hus to understand the expression, "in its time, etc.,"
than to follow _Jerome_, who remarks, that "it is a severe punishment,
if at the time of harvest the hoped-for fruits are taken away, and
wrested from our hands;" for if, even at the time of the harvest, there
be a want of all things, how will it be during the remaining time of
the year.--The words, "to cover, etc.," are very concise, but without
any grammatical ellipsis, instead of, "which hitherto served to cover
her nakedness." As to the sense, the LXX. are correct in translating,
[Greek: tou me kaluptein ten aschemosunen autes]. For that which had
_hitherto_ been, is mentioned by the prophet only for the purpose of
drawing attention to what _in future_ will _not_ be.--It is the Lord
who must cover the nakedness; and this leads us back to the natural
poverty of man, who has not, in the whole world, a single patch or
shred--not even so much as to cover his shame, which is here specially
to be understood by nakedness. The same thought which is so well
calculated to humble pride--what have we that we have not received, and
that the Giver might not at any moment take back?--occurs also in Ezek.
xvi. 8: "I spread out My wings over thee, and covered thy nakedness."

Ver. 12. "_And now I will uncover her shame before the eyes of her
lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hands._"

The [Greek: hapax legomenon] [Hebrew: nblvt] is best explained
by "decay," "_corpus multa stupra passum_." Being a femin. of a
Segholate-form, its signification can be derived only from the _Kal_;
but [Hebrew: nbl] always signifies "to be faded, weak, feeble;" in
_Piel_ it means, "to make weak," "to declare as weak," "to disgrace,"
"to despise." As the signification of _Kal_ does not [Pg 246] imply the
Idea of ignominy, we cannot explain the noun, as several interpreters
do, by "_turpitudo_, _ignominia_." The [Greek: akatharsia] of the
LXX. is probably a free translation of the word according to our
view.--[Hebrew: leini] is constantly used for "_coram, inspectante
aliquo_," properly, "belonging to the eyes of some one," and cannot
therefore be explained here by "to the eyes," as if she were uncovered
to, or for, the lovers alone; these, on the contrary, are mentioned
only as fellow-witnesses. But in what respect do they come into
consideration here? Several interpreters are of opinion that their
powerlessness, and the folly of trusting in them, are intended to be
here pointed out. Thus