index

The concept of Yom Yahweh appears to be the point of departure in the Synoptic Gospels. John’s Gospel, on the other hand, pointedly denies this. In the final analysis, however, the focus has to be placed on Mark, which is widely recognised as the first Gospel, and copied as source material by the others. Mark is the first one to introduce Yahweh and call Him Jesus. As instrument of this introduction, Mark presents one John the Baptist to be “the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘make straight the way for Yahweh….’”. This “voice” is then identified as Elijah and hugely elaborated on by Luke in his first chapter.

There are enormous problems with Mark’s introduction of Jesus:

4.1 The accuracy of Mark’s quotation,

4.2 The context of Mark’s quotation,

4.3 The Guilt Offering – a prerequisite for Yom Yahweh

4.4 The naming of Mark’s subject,

4.5 The corrective denial of Revelation.

4.1 The Accuracy of Mark’s Quotation

In his very first statement; in his opening gambit as it were, Mark misquotes his source and places everything that follows in jeopardy;

Mark 1 :2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet;

“I (Yahweh) will send My (Yahweh’s) messenger ahead of You

(Jesus) to prepare Your (Jesus’s) way…”

This is, in fact, a misquote, not of Isaiah, but of Mal. 3:1, which reads;

Mal. 3 :1a “See, I (Yahweh) will send My (Yahweh’s) messenger, who will

prepare the way before ME (YAHWEH).”

This is clearly the crowning event of Yom Yahweh, which Malachi 4 then elaborates on. The coming of Yahweh in His day is widely predicted in the prophets, as will be demonstrated. In fact, there is more evidence in prophetic scripture about the coming of Adonai than there is of the coming of a Messiah or Messiahs. Mark, however, has misrepresented Yahweh and the Church has constantly confused Him with Jesus, eg.

Zech. 14 :4 “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives…”

The context clearly speaks of Yahweh on the Yom Yahweh of Zech. 14:1, “A day of Yahweh is coming…”. Yet Church commentary is adamant it speaks of Jesus. This is a most profound form of Replacement Theology.

Malachi 3, however, discerns between Yahweh and His conquering Messiah;

Mal 3 :1 “See I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me.

“Then suddenly the Lord (Adoni) you are seeking will come to his

temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire will come,”

says Yahweh Almighty (Adonai). (Adonai is referring to another

Adoni.)

:2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he

appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

:3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites

and refine them like gold and silver. Then Yahweh will have men who

will bring offerings in righteousness

:4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to

Yahweh as in days gone by, as in former days.(There will be a latter

days restoration - the “Acharit Hayemim)

:5 “So, I (Yahweh) will come near to you for judgment…”

It is “I” – Yahweh; and “he” - the Messiah.

Through Malachi 3, Yahweh quite clearly speaks of His own coming and, distinctively, of His conquering Messiah. This great event of the Day of the Lord is equally seen in Revelation;

Rev. 11 :15 The seventh angel sounded his shofar, and there were load voices in

heaven, which said;

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Yahweh

and of His Messiah, and He will reign for ever and ever”.

Yahweh and His Messiah cannot possibly be the same person in the manner Mark has presented them. If Mark, and the other Gospel writers, were right in their presentation - where they copy Mark’s misquote of Mal.3:1 (Mat.11:10; Luke 7:27) - that Yahweh and the Messiah were the same person, then Mal.3:1b - 5 would be quite beyond comprehension.

D’varim 6:4 “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad.”

Deut. 6:4 “Hear, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

Mark12 :29 “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad.”

“Hear, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is one.”

YAHWEH ECHAD!

