400 years of silence? Answering the Myth
For as long as I can remember, I have heard that between Malachi and the appearance of John the Baptist, there was absolutely no prophetic function in Israel, therefore this period is called the 400 years of silence. This kind of pre-Christian "cessationism" was used by the political powers of the time to justify and perpetuate their mandate. Unfortunately, this has caused many Christians to have no interest in studying the period, considering it unprofitable for their biblical edification. The problem that this has created is the lack of knowledge of the context in which the New Testament appears. This video hopes to dispel this misunderstanding perpetuated by some Christian publications, or by certain theological positions.
In my talks about whether we can still see the prophetic ministry today, the answers I have received repeatedly are the parallel quotes from Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16. The parallel text reads thus:
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
This text is cited to me as proof that there is no longer any prophetic ministry today, even though other texts like I Cor. Chapters 12-14 or Ephesians 4:10-11 say that these gifts will be present until we reach the stature of the perfect man, which as far as I know, has not happened. Cessationism, the doctrine of denying the manifestation of the gifts today, must deny certain Scriptures to reach such a conclusion.
We see that pre-Christian cessationism was a result of political intrigues and interests. I am referring to what is known as the “400 years of silence”, which assumes that from Malachi to John the Baptist, there was not a single prophet in Israel, that there was a silence from God, and that with the arrival of John the Baptist, this silence stopped, and the voice of God was heard again through John the Baptist, and the Christian prophets. There are many publications that try to affirm this belief.
But there is an error in this logic. Apparently, Jesus did not see that the last prophet was Malachi, as taught by this doctrine that has become in some circles, dogma. For Jesus, it is John who closes the book of Old Testament prophets. In Matthew, we see 2 prophets operating even before John the Baptist arose. Simeon, God had told him that he would not die without first seeing the Christ, Luke 2:25-32. Ana was a prophetess according to Luke 2:36. These two examples would be enough to bring down the wrong belief that God did not reveal or speak to anyone from Malachi until John the Baptist appeared on the national scene of Israel. But we can add to this more.
In Hebrews 1:1-2a we read the following:
1 God, having spoken long ago, on many occasions and in many ways to the fathers through the prophets, 2 in these last days has spoken to us through his Son
In this text, we do not read that God, after pausing to speak for a period, finally spoke to us through the Son. No, we see that God spoke in many ways, and I'm sorry to say, this seems to include more than the Scripture we have today. Many would object to what I am saying, but remember, we do not have everything that Jesus said, cf. Jn. 21:25, and the Bible has no problem recognizing such a limitation.
Leaving the New Testament, let's look at the Old Testament and how and when some of its books were composed. Let's see that the book of 1 Chronicles chapter 1 has the genealogy of David up to 300 BC The genealogy in Nehemiah is similar. Parts of Malachi and parts of Zacharias 9-14 point to the 4th century BC But of greater importance is the book of Daniel, which is believed to have been written between 171-164 BC We see, then, that at least the biblical writings were continued being produced in the first 200 years of the supposed silence.
Historical events also point out that the prophets Malachi and Zechariah, or at least their disciples, kept adding to their books by commenting on events relevant to their times. In particular, the attempted union between the Samaritans in the north and the Jews in the south, in 350 BC. In both books we read again and again that they must be faithful to the temple in Jerusalem, as opposed to the temple that the Samaritans had built in the north, on Mount Gerizim, cf. Jn. 4:19.
Likewise, in 301 BC the Ptolemies deported a good group of Jews to Alexandria, and we see the last passages of Zacharias dealing with this matter, giving hope to the deportees.
What was it then that led to the belief that there was no voice of God speaking to the Jewish people for 400 years? As I said at the beginning, this was a political issue. Among Evangelicals, reading the deuterocanonical books is avoided, and that is where the answer lies. George Athas comments, “In 142 BC, the Jewish nation gained independence under the leadership of the High Priest, Simon Thassi. He was the last of the Hasmonean brothers, who had led the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greeks of Syria. But not everyone approved of it as the last word on the leadership of the Jewish nation. Simon's opponents managed to get a clause into the constitutional document outlining his powers. He was given approval to lead "until a trustworthy prophet should arise." I Mac. 14:41.
And:
“The early church never accepted that God's prophetic Holy Spirit had ceased to work within Israel. When Stephen appeared before the Sanhedrin, he accused the national leaders of suppressing the Holy Spirit and killing the prophets, the prime example being the execution of Jesus, Acts 7. A century later, Rabbinic Judaism declared that the spirit of prophecy had ceased four hundred years before Jesus. It was one of the ways that Rabbinic Judaism challenged the claims of the early church: Jesus could not have been a prophet, much less the Messiah, because God stopped speaking and acting prophetically within Israel four centuries before he appeared.”
So, we find the sad reality that today, the church perpetuates a myth originally invented to support that a political group could reign in Israel. Later, this myth was used to deny that Jesus was the prophet announced by Moses in Deut. 18. It is time that we review this position, and that we adjust more with what the Scripture reveals to us, than with what our critics, in this case Rabbinic Judaism, tried to impose on us to justify their rejection of the message of Jesus.
To refer to the article by George Athas, see here: