{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"RUT","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Ruth","commonName":"Ruth","introduction":"The Book of Ruth\n\n(Note: The book of Ruth does not indeed belong to the prophetical books of history so far as its historical character is concerned, and even in the Hebrew canon it is placed among the hagiographa; but as its contents directly follow upon those of the book of Judges, it seemed advisable to place the exposition immediately after that of Judges.)\n\nIntroduction\n\nContent, Character, and Origin of the Book of Ruth\n\nThe book of Ruth (Ῥούθ) introduces us to the family life of the ancestors of king David, and informs us, in a simple and attractive form of historical narrative, and one in harmony with the tender and affectionate contents, how Ruth the Moabitess, a daughter-in-law of the Bethlehemite Elimelech, of the family of Judah, who had emigrated with his wife and his two sons into the land of Moab on account of a famine, left father and mother, fatherland and kindred, after the death of her husband, and out of childlike affection to her Israelitish mother-in-law Naomi, whose husband had also died in the land of Moab, and went with her to Judah, to take refuge under the wings of the God of Israel (Ruth 1); and how, when there, as she was going in her poverty to glean some ears of corn in the field of a wealthy man, she came apparently by accident to the field of Boaz, a near relation of Elimelech, and became acquainted with this honourable and benevolent man (Ruth 2); how she then sought marriage with him by the wish of her mother-in-law (Ruth 3), and was taken by him as a wife, according to the custom of Levirate marriage, in all the ordinary legal forms, and bare a son in this marriage, named Obed. This Obed was the grandfather of David (Ruth 4:1-17), with whose genealogy the book closes (Rut 4:18-22).\n\nIn this conclusion the meaning and tendency of the whole narrative is brought clearly to light. The genealogical proof of the descent of David from Perez through Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth (Rut 4:18-22) forms not only the end, but he starting-point, of the history contained in the book. For even if we should not attach so much importance to this genealogy as to say with Auberlen that \"the book of Ruth contains, as it were, the inner side, the spiritually moral background of the genealogies which play so significant a part even in the Israelitish antiquity;\" so much is unquestionably true, that the book contains a historical picture from the family life of the ancestors of David, intended to show how the ancestors of this great king walked uprightly before God and man in piety and singleness of heart, an din modesty and purity of life. \"Ruth, the Moabitish great-great-grandmother of David, longed for the God and people of Israel to them with all the power of love; and Boaz was an upright Israelite, without guile, full of holy reverence for every ordinance of God and man, and full of benevolent love and friendliness towards the poor heathen woman. From such ancestors was the man descended in whom all the nature of Israel was to find its royal concentration and fullest expression\" (Auberlen). But there is also a Messianic trait in the fact that Ruth, a heathen woman, of a nation so hostile to the Israelites as that of Moab was, should have been thought worthy to be made the tribe-mother of the great and pious king David, on account of her faithful love to the people of Israel, and her entire confidence in Jehovah, the God of Israel. As Judah begat Perez from Tamar and Canaanitish woman (Gen 38), and as Rahab was adopted into the congregation of Israel (Jos 6:25), and according to ancient tradition was married to Salmon (Mat 1:5), so the Moabitess Ruth was taken by Boaz as his wife, and incorporated in the family of Judah, from which Christ was to spring according to the flesh (see Mat 1:3, Mat 1:5, where these three women are distinctly mentioned by name in the genealogy of Jesus).