• About
  • Contact
  • RSS
  • Audio
The Doctor's Office
Banner
  • Home
  • Old Testament Book Studies
    • The Book Of Genesis
    • The Book of Ruth
    • The Book of Nehemiah
    • The Book Of Esther
    • The Book Of Ecclesiastes
  • New Testament Book Studies
    • The Gospel Of Mark
    • The Book Of Romans
    • The Book Of 1 Corinthians
    • The Book Of 2 Corinthians
    • The Book Of Galatians
    • The Book Of Ephesians
    • The Book Of Philippians
    • The Book Of 1 Timothy
    • The Book Of Colossians
    • The Book Of 1 Thessalonians
    • The Book Of 2 Thessalonians
    • The Book Of 2 Timothy
    • The Book of Titus
    • The Book Of Philemon
    • The Book Of Hebrews
    • The Book Of 1 Peter
    • The Book Of 2 Peter
    • The Book Of James
    • The Book Of 1 John
    • The Books Of 2 John / 3 John
    • The Book Of Revelation
Author

Ed Urzi

Ed Urzi

Romans – Chapter Two XXVIII

by Ed Urzi April 29, 2026

The eternal fate of the unevangelized brings forth another question: is it possible to find salvation apart from the redemptive work of Christ? While members of the Christian community may disagree on various matters, there is universal agreement on this point: there is no salvation apart from Christ’s redemptive work.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for that position appears in Acts 4:12: “No one else can save us. Indeed, we can be saved only by the power of the one named Jesus and not by any other person” (GW). Several other Biblical passages validate this position as well…

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3.36).

“Christ… has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).

We could also turn to Luke 10:16, John 3:16-18, John 5:24, John 14:6, and Hebrews 10:12-14 for additional support. Therefore, those who reject this position (or add something else to Christ’s redemptive work) go beyond the parameters of orthodox Christianity.

However, this might prompt an additional question: how did the pre-New Testament saints find salvation prior to Jesus’ atoning death? The answer is that they were saved as we are today: by faith. The Biblical book of Hebrews offers the following explanation…

“For this reason Christ is the one who arranges a new covenant, so that those who have been called by God may receive the eternal blessings that God has promised. This can be done because there has been a death which sets people free from the wrongs they did while the first covenant was in effect” (Hebrews 9:15 GNT).

Consider the experience of Abraham, the great Old Testament patriarch. Romans chapter four will discuss Abraham’s life at greater length, but for now, let’s focus on one aspect of Abraham’s relationship with God: “…[Abraham] believed the Lord, and the Lord counted him as righteous because of his faith” (Genesis 15:6 NLT). Although Abraham’s life pre-dated the Old Covenant, he still fulfilled God’s directive through the pen of the Biblical prophet Habakkuk…

“Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4).

In addition, Abraham’s faith anticipated the arrival of a future Messiah. Jesus testified to that element of Abraham’s faith when He said to the religious leaders of His day, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Thus, as the following scholar concludes, “Sinners who were saved under the First Testament were actually saved, not by it or by any sacrifice offered under its jurisdiction, but through the atoning work of Messiah under the New Testament.” (1)

(1) Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament [Hebrews 9:15] Copyright © 1942-55 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Romans – Chapter Two XXVII

by Ed Urzi April 28, 2026

The eternal destiny of a medieval peasant in a faraway land who never heard the gospel of Christ has led some to consider the possibility that God might offer a second opportunity for salvation to such individuals. For instance, there are some who may point to the following passage from the Biblical book of 1 Peter to find support for that idea…

“For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6).

Some believe this verse offers an opportunity for the unrighteous dead to find salvation, or a second chance at eternal life for those who never heard the good news of salvation through faith in Christ. However, that view fails to account for another portion of Scripture from the book of Hebrews: “…each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27 NLT).

While the prospect of a second opportunity for salvation after death is a concept that undoubtedly resonates with many, the Scriptures preclude any consideration of that view. Thus, as we are told in the Biblical book of 2 Corinthians, “…the ‘right time’ is now. Today is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2 NLT).

One commentator offers a thorough analysis and refutation of this “second chance” theory…

“A few apologists and many cults believe that God will give a second chance after death for adults who have never heard the gospel. However, most orthodox Christians reject this. First, once again, the Bible declares that every person ‘is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment’ (Heb. 9:27). Second, the urgency with which Scripture speaks of making one’s decision now—in this life, before it is too late—is strong evidence that there is no second chance.

Third, the fact that upon death people immediately go to a final destiny (cf. Luke 16:19ff.; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 19:20) indicates that a decision must be made in this life. Fourth, since God has so many means at His disposal to reveal Himself to unbelievers before death, it is unnecessary that He do so in the afterlife. Fifth, belief in a second chance undermines the missionary mandate. Why order the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) if people can be saved apart from receiving Christ in this life?

Sixth, and finally, the verses used to support second-chance salvation are, at best, hermeneutically dubious and are contradicted by other clear scriptural teachings… difficult texts must be interpreted in light of clear ones rather than vice versa.” (1)

(1) Geisler, N. L. (2004). Systematic Theology: Sin/Salvation. Bethany House Publishers.

Romans – Chapter Two XXVI

by Ed Urzi April 27, 2026

Before we continue with our study of Romans chapter two, our text from verse twelve should prompt us to address an important question: what is the fate of those who have never had encountered the gospel message of salvation through faith in Christ? We can begin that discussion by outlining a few key data points.

