Ruth 1:1-5

¹ In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. ² The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. ³ But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. ⁴ These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, ⁵ and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

In a May 17, 1999, Washington Post article entitled “Jeffersons Split Over Hemings Descendants,” staff writer Leef Smith wrote of the tense moments when, the day before, the descendants of Sally Hemings, one of Thomas Jefferson’s slaves, attended the 86^th annual meeting of the Monticello Association, “a group of 700 descendants of Thomas Jefferson and his wife, Martha.” Here are a few insightful selections from the article.

They may not look alike or accept that they’re related, but when the descendants of Thomas Jefferson and one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, sat down at a white-linen luncheon this afternoon, it was like an episode of “Family Feud.”

Before people even tucked in their napkins, goodwill lost its footing and the bickering began. The occasion was the 86th annual meeting of the Monticello Association, a group of 700 descendants of Thomas Jefferson and his wife, Martha. This year, for the first time, about 35 descendants of Hemings, long thought by some to have been the mistress of the third president, were invited as guests.

Although the meeting was closed to the public and reporters, more than two dozen of whom milled outside the luncheon site at a hotel here, hints of what was going on among the 200-plus diners inside the Jefferson Ballroom were quick to leak.

First came a motion to evict the predominantly black Hemings faction and other nonvoting members from the room while the group mulled over scientific evidence made public last fall showing all but conclusively that Jefferson fathered Hemings’s youngest son, Eston. If the group accepted the evidence, it also had to consider whether the Hemings family should be admitted to the exclusive and, for now at least, all-white Monticello Association. Among other things, membership carries the privilege of burial at Monticello, Jefferson’s neoclassical home in the hills above Charlottesville.

“People sitting at my table got up and said they wanted me and my cousins to leave,” said Dorothy Westerinen, 41, a descendant of Eston Hemings. “It was painful to hear that.”

The motion to remove the guests lost, 33 to 20. But from that point on, those in attendance said later, the tone of the gathering became more contentious.

Association members also discussed their desire for more scientific and historical data to determine whether a Jefferson male other than Thomas could have fathered a child with Hemings, and they pressed for careful consideration of any evidence before opening their ranks.

Last year, DNA tests compared the Y chromosome in males who trace their ancestors to Monticello with that of male descendants of Hemings. Researchers said the scientific data matched the descendants of Eston Hemings with the male line of Jeffersons. When historical evidence was added, researchers said it all but confirmed a liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Hemings, putting a scientific imprimatur on what had long been regarded as fact on the Hemings’ side.

The new evidence led to an invitation from the Monticello Association, spurred by member Lucian K. Truscott IV, to the Hemings’ descendants to be guests at this year’s Jefferson family reunion. The gathering, attended by more than 200, was generally cordial, but some made clear their unease at the prospect of broadening the family tree.

The tension peaked at the close of today’s 3½-hour luncheon when Truscott, an outspoken critic of the arm’s-length treatment accorded the Hemings’ descendants, asked the association’s executive committee to accept the Hemings’ group as honorary members.

A two-thirds vote from attending members would have been required. But outgoing President Robert Gillespie wouldn’t allow it, saying later that honorary membership is, by tradition, reserved for officials at Jefferson’s beloved University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which operates Monticello.

An angry Truscott said Gillespie “wouldn’t allow the vote because he knew he’d lose. It was chicken.”[1]

The author of that piece may could have just as easily entitled it, “Awkwardness at the Family Reunion,” for truly that is what it was.

On the one side of the tension are the descendants of Jefferson who likely do not want to think that an ancestor who is held in such high esteem fathered multiple children with a slave girl. On the other are descendants who have good reason to think that he did and, understandably, want their place in the family tree to be acknowledged and recognized.

Curveballs work well in baseball games. They are not quite as welcome in family trees. That is the case with the Jefferson family tree and that was also the case with the Jewish family tree. Ruth represents such a curveball for the Jews. However, when we look closely at Ruth’s place in the family tree of Israel we find something that may have been uncomfortable for the early Jews, but, on closer inspection, is actually an amazing development in the story of God’s people that reveals powerful truths about both God and us.

My thesis this morning is that the very existence of the book of Ruth as a book in the Bible reveals beautiful truths that we need to understand. There are only eighty-five verses in the entire book of Ruth, but I contend that these eighty-five verses carry with them a number of stunning implications that directly impact you and me this very day.

We do not know for sure who wrote the book of Ruth, though Jewish tradition suggests that Samuel was the author.[2] Regardless, it is here, in our Bible, and its place here is significant for a number of reasons.

The existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unlikely people.

