Hoshea – Hour

Hoshea

1. See Joshua. 2. An Ephraimite(l Ch 27’°). 3. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10^). 4. The last king of Israel. The chronological data of our text are not entirely accordant (2 Kings 15:30 17:1). but we know that he came to the throne not far from B.C. 732. Taking into view the Assyrian annals along with the Bibhcal accounts, we gather that there were two parties in Samaria, one advocating submission to Assyria, the other hoping for independence. Pekah was placed on the throne by the latter; Hoshea was the candidate of the Assyrians, and was perhaps actively supported by them in his revolt against Pekah, whom he supplanted. This was when Tiglath-pileser punished Pekah and Rezin for interfering in the affairs of Judah (see Ahaz). At the death of Tiglath-pileser, however, Hoshea was enticed by the Egyptian king or sub-king, and went over to the party which was ready for revolt. It is probable that he had convinced himself that the land could not longer pay the heavy tribute laid upon it. The new king of Assyria (Shalmaneser iv.) moved promptly, captured and imprisoned the king, and laid siege to the capital. It speaks well for the strength of Samaria and for the courage of its people that the piace held out for more than two years; but the result can hardly have been doubtful from the first. The surrender was followed by the deportation of a considerable part of the people, and the planting of foreign colonies in the country (2K 17:6, 24). Sargon, who came to the throne just before the surrender, had no desire to experiment with more vassal kings, and set an Assyrian governor over the wasted province. Thus ended the kingdom of Israel. H. P. Smith.

Hospitality

In the life of the East there are no more attractive features than those that centre in the practice of hospitahty. 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 magnaiumous sheik, bidding strangers welcome to his tent and to the best he owns (Genesis 18), is often repeated to this hour in the Arabian wilderness. It was to Lot’s credit and advantage that he had preserved this virtue amid the corruptions of Sodom (Genesis 19:2 ff.). To shirk an opportunity for its exercise was shameful (Judges 19). A man’s worth was illustrated by his princely hospitality (Job 31:31 f.). Jesus sent forth the Twelve (Matthew 10:9 f.). and the Seventy (Luke 10:4 ff.). relying on the hospitahty of the people. Its exercise secured His blessing; woe threatened such as refused it. The Samaritans’ churlish denial of hospitahty to Jesus excited the wrath of His disciples (Luke 9:53). The guest had a right to expect certain attentions (Ll£ 7:44 ff.). The practice of hospitality distinguished those on the right from those on the left hand (Matthew 25:35; of. 10*", John 13:20). It Is commended by precept (Romans 12:13, 20. 1 Timothy 3:2 etc.), and also by example (Hebrews 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 Greelss secured the approval of Zeus-Xenios, their protector. For the Romans hospitality was a sacred obligation.

In its simplest eispect, 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 medafeh — properly madyafah — a chamber reserved for guests, whose entertainment is a charge upon the whole community. From personal experience the present writer knows how solicitous the humblest villagers are tor 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 hospitahty.

In the desert, every tent, however poor its owner, offers welcome to the traveller. In the master’s absence the women receive the guests, and according to their means do the honours of the ‘house of hair.’ It is the master’s pride to be known as a generous man; any lack of civility or of kindness to a guest meets severe reprobation. In the guest’s presence he calls neither his tent, nor anything it contains, his own. During his sojourn the visitor is owner. The women bake bread; the master slays a ‘sacrifice,’ usually a lamb, kid, or sheep, which is forthwith dressed, cooked, and served with the bread. The proud son of the wilds has high Ideas of his own dignity and honour; but he himself waits upon his guest, seeking to gratify with alacrity his every wish. If his visitors are of superior rank he stands by them (Genesis 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 (Gu 19:8. Judges 19:24; cf. Lane, Mod. Egyp. 297). If a guest arrives after sunset he is entitled only to shelter, as the host might then be unable to prepare a meal creditable to himself. If food is offered, it is of the host’s goodwill (Luke 11:5 ff.). The guest, careful of the host’s honour, will indicate that more than he requires has been provided by leaving a portion in the dish.