First, this question often takes the form of the following objection: “What happens to the innocent person in a remote land who has never heard of Jesus?” Of course, some who pose that question may not have any actual interest in the eternal destiny of an indigenous person in a faraway region who has never heard of Christ. Instead, that question may be designed to serve as a platform that allows the questioner to indict God for His alleged unfairness to those individuals.

Nevertheless, this is a valid and important question that deserves careful consideration. For example, this question conceals a premise that bears close examination. That premise involves the word “innocent.” On one hand, Romans 5:13 tells us, “…sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law” (NIV). As mentioned earlier, God will not hold such individuals accountable for violating a written law they never received.

However, that does not make someone innocent. Consider the preceding portion of that reference from Romans 5:13…

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given…” (Romans 5:12-13 NIV).

We can also return to a portion of Romans chapter one for some additional insight into this question…

“What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them. From the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse” (Romans 1:19-20 GW).

Romans 3:23 will later go on to add, “…everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard” (NLT). Because of this, “All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law…” (HCSB) as we’re told in Romans 2:12. And as we’ve already seen, the testimony of general revelation alerts us to the reality of God’s existence, along with the cosmological, teleological, and axiological arguments for His being. To borrow a phrase from Romans 1:20, people thus have no excuse.

One Biblical scholar summarizes this question and its corresponding answer with the following conclusion: “What happens, then, to the innocent person who has never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ? The answer is that God never punishes innocent people. Those who are innocent have no need to worry about the judgment of God. Yet according to the New Testament, there are no innocent people.” (1)

Image Attribution: Innocent by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images via via The Blue Diamond Gallery

(1) Sproul, R. C. (2014). Everyone’s a theologian: An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Reformation Trust Pub. [pg. 326-327]

The Book Of Ruth – Chapter Four

by Ed Urzi April 25, 2026

I

The fourth chapter of the Biblical book of Ruth represents the final act of this ancient narrative. This chapter will resolve the dramatic ending of chapter three with a conclusion that showcases God’s behind-the-scenes orchestration of these events…

“Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there; and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz had spoken came by. So Boaz said, ‘Come aside, friend, sit down here.’ So he came aside and sat down” (Ruth 4:1).

While “sitting at the gate” may sound like an insignificant activity, a seat at the city gate was a prominent position in the Old Testament era.

As you might expect, the “gate” offered passage through the perimeter walls of an ancient city. But it also served as a central hub where many of the city’s legal, social, and commercial activities transpired. For instance, the city gate functioned as a public forum, a place where people could gather to discuss the news of the day.

It also served as a high-traffic marketplace where vendors could display their wares. In addition, the gate functioned as a venue where municipal officials would convene for official proceedings or to issue public announcements. Finally, the city gate was a place where judges sat to render verdicts and local authorities (or “elders”) gathered to witness legal transactions. (1)

So while much of Ruth chapter three took place in the secluded darkness of the threshing floor, chapter four begins in the public arena of the city gate. Given its role as the focal point of urban activity, the gate served as an excellent location for anyone who might seek to locate a person of interest. And sure enough, it wasn’t long before Boaz found his target: “Soon the family redeemer Boaz had spoken about came by” (HCSB).

And with that, Boaz executed the first step in his carefully orchestrated plan.

(1) This explains why the husband of the virtuous woman spoken of in Proverbs chapter thirty-one was “…known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land” (Proverbs 31:23).

II

“And [Boaz] took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, ‘Sit down here.’ So they sat down” (Ruth 4:2).

Having invited this unnamed relative to join him at the city gate, Boaz next moved to secure an audience of ten city elders. While the custom of that era likely mandated the presence of ten elders to ratify a legal agreement, we’ll later find that many others convened to watch these events unfold. That gathering undoubtedly formed another portion of Boaz’ strategy.

So, having completed these preliminary steps, it was now time to get down to business…

“Boaz said to the man, ‘Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the field that belonged to our relative Elimelech’” (Ruth 4:3 GW)

It’s interesting to note that our text never explicitly names this “close relative” from Ruth chapter four. While Boaz certainly would have known his identity, this passage simply refers to him as a friend, man, or relative. We’ll consider one potential explanation for this curious omission later in this chapter.

Boaz then explained why he had brought them all together: “’Naomi, who has returned from the country of Moab, must sell the plot of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech’” (Ruth 4:3 AMP). While this seems like a relatively straightforward announcement, it’s unclear whether Naomi’s family sold this land prior to her departure from Bethlehem or if she had now opted to sell those rights following her return.

One commentary outlines the possibilities in this manner…

“Two interpretations are possible: 1. Naomi owns the land but is so destitute that she is forced to sell. It was the duty of the kinsman-redeemer to buy any land in danger of being sold outside the family. 2. Naomi does not own the land—it had been sold by Elimelech before the family left for Moab—but by law she retains the right of redemption to buy the land back. Lacking funds to do so herself, she is dependent on a kinsman-redeemer to do it for her. It is the right of redemption that Naomi is ‘selling.’” (1)

(1) Zondervan NIV Study Bible (Fully Revised), Ruth Copyright © 1985, 1995, 2002 by The Zondervan Corporation

III

It’s clear from the preceding chapters of this book that Ruth and Naomi were in a state of financial distress. If Naomi had been financially secure, then her daughter-in-law would not have had to resort to scavenging leftover crops from nearby farms to ensure their survival (Ruth 2:2).