First and foremost is the fact that the existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon very unlikely people. I would like for us to begin our study of the book by turning to a surprising text: Matthew 1. The beginning of the first book of the New Testament is a record of the genealogy of Jesus. Let me share with you the first six verses of this chapter.

¹ The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. ² Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, ³ and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, ⁴ and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, ⁵ and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, ⁶ and Jesse the father of David the king.

There it is, nestled in the middle of verse 5: “and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth…”

If you were an early Jew, that would raise your eyebrows. Why? For two reasons: (a) Ruth was a woman and (b) Ruth was a foreigner.

The names of women were not traditionally present in Jewish genealogies. This was a patriarchal society. Yet there it is: Ruth. And in the genealogy of Jesus no less! In fact, there are five women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. What all five of these women have in common is that they were each, in their own way, surrounded by controversy. Thus, their presence is most unlikely and therefore most surprising!

This is compounded by the fact that Ruth was a foreign woman. She was a Moabite. To a purist, this too would have been most surprising. Yet there it is: the name of a Moabite woman. And here the book that bears her name is: Ruth, right here after the book of Judges.

Let us therefore begin with this initial observation: the existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon unlikely people. Do you see? If a person as unlikely as this Moabite woman can find herself in the family of God, that means that unlikely people like you and I can as well.

Perhaps you feel like an unlikely candidate for the love of God. You did not grow up doing the church scene. Or perhaps you did but long ago you walked away from it. You are, in your own mind, an outsider. You do not, in your own mind, belong with God’s people. Perhaps you even find yourself thinking, “What’s a guy like me doing in a place like this?”

If that is you, then take heart: that fact that the book after the book of Judges is named after the female Moabite heroin of the story means that there is hope for all unlikely members of the family of God! And then take even more heart: the fact that this Moabite woman is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Himself means that God can do amazing things with people who do not think they belong.

The existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people.

But there’s more: the existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people. It was not only that she was a woman. It was not only that she was a Moabite. It was also that her entry into this family of Jews was mired in realities that led many to conclude that she was utterly unworthy. We can see this as we begin to unpack our text:

¹ In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. ² The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. ³ But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. ⁴ These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, ⁵ and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

Our story begins with a Jewish family leaving Judah in search of food and traveling east to the land of Moab. Moab was “east of the Dead Sea [and] extended from the plains north of the Arnon River south to the Zered River. The region measure[d] sixty miles north to south and about thirty miles from the Dead Sea to the eastern desert.”[3] The family consisted of Elimelech and Naomi and there two sons Mahlon and Chilion. While there, Elimelech died, leaving his widow and two sons alone. Then, his sons married: Mahlon, the oldest, married a Moabite girl named Ruth and Chilion, the youngest, married a girl named Orpah. After ten years, however, Naomi’s boys also died. Now the Jewish widow found herself alone in a foreign land with her two foreign daughter’s-in-law.

Those are the barebones of the introduction to the book of Ruth. The book presents them to us in a fairly straightforward manner. Many of the original Jewish readers, however, found two aspects of this story to be most uncomfortable.

The first problem was the marriage of Naomi’s sons to these Moabite girls. In short, it was held that Mahlon violated the law in marrying Ruth. We know that many of the Jews felt this way. For instance, in the Aramaic Targum to Ruth, which is an early Jewish translation of the book of Ruth with rabbinical comments alongside the text, it is made clear that the Jews felt that the two sons died because they violated the Law by marrying Moabite women. Here is what the Targum says:

2- The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion, Ephrathites, noblemen, of Beth Lehem of Judah; and they came unto the field of Moab, and there they were military tribunes.

3- Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left a widow, and her two sons were left orphans.

4- They transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord and took unto themselves foreign wives, of the daughters of Moab, the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Ruth, the daughter of Eglon the king of Moab, and they dwelt there for a period of about ten years.

5- And because they transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord by intermarrying with strange peoples, their days were cut short, and the two of them, Mahlon and Kilion, also died, in an unclean land; and the woman was left bereft of her two sons and widowed of her husband.[4]

The belief of these commentators is clear enough: Jewish boys married foreign girls and that is why God killed them. Again, our text does not say that, but this is clearly how at least many Jews read the book. The names of the sons may also give a clue. Kirsten Nielsen points out that “Mahlon can be translated ‘sickness’ or ‘infertility,’ while Chilion means ‘consumptive.’”[5] This is possible, though the meanings of these names cannot be known with absolute certainty.

Furthermore, some Jewish commentators even read into the gaps in the first five verses of Ruth 1 supposed other evidences of the inappropriateness of the marriages. For instance, early rabbi commentators on Ruth “said that the sons married after their father’s death because he opposed the marriages” and “Jewish commentators since the Midrash view [verse 4] as a silent proptest against intermarriage.” Some even suggested that the wording of verse 4 implies racist attitudes on Naomi’s part which compelled their sons to find their wives on their own.[6]

Clearly, then, these marriages were not viewed in a positive light by the Jews. In fact, they were scandalous!