\n\nThe incidents described in the book fall within the times of the judges (Rut 1:1), and most probably in the time of Gideon (see at Rut 1:1); and the book itself forms both a supplement to the book of Judges and an introduction to the books of Samuel, which give no account of the ancestors of David. So far as its contents are concerned it has its proper place, in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Lutheran and other versions, between the book of Judges and those of Samuel. In the Hebrew Codex, on the contrary, it is placed among the hagiographa, and in the Talmud (bab bathr.f. 14b) it is even placed at the head of them before the Psalms; whilst in the Hebrew MSS it stands among the five megilloth: Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. The latter position is connected with the liturgical use of the book in the synagogue, where it was read at the feast of weeks; whilst its place among the hagiographa is to be explained from the principle upon which the general arrangement of the Old Testament canon was founded, - namely, that the different books were divided into three classes according to the relation in which their authors stood to God and to the theocracy, and the books themselves in their contents and spirit to the divine revelation (see Keil, Lehrbuch der Einleitung, 155).\n\nThe latter is therefore to be regarded as the original classification, and not the one in the Septuagint rendering, where the original arrangement has unquestionably been altered in the case of this and other books, just because this principle has been overlooked.\n\n(Note: Many critics of the present day, indeed, appeal to the testimony of Josephus and the earlier fathers as favouring the opposite view, viz., that the book of Ruth was originally placed at the close of the book of Judges, to which it formed an appendix. Josephus (c. Ap. i. 8) reckons, as is well known, only twenty-two books of the Old Testament; and the only way by which this number can be obtained is by joining together the books of Judges and Ruth, so as to form one book. Again, Melito of Sardes, who lives in the second century, and took a journey into Palestine for the purpose of obtaining correct information concerning the sacred writings of the Jews (πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν εἶεν), places Ruth after Judges in the list which has been preserved by Eusebius (h. e. iv. 26), but does not give the number of the books, as Bertheau erroneously maintains, nor observes that \"Judges and Ruth form one book under the name of Shofetim.\" This is first done by Origen in his list as given by Eusebius (h. e. vi. 25), where he states that the Hebrews had twenty-two ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, and then adds in the case of Ruth, παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνὶ Σωφετὶμ. Ruth occupies the same place in the lists of the later Greek fathers, as in Rufinus (Expos. in Symb. Apost.) and Jerome (in Prolog. Gal.), the latter of whom makes this remark on the book of Judges, Et in eundem compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta ejus narratur historia; and after enumerating the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, adds, Quanquam nonnulli Ruth et Kinoth inter Hagiographa scriptitent et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos, etc. But all these testimonies prove nothing more than that the Hellenistic Jews, who made use of the Old Testament in the Greek rendering of the lxx, regarded the book of Ruth as an appendix of the book of Judges, and not that the book of Ruth ever followed the book of Judges in the Hebrew canon, so as to form one book. The reduction of the sacred writings of the Old Testament to twenty-two is nothing more than the product of the cabbalistic and mystical numbers wrought out by the Hellenistic or Alexandrian Jews. If this numbering had been the original one, the Hebrew Jews would never have increased the number to twenty-four, since the Hebrew alphabet never contained twenty-four letters. Josephus, however, is not a witness with regard to the orthodox opinions of the Hebrew Jews, but was an eclectic and a Hellenist, who used the Old Testament in the Septuagint version and not in the original text, and who arranged the books of the Old Testament in the most singular manner. The fathers, too, with the exception of Jerome, whenever they give any account of their inquiries among the Jews with regard to the number and order of the books accepted by them as canonical, never give them in either the order or number found in the Hebrew canon, but simply according to the Septuagint version, which was the only one that the Christians understood. This is obvious in the case of Melito, from the fact that he reckons Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα and Παραλειπομένων δύο, and places Daniel between the twelve minor prophets and Ezekiel. We find the same in Origen, although he gives the Hebrew names to the different books, and states in connection with the four books of Kings and the two books of Paralipomena, that the Hebrews named and numbered them differently. Lastly, it is true that Jerome arranges the writings of the Old Testament in his Prol. Gal. according to the three classes of the Hebrew canon; but he endeavours to bring the Hebrew mode of division and enumeration as much as possible into harmony with the Septuagint numbering and order as generally adopted in the Christian Church, and to conceal all existing differences. You may see this very clearly from his remarks as to the number of these books, and especially from the words, Porro quinque litterae duplices apud Hebraeos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade ... Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices existimantur, Samuel, Melachim, Dibre Hajamim, Esdras, Jeremias cum Kintoh, i.e., Lamentationibus suis. For the plerique who adopt two books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, are not Hebrew but Hellenistic Jews, as the Hebrew Jews did not divide these writings in their canon into two books each, but this mode of dividing them was first introduced into the Hebrew Bibles by Dan. Bomberg from the Septuagint or Vulgate. The further remark of this father, quanquam nonnulli Ruth et Kinoth inter hagiographa scriptitent, etc., is also to be estimated in the same way, and the word nonnulli to be attributed to the conciliatory efforts of Jerome. And lastly, his remark concerning the connection between the book of Ruth and that of Judges is not to be regarded as any evidence of the position which this book occupied in the Hebrew canon, but simply as a proof of the place assigned it by the Hellenistic Jews.)\n\nThe book of Ruth is not a mere (say a third) appendix to the book of Judges, but a small independent work, which does indeed resemble the two appendices of the book of Judges, so far as the incidents recorded in it fall within the period of the Judges, and are not depicted in the spirit of the prophetic view of history; but, on the other hand, it has a thoroughly distinctive character both in form and contents, and has nothing in common with the book of Judges either in style or language: on the contrary, it differs essentially both in substance and design fro the substance and design of this book and of its two appendices, for the simple reason that at the close of the history (Rut 4:17), where Obed, the son of Boaz and Ruth, is described as the grandfather of David, and still more clearly in the genealogy of Perez, which is brought down to David (Rut 4:18-22), the book passes beyond the times of the JudGes. In this simple fact the author very plainly shows that his intention was not to give a picture of the family life of pious Israelites in the time of the judges from a civil and a religious point of view, but rather to give a biographical sketch of the pious ancestors of David the king.\n\nThe origin of the book of Ruth is involved in obscurity. From its contents, and more especially from the object so apparent in the close of the book, it may be inferred with certainty that it was not written earlier than the time of David's rule over Israel, and indeed not before the culminating point of the reign of this great king. There would therefore be an interval of 150 to 180 years between the events themselves and the writing of the book, during which time the custom mentioned in Rut 4:7, of taking off the shoe in acts of trade and barter, which formerly existed in Israel, may have fallen entirely into disuse, so that the author might think it necessary to explain the custom for the information of his contemporaries. We have not sufficient ground for fixing a later date, say the time of the captivity; and there is no force in the arguments that have been adduced in support of this (see my Lehrb. der Einl. 137).The discovery that words and phrases such as מרגּלות (Rut 3:7-8, Rut 3:14), כּנפים פּרשׂ (Rut 3:9), מקרה, chance (Rut 2:3), either do not occur at all or only very rarely in the earlier writings, simply because the thing itself to which they refer is not mentioned, does not in the least degree prove that these words were not formed till a later age. The supposed Chaldaisms, however, - namely the forms תּעבוּרי and תּדבּקין (Rut 2:8, Rut 2:21), יקצרוּן (Rut 2:9), שׂמתּ, ירדתּי, שׁכבתּי (Rut 3:3-4), מרא for מרה (Rut 1:20), or the use of להן, and of the ἁπ. λεγ. עגן (Rut 1:13), etc., - we only meet with in the speeches of the persons acting, and never where the author himself is narrating; and consequently they furnish no proofs of the later origin of the book, but may be simply and fully explained from the fact, that the author received these forms and words from the language used in common conversation in the time of the judges, and has faithfully recorded them. We are rather warranted in drawing the conclusion from this, that he did not derive the contents of his work from oral tradition, but made use of written documents, with regard to the origin and nature of which, however, nothing certain can be determined.","order":8,"numberOfChapters":4,"sha256":"7e59ccd171e430168bd1ffc698cc322669708b7d06689186d34c91c5f00997d8","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/RUT/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"RUT","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":4,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/RUT/4.