The open hand, as the token of a liberal heart, wins the respect and esteem of the Arabs. Leadership does not of necessity descend from father to son. Right to the position must be vindicated by wisdom, courage, dignity, and not least by generous hospitality. For the niggard in this regard there is nothing but contempt. It is a coveted distinction to be known as a ‘coffee sheik,’ one who without stint supplies his visitors with the fragrant beverage.

The Arabs are sometimes charged with want of gratitude; justly, as it seems from our point of view. But what seems ingratitude to us may be due simply to the Influence of immemorial custom, in a land where the necessities of life are never sold, but held as common good, of which the traveller may of right claim a share. The ‘right of a guest’ may be taken. If not freely offered. The man who refuses covers himself with perpetual shame. The guest enjoys only his right; therefore no thanks mingle with his farewell.

The right, however, is limited. ‘Whoever,’ says the Prophet, ‘believes in God and the day of resurrection must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him Is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and if after that he does It longer, he benefits him more: but it is not right for the guest to stay in the house of his host so long as to incommode him’ (Lane, Arabian Society in the Middle Ages, 143). After three days, or, some say, three days and four hours, the host may ask If he proposes to honour him by a longer stay. The guest may wish to reach some point under protection of the tribe. If so, he is welcome to stay; only, the host may give him work to do. To remain while refusing to do this is highly dishonourable. But the guest may go to another tent at the expiry of every third day, thus renewing his ‘right,’ and sojourn with the tribe as long as is necessary.

Hospitality involves protection as well as maintenance. ‘It is a principle alike in old and new Arabia that the guest Is inviolable’ (W. R. Smith, Kinshij^, 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 Vllah, the guest whom God has sent, to be well entreated for Hissake. In anenemy’s country one’s perils are over when he reaches a tent, and touches even a tent peg. A father’s murderer may find sure asylum even in the tent of his victim’s son. When he has eaten of the host’s bread, the two are at once bound as brothers for mutual help and protection. It is said that ‘there is salt between them.’ Not that literal salt is required. This Is a term covering milk, and indeed food of any kind. A draught of water taken by stealth, or even against his will, from a man’s dish, serves the purpose. When protection is secured from one, the whole tribe is bound by it (W. B. Smith, US’ 76).

To understand this we must remember (1) that in Arabia all recogniuftnof Mutual rights andduties res tsuponkinship. Those outside the kin may be dealt with according to each man’s inclination and ability. (2) Kinship is not exclusively a matter of birth. It may be acquired. When men eat and drink together, they renew their blood from the one source, and to that extent are partakers in the same blood. The stranger eating with a clansman becomes ‘kinsman’ to all the members of the clan, as regards ‘the fundamental rights and duties that turn on the sanctity of kindred blood’ (Wellhausen, Besle Arab. Held. 119f.; W. R. Smith, BS^ 273 n.). This sanctity may be traced to the ancient belief that the clan god shared it^ life, and when an animal was slain for food took part in the common meal. The clan’s friends were therefore the god’s friends, whom to injure was to outrage the deity. That the slaughter of the victim waa a religious 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; (6) by the name dhablhah,’ sacrifice,’ still applied to it. The present writer was once entertained in the camp of a ratner wild and unkempt tribe. His attendants supped with the crowd. Fearing this might not be agreeable to a European^ the chief’s son, who presided in his father’s absence, with innate Arab courtesy, asked him to sup with him in the sheilc’s tent. Bringing in a portion of the flesh, the youth repeatedly remarked, as if for the stranger’s re-assurance, edh-dhablhah wdhideh, ‘the slaughtering — sacrifice — is one’; i.e. the tribesmen and he ate from the same victim.