Furthermore, while Ruth was a foreigner, she was a citizen of a land considered to be particularly wicked: Moab.

For instance, the origins of the Moabites are utterly scandalous and shameful. We read of their beginnings in Genesis 19.

³⁰ Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. ³¹ And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. ³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” ³³ So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose. ³⁴ The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” ³⁵ So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. ³⁶ Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. ³⁷ The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. ³⁸ The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Thus, the Jews traced the Moabite origins to a shameful act of drunken incest and deceit. This was not the land from which Jewish parents wanted their good Jewish sons to take wives.

Mark Dever calls the Moabites “a terrible people,” noting that “they had sent Balaam to prophesy destruction upon Israel when Israel was preparing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 22-24)” and that “they were the first ones to seduce the sons of Israel into worshiping false gods.”[7]

The sinfulness of the Moabites can also be seen in the Old Testaments scrictures against their inclusion in the life of Israel. While Deuteronomy 7 does not mention Moab in its list of lands from which Jewish men were not to take wives, many assume that the principle would have applied there as well.

¹ “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. ³ You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, ⁴ for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. ⁵ But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23 explicitly denounces Moab.

³ “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, ⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. ⁵ But the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam; instead the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you. ⁶ You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever. ⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. ⁸ Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord.

You can see, then, that the fact that these boys married (a) foreign women and (b) Moabite foreign women was a huge problem for the Jews. But this presents an even bigger problem: in the book of Ruth, Ruth is not presented in a negative light. On the contrary, she is ultimately depicted as a woman of great character, faith, strength, and virtue. In fact, in the conclusion of the book, we will discover that Ruth is King David’s great-grandmother!

How do we rectify these to facts: the unworthiness of Ruth but the apparent favor that Ruth enjoyed in God’s eyes. Put another way, how could God be merciful and graceful to a woman from the absolute wrong side of the tracks.

It seems to me there are two options. The first option is for us to simply conclude that the book of Ruth is somehow deficient and that if it had been written the right way, God would have struck Ruth in his wrath! This kind of displeasure with the book was communicated by at least one early Jew. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. has passed on the telling words of a particular 2^nd century Jewish rabbi.

The Babylonian Talmud records the following saying of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (2^nd cent. A.D.): “…Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Esther make the hands unclearn.”

Hubbard explains the rabbi’s comment as having “been due to the problems which the book itself posed,” among which are “conflicts between the book’s practices and parallel pentateuchal laws” such as “the marriage of Mahlon and Chilion to Moabitesses.”[8]

So that is one option: to conclude that the book is simply deficient in what it depicts. May I suggest to us, however, that this is a terrible approach! In fact, I do not think the book of Ruth is deficient at all. It is the very word of God to us!

What then should we think of this? May I propose another option: that we read Ruth as astonishing evidence that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people! Perhaps the reason why God shows such favor to a girl from the wrong side of the tracks is…wait for it…because God genuinely loves people from the wrong side of the tracks.

In fact, according to scripture, we are all from the wrong side of the tracks! Which leads us to one more observation about the existence of the book of Ruth.

The existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon you.

Ruth would have been considered an unlikely object of God’s love as well as, in the minds of many people, an unworthy object of God’s love. In other words, she would have been considered an outsider, somebody who was far away from the people of God.

It is interesting to note how often the New Testament uses the image of distance to express the idea of spiritual lostness.

For instance, in Luke 18, Jesus tells the following story:

¹⁰ “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ ¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

Did you notice it? “But the tax collector, standing far off…” We find the same image in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Here, the younger son comes to his right mind and determines to return in humility to his father.

¹⁷ “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! ¹⁸ I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. ¹⁹ I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ ²⁰ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

There it is again: “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion…” Likewise, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2, he invokes this image in his response to the cries of the people:

³⁷ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” ³⁸ And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Ah, “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off.” We begin to notice something important in these examples: God’s heart is for all of those who are far off.

God loves the repentant tax collector standing far off.

God runs to the returning prodigal even though he is far off.

God’s promises extend beyond the “righteous” to those who are far off.

God loves far off Ruth!

God loves far off you!

How? How does He love far off Ruth? How does He love far off you?

Paul tells us in Ephesians 2.

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

He loves you through the blood of Christ. He loves you enough to send Christ for you. He loves you enough to lay down His life. He loves you enough to call to you in your distant place. He loves you enough to draw you near!

The existence of the book of Ruth means that God loves you! You!