4.2 The Context of Mark’s Quotation

In his second quote, Mark (as do the other two Synoptic Gospels - Mathew and Luke - as well as John) calls on the expected coming of Yahweh as seen through the eyes of the author of 2 Isaiah (Isa.40 - 59). This follows the huge exploration of “The Day...” in 1 Isaiah (Isa. 1 - 39). Again Mark calls on an explicit prophecy of the coming of Yahweh and applies it to Jesus, who then evolves into Messiah. There is no indication from Isa. 40 whatsoever that Yahweh, having come, will be sacrificed, rise on the third day and then depart. On the contrary. (The Academic world discerns two, and possibly three sections of Isaiah with different authors and different times.)

Isaiah 40:3; Mark 1:3; Math.3:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23

A voice of one calling in the desert:

“Prepare the way for Yahweh;

make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”

ll four Gospels again present Yahweh and have Him introduced by “one calling in the desert”. This “one” is then identified by the Synoptic Gospels as “Elijah” - thus invoking “the Day…”. Having thus introduced Yahweh, all four Gospels proceed to call Him Jesus. But let us look deeper into the “Elijah” factor and its inseparable connection to “The Day…”.

Mal. 4 :5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful

day of the Lord comes.

:6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts

of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the

land with a curse”.

Now, let’s look at how Mark presents Elijah.

Jesus, descending the mount of transfiguration with Peter, John and James - having met with Moses and Elijah in transfigured state - has this conversation with them:

Mark 9 :11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the Law say that

Elijah must come first?”

:12 Jesus replied; “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all

things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer

much and be rejected? (The connection between these two

statements is uncertain. It is also not certain where “it is

written” about the suffering of the Son of Man Messiah.

However, this immediate study of Isa.40 will show that the

Suffering Messiah would have to come before Elijah)

:13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him

everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

There are some grave contradictions in this rhetoric, as presented by Mark:

1. They do not seem to have recognised John the Baptist in the transfigured Elijah, whom they just met with. Or they have failed to make the connection.

2. Jesus correctly refers to Elijah and his successful purpose, but then states the opposite outcome citing (unfound) scripture (?) about his suffering and apparent failure. (Rev 11:7 speaks

of the death of God’s messengers - in the future, after revoking of the “delay”.)

3. This “Jesus”, in claiming the advent of Elijah, proclaims the advent of the great and awesome Day of the Lord and, by implication, that he is Yahweh.

(Another “Jesus” places “the Day…” in the distant, unknown future and, by implication denies that Elijah had come, denies that “The Day…” has

come and denies that he is Yahweh, who is yet to come - Mark 13:24,25)

4. Although Jesus does not say John the Baptist is Elijah, the inference is

unmistakable as John had recently been beheaded by Herod (Mark 6:27), the

fate ostensibly foretold of Elijah. Such prediction of suffering of Elijah cannot

be found.

5. There is no indication from Malachi that Elijah would appear as anybody else but

himself - not as an “undercover agent”, as it were.

Matthew’s Jesus, however, is explicit about the identity of John the Baptist and also the completion of all prophecy, as was to be expected from the completed “Day of the Lord” scenario.

Matt. 11 :13 “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

:14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come”

This “Jesus” is so forceful about this position that he is reported as saying furthermore

:15 “He who has ears, let him hear” (and by implication “...that Yom

Yahweh has come and that I am Yahweh”).

Matthew, however, like Mark - who he has obviously copied - also presents another “Jesus” who denies that all prophecy has been fulfilled and again places it in the future beyond the preceding signs of that fulfilment. Again this “Jesus” would deny that “The Day…” had come, and that he is neither Yahweh nor the Son of Man Messiah. Our study of the Prophetic Sermon will reveal this “other“ Jesus.

Likewise Luke, also taking his cue from Mark, presents two diametrically opposing “Jesus” figures and somehow blends them into one. He makes a much bigger proclamation of John the Baptist, devoting his entire first chapter to set his foundation for the eventual identity of Jesus.

Luke 1:17 “And he (John the Baptist) will go on before Yahweh, in the spirit and

power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the

disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people

prepared for Yahweh.”

