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

“‘Why didn’t it hit me before?’ She shook her head back and forth in her amazement over not having recognized the name at the start. ‘So you’re not crazy after all,’ she said, almost apologetically. ‘Some would disagree with such a presumption,’ he answered. At that, her demeanor and tone became markedly less guarded.”

Kaplan’s profession and the fact that Goren recognizes his name lend credibility to his story and his position. Kaplan’s willingness to refer to himself as potentially insane also builds a rapport, both between Kaplan and Goren and between Cahn and the reader, as the character and author are acknowledging the difficulty that many readers will have accepting their story. As Goren’s guard lowers, so too is the reader’s meant to lower, allowing both Goren and the reader to become more receptive to the message Kaplan/Cahn must share.

“There was never a people for whom the authenticity of a written word meant so much. For them, it was a matter of life or death. You see, God spoke to them. He sent them words, prophetic messages of correction. Messages to save them from calamity. If they ignored such a message, the result would be catastrophic.”

The prophet’s assertion that the seal is of specific importance to Israel is reinforced into the present by holding up the Israelites desire for its authenticity. In other words, Kaplan and the reader are meant to trust the prophet’s message because it is drawn from the Israelites, who are used in this passage to further establish authenticity. If the Israelites valued authenticity more than any other group, then the prophet’s message must be authentic because it relies on Israelite measurements of authenticity.

“Their purpose, their foundation, that which made them unique. No other nation had been called into being for the will of God or dedicated to His purposes from conception. No other people had been given a covenant. But the covenant had a condition. If they followed the ways of God, they would become the most blessed of nations. But if they fell away and turned against His ways, then their blessings would be removed and replaced by calamity, as they did, and as it was.”

The prophet is building a parallel between the United States and Israel, noting how prosperity, in his argument, is linked to following God. He will later claim that America was also founded on a similar covenant, allowing him to draw a parallel between the fall of Israel and the predicted fall of America. The premises of his claim are laid out in this passage, as he links the covenant to the need for God in national and public life, then links the absence of God in public life to “calamity.”

“‘Some would call it tolerance,’ I said. ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘the same tolerance that overtook ancient Israel…a tolerance for everything opposed to God, a growing tolerance for immorality and a growing intolerance for the pure—a tolerance that mocked, marginalized, and condemned those who remained faithful to the values now being discarded. Innocence was ridiculed and virtue was vilified. Children were taught of sexual immorality in public schools while the Word of God was banned.’”

Kaplan plays the role of the opposition here, as he presents the mild argument against the prophet’s claims, noting that many of the social trends the prophet sees as evil could be seen as progress toward a more equitable society. Kaplan does not try to enforce his argument, though, and this mild pushback to the prophet’s claims serves more as a foundation on which the prophet can continue to build his narrative. The prophet now makes the link between Israel “turning away from God” to America doing the same, but on a social and legal level.

“‘Yes,’ said the prophet, ‘a late-stage warning, allowed to take place only when nothing else would wake them up…limited…restrained…the sound of an alarm for the purpose of averting a much greater calamity. It never could have happened had Israel remained inside the will of God. No enemy could have ever breached its walls. But outside the will of God, any notion of national security or invincibility was an illusion. The breach exposed it. The nation was in danger. It would be shaken to its foundation…and apart from returning to God, there was no wall strong enough to protect them. It was their wake-up call.’”

The prophet lays out how the harbingers appear to work, as the Assyrian invasion is framed as an omen to the Israelites that they need to repent. Though the prophet says that the invasion happened “outside the will of God,” it was also “allowed,” presumably by God. In this passage, the prophet is explaining how, in retrospect, the Assyrian invasion foreshadowed later attacks, and he claims that God would have prevented these attacks if the Israelites had taken his warning in 732 BCE.

“‘Another clue. Then it was a clue about the Second Harbinger and not about where we’re supposed to meet,’ I shouted back. ‘Perhaps…and perhaps not,’ he replied. ‘He wasn’t easy that way. But it was enough for me to begin searching for the meaning behind the Second Harbinger…a mystery to be found somewhere by the ruins of an ancient people.’”

Kaplan’s acknowledgement that the prophet is intentionally vague and challenging to work with is meant to reinforce the perception that Kaplan is rational. He does not claim to understand why the prophet insists on speaking in riddles, but he also firmly believes that the prophet is legitimate. The prophet’s response of “perhaps” shows that he, too, knows that he is being intentionally vague, and this exchange is intended to enhance the air of mystery surrounding the prophet and the harbingers.