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/may99/reunion17.htm

[2] Katharine Doob Sankenfeld, Ruth. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), p.5.

[3] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.277.

[4] https://targum.info/meg/ruth.htm

[5] Kirsten Nielson, Ruth. The Old Testament Library. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), p.42.

[6] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p.93.

[7] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p.239.

[8] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., p.5,n.4.

Acts 28:17-31

¹⁷ After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. ¹⁸ When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. ¹⁹ But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation. ²⁰ For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.” ²¹ And they said to him, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you. ²² But we desire to hear from you what your views are, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” ²³ When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. ²⁴ And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. ²⁵ And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: ²⁶ “‘Go to this people, and say,
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.” ²⁷ For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ ²⁸ Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” ³⁰ He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, ³¹ proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.

Sometimes the best part of a movie is the final scene. In fact, the final scene of a film can make or break it, and, in the best films, the final scene usually makes it. For instance, let me show you some shots of a few final scenes. See if you recognize these and why they were memorable final scenes.

This is the final scene from “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Do you remember? After all of Indiana Jones’ amazing adventures to find the ark of the covenant and after all of his brushes with death, the ark is crated up and stored in a massive warehouse. As the camera pans back and reveals just how many crates are there, you realize that the ark of the covenant is now lost again, this time in a cavernous warehouse to be forgotten forever. I would say that this final scenes communicates a kind of irony.

Or what about this scene? Do you remember? This is from the 1978 film, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” I remember seeing this as a kid. In the final scene, Nancy walks up to Matthew, assuming that they are the only two people who have yet to be turned into pod people by the aliens. However, when Matthew sees her he points at her and screams an unearthly, horrible scream, revealing that he has already been turned. Ugh!!! When I first saw this as a kid, it jarred me for days!

Or here is the opposite kind of final scene: a shot from the final scene of “The Shawshank Redemption.” Here, Red walks towards Andy on the shore of Mexico. This is a powerful scene because it shows a beautiful and peaceful contrast to the dark horrors of grey, foreboding Shawshank Prison. Red and Andy are finally free and a new life can now begin for them both.

Sometimes the final scenes of movies are enigmatic and perhaps perplexing. Here is a shot of the final scene from “No Country From Old Men.” Here, Sheriff Bell is telling his wife about the dream he had the night before, the dream of his father passed him riding a horse in the cold night carrying fire in a horn on ahead where he would be waiting for his son. And then the screen goes black. Wow! What does that mean?!

Ah, then there is this: the final scene of “Planet of the Apes.” Do you remember when you first saw this? Here, Taylor and Nova walk on the shore of this planet of the Apes only to find the Statue of the Liberty and realize that they have been on earth all along! Mind…blown!!!

And what about the final scene of “The Godfather.” The movie ends with Kay asking Michael Corleone if he was responsible for Carlo’s death. He denies that he was. Kay seems to believe him but then she turns to see all of Michael’s capos come to greet him as the new Godfather just as the door is closed between him and her.

Wow! The final scene really can make or break a film!

And what about the final scene of this guy’s story: the Apostle Paul? When the camera fades to black here at the end of Acts 28, what is Paul doing? What is our final vision of the great missionary hero in Acts? Acts 28:17-31 offers us the final scene, and it too caps off a great story!

In the final scene, we see Paul taking the initiative to create opportunities to tell people about Jesus.

One thing that must be said about the final scene of Acts is that it presents us nothing new, nothing startling, no great plot twist. M. Night Shyamalan would not enjoy the end of Acts. In fact, the final scene of this great book shows Paul doing exactly Paul had always done since meeting Jesus on the Damascus Road.

¹⁷ After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. ¹⁸ When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. ¹⁹ But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation. ²⁰ For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.” ²¹ And they said to him, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you. ²² But we desire to hear from you what your views are, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.”

Paul, under house arrest in Rome, invited the Jewish leaders to come see him. “House arrest,” R.C. Sproul tells us, “meant that Paul could enjoy the company of his friends even tough he was kept under guard twenty-four hours a day, chained by his wrist to one of the guards. The guards changed shifts every four hours, so in a twenty-four-hour period, six different guards were chained to the Apostle Paul.” Sproul goes on to say that “there were no more blessed prison guards in the history of the world than those six men who had the unspeakable privilege of being cuffed to the wrist of the world’s greatest preacher of all time.”[1]

That is true! And there was no more blessed group than these Jewish elders who were invited into his home so that he could speak to them. They came and Paul told them generally how he came to be in Rome. They responded, surprisingly, that they knew nothing about him but they did know a little about Christianity primarily because it was criticized by Jews. Thus, they told Paul that they wanted him to share what was on his mind. So Luke says this:

²³ When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. ²⁴ And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved.

