Written by: Peretz Green






(26 May, 2013) This Text (written in 1990 and completed in 1995) has mainly two purposes 1) to expose an important explanation of the phrase Nora’aalila ‘all bnei adam (awesome are the impositions placed by God on mankind) concerning mankind’s eating the forbidden fruit and applied to the messianic mission of Jesus and 2) the final explanation of the last prophecy in Malachi.







'ways of justice in the Divine Design': The ways of the Lord are just. Even the mistakes of mankind come in the end to justify the historical redemption which God had intended to bring from the very beginning. As mentioned often in Sefer Mishnat Haim, Eve and Adam sinned, but they also had to sin. Otherwise mankind would not have been born. Such is the principle of the virtually untranslatable 'noraa allila al bnei adam' - 'awesome is the Divine Intention imposed on man'.

Indeed there is no comprehension until the act of man's mistake has been corrected and the resulting advantage has become manifest.

True wisdom resides in acknowledging the contradictions which must result from man's limitations, while recognising, at the same time, the perfection and the absolute non-contradiction of God's action. For He is above time and above all limitation. Yet, in His dealing with men, and in the lessons, both personal and historical, which He teaches to man and to mankind, He must distribute His benefits according to man's confines both in time and in capacity.

Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit because they had to sin. Otherwise the full benefits of God would never have come to be bestowed on a redeemed mankind. Adam and Eve had to be commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in order to give them the possibility of disobeying that command. The Serpent had to be sent, to make sure that that sin be perpetrated. The great Divine Gift of 'free choice' had to be used wrongly, so that it might become known, understood and used well in the end.

In the playout of each phase, the contradictions are manifest. How is it possible that Adam and Eve had to be commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge, so as to have free choice not to sin, while at the same time they had to sin in order that the Divine Design of the Great Historical Redemption of Mankind be fulfilled? Awesome is the Divine Intention imposed on man!

One might take apart the details and see the reasoning behind each consequence, but the contradiction here between having free choice and not having it remains unfathomable. For in the same time span, the two contradicting statements cannot be reconciled in terms of human logic.

In truth the contradiction becomes a contradiction because we speak of it on the same level of time and space. Nor is its purpose to deny that contradiction in human terms, for it is not asked of us to renounce our human logic so as to assume some higher kind of reasoning that does not coincide with this world.

And yet both are true. Adam and Eve had libero arbitrio while at the same time, for reason of a 'higher' reason, they could not have refrained from sinning.

Some have tried to conjecture what it might have been like if they had not sinned, but their conclusions are as immature as would have been mankind, had it not indulged in the sin of the knowledge of good and evil. Man had to know. Otherwise he would have been as pure as an angel and as innocent as an infant.

He never would have known the advantage of the light in its contrast to darkness. He could never have appreciated an eternal and constant light, had he not known its opposite. He could never have said 'this is bad' or 'this is good'. There would have been no Torah if Eve had not eaten of that forbidden fruit. Awesome is the Divine Intention imposed on man!

Are we then to justify sin? Are we to say that because of nora allila al bnei adam that man is not responsible for his actions? This too would be contrary to the truth and contrary to the very concept of free choice.


Now let us come into the great historical happening wherewith the principle of 'awesome is the Divine Intention imposed on man' must be studied and applied: the incredible and tragic history of the first messianic mandate, Jesus of Nazareth. Yeshua too ate of the forbidden fruit of his own free will, while, at the same time, he could not have done otherwise. The terrible and amazing story of that necessary sin is the true essence of Sefer Yeshuat Yeshua.

Did Yeshua have the free choice not to accept that mission? Yes, but could he have not accepted it? No! Yet once he had accepted it and began to act in it, could it have been a success? Yes, but in theory only. But given the actual situation as it was, no. If Yeshua had never left the Community of the Essenes, would Christianity have been born? No. Did Christianity have to come into existence? Yes. Otherwise there could have been no salvation of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for one reason. There are other reasons as well.

Could Jesus have ever convinced the Pharisees and rabbis of that time of the truth of his mission? No. Did somebody have to come to try to convince them of that mission? Yes. As it states 'And he shall reconcile the hearts of fathers to their sons, and the hearts of sons to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse' (Malachi, 3, 24). That mission had to be, successful or not, one way or the other.

If Yeshua, after leaving the School of the Essenes, had not used secrets of the Kabbalah Maasit received by him there, would anybody have believed him? Certainly not. Was it a sin to do such? Yes it was, and Jesus broke his own vow in doing so. But once Jesus used this secret in public, could he have avoided false and exaggerated attitudes towards his own person? No. Could he have not used the secret? As said above, if he had not used it, none would have believed him. Therefore his using it was synonymous with attempting to fulfil the mission. It was necessary that at least someone believed and followed him. He had to sin. He had free choice not to sin, but if he had not sinned he could not have fulfilled that mission.

Once the Doctors of the Law had refused to recognise Yeshua's mission, could the Christian mission which developed and proceeded from then on have been without errors in regards to belief? No. This was impossible; otherwise Christianity would have in truth superseded the Jewish tradition. At that point the prophecies concerning the Jewish people could not have been fulfilled, which is impossible. But again, did the Christian revelation have to become known in the world? Yes. It is part of the Divine Plan in history. For the sake of the Correction of Paul's spiritual contortions, we have delved into Romans to glean of those few places where Paul's spirit revealed some interesting truth, a truth then proven by the Completed Signs; 'until the majority will enter (into the Christian Pact) and then the redeemer will come to Zion' etc. (Romans, 11: 26).

Whatever way and from whatever side you look at it, Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in sin, but she had to, because the Divine Intention required it. And so too Yeshua, the Jewish messiah son of Joseph had to sin and to conduct his mission while eating of the forbidden fruit. Had he not done so, the Plan of God's redemption, in the time of the Last days of Judgement, could not have been realised. Awesome is the Divine Intention imposed on man.


Gnomen 94 - the Unification of the New Tradition of the Star of Bethlehem and the Jewish Tradition --

(written at Houston, Texas, 1991) We are absolutely not speaking about a religious 'syncretism' nor is there a 'compromise' in the New Pact. To speak of a 'unification' of Christianity and Judaism, one must take into account that the Christianity here spoken about has very little or 'nothing' to do with traditional Christianity; all Christian theology is false and thus every concept in Christianity has been falsely interpreted. As explained in the New Testament Corrected, the basis of all Christian falsehood is that the Initial Messianic Signs were interpreted as if they were the Final Signs; obviously this falsified everything else.

Where, then, is the Unification? Note that the text here specifies 'between the tradition of the Star of Bethlehem[1] and the Jewish tradition'. This means that the Messianic Tradition which has hitherto been in the hands of 'Christianity' can now, by way of the New Pact, be unified or joined together in the same place.