Given that bleak outlook, Naomi apparently chose to raise some desperately needed funds by selling her share of the family property. It was this “notice of divestment” that Boaz delivered to this unnamed relative here in Ruth 4:3: “Naomi has come back from Moab and is selling the land that belonged to her husband Elimelech” (CEV).

So, having informed the potential buyer that this property was available for purchase, Boaz proceeded to explain the purpose of their meeting…

“And I thought to inform you, saying, ‘Buy it back in the presence of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am next after you’…” (Ruth 4:4).

Before continuing, we should remember that “buying” and “selling” were relative terms with respect to property in the Old Testament era. According to Old Testament law, God was the ultimate owner of the land (see Leviticus 25:23). However, He assigned portions of the Promised Land to each of the tribes of Israel. Each tribal family then received a share of that allocation.

These family units maintained control over their respective properties, although others could purchase usage rights for a period of time. A seller (or a family member with sufficient financial resources) always held the option to redeem those usage rights. But even if those options were not viable, the land would ultimately revert to the originating family every fifty years (Leviticus 25:8-17).

That was the proposal Boaz put forth when he said, “I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people” (NIV). When framed in that manner, this was an offer that was too good to refuse.

IV

“…’Now then, if you want it, buy it in the presence of these men sitting here. But if you don’t want it, say so, because the right to buy it belongs first to you and then to me…’” (Ruth 4:4 GNB).

This passage offers some insight into Boaz’ strategy and his plan to secure the right to marry Ruth. Remember that Boaz assembled a group of elders to witness his discussion with this unnamed relative. In fact, he specifically stated that he had done so for that very purpose. While this may seem insignificant, there is a difference between discussing redemption rights and formalizing an agreement concerning those rights.

For instance, Boaz might have opted for a private conversation with this relative first. Instead, he elected to disclose Naomi’s proposal, along with his own potential interest, in the presence of this assembly.

In doing so, Boaz cultivated a strategic environment that pressed his relative to commit to an immediate decision. And sure enough, his target took the bait…

“…And he said, ‘I will redeem it’” (Ruth 4:4).

This unnamed relative made a great tactical error in making this response: he agreed to exercise his right of redemption before he knew the terms and conditions of the sale. For instance, he could have said, “Are there any stipulations associated with this option?” Instead, he immediately accepted Boaz’ offer.

One commentator explains why this anonymous relative might have viewed this opportunity as an offer that was too good to pass up…

“Why not? Indeed, this would have been quite a windfall. Naomi was a poor widow and probably could not command a very high price for the land; and besides that, in the year of Jubilee, which might not have been very far away, it would revert, theoretically, to Elimelech’s heirs. But, since he had no heirs, it would have remained in the near kinsman’s possession!” (1)

So, even if this unnamed relative elected to purchase Naomi’s property rights, his right to the land would eventually revert to Naomi’s family by law. But since Naomi’s husband and sons were deceased, this meant that her property would likely remain in this unnamed relative’s possession following her death.

As a result, he would take possession of an estate that he could bequeath to his own family simply by paying the redemption price. Because of this, the opportunity to redeem the land represented a very attractive business proposition, and he readily agreed to exercise his option.

(1) Ruth 4 – Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible (n.d.). StudyLight.org. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/ruth-4.html

V

Even though Boaz was honest in his representation of the facts, there was one piece of information he had yet to disclose. That hidden detail will underscore the negotiating talent that undoubtedly contributed to his success as a business leader…

“Then Boaz said, ‘On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance’” (Ruth 4:5).

While the price to redeem Naomi’s property rights was undoubtedly attractive, the cost of acquiring those rights was another matter. Ruth’s involvement added several layers of complexity to what otherwise seemed to be a fairly straightforward business transaction.

First, the addition of “Ruth the Moabitess” meant this unnamed relative would have to assume responsibility for Ruth as his new wife. Her mere presence would alter his family dynamics in unpredictable (and likely negative) ways.

Next, he would lose the rights to Naomi’s property (along with the purchase price) if a son was born to Ruth through their relationship. Finally, this unknown relative would have to feed, house, and care for any children born from their union. Those children would carry the family legacy of his departed kinsman instead of his own.

Boaz’ decision to conduct these negotiations in public (and in full view of these municipal leaders) also enabled him to capitalize on several advantages…

  • Boaz first presented this opportunity in a way that pressured his counterpart to make a quick decision.
  • This nameless relative also had to be mindful of how the community might interpret his response. Any perceived attempt to evade his responsibility to Ruth would not reflect well on him. That served to restrict his negotiating ability.
  • Finally, this strategy did not permit enough time to formulate a creative means of severing these desirable property rights from an undesirable commitment to Ruth.

Taken together, the weight of these realities quickly prompted this unknown relative to reassess his offer.

VI

“And the close relative said, ‘I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it’” (Ruth 4:6).

So, Boaz skillfully maneuvered his unnamed relative into a strategic withdrawal by first presenting the availability of Naomi’s property rights, followed by the conditions of the sale.

Since this anonymous family member had no interest in the human element of this transaction, he quickly agreed to transfer his rights to someone who did. His rationale for transferring those rights further demonstrated his self-serving nature: “I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate” (NIV).