Beautiful! Paul, burning with missionary zeal for the salvation of these Jewish elders “from morning till evening…expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.” Note: he could not go to synagogue, as was his normal custom, so he invited the synagogue to him. Then, he laid out his case.

Dear church, when the camera fades to black on Paul in the book of Acts, he is sitting in his living room beseeching the Jewish religious leaders to trust in Christ! When the camera fades to black on you, what will it show?

This raises another practical question: do we know enough of the gospel and are we grounded firmly enough in the truths of God’s Word to be able to expound them from morning till evening? I recently spoke with an American missionary who was telling me of visiting the country of Nepal. He shared how he and another American brother got off of the plane in a state of exhaustion from the long travel to that far away country. When they exited the plane, they were taken to a local Christian church. There, the missionary was met by an apologetic pastor who greeted the two men but told him that, due to unforeseen circumstances, the two brothers would only be able to preach for three hours each instead of the customary longer sermon! The missionary I was speaking to said he was stunned and managed to get out about an hour and a half before calling it quits.

My point is not that there is anything inherently godly in a longer sermon. My point is that Paul was so filled with passion for the gospel that he was able to talk about it all day long, reasoning and trying to persuade the lost to accept Christ.

I would also like to remind all of us that our church is here today because Christians in the past took their responsibility to share the gospel seriously. They, like Paul, took the initiative to reach out to a lost and dying world. We are therefore the beneficiaries of the boldness of our forefathers and foremothers. We are here because way back then somebody said, “I will not wait. I will go. I will speak of Jesus. I will spread the gospel. Everybody must know, and I must make sure they do!”

In the final scene, we see Paul looking for the gospel to advance further and further into the world.

Luke reveals that the reaction to Paul’s message was mixed. Some believed and some did not. Paul, in response, quoted Isaiah to the Jews in order to explain to them what they were doing.

²⁵ And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: ²⁶ “‘Go to this people, and say,
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.” ²⁷ For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ ²⁸ Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.” [²⁹ And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, having much dispute among themselves.]

Paul announced that the gospel had been sent even to the Jews and informed the Jews that “they will listen.” When the camera fades to black on Paul he is announcing the worldwide spread of the gospel. He is announcing that this gospel of Christ is not the plaything of the Jews. Rather, it is intended for the entire world. Indeed, “that salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles.” It has been. It will be. It will continue onward!

There can be no doubt that one of the great marks of a missionary heart is a desire to see the gospel reach the nations. All of them. This creates problems, for it also cannot be doubted that we live in an age in which evangelism itself is seen as offensive and contrary to the unspoken and assumed codes of modern behavior. Indicative are the 1999 comments of K.R. Malkani, then spokesman of the Bharatiya Janata Party in India, concerning the Southern Baptist Convention’s call for the evangelization of Hindus.

I have read the…report of U.S. Baptists’ bid to convert Hindus to Christianity during Divali. I must say I am not surprised. The missionary approach to Hindus and Hinduism has always been illiterate and offensive…Firstly, India is more religious than any other country in the world. Morally, it is more Christian than any other Christian country. Secondly, is it not an insult to India to tell Hindus that they are all sinners and that only Jesus can save them?[2]

Paul would have answered that question, “No! No, it is not an insult to India to tell Hindus that they are all sinners and that only Jesus can save them! It is, in fact, good news, for only in admitting our need for a Savior are we in a position to receive a Savior.”

Paul announced to the Jews that the gospel had spilled the banks and was flowing everywhere. I am trying to say to some of you who may perhaps still be in a position of uncertainty over the legitimacy of worldwide efforts at evangelization that the evangelization of the world is in the very heart of God. It is in the heart of God to want all people to know Jesus. It is also in the hearts of His champions, like Paul. So must it be in ours!

In the final scene, we see Paul being consistent and bold on behalf of the Kingdom of God.

Finally, we see the boldness of Paul in the final scene of Acts. Here are Luke’s closing words:

³⁰ He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, ³¹ proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.

