whose tendency is to expand the heart, and call forth the benevolent exertions of mankind, must evidently embrace this practice.
If it be asked, of whom is this required? it is answered, that the principle is required of all, though the duty itself can only be practised by those whose circumstances will admit of it. Dr. Stennet, in his discourse on this subject (Domestic Duties, ser. 10, ) justly observes, “that hospitality is a species of charity to which every one is not competent. But the temper from which it proceeds, I mean a humane, generous, benevolent temper, that ought to prevail in every breast. Some are miserably poor, and it is not to be expected that their doors should be thrown open to entertain strangers; yet the cottage of a peasant may exhibit noble specimens of hospitality. Here distress has often met with pity, and the persecuted an asylum. Nor is there a man who has a house to sleep in, but may be benevolent to strangers.
But there are persons of certain characters and stations, who are more especially obliged to it: as particularly magistrates and others in civil offices, who would forfeit the esteem of the public, and greatly injure their usefulness, were they not to observe the rites of hospitality. Ministers also, and such Christians as are qualified by their particular offices in the church, and their affluent circumstances, may be eminently useful in this way. The two grand virtues which ought to be studied by every one, in order that he may have it in his power to be hospitable, are, industry and economy. But it may be asked again, to whom is this duty to be practised? The answer is, to strangers: but here it is necessary to observe, that the term strangers hath two acceptations. It is to be understood of travellers, or persons who come from a distance, and with whom we have little or no acquaintance; and more generally of all who are not of our house strangers, as opposed to domestics.
Hospitality is especially to be practised to the poor: they who have no houses of their own, or possess few of the conveniences of life, should occasionally be invited to our houses, and refreshed at our tables, Luk 14:1-35. Hospitality also may be practised to those who are of the same character and of the same community with ourselves. As to the various offices of hospitality, and the manner in which they should be rendered, it must be observed, that the entertainments should be plentiful, frugal, and cordial. Gen 18:6; Gen 18:8. Joh 12:3. Luk 15:17. The obligations to this duty arise from the fitness and reasonableness of it; it brings its own reward, Act 20:35. It is expressly commanded by God, Lev 25:35; Lev 25:38. Luk 15:19; Luk 14:13-14. Rom 12:1-21 : Heb 13:1-2. 1Pe 4:9. We have many striking examples of hospitality on divine record: Abraham, Gen 18:1; Gen 18:8. Lot, Gen 19:1; Gen 19:3. Job 31:17; Job 31:22. Shunamite, 2Ki 4:1-44. The hospitable man mentioned in Jdg 19:16; Jdg 19:21. David, 2Sa 6:19. Obadiah, 1Ki 18:1-46. Nehemiah, Neh 5:17-18. Martha, Luk 10:38. Mary, Mat 26:6; Mat 26:13. The primitive Christians, Act 2:45-46. Priscilla and Aquila, Act 18:26. Lydia, Act 16:15, &c. &c. Lastly, what should have a powerful effect on our minds, is the consideration of divine hospitality.
God is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. His sun shines and his rain fall on the evil as well as the good. His very enemies share of his bounty. He gives liberally to all men, and upbraids not; but especially we should remember the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus. Let us lay all these considerations together, and then ask ourselves whether we can find it in our hearts to be selfish, parsimonious, and inhospitable?”
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Hospitality
The Council of Trent in its twenty-fifth session, cap. viii, De Ref., enjoins “all who hold any ecclesiastical benefices, whether secular or regular, to accustom themselves, as far as their revenues will allow, to exercise with alacrity and kindness the office of hospitality, so frequently commended by the holy Fathers; being mindful that those who cherish hospitality receive Christ in the person of their guests”. This sums up the teaching and tradition of the Church with regard to hospitality. The onus of this duty falls especially on two classes of persons — upon bishops as being in the fullest sense the pastors (i. e. shepherds) of the people and as being primarily vested, according to the ancient canons, with the administration of the contributions of the faithful (see COLLECTIONS); and secondly upon religious, and in particular the monastic orders, as having made their renunciation of the goods of this world the better to perform the works of mercy towards others.
With regard to the hospitality of bishops, we may note that St. Gregory writing to St. Augustine in England and directing that the offerings of the faithful should be subjected to a fourfold division, assigns the first portion “to the bishop and his household on account of hospitality and entertainment”. It seems from this and other passages that in the earliest period bishops commonly maintained a sort of hospice. No doubt the functionaries known as bishops’ deacons had some connexion with this, and the original institution of canons regular may be regarded as a development of this bishop’s household, the canons sharing a common table which was provided and presided over by the bishop. In the “Didascalia Apostolorum” (ii, 3-4), a work of the second half of the third century, much stress is laid upon generous and hospitable instincts as desirable qualities in a bishop-elect. But the details of episcopal duty and practice will best be studied in the pages of Thomassin.
