As three of the verses of this chapter begin with the word ariaa (vs. 1, 11, 13), it is now commonly supposed to consist of three distinct prophecies. It is also agreed that the first of these (vs. J—10) relates to the con quest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians; the second (vs. 11, 12) either to Edom or the Arabian tribe Dumah, and the third (vs. 13-17) to another Arabian tribe or to Arabia in general. The second and third of these divisions are admitted by the recent German writers to be genuine, that is to say, composed by Isaiah himself, while the first is with almost equal unanimity declared to be the product of a later age. This critical judgment, as in other cases, is founded partly on alleged diversities of phrase ology, but chiefly on the wonderful coincidences with history both sacred and profane, which could not be ascribed to Isaiah or to any contemporary writer, without conceding the reality of prophetic inspiration. The principle involved in this decision is consistently carried out by Paulus, Eichhorn, and Rosenmuller, who regard the passage as an ex post facto prophecy, while Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, arbitrarily reject this supposition, and maintain that it was written just before the event, when Isaiah, as a politician or a poet, could foresee what was to happen. Upon this we may observe, first, that all such reasoning proceeds, not upon the want of satisfactory evidence, but upon the impossibility of inspiration or prophetic foresight, so that even supposing it to have existed, no proof could establish it. There is nothing, therefore, in the reasoning of such writers to shake the faith of any who do not hold their fundamental principle of unbe lief. In the next place, this hypothesis entirely fails to account for the minute agreement of the prophecy with history in circumstantials, which must therefore be explained away by forced constructions and interpretations. Taking the language in its obvious meaning and excluding all gratuitous assumptions, we shall be constrained to look upon this passage as one of the most striking instances of strict agreement between prophecy and history. As to the remainder of the chapter, while it cannot be denied that the connexion of the parts, and the meaning of each in itself, are exceedingly obscure, it may be doubted whether there is sufficient ground for their entire separation as distinct and independent prophecies. The extreme brevity, especially of the second part (vs. 11, 12), makes this very dubious, and the doubt is strengthened by the recurrence of the figure of a watchman in v. 11. The conclusion drawn from the use of the word vrtiv rests upon the dubious assumption that it is to be regarded as a formal title or inscription. It is worthy of remark, that some of the same writers who reject these titles as no part of the text, ap peal to their authority in settling the division and arrangement of the chapter. The truth is that this formula, in many cases, seems to indicate at most the subdivisions of an unbroken context. In the case before us, as in ch. 14: 28, it is safer to assume the unity of the composition than rashly to dismember it. However difficult it may be, therefore, to determine the connexion of these parts, they may safely be regarded as composing one obscure but continuous prediction. This is the less improbable because they can all be brought into connexion, if not unity, by simply supposing that the tribes or races, to which vs. 11-17 relate, were sharers with the Jews in the Babylonian tyranny, and therefore interested in its downfall. This hypothesis, it is true, is not susceptible of demonstration; but it is strongly recommended by the very fact that it explains the juxtaposition of these prophecies, or rather entitles them to be considered one.
The first part of the prophecy opens with an emphatic intimation of its alarming character, vs. 1-4. We have then a graphic representation of the march of the Medes and Persians upon Babylon, vs. 5-9. This is followed by a hint of the effect which this event would have upon the people of Jehovah, v. 10.
The remainder of the chapter represents the neighbouring nations as involved in the same sufferings with the Jews, but without any consolatory promise of deliverance, vs. 11-17.
1. The burden of the desert of the sea. Like whirlwinds in the south, as to rushing (or driving), from the wilderness it comes, from a terrible land. By the desert of the sea, Grotius understands the country of the Edomites, extending to the Red Sea as it did in the days of Solomon (1 Kings 9: 26). Other interpreters are agreed that the phrase is an enigmatical description of Babylonia as a great plain (Gen. 11:1. Isai. 23: 13), watered by a great river which, like the Nile (ch. 19: 5), is sometimes called a sea (ch. 27: 1). This designation was the more appropriate because the plain of Babylon, according to Herodotus, was often overflowed before Semiramis took measures to prevent it, and Abydenus says expressly that it then had the appearance of a sea. The threatened danger is compared to the approach of a tempest from the south, i. e. from the great Arabian desert, in which quarter the most violent winds are elsewhere represented as prevailing, b before Cpbn denotes relation in general, and indicates the point of the comparison. «a is indefinite and may either be referred to the enemy or made to agree with something or the like understood. As W.Jaa cannot be referred to the countries through which Cyrus passed, Knobel disregards the accents and connects it with what goes before. ‘ Like south-winds sweep ing from the wilderness, one comes (or they come) from a terrible land.’ This, however, is unnecessary, as the phrase “la/isa may be figurative and refer to the foregoing comparison, as if he had said, they come as storms come from the desert.