And here we find Zechariah’s ode to his son, John the Baptist, in which he elaborates;

Luke1 :76 “And you my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

for you will go on before Yahweh to prepare the way for Him”

Yahweh is then likewise introduced from Isa 40:3 (Luke 3:4) and (also misquoted) Mal 3:1. The general message is that Yom Yahweh had come, together with Israel’s redemption at the fulfilment of prophecy, as seen through the eyes of Zechariah in;

Luke 1 :68 “Praise be to Adonai, the God of Israel, because He has come and

redeemed His people”

Incredibly, another “Jesus” is then presented, who also sees Yom Yahweh in the distant future. A “Jesus” who predicts severe and lengthy tribulation and persecution for Israel - which is not compatible

with Elijah and the Conquering Davidic Messiah previously presented. And after that;

Luke 21 :25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations

will be in anguish….

:26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the

earth….”

:28 “When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift your heads,

because your redemption is drawing near”

This statement is clearly a rebuke of the angel (Luke 1:11), Zechariah and Luke himself. Two different expectations have been created and history has proven the

latter “Jesus” right. It remains unclear how the tribulation of these last two thousand years, as evidence of this “Jesus’s” prophetic sermon, can be associated with the

expected latter days kingdom described by Isaiah 2:1- 5;

:2 “In the acharit hayemim (latter days) the mountain of the Lord’s temple

will be established as chief among the mountains;

It will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.

:3 Many peoples will come and say;

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,

to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways,

so that we may walk in His paths”.

Torah will go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from

Jerusalem.

:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many

peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears

into pruning hooks.

Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war

anymore.

:5 Come, o house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord.

The world has not seen this, and desperately needs it. It is impossible to equate Jesus’s prophetic tribulation - and now history - with this kingdom expectation. No manner of allegorical machinations, as suggested by Augustine, can construct this in a purely spiritual sense. Nor can it replace the future redemption expected from the future “Day of the Lord”, as expressed by the “other” Jesus.

Turning now to John’s Gospel, a different version of the Elijah / Day of the Lord scenario appears from that found in the Synoptic Gospels. These latter stories, found in the Synoptic Gospels, were written some forty years after Jesus, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple when there would have been an enormous expectation of the deliverance from on high, as promised in the advent of Yom Yaweh. John’s Gospel, however was written some thirty years later from Ephesus, with Israel and Judah in diasporah, the city, land and temple sacked amid horrific genocide, and the centre of Rabbinic studies moved to Yavneh. At that time the authors and redactors of John’s Gospel would have concluded that “The Day…” had in fact not arrived, as the redemptive result failed to materialise. A different form of “kingdom” was therefore constructed, which was at odds with the Rabbinic school at Yavneh.

John 1 :19 “Now this was John’s (the Baptist) testimony when the Jews of

Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.

:20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the

Messiah”.

:21 They asked him: “Are you Elijah“? He said “I am not.”

“Are you the prophet“? He answered, “No”.

:22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back

to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

:23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of

one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for Yahweh.’”

The following contradicting “facts” emerge from this interview:

1. There was a fivefold expectation of advent at the time;

a. The Messiah

b. Elijah

c. The Prophet

d. A voice calling in the desert.

e. Yahweh.

2. Elijah and the voice calling in the desert are not the same person. – contradiction?

3. John introduces Yahweh, who is discerned from the Messiah - not the same person. Yet shortly he equates Yahweh with the Messiah.(John 3:28)

4. If Yahweh (who is introduced by “the voice…”) is Jesus - “The Word who was God and became flesh” (John 1:1-14) - who then is the Messiah?

5. If Elijah remains absent, then so must “The Day of the Lord”.

6. John’s Gospel therefore appropriates the advent of Yahweh outside or before Yom Yahweh, and without a Messiah, because “the voice in the desert” does not introduce the

Messiah, but introduces Yaweh.

(Note: Yahweh Himself, however, when He does come in terms of Isa. 40:3, will introduce His conquering Messiah (Isa 42:1-7) about whom much will be said.)