In the religious orders the duty of hospitality was insisted upon from the beginning both in East and West. Even among the communities of Nitria in Egypt, as we learn from Palladius (Lausiac Hist., cap. vii; ed. Butler, ii, 25), we find that a xenodocheion, or hospice, was wont to be erected for their visitors in these remote regions. There the traveller might remain for a week, but if his stay exceeded that limit he was supposed to return some sort of equivalent in the form of work. No doubt the duty of hospitality so strongly insisted upon both in the Old and New Testaments (e. g. Judges 19:20; Genesis 18:4; 19:7 sq., etc.; Matthew 10:40 sqq.; Romans 12:13, etc.) was felt to be specially incumbent on those who aspired to perfection, and the narratives of the early pilgrims to the Holy Land (for example that of Ætheria) reveal how widely it was practised throughout the East. For Western monachism, the most striking evidence is to be found in chap. liii of the Rule of St. Benedict: “Let all guests that come”, it directs, “be received like Christ Himself, for He will say ‘I was a stranger and ye took Me in.’ And let fitting honour be shown to all, especially such as are of the household of the faith and to wayfarers (peregrinis). When, therefore, a guest is announced, let him be met (occurratur ei) by the superior or the brethren, with all due charity. Let them first pray together, and thus associate with one another in peace . . . At the arrival or departure of all guests, let Christ, Who indeed is received in their persons, be adored in them by bowing the head or even prostrating on the ground . . . Let the abbot pour water on the hands of the guests, and himself as well as the whole community wash their feet . . . Let special care be taken in the reception of the poor and of wayfarers (peregrinorum) because in these Christ is more truly welcomed.” So important was the duty of hospitality that it was always to be considered in the construction of the monastery. “Let the kitchen for the abbot and guests be apart by itself, so that strangers (hospites), who are never wanting in a monastery, may not disturb the brethren by coming at unlooked for hours.” This primitive text has left its stamp upon all the subsequent developments of the monastic rule, from Benedict of Aniane downwards, while the prominence of the guest-house in all monastic buildings, beginning with the famous plan of St. Gall in the ninth century, attests indirectly how scrupulously this tradition was respected. (See Lenoir, “Architecture Monastique”, II, 396-402.)
It would be impossible to go into details here, but we may notice how this aspect of religious life was emphasized among the Cistercians, the most important of the Benedictine reforms. Giraldus Cambrensis, the enemy of the monks, admits that if their establishments had departed from primitive Cistercian simplicity, by great expenditure and extravagance, it was their generous hospitality which was to blame. The very arrangement of their houses seemed designed primarily for the entertainment of pilgrims and the poor. The lodging of both the abbot and the porter was near the main entrance, apart from the rest of the monks. The monastery gate being always kept shut, the porter lived near “that the guest on his first arriving might find someone to welcome him”. The “Liber Usuum” directs that the porter should open the door saying Deo gratias, and, after a Benedicite as a salutation, should ask the stranger who he is and what he requires. “If he wishes to be admitted, the porter kneels to him and bids him enter and sit down near the porter’s cell while he goes to fetch the abbot.” It was the abbot’s duty to dine with his guests rather than with his monks. The same traditions obtained in the older Benedictine and Cluniac houses; and at all periods a wonderful example has been set by the monasteries during times of famine, pestilence, etc. For the charity of the Cluniacs, e. g. in the great famine of 1029, see Sackur, “Die Cluniacenser”, II, 213-216. To this ideal the monks seem to have remained faithful to the last. In that remarkable record of monastic life at the Reformation period known as the “Rites of Durham” we find a glowing account of the splendour of their guest-house and of the hospitality they practised. The usual period during which hospitality was freely provided was two complete days; and some similar restriction upon the abuse of hospitality seems to have been prescribed by most of the orders, friars as well as monks. There were of course certain orders, e. g. the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, which were largely given up to works of charity and hospitality. But the duty of harbouring pilgrims was secondary to that of nursing the sick.
———————————–
The most useful general discussion of the subject will be found in certain chapters of THOMASSIN’S great work, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiœ Disciplina, which exists in French as well as in Latin. See also RATZINGER, Geschichte d. christ. Armenpflege (Freiburg im Br., 1884); UHLHORN, Die christ. Liebesthätigkeit d. alt. Kirche (Stuttgart, 1882); SCHIWIETZ, Das morgenländische Mönchtum (Mainz, 1904); GASQUET, Eng. Monastic Life (London, 1904); FOWLER, The Rites of Durham (London, 1902); STEPHINSKY in KRAUS, Realencyk., s. v. Wohlthätigkeit; DOLBERG, Die Liebesthätigkeit der Cistercienser in Beherbergen der Gäste in Studien und Mittheilungen (1895); SAUER in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlexikon, s. v. Gastfreundschaft; MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West; KENELM DIGBY, Mores Catholici, X, xii; I. GREGORY SMITH, Rise of Christian Monasticism (London, 1892), 173-80; and especially LALLEMAND, Histoire de La Charité (3 vols., Paris, 1902-6).