2. A hard vision—it is revealed to me—the deceiver deceiving and the spoiler spoiling—go up, oh Elam—besiege, oh Media—all sighing (or all its sighing) I have made to cease. The first phrase of course means a vision of severe and awful judgments. The feminine form of the noun is connected with a masculine verb, as Henderson imagines, to intimate the dreadful nature of the judgment threatened. It is hard to see how this end is attained by an irregularity of syntax. Others regard it as a mere enallage, which is the less probable, however, as the noun precedes the verb. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that iafi is indefinite and governs the preceding words, as if he had said, a revelation has been made to me (consisting of) a grievous vision. The older writers understand the next clause as a description of the Babylonian tyranny, and give ‘lai’a its usual meaning of a treacherous dealer. The late writers apply the clause to the conquerors of Babylon, and make ijjia nearly synonymous with ^”ii’tti. But this sense of the word cannot be justified by usage. Nor is it necessary, even if the clause be ap plied to Cyrus, since one of the terms may describe the stratagems of war as the other does its violence. This is the more natural, as Babylon was actually taken by stratagem. Go up, i. e. against Babylon, either in reference to its lofty defences (ch. 26: 5), or according to a more general military usage of the phrase. (Vide supra, ch. 7: 1.) The Medes and Persians were united under Cyrus, but the latter are here named first, as Knobel thinks, because they were now in the ascendant. The final letter of!”tnn:K is commonly regarded as a suffix, though without mappik, all its sigh ing, sc. Babylon’s, i. e. all the sighing it has caused by its oppression, or all the sighing of it, sc. the nsiba, or captivity. Some however make the letter paragogic, and read all sighing, which amounts to the same thing, the limitation which is expressed in one case being understood, in the other. Elam, a province of the Persian empire, is here put for the whole. Knobel sees a designed paronomasia in the similar forms fib^s ^y.
3. Therefore my loins are filled with pain; pangs have seized me like the pangs of a travailing (woman); I writhe (or am convulsed) from hearing; I am shocked (or agitated) from seeing. Some regard these as the words of a captive Jew, or of a Babylonian; but there is no objection to explaining them as expressive of the Prophet’s own emotions, a very common method of enhancing the description even of deserved and righteous judgments. The reduplicated form ftbnbn is intensive. Lowth’s translation convulsed is perhaps too strong, as the common version bowed down is too weak. The older writers give the -,« a causal meaning, from, i. e. by or on account of. The later writers make it privative, away from hearing, i. e. so as not to hear. Ewald obtains the same sense by making it comparative, too much confounded to hear, too much frightened to see.
4. My heart wanders (reels, or is bewildered); horror appals me; the twilight (night or evening) of my pleasure (or desire) he has put for (or converted into) fear (or trembling) for me. Compare the combination 2^5 ^sh Ps. 95: 10. There are two interpretations of the last clause. One supposes it to mean that the night desired as a time of rest is changed into a time of terror; the other, that a night of festivity is changed into a night of terror. As this last brings the prophecy into remarkable coincidence with history, the modern Germans commonly prefer the former. That the court was revelling when Cyrus took the city, is stated in the general by Herodotus and Xenophon, and in full detail by Daniel. That the two first, however, did not derive their information from the prophet, may be inferred from their not mentioning the writing on the wall, which would have seemed incredible to neither of them.
