The Era of Silence: Debunking the Notion of God's Abdentiation Between the Old and New Testaments

For centuries, scholars and theologians have grappled with the concept of the "intertestamental period"the four-hundred-year span between the completion of the Old Testament and the birth of Jesus. The prevailing narrative often suggests a period of divine silence during which God ceased communicating directly to His people. However, this interpretation is both incomplete and presumptuous, leaving room for alternative perspectives on the era's significance.

Lack of Documentation vs. Silence

One of the most common misconceptions surrounding the intertestamental period is that the lack of documentation implies a complete absence of divine communication. Indeed, it is true that we have lost many records from antiquity, including those from the intertestamental period. These losses include local church letters, political events, and various religious texts, including some that may have contained prophetic accounts or messages from God.

It is important to recognize that not all divine communications were recordedeven within the scope of our extant literature. Some messages may have been intended for a specific audience and thus not recorded for posterity. The Catholic Church includes some of these texts as deuterocanonical, while others are considered non-canonical. The question remains whether these texts originated in the intertestamental period or later, and whether some of them are indeed divinely inspired.

Theological Considerations

Theological principles suggest that God's communication should not have ceased entirely, even during the intertestamental period. If God is a constant force, consistently maintaining His presence and influence, then it is illogical to assume He would stop communicating. This perspective challenges the notion of divine silence, suggesting instead that God communicated in ways that were detectable by His people, albeit not through written records that we have.

The term 'canonical' does not necessarily encompass the totality of God's interactions. While the Bible is the culmination of His revealed will, it is a part of a broader communication. Many texts were inspired but not canonized, and others may have been for specific audiences. This could mean that some divine communications were meant to be temporary and not preserved for all time.

Romans 11:34: The Mind of the Lord

Romans 11:34, which states, "Who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?" invites us to recognize the depth and complexity of God's actions. It emphasizes that we cannot fully understand God's plans or intentions. This verse underscores the idea that divine revelations and communications might have occurred and been recorded in ways that have not survived to our present day, further complicating our understanding of the intertestamental period.

The focus should not be on the absence of written records, but on the Lord's providential preparation for the coming of Christ and the proclamation of His gospel. This preparation involved genuine communication, even if it was not in the form of recorded texts. These messages and interactions, however undocumented, were essential in preparing the world for the Messiah's coming.

In conclusion, the intertestamental period is a complex and multifaceted era in the prophetic and spiritual history of the people of God. While there is a lack of written documentation, it does not equate to a period of divine silence. Instead, it represents a phase where God interacted in ways that were meaningful and significant to His people, often through oral traditions, constructed religious practices, and direct divine encounters that may not have been recorded.

Key Points

Lack of documentation vs. divine silence Theological considerations and ongoing divine communication Romans 11:34 emphasizing the complexity of God's actions and communications Providence in preparing for the coming of Christ

Understanding this period requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond simple assumptions and acknowledges the complexity of divine communication.