HERBERT THURSTON. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Hospitality
(). 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 () was under the immediate protection of religion. Jupiter bore a name () 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; Rosenmller, 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., Tbing. 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 (Schttgen, 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 5 ejusque ritu untiquo, in his Annal. de Cingulis, p. 311 sq.; Stuck, Antiq. Conviv. 1, 27; De Wette, Lehrbuch der Archologie; Scholz, Handb. der Bibl. Archologie; Deyling, Observ. 1, 118 sq.; Jahn, Archologie, I, 2:227 sq.; Kster, Erluterung, 202 sq.; Laurent, in Gronov. Thesaurus, 9, 194 sq.; Otho, Lex. Rabb. 283.) SEE CARAVAN; SEE ENTERTAINMENT; SEE GUEST.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Hospitality
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).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
HOSPITALITY
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 guests 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).
Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Hospitality
HOSPITALITY.This marked Oriental virtue prevailed in Palestine in Christs day. Our Lord assumes its exercise, rather than directly enjoins it. His Apostles, later, however, prescribed hospitality as a reflexion of the Christ spirit (Rom 12:13, 1Ti 3:2, Tit 1:8, Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:9), even towards an enemy (Rom 12:20). Because of the widespread prevalence of hospitality, inns (wh. see) were comparatively few; and even in khans or places of lodgment for strangers there were unfurnished rooms which were at the disposal of travellers, without cost. The innkeeper or host usually received remuneration for such extra service as the stranger might require, as in a case like that of the wounded man cared for at the Samaritans expense (Luk 10:35). Since Jesus Himself had not where to lay his head (Mat 8:20), He depended much upon the hospitality of the friendly disposed, as of Andrew and Peter at Capernaum (Mat 8:14), and of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus at Bethany (Joh 11:1-5); and frequently accepted the hospitality of house-holders (Mat 26:6, Luk 5:29; Luk 7:36 ff; Luk 19:5). On occasions of the great feasts at Jerusalem, guest-chambers were freely put at the disposal of visiting worshippers (Mar 14:14). When the Master sent out the Seventy, they were to take no purse, but to rely upon the hospitality of the people of the towns into which they might go (Luk 10:4 ff.); a blessing being left with the hospitable (Luk 10:6), while a woe is pronounced upon the inhospitable city (Luk 10:10-12). Christ said of His messengers that those who received them were in truth receiving Him (Joh 13:20). So incensed were two of His disciples at being refused entertainment in a Samaritan village, that they would have called down fire from heaven to destroy the people. But this spirit Jesus rebuked (Luk 9:52-56). The spirit of hospitality was manifested in giving not only lodging and food, but also water for the feet (Luk 7:44, cf. Joh 13:5); a servant usually unloosing and taking charge of the sandals (Luk 3:16). Sometimes a kiss characterized the hospitable reception (Luk 7:45).
The emphasis that Jesus laid upon the virtue of hospitality may be discovered in His description of the Last Judgment, in which the righteous are commended because I was a stranger and ye took me in (Mat 25:35). See also art. Inn.
Literature.Thomson, LB [Note: The Land and the Book.] , passim; Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life; Trumbull, Oriental Social Life; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , s.v.
E. B. Pollard.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Hospitality
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 Lots 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 mans 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 medfehproperly madyafaha 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 masters absence the women receive the guests, and according to their means do the honours of the house of hair. It is the masters pride to be known as a generous man; any lack of civility or of kindness to a guest meets severe reprobation. In the guests 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 hosts goodwill (Luk 11:5 ff.). The guest, careful of the hosts 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 enemys country ones perils are over when he reaches a tent, and touches even a tent peg. A fathers murderer may find sure asylum even in the tent of his victims son. When he has eaten of the hosts 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 mans 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 mans 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 clans friends were therefore the gods 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 dhabhah, 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 chiefs son, who presided in his fathers absence, with innate Arab courtesy, asked him to cup with him in the sheiks tent. Bringing in a portion of the flesh, the youth repeatedly remarked, as if for the strangers re-assurance, edh-dhabhah whideh, the slaughteringsacrificeis 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 Lihyn 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 dakhlfrom dakhala, to enter, i.e. to claim protectionof 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 refugees 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.). Jaels 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 mtn 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 grth (Jer 41:17) we should probably read gidrth, 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 khns 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 Khn Hadrr, 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 khn, where, in the animals quarters, Jesus was born.
In modern Palestine hotels are found only at important places on the most popular routes of travel.