What an ending! What a final scene! There we find Paul under house arrest still doing his thing! And what was that? “Proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.” The 6^th century monk and former Roman Senator Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator wrote of this passage in these terms: “Although he was bound with chains of iron, he daily set believers free from the chains of their sins.”[3]

That is well said, and a nice summary. Modern interpreters have also tried to make sense of the way in which Luke ended Acts. For instance, Ajith Fernando writes:

Luke’s decision to close his book with a report of ongoing evangelism reminds us that evangelism is the passion that ignites our activity. God has acted decisively in Christ to save the human race. Herein lies the ultimate answer to the problems of the human race. If we love this world as God does, we will want to tell it of this liberating good news. This business will consume our passion to the day we die.[4]

John Stott put it like this:

Now the next generation must step into his shoes and continue to work. Just as Luke’s Gospel ended with the prospect of a mission to the nations, so the Acts ends with the prospect of a mission radiating from Rome to the world. Luke’s description of Paul preaching ‘with boldness’ and ‘without hindrance’ symbolizes a wide open door, through which we in our day have to pass. The Acts of the Apostles have long ago finished. But the acts of the followers of Jesus will continue until the end of the world, and their words will spread to the ends of the earth.[5]

I think Stott is getting at something important. Why, after all, does Luke not end the book of Acts with Paul’s martyrdom, his death? Tradition tells us that Paul was martyred by being beheaded. Why not end with Paul’s death? Why end with Paul evangelizing?

Is it not because Luke is saying something about the continuation of the book of Acts in and through the Church today? Is he not saying that the story of the Church does not end with the death of a champion, it continues in the lives of numerous heroes of the gospel today? Which is to say this: Church, the book of Acts continues now in you! It is your story, our story! Do you see? It does not end with the death of Paul because the Church today is still about the business that Paul was about, or we should be. And Paul was simply about the business of Jesus.

Church, let us write our chapter of Acts well. May our chapter say of us what the first twenty eight said of the early Church: that we were fired with gospel passion, that we spent ourselves on reaching out to everybody everywhere with the good news of Jesus Christ.

Let us write our chapter well, Church.

Let us write our chapter well.

[1] Sproul, R.C. Acts (St. Andrews Expositional Commentary) (Location 6633-6641). Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.

[2] RNS, “Hindus react to Southern Baptist prayer plans,” The Christian Index (November 4, 1999), p.6.

[3] Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), p.295.

[4] Fernando, Ajith (2010-12-21). Acts (The NIV Application Commentary) (p.583-584). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[5] Stott, John (2014-04-02). The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today Series) (Kindle Locations 7351-7355). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

Acts 28:1-16

¹ After we were brought safely through, we then learned that the island was called Malta. ² The native people showed us unusual kindness, for they kindled a fire and welcomed us all, because it had begun to rain and was cold. ³ When Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. ⁴ When the native people saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.” ⁵ He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. ⁶ They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god. ⁷ Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us and entertained us hospitably for three days. ⁸ It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him. ⁹ And when this had taken place, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured. ¹⁰ They also honored us greatly, and when we were about to sail, they put on board whatever we needed. ¹¹ After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead. ¹² Putting in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. ¹³ And from there we made a circuit and arrived at Rhegium. And after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. ¹⁴ There we found brothers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. ¹⁵ And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. ¹⁶ And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.

I suppose one of the most humorous hospital visits I ever made was to an elderly man named Ike Chambless. I received a phone call that Mr. Ike was in the emergency room of a hospital in Albany, Georgia. He had been bitten by a baby rattlesnake in his front yard. He had been working in the yard and put his hand down in a hole to remove an obstruction and, when he pulled the hand out, a baby rattlesnake was hanging from his finger. That is not the funny part! In fact, it was terrifying!

I rushed over the emergency room and found Mr. Ike sitting up in his bed, his hand badly swollen but the IV doing its job as it helped the antivenom into his body. I relaxed when I saw that Mr. Ike was ok and that he was in good spirits. We talked and even laughed about it while we sat down cheering the medicine on in its task of combating the venom!

The funny part came some moments after I had been there when the doctor, who had apparently not seen him yet, came into the room. He asked Mr. Ike to tell the story of what had happened to him. Ike did so. When he was finished the doctor said, “Well, what did you do with the snake?” To which Ike responded, “Oh it’s right there behind you.” The doctor and I both turned and looked at the counter behind the doctor. There, laid out on top of a plastic grocery store bag, was the snake!

The doctor jerked backwards away from the counter and my heart lept into my throat! Mr. Ike chuckled and said, “Oh, don’t worry. It’s dead.” The doctor, composing himself said, “Let me get somebody to put this thing in a sealed container!”

It was a funny moment! Ike and I had a good laugh about it. I do not recall the poor doctor cracking a smile!

Paul had his own snake story, though it was much more important than Mr. Ike’s. Paul’s story demonstrated in a miraculous way the power of God (not, I should add, that Mr. Ike’s didn’t!). It stands as a most interesting little story demonstrating some wonderfully big truths in the midst of an amazing life!

The power of God working in Paul’s life confounded the pagan theology of the world and drew nonbelievers to Christ.

It happened on the island of Malta where Paul and the crew of the ship found themselves after their frightening ordeal at sea.

¹ After we were brought safely through, we then learned that the island was called Malta. ² The native people showed us unusual kindness, for they kindled a fire and welcomed us all, because it had begun to rain and was cold.

