How does Psalm 74:9 challenge the belief in ongoing divine revelation? Text of Psalm 74:9 “We do not see any signs; there is no longer any prophet, and none of us knows how long this will last.” Immediate Literary Setting Psalm 74 is a communal lament. The psalmist (a descendant of Asaph) mourns the destruction of the sanctuary, the triumph of enemies, and the apparent silence of God. Verse 9 is the emotional climax: the nation perceives neither miraculous “signs” nor a living prophetic voice. The complaint is experiential, not doctrinal; it describes what Israel feels in the moment of crisis. Historical Background Most scholars—conservative and critical alike—place the psalm shortly after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Temple artifacts were desecrated (vv.4–8), national identity was shattered, and key prophetic figures (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) were removed from Jerusalem. In that specific locale “there [was] no longer any prophet,” even though prophets still ministered in exile (Jeremiah 29:1, Ezekiel 1:1). The lament therefore reflects Jerusalem’s local situation, not a universally silent God. Descriptive, Not Prescriptive The verse reports what the psalmist does not see; it does not legislate what God must or must not do henceforth. Scripture often records seasons of silence (e.g., 1 Samuel 3:1; Amos 8:11-12) that are later followed by renewed revelation (e.g., Samuel, post-exilic prophets, John the Baptist). Therefore Psalm 74:9 cannot be marshaled as a doctrinal rule forbidding future prophetic activity. Post-Exilic Prophetic Resumption Haggai and Zechariah began prophesying in 520 BC (Ezra 5:1-2), roughly sixty-six years after Jerusalem’s fall. Malachi followed in the late 5th century BC. These facts falsify any claim that Psalm 74:9 closes the Old Testament prophetic era. Inter-Testamental “Silence” and Renewed Revelation in Christ Between Malachi and John the Baptist (~430 BC–4 BC) Israel again experienced prophetic scarcity. Yet Luke opens by noting prophetic activity from Gabriel, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon, Anna, and John. The pattern is cyclical: seasons of silence prepare the way for climactic revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2). Canonical Closure in the New Testament While Psalm 74:9 does not close revelation, the New Testament establishes its own terminus. Jesus authorizes His apostles to deliver the once-for-all faith (John 14:26; Ephesians 2:20; Jude 3). Revelation ends with a dual warning against adding to or taking from the prophetic book (Revelation 22:18-19), a principle early churches applied to the entire apostolic corpus. Manuscript evidence—Papyrus 52 (John), Codex Sinaiticus, the Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (11QPs^a)—shows rapid, consistent circulation of these defined writings. Miracles and Guidance versus New Canonical Revelation Historical and contemporary reports of miracles and divine guidance (e.g., Craig Keener’s documented global healings; medically verified recoveries such as the 1981 instant healing of cancer patient Barbara Snyder) show that God still acts supernaturally. Yet neither Scripture nor credible church history presents such acts as adding permanent, universal doctrine on par with the Bible. Psalm 74:9 therefore cannot be cited to deny modern answers to prayer; it only underscores that normative, binding revelation is now complete. Archaeological and Manuscript Corroboration 1. Dead Sea Scroll 11QPs^a (late 1st century BC) contains Psalm 74, proving its accepted canonical status centuries before Christ. 2. Lachish Ostracon 3 (Jeremiah’s era) confirms Babylonian aggression and supports the psalm’s historical context. 3. Babylonian Chronicle tablets align with 2 Kings 25 regarding Jerusalem’s fall, validating the setting behind the lament. Cumulative Biblical Witness – God sometimes withdraws prophetic signs (Lamentations 2:9), but later speaks again (Isaiah 40:1-5). – Christ’s resurrection, attested by multiple witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and early creedal material (c. AD 30-35), is God’s ultimate sign (Matthew 12:39-40). – The Holy Spirit now illuminates Scripture rather than supplying new canon (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:12-13). Conclusion Psalm 74:9 expresses Israel’s real-time anguish in a momentary prophetic drought. It warns against presuming ongoing revelation will always be available on demand and teaches reliance on God’s past self-disclosure. Yet, by its very placement in a Bible subsequently enlarged by later prophets, by the Gospels, and by apostolic writings, the verse simultaneously defeats any assertion that God can never speak again. Properly read, Psalm 74:9 urges confidence in the sufficiency of the completed Scriptures while leaving room for God’s providential acts and personal guidance that never contradict, supersede, or add to the biblical canon. |
    |