Again I hear the voices of the rabbis and the Jewish scholars shouting at me: Is it not blasphemous to say that the messianic tradition was in the hands of the Christians? Have we not been praying for the Mashiahh ben David for millennia?

True, we have praying for the arrival of the Messiah for millennia, but we have known virtually nothing of the 'Messianic Tradition' revealed by the Star of Bethlehem and especially of the Universal Messianism of the Star of Christ. What could we have understood about Rahhel's tears without knowing into which flocks the lost sheep had wandered? So too were we unaware of the Salvation of Yeshua who prophesied, 'I have not come except for saving the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew, 15: 24).

With the keys to the original Christian revelation at the School of the Essenes, we may assuredly affirm that traditional Judaism missed the messianic boat 2000 years ago.

It is of course true that they could not have got on it. Indeed. all that we explain here concerning the principle of 'nora alilla al bnei adam' in order to understand the mission of Yeshua, is quite applicable to the traditional Jewish counterpart of that epoch. The Jews had free choice to search into the mission of Yeshua and discover what it was about and what he was saying. The situation of the Jews and Judaism at that time, however, did not permit even an opening to such a research. In the same manner that Jesus could not have done his mission if not by committing sins, as explained, so too the rabbis of that time would not have been able to maintain the equilibrium of traditional Judaism, if they had not seemingly 'sinned' in face of the new revelation taught by Yeshua.

Nor was there sufficient merit in the land at that time to make it go otherwise. But the particular details, merits, demerits, reasonings and capabilities, were all secondary to the higher reckoning of the Maker and Mover of the Historical Redemption. All that happened then in the two-thousand-year mark in the cycle of the Star of Abraham, was a necessary preparation for the time of the Final Redemption when that Star would complete its great gyration of 4000 years.

In truth the unification of the two traditions is bound up with the perfect equilibrium between the Star of Abraham and the Star of Malchitzedek. The Star of Abraham represents the Great Historical Cycle of the Jewish Tradition. The Star of Malchitzedek represents the 'accompanying' cycle of Universal Messianism. The two basic Messianic revelations are Universal Messianism and Jewish Messianism. In the Signs these two are represented by the Star of Christ of the First Sign and by the Sign of the Donkey, messiah son of David, who eats the Bread of Bethlehem, of the Fourth Sign. But the Star of Bethlehem cannot be without those Universal Signs for the Final Redemption. This is especially true for the fact that the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel were conserved and are saved, in the end, by that Universal Messianism. And if these are not saved, there is no redemption.

Just as the blessing of Malchitzedek did not diminish anything from the level of Abraham, but, on the contrary, completed the level of Abraham for the inhabitants of the land, so too the messianic revelation does not come to diminish the blessing of Jewish tradition, but to extend it to the world. It is not a compromise but a marriage, in which both partners fulfil one another, each one, by virtue of its own different nature, giving of itself to form a unity that otherwise could not have been reached.

For this reason Yeshua compared himself on several occasions to the groom. He knew well that he represented at that moment the marriage between traditional Judaism and the messianic revelation. The case of the washing of the hands was symbolic of the two traditions which at that time could not find a common language to bind a marriage.

The disciples, in their enthusiasm of the moment, close to Yeshua and desirous of his teachings, forgot to perform the ritual washing of the hands before partaking of bread. Yeshua too did not reproach them or recall them to the details of netilat yadaim. It was a messianic moment. The light of the Messianic Star sanctified their hands and the bread and the food.

The Doctors of the Law were not in that light and they could see no reason for not observing the ritual. They immediately used the occasion to prove that Yeshua was not teaching Jewish tradition.

The misunderstood Jesus, who had eaten the Bread of the Essene Signs, had no choice but to anger them even more with a true answer that they would surely not be able to accept until Kingdom's come. "The groom will not always be found with you together, and when he is present the joy is very great".

Yeshua, however, was not teaching against the tradition. His answers must be understood because his words were well measured. In another place he says, "Do what they say but do not as they do" (Matthew, 23: 23). There is clear proof in these words that Yeshua was not teaching anything against the oral teachings of the rabbis.

The 'marriage' between the classical tradition and the messianic tradition of the Star of Bread, contained a celestial felicity which could not be limited by minutiae in that historical moment. Even though that felicity was due to that which would derive from it in the end in the Final Redemption, at that moment it was a pre-marital marriage for the sake of the true reunification that would be. This was also the sign of Yeshua's pre-marital conception. He was the 'groom' before the true Marriage of the Final Redemption.

That pre-marital messianic mission had an essential purpose in the over-all Design of the Historical Redemption. The Historical Final Redemption could not have had place if not for the historical preparations fostered by that unfulfilled attempt to unify the Star of Abraham with the Messianic Star.

The Signs of the Messianic Marriage thus are called Christian because they remained in the Christian fold, whereas Judaism remained with the prophetic promises without the possibility of any spiritual contact with the world or with the descendants of Esau or with the Ten Lost Tribes of the house of Efraim. Judaism remained without a wife and Christianity remained without a husband. The Star of Abraham took its people into exile. The Sign of the Star of Bethlehem yielded to the Star of Christ which then began its long mission to gather in many nations. It attempted to call the truth unto itself, but as a woman without a husband. It was incomplete. So it fell into cultism and idolatrous doctrines. It had no man to solidify its foundation. As wild grass it proliferated and made proselytes. It was all messianic but it could not uphold the pure faith of Abraham, our father.

Judaism had the doctrinal truths and the holy laws of the Torah but it had no fortune. Without the 'lucky star of messianic universality', it could not bring its truths unto the nations, nor could it make itself loved unto the peoples of the world. In the eyes of the world it was a wretched hypocrite, unable to recognise the splendour of the groom, while ready only to make a great fuss about the washing of the hands. Nora 'alila al bnei adam.

The unification is not a synthesis or a compromise, but the uniting of two genders of light and truth that enhance one another. Each one has its own virtues and each is also lacking in something and that lack can be compensated only by the virtue of the other. Such is the value of true marriage.

Yet, until now, the Jewish people could not seek out its wife of good fortune, because it had no way of recognising the truth of the messianic signs of Christian revelation. The main purpose of the Book of Ester1 is to furnish the knowledge that hitherto was missing and to awaken the Jewish world unto the real history of the Salvation of Yeshua, the tragic mandate of the Star of Christ in its initial phase. Awesome are the Divine Intentions imposed on man.

In speaking of religion the term 'syncretism' is for sure an undesirable term. One thinks, for instance, of the adaptations of various forms of idol-worship syncretized into the Church worship of saints.

Also the term 'compromise' is undesirable in questions of faith. The true faith is based on the first two of the Ten Commandments; no compromise may exist without deviating from the truth.

We likewise reject the term 'synthesis' in reference to the unification of the Altar of Malchitzedek and the Jewish tradition, in the House of the Final Redemption, even though there is a coming together of forces in the New Marriage of the two traditions.