“The native people” referred to in verse 2 is a translation of the Greek word barbaroi which is sometimes translated as “barbarous people.” Our word “barbarian” is a transliteration of the word barbaroi. Jaroslav Pelikan points out that this is “a term that in modern English probably carries more pejorative connotations than it does in Greek, where it means, with relative neutrality, ‘non-Greek,’ as it does in other appearances in the New Testament.”[1] Thus, no slight is intended by the term. They were simply the island inhabitants, pagans, to be sure, but considering the kindness they showed the shipwrecked crew they were obviously a benevolent people. Even so, their spiritual blindness became evident in their reaction to something surprising that happened to Paul.

³ When Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. ⁴ When the native people saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.” ⁵ He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. ⁶ They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

Well, that is surprising indeed! Paul is bitten by a snake that he appears almost to casually shake off into the fire. A Snake being mistaken for wood is not unheard of. James Montgomery Boice has passed on a somewhat similar story from Lawrence of Arabia.

            T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, described something like this in his book Revolt in the Desert about the desert campaign in the World War I. It was cold. The Arabs had gathered sticks for a fire. One of the sticks turned out to be a snake that was revived by the fire’s warmth and slithered away into the dark night, in this case without biting anybody.[2]

What was unique about the instance involving Paul on Malta is the fact that he was bitten then shook the snake off with no ill effects.

Ben Witherington notes that critics of this story point out that there is no record of there ever having been venomous snakes on the island of Malta. However, he points out that “it may…be the case that Luke has not used the term echidna with precision” and that, furthermore, “there is a snake, which has long been found on Malta, belonging to the species Coronella austriaca, which is a type of constrictor. This is thought to better fit the description of a snake fastening itself on Paul’s hand.” Furthermore, Witherington points out that “Pliny the Elder indicates it was a common belief, even among the educated, that all snakes were poisonous and that they were often agents of divine vengeance.”[3]

Regardless of the arguments of detractors, Luke has proven himself to be an accurate historian throughout Acts and his testimony should be sufficient enough proof: Paul was bitten. The bite led the inhabitants to conclude that Paul must be a murderer or some terrible criminal. They appear to have thought that Dike, the goddess of justice, was punishing Paul for some crime.[4] In reasoning thus, they demonstrated that they held to a belief in what we would call today “karma,” a belief in cause-and-effect justice that is hardwired into the universe itself. However, Paul shook the snake off with an indifferent shrug. As a result, the islanders swung to the other extreme and called Paul a god!

Such is the nature of pagan theology: it understands neither God nor man. It is deficient in both its theology and its anthropology. Paul’s example in the episode with the snake confounded their theology and shattered its categories. In fact, Paul was living proof that their simplistic understanding of justice did not have a category for that which makes gospel good news: grace. After all, Paul was a murderer, but he had been declared righteous by the righteousness of Christ that he received by grace through faith. He was no god, but he knew the God of the universe. Thus, the snake served as an illustration to the watching islanders that what they thought they knew about God (or, as they would have put it, the gods) and man was deeply deficient.

Then, God worked powerfully through Paul to draw people to Himself.

⁷ Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us and entertained us hospitably for three days. ⁸ It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him. ⁹ And when this had taken place, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured. ¹⁰ They also honored us greatly, and when we were about to sail, they put on board whatever we needed.

Paul’s ministry on Malta consisted of a miraculous blocking of poisonous death on the one hand and miraculous healings on the other. His instrument for demonstrating His power in both cases was Paul, His missionary champion. He used Paul to heal the father of the power man on Malta, Publius. Then, He used Paul to heal the crowd that thronged to him.

We are provided a cursory sketch of these events. Luke does not permit us to hear Paul’s words on Malta. Regardless, we can be sure that Paul made much of Jesus, that he used all of these circumstances to promote the gospel. We can be sure of this because this is what Paul always did. God was creating missionary moments for Paul, both through the situation with the snake and through the healings of the sick.

It is evident, then, that Paul remained a mighty and powerful instrument in the hands of God. That makes what happened next that much more moving.

And the power of God working through the Church encouraged and strengthened Paul.

Having touched so many lives through Paul and his ministry, God now touched Paul’s life through the life and ministry of the Church. As Paul approached Rome, he suddenly found himself the object of the Church’s acceptance, love, mercy, and compassion.

¹¹ After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead. ¹² Putting in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. ¹³ And from there we made a circuit and arrived at Rhegium. And after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. ¹⁴ There we found brothers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. ¹⁵ And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. ¹⁶ And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.