While the Law of God prescribed the proper course of action in this scenario, there is no evidence to suggest this man ever considered God’s will in this matter. Instead, this unidentified relative apparently based his decision on one factor: “What’s in it for me?”

Naomi’s desperate financial condition, Ruth’s grim prospects as a childless, foreign widow, and the opportunity to perpetuate the lineage of a departed relative were seemingly less important than protecting his assets. This may explain why Boaz enjoys an honorable reputation, while this relative remains anonymous.

In the words of one commentator, “…it remains none the less an instructive fact that he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name.” (1)

(1) Ruth 4 – Lange’s commentary on the Holy Scriptures: critical, doctrinal and homiletical (n.d.). StudyLight.org. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/lcc/ruth-4.html

VII

“Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel. Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, ‘Buy it for yourself.’ So he took off his sandal” (Ruth 4:7-8).

This passage suggests that the Book of Ruth was written long after the events it describes. For instance, the need to explain the archaic custom involving this sandal tells us that this practice had fallen into disuse by the time our author committed this account to written form. It thus became necessary to explain this custom so everyone could understand the significance of that practice.

This ritual may relate to the following Old Testament Scripture…

“If brothers live together and one of them dies without having a son, the dead man’s wife must not go outside the family and marry a stranger. Instead, her brother-in-law should go to her and take her as his wife. He will then consummate the marriage according to the brother-in-law’s duty. The brother-in-law will name the oldest male son that she bears after his dead brother so that his brother’s legacy will not be forgotten in Israel.

If the brother does not want to marry his sister-in-law, she can go to the elders at the city gate, informing them: ‘My brother-in-law refuses to continue his brother’s legacy in Israel. He’s not willing to perform the brother-in-law’s duty with me.’

The city’s elders will summon him and talk to him about this. If he doesn’t budge, insisting, ‘I don’t want to marry her,’ then the sister-in-law will approach him while the elders watch. She will pull the sandal off his foot and spit in his face. Then she will exclaim: ‘That’s what’s done to any man who won’t build up his own brother’s family!’ Subsequently, that man’s family will be known throughout Israel as ‘the house of the removed sandal’” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10 CEB).

A sandal likely symbolized one’s right to walk upon the land. This unnamed relative may have followed a modified version of that ancient directive in expressing his refusal to act on behalf of his brother’s widow.

VIII

“And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, ‘You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi’” (Ruth 4:9).

So, having drawn off his sandal in a symbolic transfer of his rights, this anonymous relative officially relinquished his prior claim. That enabled Boaz to assume control of Naomi’s estate and secure the right to marry Ruth.

The only remaining step to complete this transaction involved the issuance of a public notice- and it appears Boaz wasted little time in doing so: “All of you are witnesses that today I have bought from Naomi the property that belonged to Elimelech and his two sons, Chilion and Mahlon” (CEV).

But unlike the unidentified relative who relinquished those rights, Boaz saw this transaction as more than just money and property. In fact, Boaz clearly articulated the motive behind this acquisition…

“I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown” (Ruth 4:10 NIV).

This announcement may leave the impression that Ruth was part of this transaction. But Ruth was not “purchased” as a mere commodity. Instead, Boaz purchased Naomi’s estate. That purchase included the right and obligation to enter a marital relationship with Ruth.

It’s also interesting to note that while Naomi, Elimilech, Mahlon, Chilion, and Ruth are all mentioned by name in these verses, there is one member of Naomi’s family who is conspicuous by her absence. That was Orpah, Naomi’s other daughter-in-law.

Much like the unknown relative who declined the option to marry Ruth and raise up an inheritance to her deceased husband, Orpah’s choice to leave Naomi and return to Moab has relegated her to historical obscurity.

IX

The public reaction to Boaz’ announcement concerning his purchase of Naomi’s property (along with the right to marry Ruth) was immediate and highly enthusiastic…

“And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, ‘We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem’” (Ruth 4:11).

Those who had gathered to watch these deliberations initially served as neutral observers. But now, with the conclusion of these negotiations, these formerly impartial witnesses quickly became enthusiastic participants in this process. In doing so, this assembly invoked the names of Rachel and Leah, two women “…who together built the house of Israel” (CEV).

The Biblical book of Genesis provides us with the account of these women and their marriages to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. Rachel bore Jacob two sons named Joseph and Benjamin (Genesis 35:24). Later, Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manassah also became legally recognized members of the twelve tribes of Israel (see Genesis 48:5-6).

Leah’s relationship with Jacob produced six sons according to Genesis 35:23: “the sons of Leah were Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun.” In addition to these children, Jacob’s other sons included Dan and Naphtali (through Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah) as well as Gad and Asher (through Leah’s maidservant Zilpah). Since Rachel and Leah legally accepted the sons born to Bilhah and Zilpah as their own children, it may be said that these two women single-handedly established what eventually became known as the nation of Israel.

As a result, the invocation we read here in Ruth 4:11 represents one of the greatest blessings one could ask on behalf of a woman of Israel. So instead of responding with a perfunctory blessing, these witnesses enthusiastically proclaimed their hope that Boaz’ relationship with Ruth would be as fruitful as the relationship Jacob enjoyed with the women who established their nation.

This benediction also reflected their respect for Boaz in undertaking the responsibility of continuing the family lineage of his deceased relative. But if that was not enough, these enthusiastic witnesses went even further.