“From the temples of Nineveh to the beer halls of Weimar Germany…to the barren caves of Afghanistan…from Sennacherib to Osama bin Laden…it all goes back to ancient Assyria. The Assyrians are the fathers of terrorism, and those who mercilessly plotted out the calamity on 9/11 were their spiritual children, another link in the mystery joining America to ancient Israel. In both cases, the warning began with a manifestation of terrorism.”

The prophet links the Assyrians, al Qaeda, and the Nazi party in Germany through the concept of terrorism. Ascribing the invention of terrorism to the Assyrians, the prophet lays out multiple subsequent terrorist regimes and organizations, though he names only one that is not originally from the Middle East. Sennacherib was the king of Assyria during the later invasion of Israel, and Osama bin Laden is the acknowledged person behind the attacks on 9/11.

“‘These were all verbatim,’ asked Ana, ‘actual quotes?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘And what did you think when you heard them?’ ‘It was eerie. Modern American leaders voicing the same things voiced in ancient Israel, and words that had to do with judgment. It was eerie.’ ‘And what else did he tell you?’ ‘He spoke of the difference between restoration and defiance.’”

Goren appears again in the form of a supposed skeptic, questioning the quotes the prophet presents and Kaplan’s reaction to them. The significance here is that the focus is on whether the quotes were authentic, not on whether they are relevant to the prophecy. Kaplan notes that he sees the connection, though most readers likely note that all leaders say that they will rebuild, usually stronger, following any kind of attack or disaster. This observation is why the prophet then needs to distinguish between rebuilding and rebuilding specifically stronger, the first of which is “restoration” and the second “defiance.”

“It comes from the Hebrew word khesed, which means mercy or loving-kindness. Bethesda means the house of mercy or the place of loving-kindness. Khesed…mercy…love. It’s God’s nature, His essence. Don’t forget that, through all this, don’t forget that. Judgment is His necessity, but His nature and essence—His heart—is love. He’s the one always calling out to the lost to be saved.”

The reason why the prophet brings Kaplan to this fountain is to bring this term into the discussion. Thus far, most of God’s influence seems to be violent, such as “allowing” the Assyrian invasion in 732 BCE and “allowing” 9/11 in 2001, so the prophet inserts this discussion of the term khesed to counteract this view of God. His insistence, twice, that Kaplan not forget that God acts out of love is meant to assuage the feeling that God is acting out of malice, insisting that the goal of these actions is for people to be “saved” in the spiritual sense.

“Because Isaiah 9:10 exists in two realms. In one realm, it’s the voice of a nation proclaiming a vow in defiance of God. But in the other realm, it’s the voice of a prophet, the voice of Isaiah, and of God speaking through him. It’s a prophecy. And as a prophecy it’s a judgment on the nation’s defiance and arrogance, and a warning, a sign foretelling its future. It’s a message sent from God and in such a way as to fall on the entire nation, so that all the people will know it.”

This statement is a link between the narrative of Isaiah 9:10, the narrative the prophet is building in the modern day, and the narrative that Cahn is constructing through the novel. The prophecy that the prophet is supposed to have applied in ancient Israel and to apply to modern day America, and, though the Senate majority leader is the “prophet” identified in this chapter, the prophet of the novel is also the prophet of this prophesy, as is Cahn as the author of this novel. Publishing and distributing a book is another way to ensure that “all the people will know it.”

“‘Is it wrong for a gardener to cut off the stem of a weed,’ he asked, ‘instead of dealing with its root? The issue was deeper. You can’t solve a spiritual problem with a military or political solution. Apart from a return to God, the root issue remains untouched and will manifest again in a different form. It’s in this that the Isaiah 9:10 Effect begins to operate.’”

The prophet combines his explanations of the gardener metaphor and the Isaiah 9:10 Effect, explaining that the Isaiah 9:10 Effect is the focus on military and political resolution, while the gardener metaphor explains how these methods are ineffective. Like the gardener, then, those that fall into the Isaiah 9:10 Effect cannot solve their problem, but they make the return of the problem inevitable. The prophet is claiming that the “root” facing ancient Israel and America is a rejection of God, and the “weeds” are calamities.