'Synthesis' would, or might, imply a defacing of traditional Judaism to some extent. This would be misleading and would certainly frighten away traditional Jews bound to the halacha. One must instead see the question in terms of the unification of the Altars of the House of the Final Redemption. The unification is necessary for the completeness of the House of Prayer, a House of Prayer dedicated to the spiritual and instructional needs of all peoples.

The New Pact does not enter the halacha. The Halacha is the way of the traditional Synagogue. And that part of the New Law relative to the Altars of Judah and Efraim is in no way 'compromised' by the Universal Law of the Altar of Malchitzedek. The Great Reform of Judaism given by the Completed Signs for the Altars of Judah and Efraim loves the Universality of the Altar of Malchitzedek and it recognises that it cannot be complete without it. Also the mission of the Sacrificed Ram is mentioned on all the Altars, but this is a question of the prophetic truth of the Torah. It is in no way a compromise.

Indeed the great force of the Brit ha-Hhadasha of Jeremiah, the force which binds the harmony of the Altars of the House of the Final Redemption, is the New Law. This New Law is given from the same God who revealed the Torah at Sinai. By following this New Law it is promised by EHEYE ASHER EHEYE that a Jew fulfils by it all that which he is commanded in by the Torah.

Yet strains of prophetic tension can also be felt in the New Covenant prophecy. See the order of the New Pact and the ordinances: 'this is the New Pact that I shall make' - 'I will place My law in their inward parts and upon their heart will I write it' - 'for they will all know Me, from the least unto their greatest ones' (Jeremiah, 31: 32), 'if these ordinances ever depart from before Me - then also the seed of Israel shall cease from being' (Ibid, 35).

There is a New Pact that comes in place of the Ancient Pact which Israel did in fact not abide by. The New Pact, however, will be maintained and loved for it will be in their inward parts and written upon their heart. Yet the Lord assures that the ordinances shall never depart from before Him as also Israel shall never cease to be.

Taking 'ordinances' to allude to the laws of the Torah, we may feel here the tension between the New Pact which carries with it the New Law and the Ancient Law of the Torah. Or the tension may be between the New Pact with its New Law and the very existence of the Jewish people.

This seeming contradiction between the New Pact, a Pact unlike the Ancient Pact, and the Ancient Pact, became a very real contradiction in Christianity. Yeshua's words 'I have not come to deny the Law or Prophets' etc. 'not even a comma or the crown of a letter' etc. (Matthew, 5: 17-18) had absolutely no meaning in all traditional Christianity. In truth, however, it is only a 'seeming contradiction' of all the true proportions of which have only to be understood.

But the prophetic tension of a seeming contradiction is there. If the Ancient Law remains as it is and nothing is changed, then what purpose is there in the New Covenant? And if the Ancient Law was not abided by, whereas the New Pact will be loved and understood by everybody and will enter into the heart of each person, one must conclude that the Ancient Pact will give way to the New Law and that there is a great change in the manner of its reception. And yet the ordinances already given in the Ancient Pact will never depart from before Him. Indeed, Christianity was unable to cope with this 'contradiction'. Nevertheless, even Christianity could never get out of Jesus' words and it kept the Bible.

We too of course, if not for the Completed Signs, would not have been able to fathom the enigmatic substance of this prophecy nor of all the other redemptional and messianic prophecies.

This prophecy of the New Pact is speaking about a most extraordinary revelation. It is no small matter that the New Brit will be inside each person and written on his heart and, even greater than this, the knowledge of the Living God will be so manifest that there will be no need to teach it. The Prophet Jeremy received here the Divine Promise of a marvellous revelation, the likes of which the world has never known, the Revelation of the New Heart of the Final Redemption.

It is the marvellous and miraculous New Pact itself, when it comes, that resolves the 'seeming contradictions'. The New Pact itself has the miraculous power to renew the Ancient Law while maintaining the Ancient Pact at the same time. It has the power to form the New Law and to formulate the New Rite, while at the same time, it is totally within the boundaries of the Torah and all Jewish tradition.

We know from the tradition of the Holy Torah that the Tablets of the Law upon which were written the Ten Commandments were given in a miraculous manner and that from whatever angle one looked at them he would read the same thing.

So too the New Law of the New Pact is a miraculous Brit which renews the Ancient Pact while maintaining it at the same time.

The New Pact of the Final Redemption is from above. Who could dare take upon himself the responsibility to declare that instead of the traditional Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehhad", a Jew may now fulfil that same obligation by proclaiming the Unity of God with the expression "Thank You EL SHADDAI, EL SHADDAI is Great, EL SHADDAI is One?

Nor does this alternative rite detract from those Jews who are used to the traditional rite and so prefer to use it. Nor does the House of Prayer come to displace the Synagogue. The House of the Final Redemption comes for those who prefer to use the New Rite. It accomplishes the various and manifold redemptional tasks that the traditional Synagogue is not in a position to fulfil. We are concerned with those who for various reasons are more at home in the House of Prayer and who prefer to pray in the New Rite of the Final Redemption.

((there follows here a long explanation of the last prophecy in Malachi))

So too all the rites and all the formulas of prayer, as well as all the laws for every aspect of life (many of which have still to be received, God willing) are revealed to us in dreams and through signs which we are able to understand and to verify. We are the first Donkeys who are eating the bread of the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is a promise which comes from God Almighty. We have not invented it or reasoned it out with our own intellect. Indeed the secret of the brit ha-hhadasha of Jeremiah 31 lies in this New Law of the Altar of Judah. For although the form is new and the laws of the Torah and of the oral tradition are all filtered through the New Pact, we are assured by the same God who revealed the Torah to Moses and to Israel at Sinai that by following the law of the New Pact a Jew will fulfil all his obligations as a Jew.

Nor is there reason to doubt this principle because it can be obtained clearly through understanding the words of the Prophet. We have received it in merit of the Goel Haim. Yet we can understand that just such a New Law had to come from the words in Jeremiah (31: 30-35):


"Behold, days are coming, saith the Lord when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day that I took hold of them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they have broken My covenant, although I was become their husband, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, I place My law in their inward parts, and upon their heart will I write it; and I shall be unto them for a God, and they shall be unto Me for a people. And they shall not teach anymore every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord, for they all shall know Me, from the least of them even unto their greatest ones, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin will I not remember anymore. Thus hath said the Lord, who bestoweth the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who stirreth up the sea that its waves roar - The Lord of Hosts is His name: If these ordinances ever depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then also shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before Me during all time".


No one is saying that the prophecy is simple to understand, because in fact it seems to contradict itself. It must be taken and understood.


Do not confuse us with the Jewish Reform Movement. We do not decide new laws with our own reasoning (or if we sometimes do reason out how a certain law should be, we base our reasoning on signs already received, and then we wait for confirmation from above). And what is more important, we are not detached from all traditional Judaism. We are beneath it, but independent from it so that we can accomplish the various redemptional tasks that the traditional synagogue is not in a position to fulfil.