X

“May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman” (Ruth 4:12).

Genesis chapter thirty-eight provides the context for this passage by recounting an unsavory event in the life of Jacob’s son, Judah. Tamar’s relationship with Judah produced twin sons named Zerah and Perez. Perez grew to become a notable person within the Biblical record, and his family tree was deeply rooted in the Bethlehem region. The closing verses of this chapter also tell us that Perez was an ancestor of Boaz himself.

Knowing their history, it may be difficult to understand why this assembly invoked the names of Judah and Tamar in their blessing. For instance, Genesis chapter thirty-eight tells us that Judah made a promise to Tamar that he never intended to keep. She responded by disguising herself as a prostitute in order to lure him into a sexual encounter with her.

That sequence of events hardly seems appropriate for such a benediction. Yet even though their relationship might seem better left forgotten, there are several reasons to explain why these witnesses invoked their memory as part of this blessing.

First, Tamar and Ruth were both foreigners. Tamar hailed from Canaan, and Ruth from Moab, two regions with a history of animosity towards ancient Israel. Both women were widows, and each had an opportunity to preserve the ancestral lineage of their departed husbands. In addition, each of these women pursued relationships with men who were old enough to be their fathers.

Yet despite those similarities, there is one notable difference in these examples. Ruth and Boaz traveled a God-honoring path in their developing relationship, while Tamar and Judah did not. Nevertheless, one commentator offers something to consider: “Certainly Tamar’s behavior would not normally be commended. Yet she was desperate because her husband’s brothers would not fulfill their responsibility to her, and in the end Judah praised her as more righteous than himself (Gen. 38:26).” (1)

It’s also important to note that Tamar and Judah’s son Perez holds a position within Jesus’ own ancestral lineage (see Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33). That family history should prompt us to consider a serious question: given Tamar and Judah’s questionable conduct, how can we explain their presence in Jesus’ human ancestry?

The answer is that God may sometimes choose to employ flawed, imperfect human beings to fulfill His objectives. Instead of selecting from among those who seemingly have more to offer, these examples tell us that God may elect to use ordinary people (along with their shortcomings and deficiencies) to accomplish some extraordinary things.

This benediction thus presents us with an important reminder. If God can use these fallible human beings to achieve His purposes, then He can certainly do the same for us.

(1) Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s New illustrated Bible Commentary (Ru 4:12). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

XI

“So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son” (Ruth 4:13).

While the Biblical narrative of Ruth chapter four moves quickly to the birth of their son, we might stop to consider what may have transpired between verses twelve and thirteen.

For example, how did Boaz feel as he departed the city gate with the news that Ruth and Naomi were anxiously awaiting? While Boaz was surely looking forward to a new life with his new bride, we can also imagine the sense of fulfillment this prominent businessman must have felt as his skillful negotiating strategy helped him secure the biggest transaction of his life.

Then there was Ruth, the poor, widowed, childless resident alien who now had an opportunity to begin life anew. While Ruth’s prospects seemed terribly bleak just a few weeks earlier, she now possessed the joyous hope that a marriage relationship with Boaz offered.

We might also consider the sense of happiness Naomi must have felt as she delivered this joyous news to her friends and neighbors. Like Boaz, Naomi surely must have found great satisfaction in the following thought: “My plan worked.” And once the initial excitement over this announcement had subsided, perhaps Naomi may have thought to herself, “I won’t have to live in poverty any more.”

Imagine what it must have been like to plan this marriage ceremony along with the traditional feast and celebration that accompanied it. An Old Testament wedding feast bore some resemblance to a contemporary wedding reception and signified a time of celebration and festivity. It offered a welcome respite from the drudgery of daily life that might continue for a week or more.

This wedding ceremony probably brought together many of the supporting figures in our narrative. That group likely included Boaz’ employees, Naomi’s friends and neighbors, and one individual who was instrumental in making this wedding a reality. That person was the unnamed relative who appears here in Ruth chapter four.

He was the man who almost talked himself into taking Boaz’ place as the groom during their negotiations. With the possible exception of Ruth and Naomi, he may have been the happiest person to see these events unfold.

So in the end, Boaz and this anonymous relative each got what they wanted. But Boaz chose the better part.

XII

“Then the women said to Naomi, ‘Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a close relative; and may his name be famous in Israel!’” (Ruth 4:14).

So “Ruth the Moabitess” was no longer a resident alien, foreigner, and outsider within the Bethlehem community. Nor was she a poverty-stricken young woman who had to glean leftovers from the local farmlands in order to survive. Ruth was now the wife of a prominent and honorable man of Israel and fully accepted into the family of God.

These things serve to remind us of what God has done in reconciling us in Christ. As we’re told in the New Testament book of Romans…

“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:10-11).

While Ruth surely received many congratulatory responses following the birth of her son, our text from verse fourteen tells us Naomi was similarly blessed as well. Those who had earlier witnessed Naomi’s deep sense of disappointment with the hardships God allowed to enter her life now had the pleasure of returning to acknowledge His blessings. Thus, the woman who once sought to change her name from “pleasant” (Naomi) to “bitter” (Mara) was now “Naomi” once more.

“And may he be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him” (Ruth 4:15).

The Biblical Scriptures commonly associate the number seven with the idea of completion, fulfillment, or perfection. Naomi’s friends employed this idiom in speaking of Ruth as “…your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons” (CSB).

