~ Manners and Customs Part III. ~
Hospitality
A look at the sacred duty of hospitality
The Christian is instructed to be 'given to hospitality' a task which is all the more daunting when one considers the meaning of hospitality from an Eastern perspective. Within most Western churches we tend to assume we have satisfied the hospitality command by visiting a restaurant with a few of our friend after church. The more adventurous of us may perhaps 'open our homes' for a one hour Bible study and even go so far as to provide coffee and cookies afterwards. From the Eastern perspective hospitality may mean providing food and lodging for an unspecified length of time to a complete stranger with zero notice. Let's look at more committed form of hospitality.
In Biblical times, hospitality was both a sacred and eagerly anticipated duty. In a tent setting the custom of sitting in the tent doorway is to allow for the owner to see a potential guest. As when Abraham saw the three angels he ran to meet them. With this attitude one must believe that all guests are sent to the host (which would be you!) by God.
The duty of hospitality is most strongly revered in cultures which are advanced enough to allow travel but not sufficiently advanced for travel to be common enough for a traveler to be self sufficient. The desire to serve a traveler is motivated primarily by the knowledge that one's own survival may shortly depend upon similar hospitality being shown by someone else. A guest in an Eastern house is considered the master of the house and the host is considered the servant; it is extreme but not unrealistic that some would at times forego the virtue of his wife or daughter in order to be hospitable.
Given the incredible privilege afforded to a guest it is perhaps reasonable to ask whom a guest might be.
The friend as a guest. It was fairly natural to allows ones friends to be guests and on occasion two people would exchange tokens with their names upon them which acted as a permanent invitation between two people. This is the origin of the 'white stone' of Rev 2:17.
Strangers as guests. The Bible is filled with examples of hospitality being shown to previously unknown individuals: Abraham and the three visitors (Gen 18:1-8), Manaoh (Jdg 13:15) and Jethro (Ex 2:20) to name but three. The literal translation of 'given to hospitality' is 'love to strangers'
Enemies as guests. At times the role of a guest would even be extended to an enemy. Given the nature of such a relationship it became important to specify the exact point at which someone became a guest; it is defined as someone having dismounted and touching a tent-peg- which then became a short term truce. Such a 'guest' was to then be honored and not mistreated.
It should be noted that while anyone could become a guest it was expected that having been a guest would render the guest as being harmless toward the host. Thus to harm ones host is considered Biblically to be an horrific sin. Thus Obad 7, Psa 41:9 and John 13:18 all narrate with horror the treachery of one that had been a guest and then had harmed his host.
Given the important and enduring effect of giving or accepting hospitality it is perhaps reasonable to ask: 'what could a guest actually expect'? We know that a guest would be treated 'well' but what does 'well' practically mean?
First and foremost a guest was provided lodging. In a tent that would amount to a sleeping place in the front of the tent. In a one room house it would be a bed in a raised and honored position. In a house with a room on the roof it would often be that room. In a house set in a court-room arrangement it would often be the room furthest from the entrance. In cities it was common to have a room in the city especially designated for travelers.
In terms of sustenance the giving of a drink of water was considered very much the first thing that should be done. In deed the giving of a drink of water outside of a house was often the invitation to becoming a guest.
For example when Eliezer asked for a drink of water (Gen 24:17) he was implicitly requesting to be a guest. This is the significance of Mark 9:41 in which Jesus places great emphasis upon those that give the disciples water for His sake. The giving of food in general and bread and salt in particular is sometimes delayed as it is considered to be the sealing of a contract. For this reason some would refuse to eat until a discussion has been had.
In addition to these practical considerations there were also a number of ritualistic courtesies that a good host would perform. The initial greeting would often be with a bow the depth of which marked the degree of respect shown. For this reason it was not uncommon for a good host to go upon his knees and bow to the ground; this was really an act of letting the other person know how much you esteemed them rather than an act of worship.
Additionally it is common to kiss upon both cheeks; even for men greeting men. Heading towards the slightly more practical a guest would usually remove their shoes and wash their feet. A servant (or even an overly zealous host) would often assist with this foot washing.
An extra act of kindness that could be bestowed was to anoint the head of the guest with fragrant oil. The one thing the guest would not get is privacy. For many the conditions were too cramped for it to be practical anyway; but even when a guest had been afforded their own room it was considered good etiquette to send ones sons to sleep in the room with the guest to provide companionship!