It seems inconceivable that John the Baptist, following his huge introduction as “Elijah” by Luke

and endorsements by Mathew and Mark’s Jesus, could not know who he was and what his mission would entail. Surely the community in which he had grown up had to know, following his father, Zechariah‘s testimony. The author of John’s Gospel is basically making the authors of the Synoptic Gospels and their Jesus as well as Luke’s angel out to be liars. Nevertheless, John claimed the advent of Yahweh and, consequently, His kingdom - before Yom Yahweh - which is a prophetic impossibility.

The enquiry by the priests and Levites into the identity of John the Baptist (John 1:19) is presented in a most subjective manner as it does not reveal their reaction to John’s answers.

They would have known that, for Yahweh to come, Elijah would have had to be there beforehand. If not John the Baptist, their question most definitely would have been “Where is Elijah?”. Without a substantive answer by the Gospel writer, they could not believe John on the claimed advent of Yahweh, called Jesus. Furthermore; Yahweh is the Father. If Jesus is then Yahweh - the Father, who then is “the Father” whom he continuously refers to as being other than himself?

And;

John 14 :6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one

comes to the Father except through me.”

What is this Jesus saying? Is he saying that none in Israel, and those who join her, can be reconciled to Yahweh except by his “asham” (guilt offering – see 4.3)?

John had identified himself as being the voice in the desert “Make straight the way for Yahweh” - from Isa.40:3. He then changes his statement;

John 3:28 You yourselves can testify that I said ‘I am not the Christ

(Messiah) but am sent ahead of him’.

Jesus is given a dual identity - he is both Yahweh and Messiah. Yet Jesus, throughout the rhetorical discourse of John’s Gospel, distinguishes between himself and “the Father.”

Isa. 40.3 is not a prophecy for the advent of Messiah but for Yahweh, who then introduces His Conquering Messiah in Isa.42 and His Suffering Messiah in Isa. 53, as will be seen.

Given this double identity, without Elijah, it is not difficult to see why the Priests, Levites and Pharisees could not “believe”. And why the Johanain community in Ephesus and the Rabbinic community in Yavneh - 70 years after Jesus - could not agree on Jesus. Yavneh represented the remnants of the schools of Hillel and Shamai. Yeshua was a disciple of Hillel, the more moderate of the two (having been taught in the Temple courts). Shamai was the more rigidly orthodox. The sad thing then is that, due to the misrepresentation by John’s John the Baptist, Yavneh failed to recognise the Suffering Messiah (who is not Yahweh - “the Lord”, or Adonai). John’s Gospel then presents the Suffering Messiah as a further identity of Jesus:

John 12:37,38 / Isa.53:1

“Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in

their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill

the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord (Yahweh - not Messiah) who has believed our message and to

whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed?”

This Isa. 53 is the introduction to... not Yahweh himself but… “the arm of Yahweh”, His Suffering Messiah. And so John’s Gospel has three identities for Jesus, without Elijah. He is Yahweh, Conquering Messiah and Suffering Messiah (Detailed discussion of the Messianic figures will follow). The Synagogue could do nothing else but say “No” ... and was robbed. The problem arose through the miss-appropriation of Isa.40:3. The question of our study is: WHY?

It seams clear that Jesus would have to have another identity, other than that given to him by John the Baptist and, consequently, by the Gospel writer himself.

Despite apparently denying the advent of Yom Yahweh, John later calls on a scripture reference from Zechariah, which is inherent to “The Day…”, at the crucifixion of Jesus, yet presents it in a most irregular manner.

John 19 :34 Instead one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’s side with a spear, bringing

a sudden flow of blood and water.

:36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled...

:37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have

pierced.”