Also the fact of women Priests in the House of the Final Redemption was not an endeavour on our part to modernise the tradition or to appease the feminist movements. It has been revealed to us in clear signs and verified many times. It descends from above. It is desired by God.

The structure of the Altars in the House of Prayer is itself the foremost indication of how marvellous the New Pact is. We have not invented the House of the Final Redemption. It’s structure represents ‘secrets’ from the Kingdom of Heaven which descend when the New Brit is revealed. We follow its revelation piece by piece and we construct it in signs for now.

We are still in the phase of its revelation, for it has a development which must be followed closely, especially for the first 12 years. I am writing here in the 8th year and I can thus not speak of the final form. We saw an amazing development of the House of Prayer through the Signs and whoever was close by to see the changes saw new things that never existed before. It is not easy to relate that development. One must follow (and prepare) more detailed reports of dreams and signs of the last seven years.

To illustrate, however, this development, we might speak about a most essential change that took place between the sixth and seventh years. After the first four years, we knew that in the House of Prayer (which until the end of the 6th year, until, that is, the change about which we are speaking, was called by us The House of Prayer for all the Nations) there were 5 Altars, designated: the Altar of the Universal Synagogue, the Altar of the Universal Church, the Altar of Malkitzedek, the Altar of the Anointed Priest and the Altar of the Prophet.

Without explaining the details, between the 6th and 7th year we received the signs of the ‘dead weight’ which we were carrying and that had to be discarded, and then the signs of the ‘divorce’ from the Universal Church.

At the end of six years that Correction was virtually completed, that is all the basic concepts which had to be corrected were in writing and all the many signs that had to be made had been made. The disposition of the Universal Synagogue and Universal Church had represented for those 6 years the prophetic kiss between Jacob and Esau. The mission of Yeshua in that first tragic messianic role was understood by Jews and Christians alike in the House of Prayer for all the Nations.

But after the correction of the false Christ of all traditional Christianity, the entity of the Universal Church in the House of Prayer became obsolete. It was a dead weight that had to go. The House of Prayer was not a Universal Church of Christian revelation. The House of Prayer was the prophesied beit ha-tefillah of Isaiah, the House of Prayer of the Final Redemption.

In those 6 years we had also received the all essential signs of the salvation of the lost sheep of the ten tribes of Israel. The ‘secret’ of the salvation of Yeshua, the first messiah of the house of Yosef, was that the souls of the lost ten tribes were for the most part in the Christian fold.

They had been ‘saved’ throughout the generations by Christian revelation. They had been kept alive spiritually by the Christian hope. Those are the Christians who love Israel although they do not know that they themselves were Jews. Those are Christians who love God in their hearts and in their actions notwithstanding the false theology of their tongue. A great many of these are descendants of Jacob, from the house of Efraim. They were kept in waiting for their salvation, but they were kept, and their true salvation comes with the second coming of the messianic Star of Christ through the House of Prayer of the Final Redemption.

Nor does this diminish the prophetic salvation of Yeshua ‘I have not come except to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel’ (Matthew, 24: 15). And the redemption itself does not take place until there is the reunification of the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The lost sheep return in the end to their roots and great is the reward of the tears of Rahhel when her sons, the children of Joseph, come back within the boundaries from which they had been cast out. Hot are the soul-tears of joy when the lost sons of Jacob rediscover their origins and return to the One Living God of Israel who had never abandoned them. Great is their love for the House of Prayer and for the New Revelation which completes their salvation.

Yet the House of Prayer is not only for Jews and for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Final Redemption is open to all. The God of Israel is the true God of all mankind and He said ‘for My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ (Isaiah, 56, 7).

The Universal Altar of the House of Prayer is called the Altar of Malkitzedek. Here the wine is sanctified and the bread is blessed in the name of EL ‘Elyon, God on high. We are the fortunate children of the Kingdom of Heaven who have received these blessings for the benefit of the nations who wish to partake of the blessing.

The Altar of the Anointed Priest is the Altar of the Messianic Blessing and the Altar of the Prophet is the Altar on which are announced the prophecies of the Fourth Generation.

With the news of the ‘dead weight’ of the Universal Church, after 6 years the prophecy of the embrace and kiss between Esau and Jacob had arrived at their separation, each one of the brothers going their own way.

The fading out of the Universal Church gave rise to the question of which Altar had to take its place. At the same time the term Universal Synagogue had also lost face. Without the counter position of the Universal Church there was no reason for the Synagogue in the House of Prayer to be called Universal. By reviewing the purposes of the Altars it now became more obvious that for all non-Jews who would participate in the House of Prayer, the Altar of Malkitzedek was completely sufficient, while as for Jews or even converted Jews the Universal Synagogue seemed sufficient.

The question, however, was more complex, because one of the main purposes of the House of Prayer was to accommodate the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and since these came in through Christianity, there was a big gap between their entering and their becoming Jews and their entering into the Universal Synagogue.

At this point it was understood that the true names of these Altars were to represent the unification of the twelve tribes of Israel. One was the Altar of Judah representing born-Jews (or converted Jews according to rabbinic law) who wish to be under the New Law of the New Pact of the Final Redemption. The other was the Altar of Efraim which received the New Jews of the ten lost tribes who had been scattered among the Christian fold. Those who were not yet converted (circumcision, mikveh) remained at the Altar of Malkitzedek. Those who entered by way of conversion became part of the Altar of Efraim. They too were under the New Law for Jews, but the Law takes into account the fact that they did not have either a halachic or even a cultural Judaism behind them, and so there are differences at many levels of sanctification between the two. This is the reason for the two Jewish Altars, and the difference between them is as marvellous as their reunification. Thank You EL SHADDAI, EL SHADDAI is great, EL SHADDAI is One.


On Gnomen 100 of Sefer Esther 13


Who was Jesus and, once it is understood that he did have a ‘mission’ and even the term ‘messianic mission’ has its pertinence in the history of the redemption, what was the true name of his mission? Was Jesus sent by God to do that mission or did he take that ‘messianic’ mission upon himself?

Of course, all the texts of Sefer ha-Mafli are also concerned with answers to this questions, answers which are obviously not so simple and they require reflection and contemplation. I wish here only to discuss some general aspects in order to facilitate that comprehension.

We find in the Christian New Testament that Jesus never says clearly ‘I am the messiah’. He intimates it. He lets others say it. He demonstrates it. He performs messianic signs. He speaks of messianic prophecies, making it clear to the listener that it refers to him. He expresses messianic purposes in which it is clear that those purposes are being fulfilled in him. He performs miracles and attributes them to the messianic power. He acts as a messianic priest. He speaks as a messianic prophet. He rides on a messianic ass. He accepts the scorn as the messianic King of Israel and he undergoes the messianic sacrifice and dies in messianic martyrdom.