“The Shemitah would have been a blessing had Israel observed it and not rebelled against God. But Israel did rebel and didn’t keep the Sabbath Year. And the breaking of the Sabbath Year became the sign of a nation that had ruled God out of its life. The nation had no more time for Him. The people were now serving idols. Their Sabbath Years would be filled, not with peace, but with the restless pursuit of increase and gain. The breaking of the Shemitah was the sign that the nation had driven God out of its fields, out of its labors, its government, its culture, its homes, its life. The Shemitah was meant to be a blessing, but in its breaking, its blessing turns into a curse.”

The prophet continues to connect calamity with a lack of spiritual dedication to God, linking the abandoning of the shemitah to the calamity that would fall on ancient Israel. The implication, of course, is that the same calamity befell America in the economic collapse of 2007-08, and the cause of the collapse was spiritual. The repetition of an idea in this quote shows the level of dedication that is needed to avoid the collapse, with the prophet listing various areas of life in which God is supposedly meant to occupy. Because all these areas are not infused with God, the blessings God would offer become curses.

“‘It’s mind-boggling,’ she said. ‘The biggest crash in Wall Street history and the collapse of the global economy—all the manifestation of an ancient mystery. It’s mind-boggling.’”

The specific phrasing of Goren’s reaction to the third mystery is telling about her character and the narrative itself. She does not comment that the collapse aligns with or matches elements of ancient Hebrew rituals, saying instead that the collapse is a “manifestation” of those rituals. This connection implies causation, as opposed to correlation, and Goren’s quote, here, shows that she is not just seeing the links the prophet claims, but she believes and accepts that this is a prophecy that is being fulfilled.

“‘It’s the vow,’ I said. ‘It’s Isaiah 9:10!’ ‘And note the strangeness of it, Nouriel, the peculiarity of its appearance in such a context. We will rebuild was what was declared in the wake of 9/11. But in the midst of an economic crisis, it’s hardly the most natural or the most fitting thing to say—except that it all fits in the deeper mystery…in which the two calamities are being joined together.’”

The phrase “we will rebuild” echoes of the sentiments expressed by American politicians from 9/11 onward, and this quote establishes that any mention of rebuilding or recovering, for both Kaplan and the prophet, is now a direct echo of Isaiah 9:10. It is by no means unnatural to use the phrasing “rebuild” after an economic “collapse,” in which the terms are perfectly sound semantically. The importance, here, is that Isaiah 9:10 is the focus of Kaplan and the prophet’s discussion, so anything that can relate to Isaiah 9:10 must be part of “the deeper mystery.”

“The progression of judgment advances in times of calamity and crisis, but equally in times of apparent recovery, apparent normalcy, and even apparent resurgence, booming economies, and prosperity. None of it hinders or ends the progression. Whether above the surface or beneath it, the progression continues.”

This assertion by the prophet is a prophetic failsafe. Even if no further calamity occurs that can be fit into the prophecy, the prophet can continue to assert that the prophecy is true. Any apparent recovery is merely an illusion, while any apparent calamity reaffirms the crisis. In the prophet’s view, the only way to avert the prophecy is to turn back to God, and any seeming progress made in any other way is false. Under this system, the prophet must be right no matter the outcome of any given situation, removing the possibility of his prophecy being incorrect.

“The Temple Mount represented the nation’s covenant with God. So its destruction was the ultimate sign that the covenant was broken. Yet even in that there was mercy. It was a sign that God was calling the nation back to remember the ground of its dedication and consecration to Him…the foundation on which all of its blessings rested.”

The prophet’s claim, here, is that, despite the destruction that ravaged ancient Israel, that destruction was a mercy since it was God’s way of calling the Israelites back to him. This assertion continues a pattern in which God’s destructive actions are framed as beneficent acts, as the intention is not to hurt people but to warn them that they might be hurt. Although the prophet asserts that the destruction of the temple is a sign of the covenant being broken, the implication of the “mercy” is that the covenant is not broken. The Israelites would not be able to return to a broken covenant, and so the destruction is a warning that the covenant may be broken if the Israelites do not return to God.

“‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘but it was never within my grasp before that moment. If you ever get so close to something you were searching for, and when you know you’re just about to find it…when it’s in your reach, you’re not sure you’re ready to find it?’”

Kaplan’s pause in his story, here, is both a dramatic pause for Goren and a dramatic pause for the reader. As Kaplan is about to have the final mystery revealed, though he may have paused in the past when he was with the prophet, there is no reason to pause in the telling of the story other than to build Goren’s anticipation. Likewise, Cahn provides this pause to build the reader’s anticipation and increase the impact of the final mystery.