John here quotes the prophecy from Zech. 12:10, of which the context is God’s powerful restoration of Israel in the Day of the Lord. It describes their deliverance from their enemies and their reconciliation with Yahweh in eventual recognition of their Suffering Messiah. Zech 12 through 14 builds the concept with the repeating refrain “in that day…”, eventually establishing the theme in:

Zech.14 :1 “A day of the Lord is coming….” (with all its cataclysmic events)

Zech. 12 :3 “On that day…”

:4 “On that day…”

:6 “On that day…”

:8 “On that day…”

:9 “On that day…”

:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants

of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They (the house of

David) will look on me (Yahweh), the one they pierced (the Christian

version), and mourn for him (?)…” (Who is he?)

John’s application of this scripture at the cross of Jesus, substituting the house of David with two Roman soldiers, at a time when none of the context came about, is a complete distortion of the prophecy to the point of the absurd. John is falsely claiming that “The Day...” had arrived. And Christian translators of Zech 12:10 are falsely claiming that Yahweh was the “one they pierced”.

The Jewish translation of Zech. 12:10b, 11 reads as follows:

Zech. 12 :10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of

Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication. They will look to Me

(Yahweh) on account of him (Suffering Messiah) who they (or was)

pierced (PREVIOUSLY), and mourn for him as one mourns for

an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a

firstborn son.

:11 On THAT DAY the weeping in Jerusalem will be great…”

Nevertheless, John’s Gospel, by presenting a Yom Yahweh scripture - albeit in a haphazard way - alludes to Yom Yahweh having come... in which Yahweh is crucified. He would therefore have to have had an Elijah figure, who is not revealed. None of the numerous prophetic scriptures on the advent of Yahweh know anything about Him being “pierced” and then departing.

How have these verses not been miss-represented by translators and by John’s Gospel to create the impression that Yahweh is the pierced one! The Christian Bible reads as follows;

Zech 12:10 “...They will look on ME (Yahweh) who they pierced and mourn

for HIM (who is he?) ...”

John 19:37 and as another scripture says; “They will look on the one they pierced”

The incredible inference drawn from such a presentation is;

1. Yahweh, hanging on the cross, poured out the Spirit of grace and supplication on those two Roman soldiers who had pierced Him. The soldiers, have now replaced the

House of David - two thousand years (so far) BEFORE “That Day…”!

2. They - the two Roman soldiers - then mourn for someone else who is not identified.

3. This is a multiple misplacement of identity:

a. Who is Yahweh?

b. Who is Jesus?

c. Who is the unidentified person whom they mourn for?

d. Who are the Roman soldiers?

e. Who is the House of David?

f. Who is Elijah?

g. When is Yom Yahweh?

. By distorting this (and numerous other) vital statement, its context and its timing, the Christian Bible has distorted God’s message. It is small wonder that the Church suffers from a multitude of divisions.

Continuing now on the Elijah factor, there are other discrepancies about the John the Baptist / Elijah figure. Luke, his strongest proponent, causes consternation by suddenly expressing doubt. Having presented John as Elijah with such conviction and then had him introduce Jesus as Yahweh, with equal conviction, suddenly questions his subjects and their identity;

Luke 7:20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you

to ask, ‘Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect

someone else?’”

This is a mind blowing question. How can John, having had the introduction which he had; having jumped in his mothers womb at the presence of Mary; having introduced Jesus as fact and having baptised him, witnessed the dove and heard the voice from heaven, NOW TURN AROUND AND ASK SUCH A QUESTION? How could he have had such doubt? And what does that do to his credibility and that of his identity, his story and that of the New Testament?

Lets face it, when Elijah, Yahweh and the Conquering Messiah do come, ALL ISRAEL WILL KNOW IT - without a shadow of doubt. And they won’t come under any identity other than their own.

This question raises a number of further questions. Doubt had to have existed in the minds of John, the author (Luke) and the redactor(s) who may have edited the script. The nature of the question suggests that a negative answer was possible, which in turn would render Jesus an ordinary citizen. The question has two distinct aspects:

1. Are you the one who was to come?

If the answer was negative - as the Prophetic Sermon suggests (Luke 21:5-31, to be discussed in detail), what authority did Jesus have to answer the second part?