Since the birth of a son was a sign of great blessing, the idea that Ruth had exceeded the blessings associated with seven sons by herself was one of the highest compliments one could hope to receive.

XII

“Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her bosom, and became a nurse to him. Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, ‘There is a son born to Naomi.’ And they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David” (Ruth 4:16-17).

Naomi likely maintained living quarters in or near Ruth and Boaz’ home following their marriage. That arrangement would enable Naomi to assist her beloved daughter-in-law during and after her pregnancy. It also offered an opportunity for Ruth to maintain the deep emotional bond she shared with Naomi and benefit from her experience.

It also seems that Naomi was so close to this newborn child that her neighbors (perhaps only half-jokingly) began to refer to him as “Naomi’s son.”

So Naomi had a fulfilling, satisfying family role to play once again. Much like the experience of Job in the Biblical book that bears his name, the Lord blessed Naomi’s latter days more than the beginning. Naomi thus exemplified a Biblical truth that appears in the New Testament book of Romans: “…all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).

Naomi’s experience also draws our attention to an important Biblical admonition from Proverbs 3:5: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding…” (NIV). There was a time when Naomi struggled to make sense of the circumstances of her life. Her experience tells us God does not prohibit us from attempting to reconcile the seemingly inexplicable events of life. But neither does He offer to explain everything we cannot comprehend.

Our responsibility is to trust God in the midst of our circumstances. As we’re told in Hebrews 10:35, “…do not cast away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.”

XIV

“Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David” (Ruth 4:18-22).

Now that we’ve reached the end of the Book of Ruth, these closing verses provide us with an opportunity to make two final observations. To begin, let’s take a moment to recall the account of Jesus’ birth from Luke chapter two…

“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child” (Luke 2:1-5).

While many people (including those who are irreligious) may know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the location of His birth within that city was no accident. As we’re told in the passage from Luke quoted above, Joseph and Mary specifically traveled to Bethlehem for registration purposes. Since Joseph’s ancestral family hailed from the Bethlehem area, this is the place where he returned to take part in that registration.

Their return to Bethlehem (as foretold in Micah 5:2) provides us with a direct connection to Ruth, Boaz, and the events that occurred within the Book of Ruth. In a sense, Joseph was returning “home” to prepare for Jesus’ birth since he was a member of the same family line mentioned here in Ruth 4:18-22. That line that included Boaz, his son Obed, his grandson Jesse, and great-grandson David.

Finally, this abbreviated genealogy (stretching over hundreds of years) illustrates the generational impact of the choices and decisions we make today. In the words of one commentary…

“The theological message of the Book of Ruth may be summarized as follows: God cares for needy people like Naomi and Ruth; he is their ally in this chaotic world. He richly rewards people like Ruth and Boaz who demonstrate sacrificial love and in so doing become his instruments in helping the needy. God’s rewards for those who sacrificially love others sometimes exceed their wildest imagination and transcend their lifetime.” (1)

(1) NET Bible® notes on Ruth 4:22, NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved. http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rut&chapter=4&verse=22&tab=commentaries

Previous

Romans – Chapter Two XXV

by Ed Urzi April 24, 2026

“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12 NIV).

As we continue our extended look at this important verse, there is another way we can understand the concept that we find here in Romans 2:12. We can build that approach with a basic definition of electricity: “electricity” refers to the flow of an electrical charge that is carried by electrons. With this in mind, let’s consider a hypothetical situation involving two different individuals.

Let’s say person number one is a professional electrician who possesses a thorough understanding of electrical theory. Person number two does not know how electricity works. However, person number two has seen electrical appliances in use and is aware that something causes them to operate when they are plugged into an electrical outlet.

If either of these individuals touch the wiring of a live electrical outlet without proper insulation, they will each receive the same electrical shock. In this example, our electrician represents those who had (or have) access to God’s Word. Person number two represents those who have not had access to the Biblical Scriptures. However, person number two does have some knowledge of God’s existence through general revelation, as discussed earlier.

The first person in our illustration has greater knowledge and greater accountability for receiving an electrical shock. The second person has less knowledge but is still aware of electricity’s power and should have known to exercise caution. Nevertheless, each person suffers the same painful result, even though one has more knowledge than the other.

In a similar manner, Romans 2:12 tells us that sinful human beings without access to God’s written law will still perish despite their lack of knowledge. One Biblical scholar offers the following explanation…

“Since God judges people in accordance with standards known to them, a defense based on ignorance of the Mosaic law is irrelevant and illegitimate. It is not the degree of revelation received, but response to the revelation itself, however received, that will prove critical on the day when God will judge (v. 16).” (1)

Those who have never been exposed to God’s written revelation still have their conscience (as we’ll see later in Romans 2:15) and the testimony of nature that attest to His existence. However, God will not hold those individuals accountable for transgressing a written law they never received. Therefore, anyone who sins apart from the law will perish apart from the law as well.

We will shift our focus over the next few studies for a brief exploration into an important topic: what is the ultimate fate of those who have never had access to God’s Word?

(1) R. C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015), 1981.

Image Attribution: Team Massachusetts 4D Home, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Romans – Chapter Two XXIV

by Ed Urzi April 23, 2026

“Those people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says” (Romans 2:12 CEV).