How very touching this is! “On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.” T.C. Smith writes, “Paul, the man who had been comforting others on the voyage, was now comforted…The strongest Christian also needs the sympathy, compassion, help, care, and concern of others.”[5] That is so true and so well said!

Show me a great Christian, a brave Christian, a strong Christian, a champion of the gospel, a luminary in the Church, a man through whom God has done mighty works and through whom He has touched innumerable lives, and I will show you a man who still needs the encouragement of the Church, the love of the Church, the compassion and understanding of the Church.

Nobody…nobody…is beyond the need for encouragement. This is evident from Paul’s reaction to seeing these believers come to meet him as he begins to approach Rome. It also demonstrates that we need to be sensitive to those around us, especially those we consider to be strong and boundless sources of energy. We must begin to understand that our fellow believers are a mission field for the ministry of encouragement. It is a great gift that we can give to one another.

Will Willimon put it beautifully when he said this:

In a narrative filled with accounts of power, miraculous deliverance, and divine intervention, this is perhaps the greatest power the Christian faith puts at the disciple’s disposal – the power of brothers and sisters in the church. In struggles with injustice, cruelty, and life’s difficulties, one of the church’s greatest gifts to us is the church. If Luke seems preoccupied with the church, it is perhaps because Luke knows that the church has become the content of the gospel proclamation. Jesus came preaching, not simply a new philosophy of life but a new way of living…The Acts question is not merely the intellectual one of “Do you agree?” but the political and social question, “Will you join up?”[6]

Yes, the Church, when it is the Church, represents a new life and a new way of doing life together. The Church’s movement toward Paul was a movement of affirmation not only of how the gospel had taken root in Paul’s life in such powerful and dramatic ways but also of how the gospel had likewise taken root in the life of the Roman church.

Our text is therefore a powerful and memorable display of how God worked through Paul to touch the lives of numerous people and then of how God worked through numerous people to touch the life of Paul.

God longs to work powerful through us as well: through us to the outside world and through us to our fellow Christian as well.

Be the instrument that God intends for you to be.

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), p.290.

[2] James Montgomery Boice, Acts. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p.418.

[3] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), p.777-778.

[4] T.C. Smith, “Acts.” The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol.10. Clifton J. Allen, gen. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1970), p.149.

[5] T.C. Smith, p.150.

[6] William H. Willimon, Acts. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1988), p.186-187.

My friend Jamie Rogers (church planter extraordinaire in Long Island) mentioned to me when I was up there in January that Mack Stiles’ book Evangelism was the best he had read on the subject.  Having just finished it, I’d certainly concur that it is a very strong read indeed!  This book is part of the series of 9 Marks titles that are relatively brief, accessible, and, in my experience, meaty.  It is written by a man who clearly has a heart for seeing people come to know Jesus.  If you struggle with personal evangelism or consider the whole idea terrifying, you will be greatly helped by this title.

There are three particular strengths to the book.  First, its main thesis is that evangelism is a whole-church task best executed within an intentionally cultivated culture of evangelism.  This idea was most helpful and, I believe, sorely needed!  Many (most?) evangelism books actually prop up modern American notions of radical individualism by instructing you how to share the faith with him or her.  This book is arguing that evangelism is done best when we (the Church) are sharing our faith with him or her.  Thus, when a nonbeliever visits a church, they should, in addition to hearing gospel proclamation, be the recipient of authentic, loving, and careful evangelism as numerous people who engage them bear witness to what Christ has done in their lives.  Again, this should be authentic, not forced, as people who have been born again simply share how Christ has changed their lives.  This emphasis on creating a culture of evangelism was great appreciated!

Secondly, Stiles pushes against programmatic evangelism or the idea of canned presentations of the gospel.  He seems to me to be saying that these efforts, while usually well-intended, do not ask too much but too little.  Furthermore, they put the onus on the Church to create evangelistic opportunities instead of simply responding to or seeking Spirit-created opportunities as they come.  I have long thought that our churches are adrift in a sea of programmatic overload.  I know.  I have contributed to the problem.  It’s a tough thing, really.  Programs are not bad in and of themselves.  I applaud and use many of them.  But in areas like evangelism they seem to compartmentalize what should really be a natural, organic aspect of our lives as Christians.  I hear Stiles arguing for this organic approach to evangelism.

Third, the book gives great examples of what this evangelistic culture looks like.  I was inspired and encouraged and convicted to read these stories of how God uses whole congregations to bring people to the faith.  As a pastor, I long for such a culture of evangelism and believe that Stiles’ has offered a very helpful snapshot of what that might look like.  On a practical note, such anecdotal evidence makes the reading experience so much more enjoyable as well.

This is a great book on a crucial topic that should be read and considered by all who care about evangelism and doing it rightly…which should be us all!