God writes on the heart; humans translate their understanding into scripture.
As the Hebrew scripture was compiled, there was a sense of scriptural permanence until there is reason to extend (or modify) the scripture.
The 'Old Testament' was just testament until the time of the Romans then it was the first testament.
A lot of new scripture began as oral tradition as competing script was exchanged attempting to discern what the 'New Testament' would be.
That is, the early second testament as humans dubbed some script as scripture and other script not worthy to be considered scripture.
The favorite phrases in today's world: 'winners and losers'.
God writes on the heart, but humans write as script.
The complete second testament extends at least two millennia and perhaps longer.
Both testaments are about God's writing on the heart: it's clear God is not done.
All the content compiled in the first testament and the Hebrews were blind when it ended.
The second testament is not just a few centuries long, it extends at least two millennia and there is no tangible evidence that it is complete.
The state of the world suggests the opposite: a human fine tuning is ongoing.
In the Hebrew perspective at the time of the Romans: God's presence was expected to be dramatic; the Hebrews were wrong.
Why is the transition to a time of the third testament expected to be different?
The time of the third testament might not be the time of Christ's second coming because human beings are not ready for it but can be ready for a fuller understanding of God's importance.
Then the desire for everyone to want Christ in their heart is possible.
The end of the third testament might be the time of Christ's second coming: not a dramatic event but a transition in humanity.
Just an instinct, no certainty that I'm correct.