The axiological argument for God’s existence seeks to demonstrate God’s existence by highlighting the presence of universal moral absolutes. If we can demonstrate the existence of transcendent moral absolutes that are universally acknowledged, then such laws must naturally derive from a transcendent source as well.

One such example is this: it is wrong to end the life of another human being arbitrarily and without cause. This universal moral principle asserts that it is always wrong to take a life indiscriminately without justification or reason. While every culture may debate the precise definition of a justifiable homicide, all cultures share the mutual understanding that it is wrong to kill another human being without any reason.

Another transcendent moral law states, it is wrong to be unjust. While injustice may take different forms, there is cross-cultural agreement on this general principle. In fact, we can find an ancient expression of this idea in the Biblical book of Proverbs: “The Lord detests the use of dishonest scales, but he delights in accurate weights” (Proverbs 11:1 NLT).

We can find another example in the following principle: it is wrong to be unfair. For instance, anyone who has ever said, “It’s not fair…” is someone who accepts the reality of this objective moral law. Even small children recognize this law, as any parent of a small child will undoubtedly attest. To underscore this idea, let’s return to another quotation from the author and apologist C. S. Lewis…

“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair…'” (1)

Of course, many reject the idea that transcendent moral values exist. But a person who does not believe in the existence of these absolute moral standards still adheres to at least one absolute moral standard. That absolute moral standard is this: there are no absolute moral standards. 

So, if transcendent moral absolutes exist for every culture, tribe, and society, then there must be a transcendent source from which those absolute moral laws derive. This helps explain why “…people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong” as we read here in Romans 2:12.

(1) Lewis, C. (1960). Mere Christianity. Macmillan Paperbacks Edition [pg. 5]

Image Attribution: Unfair, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Romans – Chapter Two XXIII

by Ed Urzi April 22, 2026

“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12 ESV).

What evidence do we have to support the conclusion that those who “sin without the law” possess an internal comprehension of God’s existence? The axiological argument for God’s existence offers another potential answer to that question. This approach capitalizes on the existence of values or morality to support the premise that God exists. Much like our previous two examples, the axiological argument consists of three points:

  1. Objective or absolute moral laws exist for all humanity. In this context, “objective” refers to something that exists independently of our perception or individual conception.
  2. Every law must have a point of origin (sometimes stated as “every law must have a lawmaker”).
  3. Therefore, the existence of these absolute moral laws points to the existence of an absolute source from which these moral laws derive.

This approach argues for the existence of universal moral statutes that transcend time and culture. It also asserts that all laws have authors who create them. In order to prescribe those transcendent moral absolutes, our law source must also transcend time and culture as well. If we can document the existence of transcendent moral laws that every culture, tribe, and society recognizes and accepts, then it means that such laws must also derive from a transcendent source as well.

To put it another way, the existence of an absolute moral law requires the existence of an absolute moral source. That source ultimately defines what is good, right, and just. In general terms, we recognize this transcendent moral source as “God.” Consider how the well-known author and apologist C. S. Lewis once framed this idea…

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.”(1)

We’ll consider some examples of transcendent moral absolutes and look at an objection to the axiological argument for God’s existence next.

(1) Lewis, C. (1960). Mere Christianity. Macmillan Paperbacks Edition [pg. 31]

Image Attribution: Internet Archive Book Images, No restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons

Romans – Chapter Two XXII

by Ed Urzi April 21, 2026

“All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12 HCSB).

As we seek to build a foundation for the conclusions drawn from our text in Romans 2:12, we now come to another supporting argument for God’s existence. That philosophical concept is known as the teleological argument for God’s existence, or the argument from design. The word “telos” means “end” or “purpose,” and the teleological argument for God’s existence, much like the cosmological argument, can be stated in three points…

  1. A design implies the existence of a designer.
  2. Creation shows evidence of design.
  3. Therefore, there is evidence of a Designer of creation.

This approach builds on the cosmological argument for God’s existence in an important way. It states that the things that have been made serve to reveal the existence of a designer. Several analogies have been developed to illustrate this concept over the years. For example…

  • Watches imply the existence of watchmakers.
  • A building implies the existence of an architect.
  • Paintings imply the existence of a painter.

An intricate creative design also suggests the presence of a superior designer, for the complexity of a design is directly proportional to the intelligence required to create it. For instance, birds construct nests, bees create hives, and ants build large underground colonies to accommodate their needs. But none of those creatures ever built a structure as magnificent as the Taj Mahal, the Eiffel Tower, or the Great Wall of China. That’s because great design complexity requires superior intelligence. In like manner, the sophisticated processes we observe in the natural realm point to the existence of a supremely intelligent Designer.

The field of archaeology offers another example. An archaeologist on a dig is not surprised to uncover a natural stone from an earlier era, for it is nothing more than a feature of the surrounding landscape. However, when that archaeologist uncovers a natural stone from an earlier era that has been fashioned into a tool, he or she knows that an intelligent entity modified that stone for a reason. The archaeologist thus finds a level of complexity in that discovery that natural processes cannot explain.

Much like our hypothetical archaeologist, we find great complexity in the various forms of life that exist on this planet. If an archaeologist can infer the existence of an intelligent being from the discovery of an ancient stone that has been fashioned for use as a tool, we can surely associate the complex forms of life that exist on this planet with the work of an intelligent Designer.