5. Set the table, spread the cloth, eat, drink, arise ye chiefs, anoint the shield! The Hebrew verbs are not imperatives but infinitives, here used in the first clause for the historical tense in order to give brevity, rapidity, and life to the description. For the same purpose the English imperative may be employed, as the simplest form of the verb and unencumbered with the personal pronouns. The sense, however, is, that while the table is set etc. the alarm is given. Luzzatto makes the whole verse antithetical: they set the table, they had better set a watch; they eat and drink, they had better arise and anoint the shield. r^s±n nsst is commonly explained to mean watching the watch, i. e. setting a guard to prevent surprise. But the context implies that they were surprised. Ewald refers it to the watching of the stars, which agrees well with the Babylonian usages, but like the first explanation seems misplaced between the setting of the table and the sitting at it. Hitzig and Knobel give JIBS the usual sense of MQ2 to overspread or cover, and rv^Bx (which occurs only here) that of the thing spread, whether it be the cloth or skin which serves the orientals for a table, or the carpet upon which they sit at meals. The anointing of the shield is supposed by some to be a means of preserving it or of repelling missiles from its surface, by others simply a means of cleansing and perhaps adorning it. Both agree that it is here poetically used to express the idea of arming or preparing for battle. There are two interpretations of the last clause. One makes it an address by Jehovah or the Prophet to the Medes and Persians, as in the last clause of v. 2; the other a sudden alarm to the Babylonians at their feast. Both explanations, but especially the last, seem to present a further allusion to the surprise of the king and court by Cyrus. This coincidence with his tory can be explained away only by giving to the verse a vague and general meaning which is wholly at variance with the graphic vividness of its expressions.
6. For thus saith the Lord to me: Go set (or cause to stand) the watchman (or sentinel); that which he sees let him tell. Instead of simply predicting or describing the approach of the enemy, the Prophet introduces an ideal watchman, as announcing what he actually sees. According to Knobel, he is himself the watchman (Hab. 1: 8), which is hardly consistent with the language of this verse. The last clause may be also construed thus—who may see (and) tell; but the first construction seems more natural.
7. And should he see cavalry—a pair (or pairs of horsemen)—assriders—camel-riders—then shall he hearken with hearkening a great hearkening (i. e. listen attentively). This is Ewald’s construction of the sentence, which supposes the divine instructions to be still continued. All other writers understand the Prophet as resuming his own narrative: and he saw (or he sees) etc. Against this construction, and in favour of the first, is the form of the verbs, which are all in the preterite with vav conversive, because following the futures of the foregoing verse (Nordheimer <§> 219). Besides, if the usual construction be adopted, v. 9 is a mere repetition of v. 7, and v. 8 is obviously misplaced between them. But on the other sup position, this verse contains the order and the ninth its execution, while the eighth, as a preface to the latter, is exactly in its proper place. •rax is pro perly a yoke of oxen, then a. pair in general. It is here collective and means pairs of horsemen, i. e. horsemen in pairs or marching two and two. The sense of steeds or riding-horses (as opposed to G^pib chariot-horses) given to fi*ttS^B by Gesenius, is extremely rare and doubtful, and ought not to be assumed without necessity. M1! in a very great majority of cases means a chariot. But as this would seem to make the Prophet speak of chariots drawn by asses and camels, most of the late writers either take the word in the sense of rows or troops, which seems entirely arbitrary, or in that of mounted troops or cavalry, which seems to be easily deducible from 25*5, to ride, and may be justified by the analogy of 1 Sam. 8: 4. 10: 18, where the word must mean either riders or the beasts on which they rode, although the English translators, in order to retain the usual sense of chariot, supply horses in one place and men in the other. On the first of these hypotheses, the camels and asses would be mentioned only as beasts of burden; but we know from Herodotus and Xenophon that the Persians also used them in their armies for riding, partly or wholly for the purpose of frightening the horses of the enemy. It is a slight but obvious coincidence of prophecy and history that Xenophon represents the Persians advancing two by two (slg dvo).