2. ….or should we expect someone else?

Again, the Prophetic Sermon will answer this.

All the evidence presented thus far is so confusing and contradicting that it could not stand the cross examination of a court of law. Yet, there is Yeshua. Where does he stand in all of this? We will try to establish his identity in the Chapter 6: Yahweh and the Three Messiah’s.

4.3 The Guilt Offering - a prerequisite for Yom Yahweh

It will be seen that the Guilt Offering is a prerequisite for “A voice calling...” in the Yom Yahweh.

Let us return to our subject matter - the context of Isa. 40:3 “A voice calling in the desert…”, so decisively used by the Gospel writers:

Isa. 40 :1 Comfort, comfort My people, says your God.

:2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her

that her hard service has been completed, that her

guilt has been paid for, that she has received from

the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

:3 A voice of one calling in the desert:

“Prepare the way for Yaweh...”

The context of the coming of Yahweh presupposes - as a non-negotiable precondition - that the sins of Israel had been forgiven prior to “the voice calling…” - their guilt paid for.

The major question that this order of events poses is;

Why would Yahweh come to Israel, after her sins had ostensibly been forgiven, and then present himself as a sacrifice for those sins that had been forgiven, prior to his coming?

How could Yahweh come to Israel before her guilt had been paid for?

It does not hold. Israel’s guilt would have had to be dealt with prior to “a voice calling...”. 2 Isaiah tells us how this was to be accomplished;

Isa. 53 :10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering (mem shin

alef = asham = guilt offering) ...and the will of the Lord will

prosper in his hand.

:12c For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the

transgressors.

The first seven chapters of the book of Leviticus (Vayikra) deals extensively with the various forms of offerings and sacrifices that were to be established as part of Temple worship. The highest form is described in Leviticus 16 - the Day of Atonement (Yom Kipur). The Sin offering is presented as a restorative measure that deals with sin with regard to the Commands of God and the common sin among men (Lev 4 - 5:13).

In Lev 5:14-16, God prescribes a higher form of atonement – the Guilt offering (asham), which deals with sin against the Holy (Kadosh = set apart) things of God. The most distinctive features of this Guilt offering is that it requires a Ram from the flock without blemish and that it is the only offering of which the subject has to have a monetary value in silver, as measured against the sanctuary shekel.

Lev. 5: 15 “When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to

any of the holy (set apart) things of Yahweh he is to bring to Yahweh as a

penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of proper value in

silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a Guilt offering.”

The prophet Zechariah tells us of a good shepherd, who would be rejected, and who would be valued in terms of pieces of silver. It appears in Chapter 11, before the Day of the Lord, which is extensively dealt with in Chapters 12-14.

Zech.11 :12 I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

:13 And Adonai said to me, “Throw it to the potter” - the handsome

price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver

and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

Mathew then gives us the account of Judas and the thirty silver coins and the potter’s field;

Mat: 26 :14 Then one of the twelve - the one called Judas Iscariot - went to the

chief priests and asked,

:15 “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?”

So they counted out for him thirty silver coins.

Mat. 27 :3 When Judas, who betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned,

he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to

the chief priests and the elders.

:4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That is your responsibility”.

:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went

and hanged himself.

:7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potters field...

What appears from this narrative is that the chief priests, the custodians of the sanctuary shekel, valued the life of Jesus at thirty pieces of silver.

If Church commentary then makes the connection between the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, as Luke does in Acts 8:30 - 35, it has to take cognisance of the significance of the

Guilt Offering. It is not “our Pesach lamb”, as Paul says (1 Cor.5:7.). The Passover lamb is not a sin offering, but a sacrifice of deliverance. If it was a sin offering there would have been no

need for sin and guilt offering which were instituted later. Nor is it the final Yom Kipur offering, at the fatally wrong time, as the unknown writer of the letter to the Hebrews wants us to believe (Hebr.9:7,

11,12). Adonai is adamant that the Cohen Gadol may enter the Holiest only on one day of the year - the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev.16:2 and 23:26-32), which is not the fourteenth day of the first month

when Passover begins in the evening.