Yet even in his messianic resurrection, he does not say ‘I am the messiah’. Why not?

Was it perhaps a messianic strategy? To incite the power of curiosity in people’s hearts? To what avail? It has no sense. If you have the power to heal the sick, to open the eyes of the blind, to purify lepers, to multiply the bread, to resuscitate the dead and with all this you are looking for people to follow your mission, what could be more advantageous to your purpose than to say clearly who you are and to declare openly ‘I am doing all this because I am the messiah’?

From fear? Hardly. If Jesus was afraid, he wouldn’t have taken on the mission in the first place. Nor would he have gone to his sacrifice. He could easily have got out of it. Nor would he have done all the wonders that he did because those were indeed more than the declaration of being the messiah, both for the Pharisees and for the Romans.

For reason of modesty or humbleness? It has no place in this. Yeshua spoke of God as being his Father and of himself as being the son of his Father and even though he was not preaching a false doctrine, as is the traditional Christian interpretation, but as he himself answered the Doctors of the Law who were accusing him of such, “Is it not written in the Torah ‘You are sons unto the Lord, your God?” Nevertheless the direct manner of his discourse in declaring ‘I am actively the son of my Father in Heaven’ was obviously not considered by Yeshua as immodest or un-humble because it was an integral part of his teaching and it was the essential manner of his expressing the mission upon him. It would not have been more to say ‘I am the messiah sent by God’.

On the contrary, if you are the Messiah sent by God, have you not the obligation to declare it openly? Did Moses hide his position? Or Aaron, or Elijah or the Prophets of Israel?

Even the Donkey who eats Bread of the Final Redemption opens his mouth with glee and declares with no hair on his tongue ‘I am the Messianic Donkey of the Kingdom of Heaven’. And Peretz with the Donkey signs upon him takes great pleasure in announcing, “Mine is the first General ‘Messianic’ Sign of the Fourth Generation even if I not the Messiah by any means”. And quite immodestly he calls out “Look now, I am Meshullam the blind and deaf servant of God” and then he gets down on all fours and he brays saying “I am the first Donkey of the Goel Haim”.

Can I help it? I am lucky because I like it, but even if I didn’t like it, could I help it? And could Balaam’s ass help it when she opened her mouth and talked? And would anybody be able to believe and to understand my announcements if I didn’t speak them out and explain them? Everyone has problems and I’ve got my share, but I can’t deny the truth of the Marvellous Signs of the Final Redemption that announce that I am in the sign of the Head of all the Priests in the world and the Spokesman of God for the Final Redemption and the Sign of the Anointed Priest of the House of Prayer and the sign of the Donkey with Three eyes and even the sign of the Donkey, mashiahh ben david. Can I deny the truth of these Signs which are upon me and be guilty of holding back what the signs have declared? Someone might get angry; it won’t be the first time. Someone might not believe me; that’s his problem. Someone may not understand; let him ask. And yet at the same time in which I call myself according to the sign needed, these are only signs and the titles of signs, and no matter how low or how unworthy I may be, I must accept both the elevation of the sign and my own lowliness, but I cannot deny the sign.

Now here’s another problem. In our writings we refer to Jesus with quite a few epithets and these terms are often connected to the terminology of the messianic mission. Thus, aside from referring to Yeshua as the first messiah or the first messiah of the house of Joseph or the first tragic messiah etc. we sometimes call him the first Peretz of the Messianic revelation who broke down the barriers of all preceding history or the first Donkey who ate the Bread or the first Meshullam etc. and so on down the line, depending on which aspect of the messianic mission we wish to emphasise. What gives us the right to do so?

Another question. We have explained at length in the New Testament Corrected that the all important last prophecy of Malachi, in view of the last verse ‘He will reconcile the hearts of fathers with their sons’ etc. ‘lest I come and smite the land with destruction’ (Malachi, 3: 24) gives place to two distinct messianic missions, both in the name of the Prophet Elijah, one the tragic mission of destruction when in the land there is not sufficient merit and the ‘lest I come to smite’ takes place, and the other at a future time when the reconciliation is accomplished.

The question here is this. We can understand well that the mission of the accomplished reconciliation deserves the messianic title because it is positive and it answers to the messianic hopes of the final redemption. But is it proper to attach the term messianic to that mission in which instead of reconciliation there is the separation of the hearts, instead of comprehension there is complete misunderstanding and instead of peace there is war and destruction? And then again, if the latter is the prophetic mission of peace and the former is the prophetic mission of destruction, whereby may we refer to both missions as messianic, why then did the first messiah, who himself referred to that mission as one of war and not peace, not openly say that he was the messiah?

Actually this prophecy, which as almost all the messianic prophecies does not use the term ‘messiah’, is essential in establishing the possibility of two prophetic missions in the name of the Prophet Elijah, of blessed mentioning, who ushers in the redemption.

The importance of this particular prophecy is known since it is the last and thus contains in synthesis that which will be necessary to define the redemptional purposes when the Geula Shleima arrives: 1) ‘Remember the law of Moses My servant’, 2) the announcement of the Day of the Lord, 3) the reconciliation of fathers and sons.

It is significant that the term ‘messiah’ is not used. This fact can now be appreciated with the knowledge that the Messiah is not the Goel and is in level inferior to him. This prophecy speaks of the coming of Elijah the Prophet who is also Head of the Sons of the Ascent. Elijah is the promised prophet and announcer of the Redemption. He is not the Messiah.

All this is significant because the prophecy does not mention the two messianic missions but rather the two prophetic missions which come in the name of Elijah.

The fact is that Jesus could not say that he was the Messiah because he could not say in honesty that he had permission from the Prophet Elijah to make the prophetic announcements that he was making. He indeed did not have such permission, not at least in any direct manner. Jesus was in fact not sent by God to do that mission, nor did he have permission from the Teacher of Justice (from the other world) to do that mission, nor did he have permission from any teacher of the School to use the secret of the kabbalah ma’asit, including John the Baptist.

The mission of Yeshua was the ‘messianic mission done without permission’.

And yet he had to do the mission. All the forces and all the circumstances and all the signs around him and the resulting feelings within him conduced him to the recognition that the messianic mission was upon him. But to do the mission, he had to do it without permission, and in doing it without permission he could not state the name of his mission. Otherwise he would have been found in contradiction and that he could not do.

It is for this reason that this commentary expounds again and again on the fact that in ascertaining the particular aspect of the uniqueness of Yeshua’s mission, one must come to grips with the head-breaking principle of ‘noraalila ‘al bnei adam’ - ‘awesome are the Divine Programs imposed on man’. It was properly on Jesus’ mission that this principle fell and every aspect of his mission must be judged by this double-standard of being commanded not to eat the fruit but of having to eat it because it complies to a higher and far-reaching purpose in the Design of the Historical Redemption of Mankind.