The bond thus formed was temporary, holding good for 36 hours after parting. By frequent renewal, however, it might become permanent. ‘There was a sworn alliance between the Libyan and the Mostallc: they were wont to eat and drink together’ (RS’ 270 f.). A man may declare himself the dakhU — from dakhala, ‘to enter,’ i.e. to claim protection — of a powerful man, and thus pass under shelter of his name even before his tent Is reached. Whoever should injure him then would have to reckon with the man whose name he had invoked. The rights of sanctuary associated with temples, and until recently with certain churches, originated in an appeal to the hospitality of the local deity. The refugee’s safety depended on the respect paid to the god. Joab would have been safe had he not outlawed himself In this regard (1 Kings 2:31 ff.). Jael’s dastard deed could be approved only in the heat of patriotic fanaticism (Judges 4:17 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 TnalSn of Genesis 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 (Jeremiah 9:2). For gSruth (Jeremiah 41:17) we should probably read gidrdth, ‘folds’ (cf. Jos. 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. funduq, shows that the inn was a foreign importation. Those on the highways would in some respects resemble the khans 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 (Luke 10:34), identified with Khan Hadrur, 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 (1 Peter 4:9 etc.).

In Luke 2:7 ‘inn’ {Jcaialuma) probably means, as it does in Mark 141 and Luke 22:11, the guest-chamber in a private house. Such g^est-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 khan, where, in the animal’s quarters, Jesus was born.

In modem Palestine hotels are found only at important places on the most popular routes of travel.

W. EwiNO.

Host

See next art. and Army.

Host of Heaven

The phrase ‘host (or army) of heaven’ occurs in OT in two apparently different senses — referring (1) to stars, (2) to angels.

1. The ‘host of heaven’ is mentioned as the object of idolatrous worship; it is frequently coupled with ‘sun and moon,’ the stars being obviously meant; where ‘sun and moon’ are not specifically mentioned, the phrase may be used as including them as well. Deuteronomy 4:19 speaks of this worship as a special temptation to Israel; it has been appointed or allotted to all the peoples,’ i.e. the heathen, and is absolutely inconsistent with the worship of J"; the penalty is stoning (17). The references to it suggest that it became prominent in Israel in the 7th cent. B.C., when Manasseh introduced it into the Temple (2 Kings 21:5)) its abolition was part of Josiah’s reform (23:4, 5, 12, The mention, in the last verse, of ‘the altars which were on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz’ suggests that the worship was, in fact, older than the reign of Manasseh, and had been practised by Ahaz; it was carried on upon the roofs of houses (Jeremiah 19:13. Zephaniah 1:5). so that 2 Kings 23:12 may well refer to it. Isaiah 17:8 mentions ‘sun-pillars’ as characteristic of the idolatry of the reign of Ahaz (unless the words are a later addition), and there are possible traces of nature-worship in earlier periods in Amos 5:26. and in the names Belhshemesh, Jericho, which suggest sun- and moon-worship. 2 Kings 17:16, which speaks of the worship of the host of heaven as prevalent in the Northern Kingdom, is a ‘Deuteronomic’ passage, which can hardly be pressed Mstorically. Whilst, then, there are early traces of nature-worship, the systematized idolatry of ‘the host of heaven’ belongs to the period of special Assyrian and Babylonian influence; astrology and kindred beliefs were characteristic of the religions of these countries.

The phrase is used in other contexts of the stars as the armies of J", innumerable, ordered, and obedient (Genesis 2:1, Psalms 33:6, Isaiah 34:4 45:12, Jeremiah 33:22). Isaiah 40 (‘bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name’) comes very near to a personification. In Daniel 8:10 we read of the assault of the’little horn’ on the’ host of heaven’ and their ‘prince.’ This may be only a hyperbolical expression for blasphemous pride, but it strongly suggests the influence of the Babylonian ‘dragon myth,’ in which heaven itself was stormed; cf. Revelation 12:4 13:6, where the Beast blasphemes God, His tabernacles, and them that dwell in heaven; i.e. the angelic host (so Bousset), at least in the idea underlying the conception. Hence in Daniel 8:10 we are probably right in seeing a reference to the stars regarded as animate warriors of J", their ‘captain ‘; cf . the poetical passages Judges 5:20 (the stars in their courses fighting against Sisera) and Job 38:7 (the morning stars, coupled with the’ sons of God,’ singing for joy); in these passages it remains a question how far the personification is merely a poetic figure. It is at least possible that a more literally conceived idea lies behind them. In Isaiah 24:21 we read of the ‘host of the height’ (‘high ones on high ‘), whom J" shall punish in the Day of Judgment, together with the kings of the earth. The passage, the date of which is very doubtful, is strongly eechatological, and the phrase must refer to supramundane foes of J", whether stars or angels; again, a reference to the dragon myth is very possible.