In conclusion, we have seen that Biblically, hospitality really amounts to providing food and shelter to anyone that requires it. We have seen that it is a duty and a privilege that should be exercised at a moment's notice even if it inconveniences us considerably.
Daily Life
What was a day in the life of a Jew really like?
The events recorded in the Bible are, by definition, events and to comprehend them fully it is sometimes useful to set them against the norm, or non-events of daily life. If you were living in Palestine what would your day consist of? If you were travelling through Palestine what would you see?
The first thing to note was that the day would start very early. The heat of the day makes work difficult and therefore it is best to start at or before sunrise. The Bible is filled with examples of this early rising spanning from Abraham (Gen 22:3), Moses (Ex 34:4) and Job (Job 1:5) down to the time of Jesus (Luke 21:38) including the Lord Himself (Mark 1:35). This early start is then broken by a siesta or rest period when the heat was hardest; usually during the middle of the day. Thus Abraham would rest during the heat of the day (Gen 18:1) and Saul's son would lie upon a bed at noon (2 Sam 4:5).
If you arose a little later than your neighbors then you would probably awake to a mild humming sound; this was the sound of the 'daily grind' which literally started with the daily grind! I have noted previously that bread was by far the dominant food group in Palestine. The preparation of bread requires flour and the production of flour requires that the grain be ground. Grinding was so essentially to Israeli life that it was forbidden to take a millstone in pledge (Deu 24:6). For many women the first half of their day would be spent in the process of producing this flour. It would have been extremely uncommon to find a man grinding flour although this indignity was sometimes heaped upon prisoners of war (Lam 5:13)
The traditional view of the grinding process is that the grinding mill consisted of two round stones some two feet in diameter and six inches thick one of which sat upon the other. The lower was called the "nether" stone and the upper was called the "rider". The upper stone had a hole through the center allowing it to sit upon a shaft attached to the nether stone. A handle on the rider stone could then be pushed and pulled, usually by two women, to rotate the stone. Grain was fed into the hole in the center of the stone and would slowly be ground as it moved towards the outer extremities of the disks. The disks would probably be set upon a sheepskin to allow the ground flour to be collected. It should also be noted that to produce fine flour the process has to be repeated twice and then the resulting twice ground flour is sifted.
Once the grinding had been done and perhaps the midday meal produced the women would probably turn their attentions to clothing. Their responsibilities in this area stretched from spinning the yard to make the clothing all the way through to keeping the clothing clean. The spinning would usually be done by the older women who could sit in groups and spin as they talked. The spun yarn would then be woven using a horizontal loom and a needle made from Bronze or bone. Washing is usually achieved in a local stream or river. The principle process is to dip the clothing into the water and then place it onto a flat surface to pound it with a club; this gives a graphic visual to the Psalmist's request to be 'washed of his iniquity' (Psa 51:2). Soaps of the quality we know today did not exist but a vegetable alkali (lye in the KJV) is referred to in the Bible on a number of occasions (Jer 2:22, Mal 3:2).
The wool for weaving was usually culled from a flock of goats; the care of which was often the responsibility of the younger girls. The goats would usually eat the local pasture but drinking water often had to be obtained for them by hand. This could be a difficult task especially as the wells were shared with the men who were watering the camels which could lead to conflict of interest. Moses befriended Jethro's daughters by assisting them during one such altercation. Water also provided the principle evening task for the womenfolk; the fetching of water for the following day. Water was fetched in a pitcher which could be carried upon the head or upon the shoulder. The water was extracted from the well by a portable leather bucket which each woman carried with her. This explains the 'woman at the wells' surprise which the Lord said he could provide water; he was not even carrying a bucket with which to extract it.
Of course, in between the labor there would be extensive social interaction; much as there is in Western society today. That said the detailed contents of the interaction might surprise and even shock a Western observer in the following ways:
The invocation of God: In Western Society God's name is usually used even as a curse or in the making of some theological point. In Eastern society the invocation is a formulaic part of normal speech. Thus 'marshallah' or 'what God has wrought' as an exclamation. The response to 'will you do X' is usually 'if God wills'. A new baby would naturally be referred to as 'the gift of God'. A manager might address employees with 'God be with you' to which the response 'God bless thee' is expected. Of course the genuine spiritual depth of the people using this formula varies; which can often render it blasphemous.
Visual Expression: A Palestinian claiming that he would 'pluck out his right eye if a promise failed' would be expressing the same sentiment as an Englishman stating that he would 'do everything within his power' to ensure something happened.
