Relationships, Family [I] Bible Dictionaries

Dictionaries :: Relationships, Family

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia

Relationships, Family:

re-la'-shun-ships:

I. CONSANGUINITY

1. In General

2. Parents and Children

3. Brothers and Sisters

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen

II. AFFINITY

1. Husband and Wife

2. Father-in-Law, etc.

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.

III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS

1. Foster-Father

2. Master and Servants

3. Host and Guest

4. The Dependent Stranger

The family or domestic relations of the Bible include

(1) those of consanguinity or blood relationship,

(2) affinity or marriage relationship, and

(3) legal convention.

Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of various degrees, including mere tribesmen and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and mother-in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and those of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement: among the former we must include those of foster-father or mother and foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews, those between host and guest, especially where they became covenant brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached himself to him for his protection.




I. Consanguinity.

1. In General:

Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only because they formed the basis of a man's title to his property (Nu 27:8-11; exceptional case, Nu 36:1-12), but also because on one's pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste. Descent was traced through the father; a man's closest association was therefore with his father's family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (Ge 25:19), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Nu 14:6). Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man's relation with his mother's family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry (Le 18:7,10). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (Jer 35:16).

2. Parents and Children:

The father ('abh; pater) was the head of the family (mishpachah) or household (bayith), which was a religious (1Sa 20:6,29; Ex 12:3; Job 1:5) as well as a social and political unit, consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the Hebrew father as commanding (Ge 50:16; Jer 35:6 ff; Pr 6:20), instructing (Pr 1:8; 4:1), and rebuking (Ge 37:10; Nu 12:14); at the same time, as loving (Ge 25:28; 37:4; 44:20), pitying (Ps 103:13), and blessing his household (Ge 27:41), rejoicing over its triumphs (Pr 10:1; 15:20), or grieving over its misfortunes (Ge 37:35). The mother, too ('em; meter), naturally displays love and care (Ge 25:28; Pr 4:3; Isa 49:15; 66:13). To the Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes (1Sa 1:10, of Hannah; Ge 30:23, of Rachel). Children were looked upon as a blessing from God (Ps 127:3) and the defenders of the home (Ps 127:4,5). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher (Pr 1:8). Thereafter the father was expected to direct the training of the son (ben; huios, teknon) (Ge 18:19; Ex 12:26; 13:8,14,15; De 6:7), while the daughter (bath; thugater) probably remained with the mother until her marriage (Mic 7:6). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor (Ex 20:12 parallel De 5:16 (the Fifth Commandment); Ex 21:15; Le 20:9; De 27:16; Pr 20:20; Eze 22:7; Mic 7:6), obedience (Ge 28:7; Le 19:3; De 21:18 ff; Pr 1:8; 30:17) and love (1Ki 19:20; Pr 28:24; 30:11). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery (Ex 21:7-11; compare Ex 22:16 ff; Ne 5:5), and never into a life of shame (Le 19:29); they could chastise children (De 8:5; 21:18; Pr 13:24; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (Ge 22; Jud 11:39; Le 18:21; 20:2-5; 2Ki 23:10; compare Mt 15:4). This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper authorities (De 21:18-21), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father (2Ki 4:1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter (Nu 30:3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in English law "for loss of services" (De 22:29). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (Ge 38:11; Le 22:13; Ru 1:15). At his death the mother would become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household (2Ki 8:1-6, the Shunammite woman; #/RAPC Tob 1:8, Tobit's grandmother; compare the position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen mother (gebhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah (1Ki 1:11; 2:19, where a throne at the king's right hand was set for the king's mother; 1Ki 11:26; 14:21,31; 15:2,10,13; 22:42; 2Ki 8:26; 10:13; 14:2; 15:2,33; 18:2; 21:1,19; 22:1; 23:31,36; 24:8,12,15,18; 2Ch 22:2; Jer 13:18; 22:26; see QUEEN MOTHER). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (1Ki 2:18 ), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Palestine (Jos 2:13,18; 6:23; 1Sa 22:3; 2Sa 19:37; 1Ki 19:20). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration (Mic 7:6; Pr 30:11); on the other hand the "great day" according to Malachi (4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)) is one of conciliation of parents and children.