Yet after this has been explained, we desire to search it still again to find, perhaps, some insight which alludes to the idea that the awesome principle of 'noraalila' might be applicable to that first prophetic mission of destruction. I think I can see it from behind the separè, if only I can bring it to the fore.

Lo and behold, the Lord Himself, Blessed is His name forever, announces that before the great and terrible day of the Lord, He will send the Prophet Elijah to announce that day and to reconcile the hearts. And yet if the reconciliation cannot be made, instead of redemption, the wrath of God will require its punishment.

How is it now that God, before whom time is no barrier and the free choice of men and women is no secret, sends the chosen Prophet Elijah, the promised Prophet of the Redemption, to announce the day of the Lord and to reconcile the hearts, if then it doesn’t happen and the mission goes amiss and is transformed into a plague?! If the Prophet is sent as God’s messenger to announce and to reconcile and he comes and announces and fails to reconcile, why should God’s love for that chosen Prophet of the Final Redemption not have saved him from that bitter enterprise? Would it not have been better to wait until that time in which sufficient merit be found in the land and then to send the Prophet without that bitter ‘Lest I come’?

To put it more simply, there is a sort of contradiction in the double mission. Is it possible that the chosen Prophet of the Redemption, sent by God to announce and to reconcile, fail? No, it is not possible, not if indeed we are speaking about the Final Redemption. Since, however, the verse concludes with ‘lest I come’ we must deduce for sure that there is a mission connected to the name of Elijah which could fail; connected yes, but not directly, because a mission that could fail cannot directly be in the name of the Prophet Elijah, for he is the Prophet sent by God to announce and to reconcile, a mission which cannot fail. It is thus a seeming contradiction because the verse says ‘Lest I come’ in reference to the prophetic mission of the Prophet.

We are, however, explaining away the contradiction in the light of two missions, for if the first part is accomplished, that would lead to the Final Redemption and there would be no need for the ‘Lest I come’. If that mission fails for lack of merit in Isreal then the ‘Lest I come’ will unfortunately have to be and the first part of the prophecy will be displaced to a future time when it will assuredly be successful.

Thus that first mission does not meet the ‘true’ conditions of the prophecy itself because it is not of the Final Redemption. Since the true conditions are not met, this must be extended to all other aspects of that mission: the remembering of Moses and of all the laws that he gave to Israel is not met, the announcement of the great and terrible day of the Lord is not met (because the fullness of this announcement pertains to the Final Redemption) and the reconciliation is not met. The prophecy then deals of the case in which the mission goes amiss and arrives at the time of ‘lest I come to smite the land’. We must thus conclude that also God’s sending of that mission which fails in the reconciliation and that part of the prophecy of Ha-Shem’s sending of the Prophet Elijah to announce and to reconcile are put off for another later period in history, that that failed first mission cannot be said to be directly that of the Prophet Eljah. If it were sent directly in the name of the Prophet Elijah, it would have resulted in the Final Redemption.

Yet the verse says ‘lest I come and smite the land’ - if the reconciliation is not met, and so the other conditions, as explained, do not say that the unfulfilled mission and the ensuing destruction is not from God. Therefore the verse says ‘lest I come’. God’s pleasure, so to speak, in bringing the world to its final redemption, was transformed into wrath because of Israel’s iniquity, and instead He brought upon them the destruction of the Second Temple and exile. Now that there was no merit, and that first mission could not be sent directly, be ye careful in judging, because also that mission came from God and was connected to the Prophet Elijah; even though the manner of its coming was not direct, it was made to evolve in a hidden and incomprehensible manner, as dark as the generation into which it was sent. No iniquity of man could thwart the will of God.

Now the prophecy is fully explained and it can be understood in depth and the reader may enter the profound words of Gnomen 100. Because there was no merit in that generation and no mission from God could have been sent directly, it was necessary that someone, in the zealousness of his sincere love of the truth, interpret the hidden will of God, and to be ready to give up his life in order to bring some light into a dark and treacherous world. Profound was the sentiment of the first tragic messianic servant of God.

As to the question ‘what gives us the right to use the full gamut of the ‘new’ messianic terminology in regards to the mission of Yeshua’, the main reason is that we have received the New Revelation of the Second Coming of the Star of Christ. This revelation binds that first messianic mission to the mission of the Final Redemption. Therefore every aspect of the present Sign of the Donkey who eats Bread has a corresponding aspect in the messianic salvation of Yeshua.




Gnomen 101 expresses the sad reality that the divine honor that traditional Christianity gave to Jesus is proof enough of what we are saying. Yeshua, it is true, did not use the secret for the purpose of being honoured, but in order to accomplish his mission, as explained. The force of that prohibited action, nonetheless, did its damages. Unfortunate is the messianic mission done without permission. Every action that Yeshua did or that he might have done was wrong and right at the same time.


I wish here to review again the last prophecy in Malachi for the sake of clarifying the depth which it contains.


Malachi 3, 22-24 - Remember ye the law of Moses, My servant, whom I commanded on Horeb for all Israel, statutes and ordinances.

Behold, I send unto you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the day of the Lord, the great and the dreadful.

And he shall turn back the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.


It is known that Malachi was the last Prophet and this was the last prophecy. It is one of the most important prophecies concerning the redemption. Let us summarise why it is so:

1)- being the last prophecy, it must serve the purpose of uniting prophecy, especially redemptional and messianic prophecy, to the redemptional mission when it arrives -

2)- this means that the redemptional or messianic mission which comes must be able to claim ‘this is the mission promised by God in the last prophecy of Malachi’ -

3)- since, in other prophecies, it was promised that at the time of the final redemption there will be, among many other wonderful events, miracles and new things, a re-aperture of prophecy, when the new spirit comes and descends on those who will receive the Kingdom of Heaven, that redemptional mission which brings the new spirit and opens the world to the new prophecies, must itself be bound to this last prophecy in Malachi -

4)- just as the redemptional mission must be bound to the condition of prophecy, so must it be bound to the other conditions established by this prophecy in Malachi -

5)- therefore the first great condition is given here ‘remember the law of Moses, My servant, whom I commanded on Horeb for all Israel statutes and ordinances’. The first condition of that redemptional mission which will come is that it will be bound to the statutes and ordinances of the Torah -

6)- the next condition is the promise made by God that He will send the Prophet Elijah, of blessed mentioning, the chosen prophet who ushers in the final redemption -

7)- this means that the redemptional mission will be able to proclaim and to prove that it is actively under and within the permission of the Prophet Elijah and that it is therefore the mission sent by God, promised in this last prophecy. - in recognising that ‘permission’ of the Prophet Elijah, two main conditions are given -

8)- that prophetic mission will announce the great and terrible day of the Lord before it comes -

9)- that redemptional mission will reconcile the hearts of fathers with their sons and the hearts of sons with their fathers -


Obviously we are not explaining the manner in which these conditions are met, for those are explained in our writings on the New Pact, on the Completed Signs, on the prophetic dreams, on the relationship of the Prophet Elijah to the Goel, Head of the 36 Hidden Tzadikim. Our purpose here is to understand this prophecy and to see how it was applicable as well to that mission which preceded the redemptional promise of the Final Redemption.

