Hospitality is something every Christian should be doing, but what exactly is hospitality? Hospitality can mean different things based on your culture, and upbringing. For some hospitality is what you receive when you stay in a hotel. A clean bed, space to be alone, a lavish breakfast and the ability to have your needs meet 24 hours day, that may be the definition of hospitality. For others, hospitality is someone opening their home for you to stay. Instead of a lavish breakfast, room to yourself, and your needs met 24 hours, you are invited into a home to help prepare the meals and to share rooms with others.
When thinking of hospitality we may think of family and friends gathering together. Hospitality can also mean a time when strangers are gathered together. Depending on your culture, it might be normal or weird to have strangers in your home. When we were a young family in seminary with only 1 child, we invited some other students over to our small apartment to join in Thanksgiving together. We were from different states, nations, and cultures and although we knew each other by name, we were not yet good friends. Despite our differences, because of our connection with Christ, we were able to show hospitality to each other and have a wonderful meal together.
Beyond our cultural perceptions of hospitality, lets see what God has to say about hospitality in His inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word.
First we look at Acts 28:7. Here we are in the middle of a story about Paul and his missionary travels. As he is traveling through a city, he is in need of some where to stay. A Roman official offers him a place to stay for the 3 days that he is in town.

There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and showed us generous hospitality for three days. (Acts 28:7)

Paul encourages Timothy, primarily, in two ways. First, he reminds Timothy that God has not given His ministers a spirit of timidity or cowardice (v. 7), but rather has furnished them with the potent and effective tools of power, love, and self-discipline. Timothy, therefore, should be unashamed of the “witness about our Lord,” or of being associated with those suffering for that witness, and join Paul in suffering for the gospel by the power of God (v. 8). Shunning cowardice and embracing hardship are key elements of faithful gospel ministry. Second, Paul points Timothy to the majesty and authority of King Jesus.

For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and self-discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of either the witness about our Lord or me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God… (2 Timothy 1:7–8, LSB)
The theme of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in this passage is courage. As the apostle looks to the future and sees that “the time of my departure has come” (4:6), he recognizes the responsibility of faithful gospel ministry is passing from his shoulders to the next generation. He will soon be gone, but Timothy will remain. Consequently, Paul, now an older man, seeks to stir Timothy up in the faith and strengthen his resolve to stand firm in the face of sure and certain opposition — “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (3:12).
Paul encourages Timothy, primarily, in two ways. First, he reminds Timothy that God has not given His ministers a spirit of timidity or cowardice (v. 7), but rather has furnished them with the potent and effective tools of power, love, and self-discipline. Timothy, therefore, should be unashamed of the “witness about our Lord,” or of being associated with those suffering for that witness, and join Paul in suffering for the gospel by the power of God (v. 8). Shunning cowardice and embracing hardship are key elements of faithful gospel ministry.
Second, Paul points Timothy to the majesty and authority of King Jesus.
Read More
Related Posts:

Heterosexual lust and homosexual lust are not the same qualitatively. Though they are both fallen and fall short of the glory of God, they are not fallen in the same way or for the same reason, which distinction Johnson does not make clear in his writing. Here it becomes necessary to make a distinction between sins that are contrary to nature and sins that are not.

In the previous article, we saw how Greg Johnson used only select portions of his conversation partners’ comments on human sexuality for the purpose of holding them up as examples of heterosexual Christians who “have a very shallow view of their indwelling sin—their own internal corruption” (139). In reality, however, the two parties appeared to agree more than Johnson let on in writing. Further, whether or not one believes Johnson rightly interpreted their comments is immaterial to my point. The question that needs to be answered is this: does Johnson indicate in Still Time to Care that the sexual attraction of a man to a woman other than his wife is according to nature? The question is not whether it is a sin or whether it is “God’s good design for sexuality.” Let me be very clear and say that sexually desiring, longing for, or lusting after anyone other than one’s spouse is sin. Jesus said so in Matthew 5:28, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” I agree with Johnson that God’s “good design for sexuality” is for it to “exist within marriage” and extend no farther. A man’s sexual attractions should be limited exclusively to his wife. This is the question: is the sin of sexually desiring a woman other than one’s wife contrary to nature? What does Johnson say?
At one point, he does use the word “natural” to describe heterosexuality, but not directly and not in the way that “natural” is traditionally used in discussions regarding human sexuality. Johnson writes:
Did God design Adam to feel an internal sexual pull toward his neighbor’s wife? To see another man’s wife and have sexual feelings for her? Was that our Father’s good design for sexuality? Or is that—like sexual attraction to a member of the same sex—also an effect of the fall? Is that not internal corruption? It that not overdesire? Is that not a natural longing for beauty or approval or intimacy that has been bent by the fall? (139; emphasis added).
In the first italicized statement Johnson draws a comparison between homo-sexual attraction and hetero-sexual attraction to a person that is not one’s spouse, saying they are both effects of the fall. With this I agree: sexual attraction to a member of the same sex and sexual attraction to a member of the opposite sex who is not one’s spouse are both sinful effects of the fall and require the blood of Christ to cover them. Praise be to God that, in Christ, when we repent and believe, he is faithful and just to forgive us of all our sin, whether it be expressed heterosexually or homosexually. Johnson and I agree on this point.
Let me also say, however, that heterosexual lust and homosexual lust are not the same qualitatively. Though they are both fallen and fall short of the glory of God, they are not fallen in the same way or for the same reason, which distinction Johnson does not make clear in his writing. Here it becomes necessary to make a distinction between sins that are contrary to nature and sins that are not.1
At its root, hetero-sexual desire is a natural, pre-fall gift of God that has become subject to the fallen imaginations and manipulation of sinful man. Heterosexuality is good in that it accords with nature (pre-fall), but it becomes bad whenever it is directed toward a person who is not one’s spouse (whether pre or post marriage). The compatibility of male and female reproductive organs, the potential for mutual pleasure when engaging in sex, and the ability to procreate are God’s way of indicating that this is the original, natural way, in which sex was designed to function—male and female. Heterosexual orientation is not the problem, in and of itself it is rightly ordered, natural, and good. It is only when heterosexual expression transgresses the bounds of monogamous marriage that we may talk about sinful heterosexuality, never before.
Though it is indeed a sad reality that hetero-sexual desire is often abused, the abuse of heterosexuality does not make the orientation per se disordered or contrary to nature as homosexuality is. Heterosexuality per se is not sinful. The abuse of heterosexuality is sinful. Heterosexuality is certainly subject to the consequences of the fall, but that does not make heterosexuality altogether fallen as an orientation. The abuse of a good thing does not thereby make the good thing cease to be good. For example, it is one thing to say that alcohol is a good gift from God and that one must be careful not to use it in a sinful manner (e.g., drunkenness) but it is another thing entirely to say that because alcohol, on this side of the fall, is so often abused that we should now regard it as a sinful, disordered substance. Yet, in multiple places, Johnson applies this sort of logic to heterosexuality as an orientation.
Read More

See WLC Q.151. Notice that the prooftext for the clause, “light of nature,” is Romans 1:26-27.