V. 8. And he cries—a lion—on the watch-tower. Lord, I am standing always by day, and on my ward (or place of observation) lam stationed all the nights (.e.allnight, or every night, or both). That the setting of this watch is an ideal process, seems to be intimated by the word ^sHs one of the divine names (not •’sS&t my lord or sir), and also by the unremitted vigilance to which he here lays claim. From the first of these particulars, Knobel infers that the Prophet is himself the watchman stationed by Jehovah. But see v. 7, and the comment on it. Another view of the passage may be suggested as possibly the true one, viz. that the Prophet, on receiving the order to set a watch, replies that he is himself engaged in the performance of that duty. According to the usual interpretation, these are the words of the delegated watchman, announcing that he is at his post and will re main there and announce whatever he may see. There are two explanations of M^« »7F?*5. The first makes rvnK the beginning of the watchman’s speech —he cries, a lion! i. e. I see a lion coming, meaning the invader. The objection to this is not, as Henderson alleges, that the usage of the language does not authorize such an application of the figure of a lion; but rather that this abrupt and general announcement of the enemy would hardly have been followed by aprefatory declaration of the watchman’s diligence. This, it is clear, must come before not after the announcement of the enemy, and accordingly we find that announcement in the next verse, corresponding ex actly to the terms of the instructions in the seventh. These considerations seem decisive in favour of the other hypothesis, now commonly adopted, viz. that n^» forms no part of the sentinel’s report, but is rather a description of the way in which he makes it. The true sense of the words is given in a paraphrase in Rev. 10: 3, he cried with a loud voice as when a lion roareih. As to the syntax, we may either supply 3 before n^x, of which ellipsis there are some examples, or still more simply read the lion cries, thus converting the simile into a metaphor. The first construction agrees best however with the masoretic accents. Luzzatto explains rrj’iK as the usual cry of shepherds when they saw wild beasts approaching.
9. And behold, this comes (or this is what is coming), mounted men, pairs of horsemen. And he answers (i. e. speaks again) and says. Fallen, fallen, is Babylon, and all the images of her gods he has broken (or crushed) to the earth. The last verb is indefinitely construed, but obviously refers to the enemy as the instrument of Babylon’s destruction, rather than to God as the efficient cause. The omission of the asses and camels in this verse is explained by Knobel on the ground that the enemy is now to be conceived as having reached the city, his beasts of burden being left behind him. But the true explanation seems to be that the description given in v. 7 is abbreviated here, because so much was to be added. Still the correspondence is sufficiently exact, U^K 321] is supposed by some to mean chariots containing men; but according to the analogy of v. 7, it rather means mounted men. As the phrases camel-riders, ass-riders, there used, from the nature of the case can only mean riders upon camels and asses, so here man-riders, from the nature of the case, can only mean men who are riders themselves. The structure of the passage is highly dramatic. In the sixth verse, the prophet is commanded to set a watch. In the seventh, the sentinel is ordered to look out for an army of men, mounted on horses, camels, and asses. In the eighth, he reports himself as being at his post. In the ninth, he sees the very army which had been described approaching. Answer is used, both in Greek and Hebrew, for the resumption of discourse by the same speaker, especially after an interval. It is here equivalent to spoke again. During the interval implied, the city is supposed to have been taken, so that when the watchman speaks again, it is to say that Babylon is fallen. The omission of all the intermediate details, for the purpose of bringing the extremes together, is a masterly stroke of poetical description, which would never have occurred to an inferior writer. The allusion to idols in the last clause is not intended merely to remind us that the conquest was a triumph of the true God over false ones, but to bring into view the well known aversion of the Persians to all images. Herodotus says they not only thought it unlawful to use images, but imputed folly to those who did it. Here is another incidental but remarkable coincidence of prophecy even with profane history.
10. Oh my threshing and the son of my threshing-floor! What I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, I have told you. This part of the prophecy closes with an apostrophe, showing at once by whose power and for whose sake the downfall of Babylon was to be brought about. Threshing here means that which is threshed, and is synonymous with the following phrase, son of the threshing-floor, i. e. (according to the oriental idiom which uses son to signify almost any relation) threshed grain. The comparison of severe oppression or affliction to threshing is a common one, and though the terms here used are scarcely intelligible when literally rendered into English, it is clear that they mean, oh my oppressed and afflicted people, and must therefore be addressed not to the Babylonians but the Jews, to whom the fall of Babylon would bring deliverance, and for whose consolation this prediction was originally uttered. The last clause assures them that their own God had sent this message to them.