W. Ewing.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Hospitality
The apostles strongly recommended this virtue to the church. “Use hospitality one to another without grudging,” saith Peter, (1Pe 4:9) And Paul begged the Hebrews,” (Heb 13:2) not to be forgetful”to entertain strangers, for thereby, he said, some had entertained angels unawares? alluding very probably, to the case of Abraham and Lot, as related Gen 18:3 and Gen 19:2. And Moses commanded the same gracious conduct, upon another account: “Love ye the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deu 10:19) But how infinitely higher are the motives enforced in the consideration, that Jesus, the heavenly stranger, came to visit us in our ruined state, and so journeyed among us as a wayfaring man for a little space, that we might dwell with him for ever! And how blessed also, on the other hand, is the consideration, that when this divine Samaritan, as a stranger, passed by, and saw our whole nature robbed and plundered by the great enemy of souls, he took us up, and brought us to the inn of his church and ordinances, and hath there commanded us to be well taken care of until his second coming, when he will recompense every minute act of kindness shewn us for his sake! Such views of Jesus enforce hospitality indeed, in the highest extent, and compel by a motive of the most persuasive nature. The “cup of cold water” given in the name and for the sake of a disciple, cannot be given unnoticed, neither pass unrewarded. Jesus hath already left it upon record, what he will say in that day when he cometh to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all that believe me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”And when the conscious sense of the littleness of services, and the unworthiness of the doer, shall make the souls of Christ’s people exclaim,”Lord, when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in; or naked, and clothed thee; or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? The Lord Jesus will graciously explain the seeming impossibility in manifesting, before a congregated world, the oneness between himself and his redeemed. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Mat 25:34-40)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Hospitality
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 desirablethus 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 ensueda 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.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Hospitality
This was a striking feature of oriental life, as seen practised by Abraham in Gen 18:2-8, and it continues in these days to a partial extent. It is enforced in the N.T. as a duty among Christians. Rom 12:13; 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; 1Pe 4:9. The fact is mentioned that by exercising hospitality “some have entertained angels unawares.” Heb 13:2.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Hospitality
General references
Exo 22:21; Exo 23:9; Lev 19:10; Lev 19:33-34; Lev 24:22; Deu 10:18-19; Deu 26:12-13; Deu 27:19; Pro 9:1-5; Pro 23:6-8; Isa 58:6-7; Mat 22:2-10; Mat 25:34-46; Luk 14:12-14; Rom 12:13; Rom 16:1-2; 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 5:10; Tit 1:7-8; Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:9-11; 3Jn 1:5-8 Guest; Strangers
Instances of:
– Pharaoh to Abraham
Gen 12:16
– Melchizedek to Abraham
Gen 14:18
– Abraham to the angels
Gen 18:1-8
– Lot to the angel
Gen 19:1-11
– Abimelech to Abraham
Gen 20:14-15
– Sons of Heth to Abraham
Gen 23:6; Gen 23:11
– Laban to Abraham’s servant
Gen 24:31
– Laban to Jacob
Gen 29:13-14
– Isaac to Abimelech
Gen 26:30
– Joseph to his brethren
Gen 43:31-34
– Pharaoh to Jacob
Gen 45:16-20; Gen 47:7-12
– Jethro to Moses
Exo 2:20
– Rahab to the spies
Jos 2:1-16
– Man of Gibeah to the Levite
Jdg 19:16-21
– Pharaoh to Hadad
1Ki 11:17; 1Ki 11:22
– David to Mephibosheth
2Sa 9:7-13
– The widow of Zarephath to Elijah
1Ki 17:10-24
– The Shunammite to Elisha
2Ki 4:8
– Elisha to the Syrian spies
2Ki 6:22
– Job to strangers
Job 31:32
– Martha to Jesus
Luk 10:38; Joh 12:1-2
– Pharisees to Jesus
Luk 11:37-38
– Zaccheus to Jesus
Luk 19:1-10
– The tanner to Peter
Act 10:6; Act 10:23
– Lydia to Paul and Silas
Act 16:15
– Publius to Paul
Act 28:2
– Phebe to Paul
Rom 16:2
– Onesiphorus to Paul
2Ti 1:16
– Of Gaius
3Jn 1:5-8
Rewarded, instances of:
– Rahab’s
Jos 6:17; Jos 6:22-25
– Widow of Zarephath’s
1Ki 17:10-24 Feasts; Strangers
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Hospitality
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.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Hospitality
“love of strangers” (philos, “loving,” xenos, “a stranger”), is used in Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2, lit. “(be not forgetful of) hospitality.” See ENTERTAIN, Note.
“hospitable,” occurs in 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; 1Pe 4:9.
Note: For xenodocheo, 1Ti 5:10, see STRANGER, B.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Hospitality
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.