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"RUT","chapter":4},"totalNumberOfVerses":27},"chapter":{"number":2,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The account of this occurrence commences with a statement which was necessary in order to make it perfectly intelligible, namely that Boaz, to whose field Ruth went to glean, was a relative of Naomi through her deceased husband Elimelech. The Kethibh מידע is to be read מידּע, an acquaintance (cf. Psa 31:12; Psa 55:14). The Keri מודע is the construct state of מודע, lit. acquaintanceship, then an acquaintance or friend (Pro 7:4), for which מודעת occurs afterwards in Rut 3:2 with the same meaning. That the acquaintance or friend of Naomi through her husband was also a relation, is evident from the fact that he was \"of the family of Elimelech. \" According to the rabbinical tradition, which is not well established however, Boaz was a nephew of Elimelech. The ל before אישׁהּ is used instead of the simple construct state, because the reference is not to the relation, but to a relation of her husband; at the same time, the word מודע has taken the form of the construct state notwithstanding this ל (compare Ewald, 292, a., with 289, b.). חיל גּבּור generally means the brave man of war (Jdg 6:12; Jdg 11:1, etc.); but here it signifies a man of property. The name Boaz is not formed from עז בּו, in whom is strength, but from a root, בּעז, which does not occur in Hebrew, and signifies alacrity.\nRut 2:2-3\nRuth wished to go to the field and glean at (among) the ears, i.e., whatever ears were left lying upon the harvest field (cf. Rut 2:7), אשׁר אחר, behind him in whose eyes she should find favour. The Mosaic law (Lev 19:9; Lev 23:22, compared with Deu 24:19) did indeed expressly secure to the poor the right to glean in the harvest fields, and prohibited the owners from gleaning themselves; but hard-hearted farmers and reapers threw obstacles in the way of the poor, and even forbade their gleaning altogether. Hence Ruth proposed to glean after him who should generously allow it. She carried out this intention with the consent of Naomi, and chance led her to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, a relation of Elimelech, without her knowing the owner of the field, or being at all aware of his connection with Elimelech. מקרה ויּקר, lit., \"her chance chanced to hit upon the field.\"\nRut 2:4-7\nWhen Boaz came from the town to the field, and had greeted his reapers with the blessing of a genuine Israelites, \"Jehovah be with you,\" and had received from them a corresponding greeting in return, he said to the overseer of the reapers, \"Whose damsel is this?\" to which he replied, \"It is the Moabitish damsel who came back with Naomi from the fields of Moab, and she has said (asked), Pray, I will glean (i.e., pray allow me to glean) and gather among the sheaves after the reapers, and has come and stays (here) from morning till now; her sitting in the house that is little.\" מאז, lit. a conjunction, here used as a preposition, is stronger than מן, \"from then,\" from the time of the morning onwards (see Ewald, 222, c.). It is evident from this answer of the servant who was placed over the reapers, (1) that Boaz did not prohibit any poor person from gleaning in his field; (2) that Ruth asked permission of the overseer of the reapers, and availed herself of this permission with untiring zeal from the first thing in the morning, that she might get the necessary support for her mother-in-law and herself; and (3) that her history was well known to the overseer, and also to Boaz, although Boaz saw her now for the first time. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["The good report which the overlooker gave of the modesty and diligence of Ruth could only strengthen Boaz in his purpose, which he had probably already formed from his affection as a relation towards Naomi, to make the acquaintance of her daughter-in-law, and speak kindly to her. With fatherly kindness, therefore, he said to her (Rut 2:8, Rut 2:9), \"Dost thou hear, my daughter? (i.e., 'thou hearest, dost thou not?' interrogatio blande affirmat;) go not to reap in another field, and go not away from here, and keep so to my maidens (i.e., remaining near them in the field). Thine eyes (directed) upon the field which they reap, go behind them (i.e., behind the maidens, who probably tired up the sheaves, whilst the men-servants cut the corn). I have commanded the young men not to touch thee (to do thee no harm); and if thou art thirsty (צמת, from צמה = צמא: see Ewald, 195, b.), go to the vessels, and drink of what the servants draw.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["Deeply affected by this generosity, Ruth fell upon her face, bowing down to the ground (as in Sa1 25:23; Sa2 1:2; cf. Gen 23:7), to thank him reverentially, and said to Boaz, \"Why have I found favour in thine eyes, that thou regardest me, who am only a stranger?\" הכּיר, to look at with sympathy or care, to receive a person kindly (cf. Rut 2:19). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["Boaz replied, \"Everything has been told me that thou hast done to (את, prep. as in Zac 7:9; Sa2 16:17) thy mother-in-law since the death of thy husband, that thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and thy kindred, and hast come to a people that thou knewest not heretofore\" (hast therefore done what God commanded Abraham to do, Gen 12:1). \"The Lord recompense thy work, and let thy reward be perfect (recalling Gen 15:1) from the Lord the God of Israel, to whom thou hast come to seek refuge under His wings!\" For this figurative expression, which is derived from Deu 32:11, compare Psa 91:4; Psa 36:8; Psa 57:2. In these words of Boaz we see the genuine piety of a true Israelite. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Ruth replied with true humility, \"May I find favour in thine eyes; for thou hast comforted me, and spoken to the heart of thy maiden (see Jdg 19:3), though I am not like one of thy maidens,\" i.e., though I stand in no such near relation to thee, as to have been able to earn thy favour. In this last clause she restricts the expression \"thy maiden.\" Carpzov has rightly pointed this out: \"But what am I saying when I call myself thy maiden? since I am not worthy to be compared to the least of thy maidens.\" The word אמצא is to be taken in an optative sense, as expressive of the wish that Boaz might continue towards her the kindness he had already expressed. To take it as a present, \"I find favour\" (Clericus and Bertheau), does not tally with the modesty and humility shown by Ruth in the following words. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["This unassuming humility on the part of Ruth made Boaz all the more favourably disposed towards her, so that at meal-time he called her to eat along with his people (לה without Mappik, as in Num 32:42; Zac 5:11; cf. Ewald, 94, b. 3). \"Dip thy morsel in the vinegar.\" Chomez, a sour beverage composed of vinegar (wine vinegar or sour wine) mixed with oil; a very refreshing drink, which is still a favourite beverage in the East (see Rosenmller, A. and N. Morgenland, iv. p. 68, and my Bibl. Archologie, ii. p. 16). \"And he reached her parched corn.\" The subject is Boaz, who, judging from the expression \"come hither,\" either joined in the meal, or at any rate was present at it. קלי are roasted grains of wheat (see at Lev 2:14, and my Bibl. Arch. ii. p. 14), which are still eaten by the reapers upon the harvest field, and also handed to strangers.\n(Note: Thus Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 394) gives the following description of a harvest scene in the neighbourhood of Kubeibeh: \"In one field nearly two hundred reapers and gleaners were at work, the latter being nearly as numerous as the former. A few were taking their refreshment, and offered us some of their 'parched corn.' In the season of harvest, the grains of wheat not yet fully dry and hard, are roasted in a pan or on an iron plate, and constitute a very palatable article of food; this is eaten along with bread, or instead of it.\") \nBoaz gave her an abundant supply of it, so that she was not only satisfied, but left some, and was able to take it home to her mother (Rut 2:18.) \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["When she rose up to glean again after eating, Boaz commanded his people, saying, \"She may also glean between the shaves (which was not generally allowed), and ye shall not shame her (do her any injury, Jdg 18:7); and ye shall also draw out of the bundles for her, and let them lie (the ears drawn out), that she may glean them, and shall not scold her,\" sc., for picking up the ears that have been drawn out. These directions of Boaz went far beyond the bounds of generosity and compassion for the poor; and show that he felt a peculiar interest in Ruth, with whose circumstances he was well acquainted, and who had won his heart by her humility, her faithful attachment to her mother-in-law, and her love to the God of Israel, - a face important to notice in connection with the further course of the history. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["Thus Ruth gleaned till the evening in the field; and when she knocked out the ears, she had about an ephah (about 20-25 lbs.) of barley.\nRut 2:18\nThis she brought to her mother-in-law in the city, and \"drew out (sc., from her pocket, as the Chaldee has correctly supplied) what she had left from her sufficiency,\" i.e., of the parched corn which Boaz had reached her (Rut 2:14).\nRut 2:19-20\nThe mother inquired, \"where hast thou gleaned to-day, and where wroughtest thou?\" and praised the benefactor, who, as she conjecture from the quantity of barley collected and the food brought home, had taken notice of Ruth: \"blessed be he that did take knowledge of thee!\" When she heard the name of the man, Boaz, she saw that this relative of her husband had been chosen by God to be a benefactor of herself and Ruth, and exclaimed, \"Blessed be he of the Lord, that he has not left off (withdrawn) his favour towards the living and the dead!\" On חסדּו עזב see Gen 24:27. This verb is construed with a double accusative here; for את cannot be a preposition, as in that case מאת would be used like מעם in Gen. l.c. \"The living,\" etc., forms a second object: as regards (with regard to) the living and the dead, in which Naomi thought of herself and Ruth, and of her husband and sons, to whom God still showed himself gracious, even after their death, through His care for their widows. In order to enlighten Ruth still further upon the matter, she added, \"The man (Boaz) is our relative, and one of our redeemers.\" He \"stands near to us,\" sc., by relationship. גּאלנוּ, a defective form for גּאלינוּ, which is found in several MSS and editions. On the significance of the gol, or redeemer, see at Lev 25:26, Lev 25:48-49, and the introduction to Ruth 3.\nRut 2:21\nRuth proceeded to inform her of his kindness: כּי גּם, \"also (know) that he said to me, Keep with my people, till the harvest is all ended.\" The masculine הנּערים, for which we should rather expect the feminine נערות in accordance with Rut 2:8, Rut 2:22, Rut 2:23, is quite in place as the more comprehensive gender, as a designation of the reapers generally, both male and female; and the expression לי אשׁר in this connection in the sense of my is more exact than the possessive pronoun: the people who belong to my house, as distinguished from the people of other masters.\nRut 2:22\nNaomi declared herself fully satisfied with this, because Ruth would be thereby secured from insults, which she might receive when gleaning in strange fields. \"That they meet thee not,\" lit. \"that they do not fall upon thee.\" בּ פּגע signifies to fall upon a person, to smite and ill-treat him.\nRut 2:23\nAfter this Ruth kept with the maidens of Boaz during the whole of the barley and wheat harvests gleaning ears of corn, and lived with her mother-in-law, sc., when she returned in the evening from the field. In this last remark there is a tacit allusion to the fact that a change took place for Ruth when the harvest was over. \n"]}],"introduction":"Ruth Gleans in the Field of Boaz - Ruth 2\nRuth went to the field to glean ears of corn, for the purpose of procuring support for herself and her mother-in-law, and came by chance to the field of Boaz, a relative of Naomi, who, when he heard that she had come with Naomi from Moabitis, spoke kindly to her, and gave her permission not only to glean ears in his field and even among the sheaves, but to appease her hunger and thirst with the food and drink of his reapers (vv. 1-16), so that in the evening she returned to her mother-in-law with a plentiful gleaning, and told her of the gracious reception she had met with from this man, and then learned from her that Boaz was a relation of her own (Rut 2:17-23). \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/RUT/2.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"RUT","chapter":2},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/RUT/3.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"RUT","chapter":3},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/RUT/1.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"RUT","chapter":1},"numberOfVerses":8}