Crudeness: Again Americans will discuss matters which would have most English people blush; a Middle Easterner could probably place an American into a similar predicament. Particularly in the area of childbirth and other bodily functions. The close physical proximity in which people lived left little room for privacy or discretion. While American and even the English insist on some measure of privacy when they go to the toilet; a Middle Easterner would not expect or require any.
In concluding; I have focused primarily on the daily grind of women. It was the woman's responsibility to weave the fabric of society together in much the same way that she wove her cloth. The sound of her grinding was the reassuring hum that a dwelling place was thriving and that all was well. Her work was monotonous but vital and allowed the men to focus upon agriculture, building, religion, politics or war as needs required.
Clothing
the attire worn during Bible times
One of the more severe problems faced by Bible translators is the instance where the cultural distance between the original and the target is so great that the target language simply does not have the words required to accept an accurate translation. This is the situation they faced when translating matters of clothing into the English language. The result is that on many occasions the clothing described in the Bible may or may not have been transcribed properly. Let's look at what type has the strongest Biblical support of clothing that was worn during that time period.
Starting closest to the skin the first article encountered would be the loin-cloth. This would have been the only undergarment and often was so for many of the prophets (2 Ki 1:8, Mat 3:4, Isa 20:2, Jer 13:1) In later times this was replaced for most people with an under tunic. This was a fairly close fitting 'dress' usually without sleeves that went down to the knees. This is probably the article of clothing without seam that the Roman soldiers took from the Lord. It was still considered 'underwear' and thus to be wearing only the under tunic was considered 'being naked'. In order to show distress or grief it was common to replace this garment with sackcloth.
Outside of the underwear would be the upper tunic; this resembled the inner tunic except that it was longer and for the wealthy it could have long sleeves trailing to the ground and for the priests the sleeves would be tied into the tunic. This is generally believed to be what we would think of as a "coat". This garment was significantly looser than the underwear and for practicality was strapped into place using a girdle. The girdle was three to six inches broad and made either of linen or leather. Between the folds created in the tunic by wrapping and the space under the belt this outfit allowed for storage of food (2 Sam 18:11) or tools (Mark 6:8).
The outer garment was the mantle or cloak. This could simply be a square of cloth or it could be somewhat more shaped. The purpose was to go over the outside of the tunic and to be worn out of doors. It would generally be made of heavy wool or goats' hair and was of a dull brown color.
Somewhat surprisingly it would be worn in hot weather as well as cold; apparently the blocking of direct light from the sun is a reasonable trade for the added weight and heat retention. The mantle was also used as a blanket at night; this was the logic behind the law that a "mantle taken in pledge" had to be returned before sun-down. The mantle was even more flowing than the outer tunic and was thus capable of significant storage. Ruth was able to store six measures of barley in hers (Ruth 3:15). Shoes which were usually a strip of wood or leather strapped onto the feed using leather thongs.
Due, at least in part, to the heat of the sun it would have been common for both men and women to wear a head covering. For the males this would have been a turban; a piece of linen wrapped around a secured to the head using a strap under the chin. In contrast it was customary for a woman of any stature to wear a veil. This was essentially a piece of cloth which would cover the majority of the face and would be worn during most public occasions. Hebrew women did appear to be granted some degree of latitude as Egyptian's saw Sarah's face and Eli was able to see the mouth of Hannah.
The headgear of women from Bethlehem had an additional piece; a cap of coins. The cap was a string of seven to ten coins for a married woman; up to twenty for a single woman. The central coin is designed to be the largest and most valuable. This head cap would be part of the dowry for a woman and that the cap was considered a reflection of her character. Thus the woman of Luke 15:8-10 that had lost a coin had not simply lost an item of money but rather that she had lost part of her head-gear and that she would suffer shame as well as financial loss were it to remain missing.
It was strictly forbidden for men and women to wear each others clothes (Deut 22:5) the differences between the genders were represented more in detail and ornamentation rather than substance. Thus a woman's mantle may be rather more flowing and she may have adorned it with rather more needlework but essentially the articles of her clothing would have been similar to her husband's; with the exception of the veil.
The difference in ornamentation can most easily be characterized by the observation that the men did not ornament themselves. They might carry a walking staff and they might wear a signet ring to act as a legal seal but other than that they did not ornament. In contrast a woman might take time to elaborately braid her hair, she may have earrings usually or a long and dangling variety (somewhat similar to a Christmas tree ornament). We know that Rebekah was presented with bracelets. By the time of Isaiah (Isa 3:16-23) there was a long list of ways that women adorned themselves; although the prophet clearly did not approve of these extravagances.
