The second aspect of providence is prophecy and miracles.

Hello Rabbi Michael. And have a good week.
It is accepted in your words that providence, miracles, and prophecy are God's intervention in the laws of nature, as a reality in which God intervenes in nature for man – who changes nature for him both for good and for evil for the sake of providence over him, who performs a miracle for man and intervenes in the laws of nature, and that prophecy is from above and below as God's speech to man and revelation to him. — However, at a certain time in history this changed – and in particular in our time, God does not intervene and change the laws of nature – prophecy and miracles ceased and providence also ceased.
And here the questioner asked… Why do you force the thinking that God at some point "got tired"? Why can't it be said that these things did not exist in the first place as God's intervention in the laws? Why can't these concepts be explained as the radical interpretation of the perplexed teacher?
Why can't we say that what is commonly thought of as God's intervention in nature and a miracle is actually nature. And fulfills a function in natural law. After all, there is no more miraculous description in the Bible than the Egyptian miracles, in retrospect, according to today's scientific discoveries, they can be explained according to a natural mechanism. (The reference to God's intervention in the Bible was created as a description of a first cause of the planning at the beginning of creation. Not that there was intervention at a specific time)?
Why can't we say that providence is actually therapy for the person who is preoccupied with God, and in that case everything else in the world, including material suffering, becomes meaningless to him (Job 44). Why can't we say that the sanctions described in the Bible as the causality of sin and its punishment – they do not necessarily describe reality – but rather are a useful opinion for the masses about reward and punishment – which is not a means for the fulfillment of the commandments.?
Why can't we say that prophecy is a natural phenomenon in which man reveals God and not that God reveals himself to man, that God's will is embodied in prophecy – that prophecy is nothing more than a dream of the prophet (in Moses it is without a dream) – that the entire thing is a reflection of the prophet himself – that the prophet's "self" is the revelation of God in nature, His actions, His ways, which are translated in the prophet's prophecy into moral laws and commandments?
Why do you insist that there was intervention if everything can be interpreted differently?