Image Attribution 1: geralt, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Image Attribution 2: Gary Todd, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Romans – Chapter Two XXI

by Ed Urzi April 20, 2026

“For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12 NET).

Romans 2:12 marks our entry into a critical portion of this epistle. As discussed earlier in our look at Romans 1:20, God conveys the reality of His existence through general revelation, or the natural world around us. Even though there are many who have never encountered God’s Word, we are still immersed in a natural world that points to His existence. While general revelation doesn’t tell us everything there is to know about God, it does reveal the existence of a Creator who is worthy of recognition.

One philosophical argument that highlights this idea is known as the cosmological argument for God’s existence. We can summarize this argument in three points:

  1. The universe had a beginning.
  2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something other than itself.
  3. Therefore, a First Cause (or Creator) must exist to explain the fact that the universe began.

We can illustrate this idea on a personal level. For example, if you are reading this sentence, then it means you must exist. However, that wasn’t always true, for there was a time when “you” began. The point is that you did not create your own existence as a human being; instead, your existence was caused by others. This is not only true of human beings; it is also true of every finite thing that exists.

The cosmological argument is built on the premise that it is impossible for something that has a beginning to create its own existence. That line of reasoning goes like this: “nothing” cannot produce “something” (like our universe) because “nothing” is “no-thing” and doesn’t even exist. Instead, some other agent must have been responsible for bringing the universe and our natural world into being.

If a finite universe exists, then it must have been caused (or created) by something other than itself. This causal relationship requires that a “Beginner” (or First Cause) of the universe must exist as well. To put it another way, we can’t have a Creation without some kind of Creator.

In considering this idea, we should guard against the error of stating that everything needs a cause. The cosmological argument does not state that everything needs a cause; it states that every finite thing (or everything that begins to exist) must have a cause. In other words, everything that begins to exist must have a cause to explain its existence.

This is important, especially when we encounter the question of who or what caused God. A First Cause must ultimately be uncaused or self-existent. As an eternal being, God is the uncaused, First Cause that explains the existence of every finite thing that exists.

Romans – Chapter Two XX

by Ed Urzi April 17, 2026

“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12).

Romans 2:12 marks the first of seventy-eight appearances of the word “law” in the New King James Version of this epistle. An excerpt from the following commentary will serve as our introduction to this important concept…

“Paul’s reference to ‘law’ (Rom. 2:12) has to do not with laws in general, but with the specific code of rules and regulations that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Law was part of the covenant that set Israel apart as God’s people. It governed their worship, their relationship to God, and their social relationships with one another. The Ten Commandments form a summary of that Law…

What set the Mosaic Law apart from these other codes was, first of all, its origin. The Law was given by God Himself. It issued from His very nature; like Him it was holy, righteous, and good. Thus, all crimes in Israel were crimes against God (1 Sam. 12:9–10). He expected all of the people to love and serve Him (Amos 5:21–24). As their final judge, He disciplined those who violated the Law (Ex. 22:21–24; Deut. 10:18; 19:17), though He also held the nation responsible for insuring that justice was carried out (13:6–10; 17:7; Num. 15:32–36)…

The Law was given specifically to Israel, but it rests on eternal moral principles that are consistent with God’s character. Thus it is a summary of fundamental and universal moral standards. It expresses the essence of what God requires of people. That’s why when God judges, He can be impartial. Gentiles will not be judged by the Law (Rom. 2:12), since it was not given to them, but they will still be judged by the same righteous standard that underlies the Law.” (1)

With these things in mind, we should recognize that there were three aspects to the Old Testament law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The civil law defined lawful and unlawful conduct for the people of Old Testament Israel, along with various types of contractual arrangements. The ceremonial law governed the manner in which one might approach God under the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant. The moral law set forth the difference between right and wrong.

The New Testament epistles of Colossians and Galatians tell us Christ fulfilled these aspects of the Old Testament law (Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 3:24-25). But even though we are no longer under these Old Testament requirements, we still maintain a moral obligation to honor God in regard to our personal conduct. Since the Law provides us with the knowledge of sin (as we’ll read later in Romans 3:20), the general behavioral principles that we find within the moral law remain as valid now as they were when they were first written.

Image Attribution: Madhav-Malhotra-003, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

(1) Word in Life Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996), Ro 2:12.

Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Studies

Promotion Image
Promotion Image
Promotion Image

Copyright © 1996-2026 | Privacy Policy | Developed by CI Design + Media


Back To Top
The Doctor's Office
  • Home
  • Old Testament Book Studies
    • The Book Of Genesis
    • The Book of Ruth
    • The Book of Nehemiah
    • The Book Of Esther
    • The Book Of Ecclesiastes
  • New Testament Book Studies
    • The Gospel Of Mark
    • The Book Of Romans
    • The Book Of 1 Corinthians
    • The Book Of 2 Corinthians
    • The Book Of Galatians
    • The Book Of Ephesians
    • The Book Of Philippians
    • The Book Of 1 Timothy
    • The Book Of Colossians
    • The Book Of 1 Thessalonians
    • The Book Of 2 Thessalonians
    • The Book Of 2 Timothy
    • The Book of Titus
    • The Book Of Philemon
    • The Book Of Hebrews
    • The Book Of 1 Peter
    • The Book Of 2 Peter
    • The Book Of James
    • The Book Of 1 John
    • The Books Of 2 John / 3 John
    • The Book Of Revelation