Although this assertion is pronounced with great assurance, it is sufficiently refuted by an impartial examination of the prophetic writings. Our op ponents have attempted to prove the spuriousness of whatever is in contradiction with this assertion, as, for instance, the book of Daniel ; but there still remain a number of prophecies announcing future events with great definiteness. Micah, for example (iv. 8-ro), announces the Babylonian exile, and the deliverance from that exile, one hundred and fifty years before its accomplishment, and before the commencement of any hostilities between Babylon and Judah, and even before Babylon was an inde pendent state. All the prophets, comtriltncing with the earliest, predict the coming destruction of their city and temple, and the exile of the people. All the prophets whose predictions refer to the As syrian invasion, coincide in asserting that the Assyrians would NOT be instrumental in realising these predictions ; that Judah should be delivered from those enemies, from whom to be delivered seemed impossible ; and this not by Egyptian aid, which seemed to be the least unlikely, but by an immediate intervention df the Lord; and, on the contrary, all the prophets whose predictions refer to the successors of the Assyrians, the Chaldees, unanimously announce that these were to fulfil the ancient prediction, and exhort to resig,nation to this inevitable fate. These are facts quite beyond hu man calculation. At the period when the ChalcIxan empire had reached the summit of its power, Jere miah not only predicts in general terms its fall, and the destruction of its chief city, but also details par ticular circumstances connected therewith ; for in stance, the conquest of the town by the Medes and their allies ; the entrance which the enemy effected through the dry bed of the Euphrates, during a night of general revelry and intoxication ; the return of the Israelites after the reduction of the town ; the utter destruction and desolation of this city, which took place, although not at once, yet cer tainly in consequence of the first conquest, so that its site can scarcely be shewn with certainty. In general, all those proud ornaments of the ancient world, whose destruction the prophets predicted— Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Memphis, the chief cities of the Moabites and Ammonites, and many others —have perished, and the nations to whom the prophets threatened annihilation—the Ammonites, Rloabites, Philistines, and Id/unmans—have en tirely disappeared from the stage of history. There is not a single city nor a single people, the fate of which has been at variance with prophecy. All this is not a casual coincidence. The ruins of all these cities, every vestige of the former existence of those once flourishing nations, are loud speaking witnesses, testifying to the futility of the opinion which raises into a fact the subjective wish that prophecy might not exist. Zechariah clearly de scribes the conquests of Alexander (ix. 1-8). He foretells that the Persian empire, which lie specifies by the symbolic name Hadrach, shall be ruined ; that Damascus and Hamath shall be conquered ; that the bulwarks of the mighty Tyre shall be smitten in the sea, and that the city shall be burned ; that Gaza shall lose its king, and that Ashdod shall be peopled with the lowest rabble ; and that Jeru salem shall be spared during all these troubles. These prophecies were fulfilled during the expedi tion of Alexander (comp. Jahn's Einleitung, vol.
p. 84, sq.; voL p. 349, sq.) Eichhorn de spaired of being able to explain the exact corre spondence of the fulfilment with the predictions ; he, therefore, in his work, Die Hebrdischen Propheten, endeavours to prove that these prophecies were veiled historical descriptions. He has recourse to
the most violent operations in order to support this hypothesis ; which proves how fully he recognised the agreement of the prophecies with their fulfil ment, and that the prophecies are more than gene ral poetical descriptions. The Messianic predictions prove that the prophecies were more than veiled historical descriptions. There is scarcely any fact in Gospel history, from the birth of our Saviour at Bethlehem down to his death, which is unpredicted by a prophetical passage.
Eichhorn's hypothesis is also amply refuted by the unquestioned portion of Isaiah. HOW can it be explained that Isaiah confidently predicts the de struction of the empire of Israel by the Assyrians, and the preservation of the empire of Judah from these enemies, and that he with certainty knew be forehand that no help would be afforded to Judah from Egypt, that the Assyrians would advance to the gates of Jerusalem, and there be destroyed only by the judgment of the Lord ? No human combi nations can lead to such results. Savonarola, for instance, was a pious man, and an acute observer ; but when he fancied himself to be a prophet, and ventured to predict events which should come to pass, he was immediately refuted by facts (comp. Biographic. Savonarola's, von Rudelbach).
If we had nothing of prophetic literature, beside the portions of Isaiah which have been attacked, they alone would afford an ample refutation of our opponents, because they contain in chapter liii. the most remarkable of O. T. prophecies, predicting the sufferings and glory of our Saviour. If it can be proved that this one prophecy necessarily refers to Christ, we can no longer feel tempted to reject other prophecies of Isaiah, on account of their referring too explicitly to some event, like that of the Babylonian exile. As soon as only one genuine prophecy has been proved, the whole argu ment of our opponents falls to the ground. This argument is also opposed by the authority of Christ and his apostles ; and whoever will consistently main tain this opinion must reject the authority of Christ. The prophets are described in the N. T. not as acute politicians, or as poets full of a foreboding genius, but as messengers of God raised by His Spirit above the intellectual sphere of mere man. Christ repeatedly mentions that the events of his own life were also destined to realise the fulfilment of prophecy, saying, this must come to pass in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled.' And after his resurrection, he interprets to his disciples the prophecies concerning himself. Peter, speak ing of the prophets, says, in his First Epistle (i.
Searching what, or what manner of thne the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow ;' and, in his Second Epistle (i. 2r), For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost—inrd 7rpeiVta.ros itryfou ckep6p,epoe.
Since we have shewn that there are in the Holy Scriptures definite prophecies, the a priori argu ment of our opponents, who pretend that prophecy is useless, loses its si,gnificance. Even if we could not understand the purpose of prophecy, the in quiry respecting its reality should nevertheless be independent of such a priori reasoning, since the cause of our NOT understanding it might be in ourselves. We frequently find, after we have been raised to a higher position, the causes of facts which at an earlier period we could not compre hend. A later age frequently understands what was hidden to the preceding. However, the pur pose of definite predictions is not hidden to those who rccognise the reality of the divine schcme for human salvation.