11. The burden of Dumah. To me (one is) calling from Seir, Watchman, what of the night 1 Watchman, what of the night 1 It has been already stated that most interpreters regard this and the next verse as an in dependent prophecy; but that the use of the word xw is an insufficient reason, while the extreme brevity of the passage, and the recurrence of the figure of a sentinel or watchman, seem to indicate that it is a continuation of what goes before, although a new subject is here introduced. Of Dumah there are two interpretations. J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, understand it as the name of an Arabian tribe descended from Ishmael (Gen. 25: 14. 1 Chr. 1: 30), or of a place belonging to that tribe, perhaps the same now called Dumah Eljandilon the confines of Arabia and Syria. In that case, Seir, which lay between Judah and the desert of Arabia, is mentioned merely to denote the quarter whence the sound proceeded. But as Seir was itself the residence of the Edomites or children of Esau, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Jarchi in explaining n^tt as a variation of the name d’fix, intended at the same time to suggest the idea of silence, solitude, and desolation. This enigmatical name, as well as that in v. 1, is ascribed by Knobel to the copyist or compiler who added the inscriptions. In favour of the first interpretation is the mention of Arabia and of certain Arabian tribes in the following verses. But even Edom might be said to form a part of Arabia. Jerome also mentions Dumah as a district in the south of Edom. The greater importance of Edom and the frequency with which it is mentioned in the prophets, especially as an object of divine displeasure, also recommend this exegetical hypothesis. Knobel adds that the Edomites were subject to Judah till the year B. C. 743, and would therefore naturally take part in its sufferings from Babylonian tyranny. Clericus understands the question to be, what has happened since last night? The English Version seems to mean, what have you to say of the night? Interpreters are commonly agreed, however, that the *ja is partitive, and that the question is, what part of the night is it, equivalent to our question, what o’clock? This may have been a custom ary method of interrogating watchmen. N’np is indefinite, or may agree with ^i’p understood. (Vide infra, ch. 40: 3.) Night is a common metaphor to represent calamity, as daybreak does relief from it. Some regard this as a taunting inquiry addressed to Judah by his heathen neighbours. It is much more natural, however, to explain it as an expression of anxiety arising from a personal concern in the result.
12. The watchman says, Morning comes and also night; if ye will inquire) inquire; return, come. Grotius understands this to mean that though the natural morning might return, the moral or spiritual night would still continue. Gesenius explains it as descriptive of vicissitude: morning comes, but night comes after it. Most writers understand it as relating to different subjects: morning comes (to one) and night (to another); which would seem to mean that while the Jewish night was about to be dispelled, that of Edom or Arabia should still continue. Those who regard these verses as genuine but deny the inspiration of the writer, are under the necessity of referring them to something which took place in the days of Isaiah. Knobel for example understands him here as threatening Edom with a visit from the Assyrians on their return from Egypt. But connected as the words are with the foregoing prophecy, it is far more natural to understand them as referring to the Babylonian conquest of Judea and the neighbouring countries. The last clause intimates that the event was still uncertain. Henderson and others give to *asb the spiritual sense of repentance and conversion; but there seems to be no need of departing from the literal import of the word. The true sense of the clause is that given by Luther. If you wish to know you must inquire again; you are come too soon; the time of your deliverance is not at hand; return or come again. On any hypothesis, however, these two verses still continue enigmatical and doubtful in their meaning.
13. The burden of Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, oh ye caravans of Dedanim. The genuineness of this verse and of those which follow is questioned by Eichhorn, Paulus, Bauer, and Rosemmjller, but defended by Knobel on the ground that lias, ixttj, and “i^to ^ttj are expressions belonging to Isaiah’s dialect. Hitzig and Hendewerk, with the older writers, regard these verses and vs. 11, 12 as forming one prophecy. But Knobel maintains that vs. 11, 12 are of a later date, for the singular reason that they speak with uncertainty of that which is confidently foretold in the others. He also alleges that the title or inscription was taken from the word a^a in the next clause, even the preposition being retained. But a is often interposed between words most closely connected, and this very combination occurs in Zech. 9:1, where no such explanation can be given. The Prophet here passes from Edom to Arabia, or from one Arabian tribe or district to another. The answer in v. 12, that the dawn was approaching for the Jews but not for them, is here explained. The country was to be in such a state that the caravans which usually travelled undisturbed would be obliged to leave the public road and pass the night among the bushes or thickets, which seems to be here (and perhaps originally) the meaning of 15^. Forests properly so called do not exist in the Arabian desert. Gesenius explains tvirnj as the participle of rn«, used as a noun in the sense of travelling companies or caravans. The Dedanim are mentioned elsewhere in connexion with Edom and Teman (Jer. 49: 8. Ez. 25: 13), to whom they were probably contiguous. Their precise situation is the less important as they are not the subjects of the prophecy, but spoken of as strangers passing through, the interruption of whose journey is mentioned as a proof of the condition of the country. For 3^?5 tne ancient versions seem to read 3^2, in which they are followed by Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, the last of whom defends the emendation on the twofold ground, that 3^5 is a name found only in the later Hebrew writers, and that the addition of this name would be superfluous, as the caravans of Dedanim must pass of course through the desert of Arabia. The first of these arguments admits the easy answer that this place is itself a proof of earlier usage. To the second it may be replied, that Arabia is not half so superfluous as evening in connexion with to^fl, which strictly means to spend the night. How easy it would be to retort upon such criticism by demanding whether they could pass the night in the day-time.
