The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery that Holds the Secret of America's Future

Over the course of these three harbingers: the fourth, fifth, and sixth, Goren goes through the same transition as Kaplan from suspicion to devotion. Just as Kaplan makes some minor interjections against the prophet early in the novel, such as noting that many of the prophet’s modern complaints could be called tolerance, Goren has served a similar purpose as a somewhat skeptical third-party to Kaplan and the prophet’s story. In the beginning of Chapter 8, she retains this positioning in asking Kaplan how he would know what the Tower of Babel looked like, since it is a fictional structure, and she does so “with a trace of friendly skepticism in her voice” (57). However, the question itself is clearly somewhat facetious, showing that Goren is becoming more invested in the story by inquiring at all. By the beginning of Chapter 9, Goren is entirely invested, and, like Kaplan in Chapter 7, Goren exclaims when she figures out the fifth harbinger, “as if proud to have come up with the discovery” (68). As with Kaplan, this shift signals Goren’s interest and investment in the prophet and his message. She is no longer questioning the prophecy but trying to get ahead of Kaplan in his retelling of the story. This excitement is mirrored in Kaplan’s comment on figuring out part of the fifth harbinger, which he calls “a major accomplishment” (69). In the beginning of Chapter 10, Goren is fully invested in the prophecy, noting that the prophet was revealing the harbingers “in the same order as the appeared in Isaiah 9:10” (78), indicating that she believes the prophecy is in line with scripture. She also expresses her belief in the mysticism of the prophet, noting “with a light smile” how “[i]t all just happened to happen” (70). The emphasis on “happen” and the “light smile” shows that Goren is convinced of the prophet’s mysticism, rather than skeptical of it. She is amused at the mystery of the prophet’s interactions with Kaplan, and she sees the prophet’s enigmatic behavior as convincing evidence that he is legitimate.

Likewise, the reader is meant to be mystified by the prophet’s behavior, and Cahn continues to diversify his characterization of the prophet and the prophecy by mixing elements of Hebrew scripture, history, and modern commentary on both the Bible and American events. Throughout Chapters 8, 9, and 10, the prophet brings in direct quotes from Biblical scholarship and commentary, matching them with direct quotes from American leaders, emphasizing words like “vow,” “defiance,” and “rebuild,” and linking all three with the Israelites and Americans’ reactions to the respective attacks that they suffered. For the Israelites, the “hewn stone” is from their own mountain, while the Americans take a stone from a mountain in New York to for the base of the Freedom tower, each using the stone as a symbol of defiance against an attack. However, the prophet shifts the meaning of the term “defiance” in the context of the Israelites and Americans’ “vows,” claiming that “rebuilding” is defiant, not against the attackers, but against God. In the prophet’s view, each harbinger is a message from God that the Israelites, in the past, and the Americans, in the present, need to turn back to God, but he also acknowledges that the urge to rebuild as a response to an attack is the opposite of what God wants them to do. When the prophet notes the common use of the word “defiance” across both the ancient Israelites and the modern Americans, Kaplan’s surprise at the similarity in terms is odd, considering that, in each case, the defiance is directed at the attacker, not directed at God. Defiance against an invader is a common response and not limited to the Israelites or the Americans. Kaplan then describes the similarities to Goren as “eerie,” though both responses are common to all peoples that have suffered an attack or disaster. Even the linking of the term “tower” through a Greek translation that the prophet admits is “more specific,” indicating a deviation from the original scripture, is seen as uncanny, even though the connections are tenuous.

The deviations and specific translations used in establishing the prophecy are glossed over by the prophet’s assertion that the prophecy is more reliant on congruence in ideas than on terminology. He notes that American leaders are not speaking ancient Hebrew, obviously, as that is not the language of modern America. Thus, the need for a Greek translation to get the word “tower,” or the difference in species of tree between the sycamores of Isaiah 9:10 and the sycamore of 9/11, are inconsequential to the links that the prophet makes for Kaplan. This pattern is common in linking prophetic messages, as it would be impossible for a writer in ancient Israel to predict the existence of the United States, let alone the nature of a specific tree or terrorist attack in or on that future nation. For the prophet and Kaplan, the focus is on the commonalities between the events, rather than on the potential points of incongruence. Aligning further with prophecy, Kaplan questions the prophet on predetermination when the prophet agrees to cover both the sixth and seventh harbingers in one meeting. The prophet notes that if a decision is “appointed,” then it does not constitute a “change of plan” (85), saying, in addition, that both free will and predestination are needed in fulfilling the prophecy. This obfuscation of free will and predestination allows for the listener to feel confident in their power to fulfill the prophecy but still invested in the prophecy itself. A consistent baseline of the prophet’s message is that the people and nations involved are not consciously executing a prophecy, implying an underlying divine will behind all the events in both the past and present. This underlying will is implied to be the will of God, meaning that the “plan” that Kaplan and the prophet discuss is not the prophet’s plan, but God’s, and that, like the harbingers themselves, the actions and thoughts of the prophet, Kaplan, and perhaps also Goren, are all a part of a broader plan.