In Psalm 74:9, the claim of having no prophet conflicts with other biblical texts that record active prophets around that era—how can both accounts be true?

Overview of Psalm 74 and Its Historical Context

Psalm 74 laments a season of destruction and despair, particularly focusing on the desecration of the sanctuary. The text is often connected with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem (ca. 586 BC). In the Berean Standard Bible, Psalm 74:9 states, “We no longer see our signs; there is no longer any prophet, and none of us knows how long this will last.” This lament underscores the collective anguish of the people who feel they have lost direct guidance from God.

Yet, reading other passages around this era reveals that certain prophets—such as Jeremiah (active before, during, and after Jerusalem’s fall), Ezekiel (prophesying while in Babylonian exile), and Daniel—were indeed living and sharing God’s messages. At first glance, the psalmist’s complaint “there is no longer any prophet” appears contradictory. However, careful study of the historical, literary, and spiritual backdrop clarifies why Psalm 74 can truthfully claim no prophet, while other Scriptures attest that prophets indeed existed.

1. Literary Purpose of the Lament

Psalm 74 belongs to a literary category of lament. This genre frequently uses intense imagery and exaggeration to convey the depth of emotional turmoil. The statement “there is no longer any prophet” could be interpreted as an expression of utter desperation. Even if some prophets were active, the people might have felt abandoned or blind to hope.

Laments in Scripture often highlight a gap between the people’s need for immediate relayed words from God and the absence (or perceived absence) of a prophetically revealed solution. The complaint points to a community in crisis, feeling as though heaven is silent, rather than functioning as a strict declaration of historical fact.

2. Timing and Accessibility of Prophets

Many historical reconstructions place Psalm 74 in or shortly after the period of the Babylonian destruction (2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 36). During this crisis, prophets like Jeremiah had been pleading with the people for decades. However, Jeremiah himself was met with hostility, rejection, and imprisonment (Jeremiah 37:14–16). Ezekiel prophesied from exile in Babylon, physically far from those in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 1:1–3). Daniel operated primarily within the Babylonian royal court (Daniel 1:19–21).

For those remaining in the wreckage of Jerusalem, no prophet was present on site to provide immediate direction. The psalmist may have witnessed the city’s ruin firsthand; under those circumstances, any distant prophetic voice felt unreal or inaccessible. So, from their vantage point, “there is no longer any prophet” captures a localized experience of isolation, even though prophets were indeed alive elsewhere.

3. The Textual Clarity of Psalm 74:9

Psalm 74:9 reads, “We no longer see our signs; there is no longer any prophet, and none of us knows how long this will last.” The key terms to consider are “no longer any prophet” and the idea of “not knowing how long.” Scholars note these clues point to a desperation for timely and direct revelation. In the ancient Near East, the prophet’s role often included delivering warnings, guidance, and promises for restoration. The emphasis in Psalm 74:9 focuses on the immediate sense that nothing—neither sign nor spokesperson—is providing answers.

4. Prophetic Silence as a Period of Testing

Scripture records periods labeled as times when divine revelation was scarce. For instance, in 1 Samuel 3:1, the text says, “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; visions were scarce.” This statement does not necessarily deny the existence of Samuel himself (who does receive a message soon afterward); rather, it underscores the sense of spiritual drought among the people. Similarly, Psalm 74:9 conveys the community’s distress that no prophet is within arm’s reach to offer immediate, recognizable “signs.”

Prophetic activity may continue in other circles or in a different region while a particular location experiences a “silence.” The fact that we have prophecies from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel preserved in Scripture indicates God’s ongoing revelation. Yet, to the overwhelmed remnant under siege or destruction, it may have seemed as though divine guidance was entirely withdrawn.

5. Geographical Separation and Disconnection

Jeremiah remained in Judah for much of the time but faced severe opposition, and there were intervals when his public proclamations were effectively stifled. Ezekiel’s primary ministry location was by the Kebar River among the exiles (Ezekiel 1:1). Daniel served in a high administrative position in Babylon, growing in prominence long after Jerusalem’s destruction. These geographical disconnections contributed to the perception of absent prophetic voices in Jerusalem itself.

Furthermore, historical records such as the Babylonian Chronicles corroborate the forced deportations of many Judeans—including prophets, priests, and nobility—to Babylon. Archaeological findings (e.g., the Lachish Letters, dating close to the city’s conquest) give anecdotal evidence of widespread panic and chaos, implying communication breakdowns. In a devastated city, enduring daily threat, the message that “we have no prophet” can reflect dire circumstances rather than an absolute denial of a prophet’s existence elsewhere.

6. Hyperbole in Biblical Laments

Biblical authors, particularly in poetic texts, often employ hyperbole to convey grief or urgency. Hebrew poetry uses emotionally charged language. In Psalm 74, the psalmist laments with phrases like “Why have You rejected us forever, O God?” (Psalm 74:1). The “forever” is not literal, as God later restores His people. Likewise, the extension of “there is no longer any prophet” must be understood in poetic context. Where the lamenter might see no immediate or recognized prophetic activity, the historical record shows active prophets in that general era.

7. The Consistency of the Scriptural Witness

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, despairing expressions do not invalidate other passages. They frequently echo real-time perceptions in the midst of turmoil. Second Kings 25 and the last chapters of Jeremiah highlight the devastation scrupulously, yet these same sources also mention that God’s men were speaking His Word during and after the judgment. Thus, biblical texts can, in different contexts, say “there is no prophet” while also affirming the existence of prophets—depending on vantage point, circumstance, and the spiritual condition of the people.

8. Supporting Manuscript Evidence and Translation Fidelity

The consistent reading of Psalm 74:9 in ancient manuscripts—such as the Masoretic Text and the texts reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls—reveals no alteration or scribal confusion regarding “there is no longer any prophet.” Instead, the phrase stands firmly within the tradition, illustrating that the psalm is faithfully transmitted. Modern critical editions and translations (including the Berean Standard Bible) maintain coherence around Psalm 74’s lament context.

This reliability of textual tradition underscores the importance of literary genre for interpretation. Even though the psalm’s statement is historically accurate from an immediate vantage point, other biblical books simultaneously recount the broader truth that God continued to raise up His prophets.

9. Harmonizing Psalm 74 with Prophetic Testimony

In each historical moment, God has preserved a prophetic witness, though it was sometimes not where the immediate survivors of catastrophe could find consolation. For example:

• Jeremiah’s mission included condemnation of Jerusalem’s corruption, but many people dismissed it.

• Ezekiel brought messages of both judgment and restoration from Babylon, physically distant from Jerusalem’s ruins.

• Daniel’s prophecies in Babylon eventually assured the exiles that God still reigned.

This dynamic helps to harmonize Psalm 74’s local lament with the existence of prophets in the broader biblical narrative.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Psalm 74:9’s declaration, “there is no longer any prophet,” does not contradict texts that present active prophets around that period. Instead, it expresses a lament from the immediate viewpoint of the devastated city. The people desperately sought tangible signs, and no recognized or accessible prophet stood among them to offer immediate clarity or consolation.

By understanding the poetic nature of lament, appreciating the geographical separation of various prophets, and recognizing that communication was severely hindered during the siege and exile, readers see that both accounts are true. The lament in Psalm 74 reflects genuine despair on the ground, while other books record the ministry of prophets who operated before, during, and after the same historical conflict. All these elements reinforce the comprehensive consistency of Scripture and remind readers of the importance of examining both genre and context for accurate interpretation.