The fulfilment of Isaiah 40:1-3 requires what appears to be a Guilt Offering of magnitude to reconcile Adonai with His people, Israel, before “a voice…” could announce the advent of Adonai. A Guilt offering, therefore, before Yom Yahweh. Isa 53 is a profound and magnificent description of that Guilt Offering brought by a Suffering Messiah. In the first chapter of Revelation, Adonai introduces Himself as the One who was, and who is and who is to come (in the future “Day…”) (Rev 1:4,8 and also 4:8) - and Jesus - a separate persona - as the Lamb, who had previously come (Rev 1:5).

A past advent of a Suffering Messiah and a future advent of Adonai? Why the lack of continuity, also between Isa 40:2 and 40:3? They have been separated by... DELAY!

Indeed, they are separated by the Yom Yahweh - which is a double edged sword.

We can begin to see the sequence of divine events. “Asham” - the Guilt Offering - The Suffering Messiah, the Lamb of God….. BEFORE “the Day...”. Followed by Adonai and His Conquering Messiah …IN “the Day….”. This is exactly how Revelation has it – the Lamb BEFORE the preceding signs of “The Day…” Also, Zech. 11 – the Good Shepherd – BEFORE Zech chapters 12-14 (“the Day”), and Isa. 40:1,2 BEFORE 40:3. We can also see how this sequence of events has been inverted – presented back to front - in the New Testament, nl. Elijah and “the Day” BEFORE the “Lamb.” And Isa.4o:3 (Yahweh) BEFORE Isa. 40.1,2 (Suffering Messiah). See how the correct sequence – Suffering Messiah Followed by Yahweh - has been interrupted and separated by “delay”. We now find Yahweh, in a quasi Yom Yahweh, who becomes the Suffering Messiah (AFTER “the Day…”)– and then also becomes the Conquering Messiah in heaven.

We will see how, according to Daniel’s vision of 70 weeks of years, the Suffering Messiah will atone for Israel three and a half years before the advent of Adonai. There would be those 3 ½ years between Isa. 40:1,2 and 40:3. A 3 ½ year period which became “delayed” indefinitely.

Zech.3 :8 “I am going to bring My Servant, the Branch”.

Why would Adonai require a Guilt Offering of magnitude to reconcile Israel with Himself before His coming - a human “Asham”? This second part of Isaiah appears to have been written during the Babylonian captivity, possibly by a student or disciple of the great prophet himself, who had written the first part before the captivity and also parts of Kings and Chronicles. There are marked differences in style and emphasis, which students of Rhetorical Analysis can explain better. 2 Isaiah, for instance, speaks of deliverance from their present captivity through the Persian king Cyrus. He also speaks of deliverance from the sin that caused this captivity -

the need for “Asham”. A most unique aspect of this section of Isaiah is that Yahweh reveals Himself repeatedly as the Redeemer, the Saviour of Israel. It is a function exclusively allocated to Himself and not to His Messiah figures, as will be seen.

The prophet Jeremiah tells us why the people of Judah were in captivity. Chapter 15 tells the horror story of their destined rejection, suffering and subjection to their enemies - the result of their manifold sin. And at the very centre of the problem….;

Jer. 15 :4 “I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth

because of what Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, king of Judah,

did in Jerusalem”

What was so heinous about Manasseh that, even after the partial return after seventy years, the rebuilding of temple and the city, there still seems to remain the vestiges of the

curse of Manasseh upon them - two and a half millennia later? Is it not written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah? 2 Kings 21 tells the story, in all its sordid

details, of the abominations of Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, king of Judah - the still prevailing Curse of Manasseh.

2 Kings 21 :2 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable

practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

:3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he

also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king

of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and

worshipped them.

