Hospitality was regarded by most nations of the ancient world as one of the chief virtues. The Jewish laws respecting strangers (Leviticus 19:33,34) and the poor, (Leviticus 23:14) seq. Deuteronomy 15:7 And concerning redemption (Leviticus 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." (Leviticus 19:34) And before the law, Abraham's entertainment of the angels, (Genesis 18:1) seq., and Lot's, (Genesis 19:1) are in exact agreement with its precepts, and with modern usage. Comp. (Exodus 2:20; Judges 13:15; 19:17,20,21) 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. (Matthew 25:43) The apostles urged the Church to "follow after hospitality," (Romans 12:13) cf. 1Tim 5:10 To remember Abraham's example, (Hebrews 13:2) to "use hospitality one to another without grudging," (1 Peter 4:9) while a bishop must be a "lover of hospitality (Titus 1:8) cf. 1Tim 3:2 The practice of the early Christians was in accord with these precepts. They had 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.

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, Genesis 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," Luke 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, Luke 9:52-56, and also the stern retribution exacted for the crime of the men of Gibeah, Jud 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, Psalm 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 Genesis 18:1-19:38 Exodus 2:20 Jud 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., Hebrews 13:2.

The primitive Christians considered one principal part of their duty to consist in showing hospitality to strangers, Romans 12:13 1 Timothy 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, Matthew 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.

hos-pi-tal'-i-ti, host (philoxenia, "love of strangers," xenos, "guest," "friend"; pandocheus, "innkeeper"):

1. Among Nomads:

When the civilization of a people has advanced so far that some traveling has become necessary, but not yet so far that traveling by individuals is a usual thing, then hospitality is a virtue indispensable to the life of the people. This stage of culture was that represented in ancient Palestine and the stage whose customs are still preserved among the present-day Arabs of the desert. Hospitality is regarded as a right by the traveler, to whom it never occurs to thank his host as if for a favor. And hospitality is granted as a duty by the host, who himself may very soon be dependent on some one else's hospitality. But none the less, both in Old Testament times and today, the granting of that right is surrounded by an etiquette that has made Arabian hospitality so justly celebrated. The traveler is made the literal master of the house during his stay; his host will perform for him the most servile offices, and will not even sit in his presence without express request. To the use of the guest is given over all that his host possesses, stopping not even short of the honor of wife or daughter. " `Be we not all,' say the poor nomads, `guests of Ullah? Has God given unto them, God's guest shall partake with them thereof: if they will not for God render his own, it should not go well with them' " (Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, 228). The host is in duty bound to defend his guest against all comers and to lay aside any personal hatred-the murderer of father is safe as the guest of the son.

2. In the Old Testament:

An exquisite example of the etiquette of hospitality is found in Genesis 18:1-8. The very fact that the three strangers have passed by Abraham's door gives him the privilege of entertaining them. When he sees them approaching he runs to beg the honor of their turning in to him, with oriental courtesy depreciates the feast that he is about to lay before them as "a morsel of bread," and stands by them while they eat. Manoah (Judges 13:15) is equally pressing although more matter-of-fact, while Jethro (Exodus 2:20) sends out that the stranger may be brought in. And Job (31:32) repels the very thought that he could let the sojourner be unprovided for. The one case where a breach of hospitality receives praise is that of Jael (Judges 4-5), perhaps to be referred to degeneration of customs in the conflicts with the Canaanites or (perhaps more plausibly) to literary-critical considerations, according to which in Judges 5 Sisera is not represented as entering Jael's tent or possibly not as actually tasting the food, a state of affairs misunderstood in Judges 4, written under later circumstances of city life. (For contrasting opinions see "Jael" in Encyclopedia Biblica and HDB.)

3. The Table-Bond:

It is well to understand that to secure the right to hospitality it is not necessary, even in modern times, for the guest to eat with his host, still less to eat salt specifically. Indeed, guests arriving after sunset and departing the next morning do not, as a rule, eat at all in the tent of the host. It is sufficient to enter the tent, to grasp a tent-pin, or even, under certain circumstances, to invoke the name of a man as host. On the other hand, the bond of hospitality is certainly strengthened by eating with one's host, or the bond may actually be created by eating food belonging to him, even by stealth or in an act of theft. Here a quite different set of motives is at work. The idea here is that of kinship arising from participation in a common sacrificial meal, and the modern Arab still terms the animal killed for his guest the dhabichah or "sacrifice" (compare HDB, II, 428). This concept finds its rather materialistic expression in theory that after the processes of digestion are completed (a time estimated as two nights and the included day), the bond lapses if it is not renewed. There seem to be various references in the Bible to some such idea of a "table-bond" (Psalm 41:9, e.g.), but hardly in connection directly with hospitality. For a discussion of them see BREAD; GUEST; SACRIFICE.