“If America upholds God’s eternal standards and follows His unchanging ways, then it will be blessed with His favor…His protection…His prosperity…But if America should depart from the ways of God, if it should disregard His eternal standards, then the smile of heaven, the blessings of God, will be withdrawn—its prosperity, its protection, and its powers would be taken away. He’s giving a warning to the nation: The day America turns away from God with be the day that begins the removing of its blessings.”

Kaplan is restating Washington’s statements in his inaugural address, here, adding in the context and messaging that the prophet has been promoting throughout the novel. Repetition is key again, as Kaplan elaborates on the multitude of phrasings of God’s blessing, and the warning is complete as Kaplan, not the prophet, expresses the entire sentiment himself. This passage is the culmination of the prophet’s message to Kaplan, expressed by Kaplan to show that it has been transferred successfully. For the reader, this is also Cahn’s expression of a warning to the reader regarding America.

“What should concern us more, Nouriel, that the judgment didn’t happen as proclaimed or that thousands of lives were saved? You see, the one who will for judgment is man, not God. The heart of God wills for salvation. Greater than His judgments are His compassions.”

The prophet is saying that it is better for a predestined judgment to not happen, as, even though it refutes the prophecy in one sense, it saves lives in another. By setting up a system in which judgment is inflicted by human beings, but salvation is willed by God, the prophet is establishing that God cannot do wrong, only humans can. When the judgment occurs, it is the fault of human beings, not God, even if God brings that destruction. Meanwhile, as with the “blessings” of prior instances, salvation and good are not the result of human action, but God’s actions. In any given situation, humans are to blame for negative events, and God is responsible for any good events.

“‘And turn from their wicked ways’ ‘Yes,’ said the prophet, ‘the crux of the matter—repentance. With all the talk of God blessing America in the wake of 9/11, the great missing factor was repentance. Without that, everything else is null and void. America must face the magnitude of its moral and spiritual descent, the degrading of its culture…to the multitude of its idols…to the fall into ever deeper immoralities.’”

Though the prophet rarely explains exactly what the “idols” or “immoralities” of modern America are, he is playing into the assumptions of modern conservative and religious groups. As such, this passage is calling for a return to legislation that revokes the rights of various groups.

“The reason I ask is because you do live in such a time and place, and you have heard the voice of the prophets, and you do understand the Harbingers and know what they portend. So the question isn’t hypothetical. And it’s not even ‘What would you do?’ What will you do? What will you do, Nouriel, on the Day of Judgment?”

This passage marks the shift in the prophet’s discussion from mysteries and history to the present moment of proselytizing. He is pushing Kaplan to open his heart to God and accept the mysteries as the truth. The obvious thing to do on the day of judgment, if the harbingers and mysteries are true, is to turn to God. Now that the prophet has convinced Kaplan of the prophecy, he changes his focus to convincing Kaplan to accept God, personally.

“His real name is Yeshua. It’s Hebrew. He was Jewish, as were all His disciples, and the message they proclaimed was all about the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hope of Israel. Yeshua is Hebrew for God is Salvation, or God is Deliverance...Protection… Rescue… Freedom…Refuge…and Safety. In the Day of Judgment, there’s no safe ground…no salvation except in Him who is salvation.”

The prophet narrows down his religious message, here, though he notes elsewhere in this chapter that he is not promoting any religion. By invoking Jesus as a particular figure and phrasing this matter as one in which only Jesus can save Kaplan, or anyone, from judgment, he is aligning himself with Christianity as a religion. The listing out of descriptions for Jesus serves to emphasize the final line of the passage, in which the prophet reminds Kaplan that judgment is coming. This excerpt serves to urge both Kaplan and the reader to accept Christianity to avoid punishment from God, marking Jesus as the only figure capable of saving anyone.

“No, Nouriel. The Almighty has His own purposes. And why do you think each revelation came to you through a seal? It’s because of you. It’s because of your calling. You’re the sofer, the scribe, he who declares, who reveals. Do you know what that word also means?”

The prophet is completing his mission, here, by recruiting Kaplan to be his scribe. The prophet overwrites Kaplan’s free will, which Kaplan perceives in his choice of career, by insisting that Kaplan’s life has been designed by God to become the scribe to himself, the prophet. The alternate meaning of sofer is “he who records,” as Kaplan did with a recording device. The significance of this passage lies in the assertion that neither the prophet nor Kaplan have had any personal role in the actions of the novel, claiming instead that God designed their encounter, and their entire lives, for this purpose.