3. Brothers and Sisters:

The terms "brother" ('ach; adelphos) and "sister" ('ahoth; adelphe) apply to children of the same father and mother (Ge 4:2), and also to children of one father (Ge 20:12) or of one mother (Ge 43:7; Le 18:9; 20:17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as "our daughter" (Ge 34:17). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David himself (2Sa 13:21). The brother's other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (So 8:8). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a "disgraceful thing" (chesedh, a different word from checedh, "kindness" (Le 18:9,11; 20:17). In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (Ge 20:12; compare 2Sa 13:13). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites (Le 18:3 ff; 20:23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed (Ge 24:60; Jos 2:13; Pr 17:17; compare Le 25:35; De 15:11 f; 25:3); the dwelling of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (Ps 133:1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (2Sa 3:27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go'el, is expected to avenge a death (Nu 35:19 ff; De 19:6; Jos 20:3; 2Sa 14:11), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave (Le 25:48; Ps 49:7). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot (Jud 11:1, Jephthah). The words "brother" and "sister" are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend.

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen:

The Hebrew dodh (Le 10:4, "uncles"; Nu 36:11, "cousins"; 1Sa 14:50), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly indicating "dandle" "fondle" "love" means both "uncle" and "beloved." It is used of the father's and also of the mother's brother, and the corresponding feminine form (dodhah) is used of the father's sister (Ex 6:20; compare Nu 26:59) and even of the father's brother's wife (Le 18:14; 20:20). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father's sister, mother's sister, or father's brother's wife, or, in general, uncle's wife) was prohibited (Le 18:12,13,14; 20:19,20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare Nu 36:11). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word [~dodh is used of kinsmen, Am 6:10 (where the dodh, "even he that burneth him" (mecarepho, perhaps "maternal uncle"; the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Cremation"), takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben ‘ahi ‘immo, brother of his mother," etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews, Ge 13:8; 14:14, etc.; of tribesmen, Le 21:10; and of more distant relatives, De 2:4,8; 23:7).

II. Affinity.

1. Husband and Wife:

The husband ('ish; compare ba‘al, Ho 2:16; aner), though in a sense leaving father and mother for his wife ('ishshah; gune) (Ge 2:24), under normal conditions remained a member of his father's family. If such passages as Ge 2:24; 21:10; 24:5,67; 30:3; 31:31; Jud 4:17 ff; 5:24 ff; 8:19; 9:3, indicate the existence in pre-Biblical times of a matriarchate, the allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence in Biblical times. The wife was "taken" by her husband, or "given" by her father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (Ge 2:22; 16:3; 34:9,21), and although the contract was between the men (Ge 29; 34:16; Ex 22:16; De 22:29; Ru 4:10) or the parents (Ge 21:21; 24), it is probable that the consent of the girl was usually asked (Ge 24:58). Love between the young people was given due consideration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem, Jacob and Rachel (Ge 29:18), David and Michal (1Sa 18:20)); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could compare the attitude of husband toward wife to that of Yahweh toward Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient long before the events narrated in the Book of Esther, every man did "bear rule in his own house" (Es 1:22). In fact a precedent for the Persian decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (Ge 3:16). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samson's parents (Jud 13:23), of the Shunammite woman (2Ki 4), of Jael (Jud 4:18 ff; 5:24 ), of Achsah (Jos 15:18 f; Jud 1:12 f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (1Ki 18:4; 21), Sapphira (Ac 5:2), and Zeresh (Es 5:14), who were at least consulted in the affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the voice of God, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Ge 21:12). That most women were not so fortunate is probably best attested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them had to resort to stratagem to accomplish their purposes (as in the cases of Rebekah (Ge 27:6 ), Rachel (Ge 31:34), Leah (Ge 30:16) and Abigail (1Sa 25:18 ), and even to get information as to their husband's affairs (Sarah, Ge 18:10; Rebekah, Ge 27:5)). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of two proverb-collectors (Pr 21:9; 25:24). Though we have no instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the husband, and though it is clear that the Hebrew husband had no power of sale (compare Ex 21:8), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the one-sided divorce doctrine of the Old Testament (De 24:1), and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (Ex 20:17) and because the husband exercised the right to annul the wife's vows (Nu 30:6), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Hebrew home a very subordinate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the husband owed duties to the wife (Ex 21:10). It must also be borne in mind that great divergence existed at different times and places, and in different stations of society. Most of our Old Testament evidence pertains to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are "at ease in Zion" (Isa 32:9-20; compare Am 4:1 ff; 6:1 ) and the busy "good wife" described in Pr 31:10 ff are hardly exceeded in the most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her blessed (Pr 31:28).

It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice was discouraged even among kings (De 17:17), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare De 21:10-14). The position of a less-favored wife (De 21:15, "hated") was naturally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter-they were called each other's tsaroth, literally, "vexers" (the Revised Version (British and American) "rivals," Le 18:18; 1Sa 1:6, the King James Version "adversary"; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11)-even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, Ge 30:1). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (Le 18:18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own (Ge 30:1-12, etc.).