As with many aspects of Biblical life we see both variety and progression. Starting with a leather loin-cloth and wrapping with a blanket when required the Hebrews progressed to wearing multiple tunics and mantles. The women had their faces covered and over time developed more and more elaborate jewelry with which to bedeck themselves. The attire of the prophets and language of scripture both tended to hark back to older and simpler times. It is notable that the Lord told his disciples that one coat was enough to travel and that people with two should share one; we can therefore state that from a Godly perspective clothing was designed for function and not form. I wonder what Isaiah would state if he turned up at a church today?
The Family
the strength and nature of relationships in Bible times
Despite the vast gulf in wealth and technology that separates Biblical Palestine from modern America, I suspect that the largest disparity actually lies in the simple concept of the family unit. Perhaps more disturbingly the distinction is one which almost certainly leaves the American child on the losing side; despite what American society may think. A Jewish family was a close knit unit with a strong and clear chain of command. Let's see how it worked.
The head of the family was the father; this could be the immediate male ancestor but it could be the grandfather if he were still alive. The father had absolute control over his household. He could arrange the marriages of his offspring, sell his children into slavery and even kill them if he chose. In return he was expected to love, command, instruct, guide, warn, rebuke, chastise and nourish his children. It is common in the Middle East for a child to greet his father by kissing his hand and then standing humbly awaiting instruction. This position of authority was open to abuse and that twice the New Testament urges caution (Eph 6:4, Col 3:21). The term "father" could be used outside of the bloodline to show respect; thus a pupil might call his teacher 'father'. The position of 'father' was clearly an important position and generally it would pass from the father to the eldest son upon the death of the father although there were some exceptions such as Jacob.
From the perspective of the child respect and even reverence for both parents was commanded (Exo 20:12, Lev 19:3). A child that repeatedly refused to do his parents' bidding could be taken before the elders and ultimately stoned to death; to strike or curse a parent was also punishable by death. Until the age of twelve the parents, and particularly the father, were acting as a proxy for God to the child, this may well explain the severity of these laws. The point the Bible makes most clear is substantiated by the frequent commands given to the parent to raise the children in the law of God. This explains why the Lord was twelve when he stayed behind in the temple; until that point it was Joseph that represented His ultimate authority.
There can be no doubt that the Bible states that the husband is the head of the wife. In contrast a Jewish child (male or female) was to honor their father and their mother. From this we see that women as a class were certainly not inferior to men as a class; however, we also see that within the all-important family unit the father held the place of absolute control. Whilst Sarah was in a position of great honor (Gen 16:6) with firm control over the household she still referred to Abraham as Lord. The book of Proverbs tells us that a husband will trust in a Godly wife (Prov 31:11), that she will be wise (Prov 31:26) and greatly appreciated (Prov 31:28).
The Bible shows that Hebrew women were not so constrained. The Law prevented them being used for pure sexuality and did not require them to be confined to the darkness of the tent. Therefore many Hebrew women rose to positions of prominence within Israel.
In closing; the facts are that in Biblical thought a child would be raised in a home in which everyone was subject to the rule of the head of the house; the father. The children would also be subject to the mother. The eldest son would be subject to his father until his father passed away at which point the eldest son would be the head. Hebrew women were not simply sex-slaves or work-horses but neither were they emancipated independent women. Still; women were quite willing to sacrifice some of their own desires and interests in order to make the family unit work; and generally it worked very well.
I often think of modern women today and it sadens me greatly that somewhere between being able to vote and burning our bras we lost something important about being a woman. In our quest to (at least appear) to be strong and independent we have made ourselves slaves to a type of daily grind that simply was not meant for us to have.
We have the responsibility of being homemakers and mother as did the Biblical women but now we have the additional responsibility of holding down a job. As a result we are stressed out, tired, overly emotional and often just plain miserable and our family is paying the price. Children spend far too much time alone and unsupervised. Our homes are not up to par in the cleaning department. And fast foods are the main staple of most every meal. Ceral has replaced a wholesome breakfast, lunch is just whatever and the dinner meal is whatever is quickest to throw together.
I challenge you to take a good look at your life, your family, your home and see if there aren't some serious adjustments that need to be made and then make them. It isn't to late to repair and even reverse "family" life back to something that actually works for every one.