Everything is good so far and the explanation of the conditions that the redemptional mission must meet seems very clear. Now, however, the prophecy comes up with an abrupt about face and we cannot but fall out of step. After we were delighted and thrilled by the promise and by the wonderful prophetic and redemptional conditions of the Final Redemption, the verse turns us off completely with an equally severe admonishment ‘lest I come and smite the land with destruction (Hherem - a solemn oath of destruction against the land).

It is indeed a stunning blow, yet we cannot get out of it, because it is no less part of the prophecy than the first part. And even though the ‘lest’ is a conditional, one cannot abscond with historical reality when interpreting prophecy. The ‘lest’ ,unfortunately, could have remained conditional only until the Jewish people remained in the land after its return from exile and until the Second Temple remained intact after its rebuilding. After the destruction and the exile, however, almost five hundred years after the prophecy was uttered, it is more than clear to the honest believer in prophecy that it was the ‘lest’ that took place then and hardly the promised redemption.

Yet we cannot leave it at that, to say that the ‘lest’ took place and in this the prophecy is resolved. For sure the prophecy is not fulfilled until the redemptional promises in it are fulfilled. We are therefore thrown against an about face which we must face up to, and if we have gotten out of step we must get into it again, for the word of the Lord doth not stammer with uncertainties. Therefore come ye Jews and Christians and all those who consider themselves knowledgeable in scripture, and listen to the true understanding which this prophecy furnishes as it smatters the wisdom of the sages. For the word of God doth not favor Jews or Christians but only the truth unto itself for God’s namesake and for the sake of the Final Historical Redemption which He has promised.

Once we have come to the ‘lest’ we are faced with a scriptural problem which must be resolved. To understand that problem, we must first try to explain the prophecy in the simplest manner reflected by its language (pshat). Then we shall see that in effect it is not so simple and we will come to the scriptural problem alluded to. With the explanation of that problem we shall see at the end that there is no other possible interpretation which resolves the dilemma from every angle. It is of course not due to any diploma in wisdom that our explanation supersedes the explanations of the sages. It is due to the fact that the truth of our explanation can be verified in the light of the New Revelation of the Final Redemption in merit of the Tzadik Haim and in light of the astounding revelation of the Book of Esther1. But now to pshat.

The first part of the prophecy says 4 things 1) remember the law of Moses My servant etc. 2) behold I am sending etc. 3) to announce the day of the Lord (the verse does not specify ‘to announce’ but it is understood in the context ; why is the Prophet Elijah being sent before that day if not to announce it and warn people to prepare for it) and 4) to reconcile the hearts etc.

Then comes the ‘lest I come to smite the land’ in the case that the above conditions are not fulfilled.

What exactly does the ‘lest’ refer to? It must refer to conditions which the people could have met but did not, thus it may refer to the reconciliation of the hearts and to the remembering of Moses and the Law. It cannot refer to the sending of the Prophet Elijah or to the announcement of the Day of the Lord, because this is not in the hands of the people but it is the work of God. That is, the sending of the Prophet is the work of God and the announcement of the day of the Lord is a result of that sending.

Therefore at this point it is possible to interpret in two ways:

1) God sent the Prophet Elijah to announce the day of the Lord and to reconcile the hearts of fathers and sons and to instruct the people in the Law of Moses. But the people did not walk in the way of the Law and they did accept the reconciliation and thus the Lord, instead of the redemption, sent the destruction. Or:

2) I can interpret - the Lord, at that time wanted to send the Prophet Elijah to announce the Day and to reconcile and to instruct, but because the people had no merit and they did not walk in the way of the Law and they were beyond any hope for a reconciliation, God did not send the Prophet Elijah to announce or to reconcile.

At this point we do not know which of the two interpretations is true or is closer to the truth. But for now let us see what would be the difference between them. It would seem that if the first were true and the Prophet were sent, this would mean that at that time the prophetic mission of Elijah was sent to the land, but it failed, and instead of redemption God sent destruction.

If, on the other hand, the second interpretation is correct, it would mean that because of the lowliness of that generation, no prophetic mission was sent, not to announce or to reconcile or to instruct.

In both cases there was not sufficient merit for which reason the Lord came and destroyed the land and the Temple and sent Israel into exile. The difference is in whether or not the prophetic mission was sent or was not sent at that time.

These two interpretations, however, resolve the pshat of ‘lest’. They answer to the destruction, but they do not answer to the redemption. And since, as we have explained, this last prophecy in Malachi must answer to the Promised Redemption, we have not yet completed even the simple meaning.

It must be concluded for both cases that the Final Redemption promised in the prophecy, not having been verified at that time was postponed for a future time. In this it doesn’t matter if you say that the prophetic mission was sent but it failed or if you say that it could have been sent but was not sent for lack of merit. What you cannot say is that the ‘lest I come and smite the land’ nullified the final redemption forever, God forbid. The prophetic mission of the Prophet Elijah which announces the Final Redemption has to be realized, as do all the redemptional and messianic prophecies.

Therefore even the simple interpretation of this prophecy postulates two different times of the prophetic mission. According to the first possible interpretation the prophetic mission was sent but failed and it was postponed for the time of the Final Redemption. According to the second possible interpretation the prophetic mission could have potentially come then, but for the lack of merit it was postponed until the time of the Final Redemption.

So we have explained the pshat but it is as useless to us as an intellectual exercise for the sake of sharpening the brain or as a cross-word puzzle for the sake of killing time, until we have drawn historical conclusions from the prophetic history which is hidden in this essential prophecy of Malachi.

Now it must be seen that neither one of the interpretations is without a flaw. Let us start with the second which says that in truth there was no prophetic mission sent. If it is so then where was there a judgement to verify that they did not walk in the way and that they did not accept the reconciliation? For it is not the way of God, blessed is His name forever, to make a judgement by Himself without a corresponding proof to such in the world.

Did God not know that the people of Israel would not listen to the Prophets? There is naught that is hidden from His knowledge, past, present and future. Yet He sent them nevertheless to warn and to admonish them and to give them the possibility to repent from their iniquity. Even if before God it was known that they would choose evil instead of wisdom, yet the judgement had to be made according to their free-choice, for the knowledge of the Almighty is not a knowledge which causes people to choose in one way or another, but only the Divine knowledge of what they with their free will have chosen. Therefore in every judgement a trial is sent to test the free choice of the choosers even when they are wicked and virtually beyond salvation.

The ‘lest I come and smite the land’ is in direct conter-position to the conditions of the prophecy, therefore it is more logical to conclude that the prophetic mission of the Prophet Elijah, of blessed mentioning, was sent at that time and that it attempted to announce, to instruct and to reconcile, but it failed.