2. Father-in-Law, etc.:

In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a family with the husband's parents (cham, from chamoth) were closer than those with the wife's parents (chothen, feminine chotheneth; pentheros, penthera. Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife's tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband's family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter (Mic 7:6). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (Ge 38:24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto-the death (Ge 26:35; 27:46; 28:8) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, "Yahweh do so to me.... if aught but death part thee and me" (Ru 1:17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry (Le 18:15; 20:12,14).

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.:

A woman's brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen (Ge 24:50,55; 34:11 ). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too closely related to intermarry (Le 18:16,18; 20:21). Nevertheless the husband's brother (yabham) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance (De 25:5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice (Ge 38:8), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Palestine (Ru 4:1-12; compare Jer 32:6 ). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege (De 25:7; Ru 4:6), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband's family in the order of the nearness of their relationship to him (Ru 3:12). In the Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, 1Sa 18:3; 2Sa 1:26) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses' wife, Nu 12:1).

III. Other Domestic Relations.

1. Foster-father:

The Hebrew ‘omen, feminine ‘omeneth (participle of ‘aman), literally, "nourishing," is translated "nursing father" (Nu 11:12; Isa 49:23), nursing mother" (Isa 49:23), "nurse" (Ru 4:16; 2Sa 4:4), or simply as the equivalent of "bringing up" (2Ki 10:1,5; Es 2:7). In the case of Esther and of Ahab's children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Es 2:20). Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab's two children (2Sa 21:8) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim (Ge 48:5), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II, ix, 7; compare Ex 2:10). In New Testament times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion (huiothesia, Ro 8:15; 9:4; Ga 4:5; Eph 1:5).

2. Master and Servants:

The "family" as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents. The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah, "maidservant," as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, "servant." For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and foreign, male and female, see SLAVERY.

3. Host and Guest:

When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a host (Ge 19:8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-friendship (compare Greek xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if at all, only on theory that all is fair in war (Jud 4:18-21; 5:24-27). The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews, like the Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was "salt between them," that is, in the relation of host and guest (Ezr 4:14; compare the expression "covenant of salt," 2Ch 13:5; Nu 18:19). In the early Christian church breaking bread together served as a sort of a berith ‘ahim, or covenant of brothers. In large households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were members of the household (2Sa 9:11, compared to sons; compare also 2Sa 9:7,10,13; 19:28; 1Ki 2:7; 4:27; 18:19).

4. The Dependent Stranger:

The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expression "thy stranger" (Ex 20:10; Le 25:6; De 5:14; 29:11; 31:12; compare De 1:16), Hebrew gero, literally, "his stranger") attached himself to an influential Hebrew for protection. Thus we read of a "sojourner of the priest's" (Le 22:10, toschabh; compare Le 25:6) who was in many respects a dependent, but still to be distinguished from a servant (Le 22:11). The Mosaic Law commands that such strangers be treated with consideration (Ex 12:49; 20:10; 22:21 ff; 23:9; Le 19:33; De 1:16; 10:18; 14:21, etc.; Ps 146:9) and even with love (De 16:14; Le 19:34).

Written byElla Davis Isaacs and Nathan Isaacs

Hospitality; Host:

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 Ge 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 (Jud 13:15) is equally pressing although more matter-of-fact, while Jethro (Ex 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 (Jud 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 Jud 5 Sisera is not represented as entering Jael's tent or possibly not as actually tasting the food, a state of affairs misunderstood in Jud 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" (Ps 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 Lu 10:34 and see INN), and at all events free hospitality to all comers would have been unbearably abused. Lot in Sodom (Ge 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 Jud 19:16 ff. 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 (Jos 2), her reason is not the breach of hospitality involved but her fear of Yahweh (Jos 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 (Ge 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 Lu 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" (Mr 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 (Mt 10:11) and may stay as long as they choose (Lu 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" (Mt 10:42; compare 10:41, and Mr 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 (Mt 25:43; compare 25:35). It is not quite clear whether in Mt 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. See ROMANS, 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 (Ro 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 (Ro 12:13; 16:1 f; Heb 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 (1Ti 3:2; 5:10; Tit 1:8). The exercise of such hospitality must have become burdensome at times (1Pe 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 Joh 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).

Written by Burton Scott Easton

The Cross Pendant

He is a cross pendant.
He is engraved with a unique Number.
He will mail it out from Jerusalem.
He will be sent to your Side.
Emmanuel

Buy Now

bible verses about welcoming immigrants

Bible Verses About Welcoming ImmigrantsEmbracing the StrangerAs we journey through life, we often encounter individuals who are not of our nationality......

Blog
About Us
Message
Site Map

Who We AreWhat We EelieveWhat We Do

Terms of UsePrivacy Notice

2025 by iamachristian.org,Inc All rights reserved.

Home
Gospel
Question
Blog
Help