14. To meet the thirsty they bring water, the inhabitants of the land of Tema; with his bread they prevent (i. e. meet or anticipate) the fugitive. The men of Tema, another Arabian tribe, also engaged in trade (Jer. 25: 23. Job 6: 19), are described as bringing food and drink, not to the Dedanim mentioned in v. 13, but to the people of the wasted country. His bread is rendered in the English Version as a collective (their bread) refer ring to the men of Tema; but the suffix relates rather to the fugitive him self, and the whole phrase means his portion of food, the food necessary for him, his daily bread. The ancient versions make the verbs imperative and understand the sentence as an exhortation to the people of Tema. This construction, which is adopted by Henderson requires a change in the pointing of the text, for which there is no sufficient authority, much less a necessity. On the contrary, the context makes it far more natural to under stand the Prophet as describing an act than as exhorting to it.
15. Because (or when) from the presence of swords they fled, from the presence of a drawn sword and from the presence of a bended bow, and from the presence of a weight of war. This verse describes them as not only plundered but pursued by a blood-thirsty enemy, niasiBj, according to usage, seems to mean not only drawn or thrust forth, but given up, abandoned to itself, and as it were allowed to do its worst. 133.is properly weight, pressure, burden, or oppression. The corresponding verb is connected with the same noun in 1 Sam. 31: 3.
16. For thus saith the Lord to me, In yet a year (or in a year longer) like the years of a hireling (i. e. strictly computed) shall fail (or cease) all the glory of Kedar. This verse seems to fix a time for the fulfilment of the foregoing prophecy. Here, as in chap. 17: 3, glory comprehends all that constitutes the dignity or strength of a people. On the meaning of the phrase *^5b ^jsoJs, vide supra, ch. 16: 14. Kedar was the second son of Ishmael (Gen. 25: 13). The name is here put either for an Arab tribe or for Arabia in general (Isai. 42: 11. 60: 7. Ez. 27: 21). The Rabbins call the Arabic the language of Kedar. The chronological specification in this verse makes it necessary either to assume a later writer than Isaiah, as some do in ch. 16: 14; or a terminus a quo posterior to his time, as if he had said, within a year after something else before predicted; or an abrupt recurrence from the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus to those of Hezekiah. The last would be wholly in accordance with the usage of the prophets; but the best solution seems to be afforded by the second hypothesis. The sense will then be that the Arabians who suffered with the Jews, so far from sharing their deliverance, should within a year after that event be entirely destroyed. At the same time, due allowance should be made for diversity of judgment in a case so doubtful.
17. And the remnant of the number of bows (or archers), the mighty men (or heroes) of the children of Kedar, shall be few (or become few), for Jehovah God of Israel hath spoken it. nttJp is here collective and may either be in regimen or apposition with the words which follow. The latter construction is favoured by the accents. We read elsewhere of the archery of Ishmael (Gen. 21: 20) and Kedar (Ps. 120: 4). Another construction, which refers the first clause to the remnant left by the bows of the enemy, is possible, but should not be assumed without necessity. The last clause intimates that God, as the God of Israel, has a quarrel with Kedar, and at the same time that his power and omniscience will secure the fulfilment of the threatening. It is not impossible that future discoveries may yet throw light upon these brief and obscure prophecies.