If this is so then the second interpretation falls off and we are left with the first. But also here there is a problem and not a simple one at that.

The Prophet Elijah is the chosen Prophet of the Final Redemption and the announcer of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Is it possible that God send the Prophet Elijah to announce and to reconcile and that it fail? ‘Behold, I am sending the prophet Elijah’ is an active prophetic word of God. It cannot go undone nor can it be put off. It is not as a Prophet sent to announce a promise of God for the future. It is itself the fulfilment of the redemptional promise of God. It cannot fail.

Yet we cannot deny the rest of the verse which exclaims unequivocally ‘lest I come’. And therefore we are forced to say that if at that time there is no merit and the ‘lest’ takes place instead of the redemption, that all the preceding conditions are not met, not the ‘remember the law of Moses’, not the ‘sending of the Prophet’ not the ‘announcement of the day of the Lord’ and not the reconciliation. For if the sending is fulfilled so too has the final redemption actually come. This did not happen 2000 years ago and instead came the destruction and the beginning of Israel’s long exile. Thus we must abandon the first interpretation as well.

Indeed this prophecy itself declares that if you are looking for a simple interpretation (pshat), you won’t find it. One has to look deeper. I must reinterpret the substance of that first prophetic sending so that it agrees at every angle to the prophecy itself. I must in fact resolve the enormous contradiction that the prophecy itself presents. There was that first prophetic mission which came and failed and thus did not answer to the final redemption but I do not know how to define it. If it was sent by God it had to result in the final redemption and if it was not sent by God how can I call it a prophetic mission?

It is the substance of this prophecy which gives the answer. The Lord desired to bring the final redemption at that time. He was, so to speak, willing to bring it, but the nation was not willing to accept it. That was no small matter. The Lord of the universe was ready to send a marvellous revelation and a great salvation to Israel and for the world. Due to their iniquity, instead of that redemption He had to send the destruction. He had, so to speak, conquer His own desire of redeeming them because of the necessity of paying them for the wickedness of their deeds. Yet the desire of the Lord does not diminish for it is divine and it must be fulfilled. It may, however, hide itself from the eyes of mankind until Israel is ready to receive it.

Israel even when it is punished is never taken out of the promise. So has it been promised throughout. If Israel sins and is not worthy to receive a manifest good, it receives instead a manifest punishment, but the hidden will of the God of Israel is always to bring it to its perfection in the end. The whole Torah and all the Prophets exclaim it and announce it and expound on it. The history of Israel is the story of this principle.

Nor can we hide from this principle in trying to understand the all-important last prophecy of Malachi. The difference between redemption and punishment is placed here with such ease in the same last verse that it stuns us. Can such opposites be so blatantly piled together?

Yet before the divine will of God which conduces Israel to its final redemption, the difference here, at a time which was not the final time but a possible time of the great salvation, between redemption and punishment was only in the manner of the manifestation of the Divine Will. If Israel would have merited, the divine will would have manifested itself openly in the form of the redemption. If Israel did not merit, the manifest will would punish them and the will of the redemption remain hidden.

This is the key in understanding this prophecy in terms of that first prophetic mission which failed. If Israel would meet the conditions of remembering the Law of Moses and would desire the reconciliation of fathers and sons, then the promise of manifestly sending Elijah the Prophet would be fulfilled. If Israel did not merit, it would receive its punishment and that first prophetic mission would not be sent openly but only in a hidden manner. The punishment would comply to the manifest will and the mission would comply to the hidden will of God for the sake of the Final Redemption.

"Therefore was the prophetic last phrase placed together, so that the final interpretation not go amiss. For if Israel did not merit, you would say that none of the conditions were met and thus there was no sending of the Prophet. But now that the same verse says ‘lest I come’ be very careful how you judge that prophetic mission which could not be sent manifestly to the world. Be very careful in judging for as in the punishment I had to hide My true Will of the Redemption, so too that prophetic mission which I could no longer send openly had to come in a hidden way so as to comply with My hidden will of the Redemption. Be careful because also that mission came from Me and when you judge it, judge it from the standpoint of your lack of merit and of your punishment and then you will understand. But if you will try to interpret it in accordance with My true will of the Final Redemption in the light of the selection of Israel then you will falsify the vision of your own standing at that time when you were not worthy to receive My will".


on GNOMEN 103


-traditional Christianity - continuation of last prophecy of Malachi-

Obviously all traditional Christianity interpreted the prophecy as having been completed with the mission of Jesus and with his resurrection. It refused to give place to any other messianic mission. For the fathers of the Church, the final redemption had already come and it was only the turn of mankind to come to terms with it. Paul’s Romans, chapter 11, may be an exception to this, but traditional Christianity never came to terms with this vision. Later Christianity formulated a second coming of Christ but only for the sake of verifying traditional Christianity, and to put an end to the historical contradictions between good and evil in the world. John the Baptist became the Elijah of the prophecy and they were satisfied to leave it at that. It is explained elsewhere that the principle error of traditional Christianity was to interpret the Christian Signs as being the Final Signs when in truth they were only the Initial Opening Signs of the redemption. (All the errors that derived from such an interpretation are explained, God willing, in the New Testament Corrected. The purpose of the Book of Esther1 is to explain the Initial Signs received at the School of the Essenes).

Traditional Judaism did no better in interpreting this prophecy. It was obviously not able to conceive of any first mission (except in a vague sense of the two messiahs one of the house of Joseph who is only partially successful and after him the mission of messiah of the house of David who completes the messianic work). Judaism relied on its hope in the Final Redemption that would be ushered in by the Prophet Elijah together with the mashiahh ben david.

Tuesday 7 November 1995 - burial of Yitzhak Rabin, peace be with him.

[1]. The Star of Bethlehem is the Star of the Messianic Bread and thus the Star of ‘Messianic Donkey’ who eats Bread. This Star is the same Star of the Signs or Star that Astounds (previously the Star of Christ and Previously the Star of Malchitzedek) which represents the Completed Messianic Mission. 2000 years ago the course of this Star gave over the Initial Phase of the Initial Signs. The Star of the Signs is Universal while the Sign of Bethlehem is bound to the Messianic Revelation for Judaism. This also reflects the double theme of Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah ben David. It is thus the unification of the Signs of this Star that allows in the end the unification of the Altar of Malchitzedek to the Altars of Judah and Ephraim in the New House of Prayer. The question of the incompleteness of these Signs 2000 years ago and afterwards the false interpretations of those Signs is one thing. The fact, remains, however, that those 'Initial Redemptional and Messianic Signs' were in the hands of Christianity, not in the hands of Judaism. This is proven by the revelation of the Star of Christ of the First Sign. - - The text must, therefore, be corrected because the Reunification is really between the Signs of the same Star of the Signs and Star of Bethlehem.