2. Passages such as these lead to the consideration of others where ‘host of heaven’ =‘angels.’ The chief is 1 Kings 22:19 (Micaiah’s vision); cf. Psalms 103:21, Luke 2. Though this actual phrase is not often used, the attendant ministers of J" are often spoken of as an organized army (Genesis 32:2, Joshua 5:14, 2 Kings 6:17, Job 25:3). Cf. in this connexion the title ‘Lord of hosts (Sabaoth),’ which, though it may have been used originally of J" as the leader of the armies of Israel, admittedly came to be used of Him as ruler of the celestial hosts (see Lord of Hosts). There are passages where the phrase ‘host of heaven’ is ambiguous, and may refer either to stars or to angels (Daniel 4:35, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalms 148:2 [where it connects angels and sun, moon, and stars]).

3. It remains to consider the connexion between the two uses of the phrase. It has been supposed by some to be purely verbal, stars and angels being independently compared to an army; or it has been suggested that the stars were ‘the visible image’ of the host of angels. But a study of the passages quoted above will probably lead to the conclusion that the connexion is closer. The idolaters evidently regarded the stars as animate; prophets and poets seem to do so too. When this is done, it lies very near at hand to identify them with, or at least assimilate them to, the angels. In the ancient myths and folklore, the traces of which in the Bible are Increasingly recognized, stars and angels play a large part, and the conception of the two is not kept distinct. Later thought tended to identify them (Enoch 18:12 21:1 etc.. Revelation 9:1, 11) cf. Isaiah 14:12, Luke 10:18). Hence the one use of the phrase ‘host of heaven’ ran naturally into the other, and it seems impossible to draw a sharp line of distinction between the two. As we have seen, there are passages where it is ambiguous, or where it seems to imply the personification of the stars, i.e. their practical identification with angels. While there is no reason why the spiritual teachers of Israel should not have countenanced this belief at a certain stage and to a certain point, and should not have adopted in a modified form the eschatology in which it figured, it is of course clear that the conception was kept free from its grosser and superstitious features. Whatever it may have been in the popular mind, to them it is little more than a metaphor, and nothing either distantly resembling the fear or the worship of the stars receives any countenance in their teaching. It Is, however, worth while insisting on the full force of their language as affording a key to the reconstruction of the popular beliefs which seem to lie behind it. It should be noted that Wisdom 13:2 protests against any idea that the heavenly bodies are animate, and it has been suggested that Ezekiel’s avoidance of the phrase ‘Lord of hosts’ may be due to a fear of seeming to lend any countenance to star-worship.

C. W. Emmet.

Hotham

1. An Asherite(l Ch7S2). 2. Father of two of David’s heroes (1 Chronicles 11:44).

Hothir

A son of Heman (1 Chronicles 25:4).

Hough

The hough (modern spelling ‘hock’) of a quadruped is the joint between the knee and the fetlock in the hind leg; in man the back of the knee Joint, called the ham. To ‘hough’ is to cut the tendon of the hough, to hamstring. The subst. occurs in 2 Esdras 15:36 ‘the camel’s hough’ (AVm ‘pastern or litter’). The verb is found in Joshua 11:6, 9. 2 Samuel 8:4, 1 Chronicles 18:4 always of houghing horses. Tindale translates Genesis 49:6 ‘In their self e- will they houghed an oxe,’ which is retained in AVm, and inserted into the text of RV in place of ‘they digged down a wall.’

Hour

See Time.