4. In the City:

In the city, naturally, the exercise of hospitality was more restricted. Where travel was great, doubtless commercial provision for the travelers was made from a very early day (compare Luke 10:34 and see INN), and at all events free hospitality to all comers would have been unbearably abused. Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19) is the nomad who has preserved his old ideas, although settled in the city, and who thinks of the "shadow of his roof" (19:8) as his tent. The same is true of the old man in Gibeah of Judges 19:16. And the sin of Sodom and of Gibeah is not that wanderers cannot find hospitality so much as it is that they are unsafe in the streets at night. Both Lot and "the old man," however, are firm in their duty and willing to sacrifice their daughters for the safety of their guests. (Later ideas as to the position of woman should not be read back into these narratives.) However, when the city-dweller Rahab refuses to surrender her guests (Joshua 2), her reason is not the breach of hospitality involved but her fear of Yahweh (Joshua 2:9). When Abraham's old slave is in Nahor, and begs a night's lodging for himself and his camels, he accompanies the request with a substantial present, evidently conceived of as pay for the same (Genesis 24:22 f). Such also are the modern conditions; compare Benzinger-Socin in Baedeker's Palestine(3), xxxv, who observe that "inmates" of private houses "are aware that Franks always pay, and therefore receive them gladly." None the less, in New Testament times, if not earlier, and even at present, a room was set apart in each village for the use of strangers, whose expenses were borne by the entire community. Most interpreters consider that the kataluma of Luke 2:7 was a room of this sort, but this opinion cannot be regarded as quite certain. But many of the wealthier city-dwellers still strive to attain a reputation for hospitality, a zeal that naturally was found in the ancient world as well.

5. Christ and Hospitality:

Christ's directions to the apostles to "take nothing for their journey" (Mark 6:8, etc.) presupposes that they were sure of always finding hospitality. Indeed, it is assumed that they may even make their own choice of hosts (Matthew 10:11) and may stay as long as they choose (Luke 10:7). In this case, however, the claims of the travelers to hospitality are accentuated by the fact that they are bearers of good tidings for the people, and it is in view of this latter fact that hospitality to them becomes so great a virtue-the "cup of cold water" becomes so highly meritorious because it is given "in the name of a disciple" (Matthew 10:42; compare 10:41, and Mark 9:41). Rejection of hospitality to one of Christ's "least brethren" (almost certainly to be understood as disciples) is equivalent to the rejection of Christ Himself (Matthew 25:43; compare 25:35). It is not quite clear whether in Matthew 10:14 and parallels, simple refusal of hospitality is the sin in point or refusal to hear the message or both.

6. First Missionaries:

In the Dispersion, the Jew who was traveling seemed always to be sure of finding entertainment from the Jews resident in whatever city he might happen to be passing through. The importance of this fact for the spread of early Christianity is incalculable. To be sure, some of the first missionaries may have been men who were able to bear their own traveling expenses or who were merchants that taught the new religion when on business tours. In the case of soldiers or slaves their opportunity to carry the gospel into new fields came often through the movements of the army or of their masters. And it was by an "infiltration" of this sort, probably, rather than by any specific missionary effort that the church of Rome, at least, was rounded. SeeROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. But the ordinary missionary, whether apostle (in any sense of the word) or evangelist, would have been helpless if it had not been that he could count so confidently on the hospitality everywhere. From this fact comes one reason why Paul, for instance, could plan tours of such magnitude with such assurance: he knew that he would not have to face any problem of sustenance in a strange city (Romans 16:23).

7. In the Churches:

As the first Christian churches were founded, the exercise of hospitality took on a new aspect, especially after the breach with the Jews had begun. Not only did the traveling Christian look naturally to his brethren for hospitality, but the individual churches looked to the traveler for fostering the sense of the unity of the church throughout the world. Hospitality became a virtue indispensable to the well-being of the church-one reason for the emphasis laid on it (Romans 12:13; Romans 16:1 Hebrews 13:2). As the organization of the churches became more perfected, the exercise of hospitality grew to be an official duty of the ministry and a reputation for hospitality was a prerequisite in some cases (1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 5:10 Titus 1:8). The exercise of such hospitality must have become burdensome at times (1 Peter 4:9), and as false teachers began to appear in the church a new set of problems was created in discriminating among applicants for hospitality. 2 and 3 John reflect some of the difficulties. For the later history of hospitality in the church interesting matter will be found in the Didache, chapters xi, xii, Apology of Aristides, chapter xv, and Lucian's Death of Peregrinus, chapter xvi. The church certainly preferred to err by excess of the virtue.

An evaluation of the Biblical directions regarding hospitality for modern times is extremely difficult on account of the utterly changed conditions. Be it said at once, especially, that certain well-meant criticism of modern missionary methods, with their boards, organized finance, etc., on the basis of Christ's directions to the Twelve, is a woeful misapplication of Biblical teaching. The hospitality that an apostle could count on in his own day is something that the modern missionary simply cannot expect and something that it would be arrant folly for him to expect (Weinel, Die urchristliche und die heutige Mission, should be read by everyone desiring to compare modern missions with the apostolic). In general, the basis for hospitality has become so altered that the special virtue has become merged in the larger field of charitable enterprise of various sorts. The modern problem nearest related to the old virtue is the question of providing for the necessities of the indigent traveler, a distinctly minor problem, although a very real one, in the general field of social problems that the modern church has to study. In so far as the New Testament exhortations are based on missionary motives there has been again a merging into general appeals for missions, perhaps specialized occasionally as appeals for traveling expense. The "hospitality" of today, by which is meant the entertainment of friends or relatives, hardly comes within the Biblical use of the term as denoting a special virtue.

LITERATURE.

For hospitality in the church, Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, II, chapter iv (10).

Burton Scott Easton