:4 He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had

said; “In Jerusalem I will put my Name”.

:5 In both courts of the temple of the Lord, he built alters to all the

starry hosts.

:6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and

divinations, and consulted mediums and spirits. He did much evil

in the eyes of the Lord, provoking Him to anger.

Please read carefully the remainder of these passages and discover the atrocities he committed, in which he led the nation. Also discover the absolute resolve of Adonai to deal decisively therewith.. even to the third and fourth generation. This is the Curse of Manasseh.

Despite the majestic efforts of King Josiah, the grandson of Manasseh, to overturn everything that Manasseh did, Adonai would not recant on His resolve to punish the descendants of the sinners. Please read carefully the greatness of King Josiah from 2 Kings 22 and 23.

2 Kings 23:25 Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who

turned to the Lord like he did - with all his heart and with all his

soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Torah of

Moses.

:26 Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn away from the heat of his fierce

anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh

had done to provoke Him.

And so the sins of the fathers followed the generations into Babylon and beyond. Not even the greatest devotion of observance and godliness of men could or can overturn the wrath of Adonai - can revoke the Curse of Manasseh. Yet, there will be a day in history - a Day of Yahweh - described by Jeremiah as “Jacob’s trouble... “in that day...” (Jer. 30:7,8), and what follows:

Jer. 31 :29 In those days people will no longer say

“The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

and the children’s teeth are set on edge”

:30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin...

The curse of Manasseh will be revoked, having been dealt with and…

:31 “…when I will make a New Covenant with the house of

Israel and with the house of Judah”.

We have visited the kings and prophets of Israel to seek out the root cause of their demise, to determine what manner of sin against the holy things of God could demand such a Guilt Offering Extraordinaire, that even the guilt offerings of King Josiah, Joshua (Zerubabel’s high priest) and Ezra could not deal with. At the same time as the author of 2 Isaiah revealed the need for such a guilt offering to reconcile Adonai with His people, another prophet in captivity - Daniel - received a visit from the Arch Angel Gabriel, who told him that:

Dan. 9 :24 “Seventy sevens (seventy weeks of years) are decreed for your

people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to

sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,

to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Holiest of Holies

(of the sanctuary)”

:25 “……until a Messiah (an anointed prince) comes will be….sixty

nine sevens….”

:26 After the sixty nine sevens (the seven plus the 62)

(therefore inside the 70^th) the Messiah will be cut off and

will have nothing. (The chapter on Daniel’s 70 will explain).

Gabriel is saying that the process of God’s plan for Israel - and the nations - will take four hundred and ninety years to evolve - if nothing intervenes. God’s predictions of time are always accurate. For example, He told Abraham that the Egyptian captivity would last four hundred years (Gen.15:13), and it did. He also said to Jeremiah that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years (Jer.25:11,12), and so it was. Unfortunately the Gentile Church has failed to recognise the delay and has appropriated fulfilment of the seventy “weeks” for herself - at the expense of Covenant Israel.

Our construction is therefore as follows:

Has the extraordinary guilt offering required of God’s Suffering Messiah of Isa 53, in order to facilitate the Isa 40:3 advent of Yahweh, indeed been brought by Jesus in the middle of Daniel’s 70^th week? If so, time had stopped there (through a critical miss-representation at that moment - which will be discussed) …delaying fulfilment indefinitely.

It would mean that mankind has lived in a time vacuum in the middle of the 70^th week these two thousand years, always a mere three and a half years (forty two months, or 1260 days) - a time, times and half a time - away from fulfilment - even today - should the delay be revoked. Israel’s atonement has been miss-represented and hidden from her. Mankind should fear greatly for those three and a half years will contain the most fear-some tribulation of all time - the terrible Day of the Lord - but also the birth of new life.

The context of fulfilment, therefore, of the advent of Yahweh in terms of Isa. 40:3, requires atonement for Israel’s guilt as a non-negotiable pre-condition, and not an afterthought, to be performed by Yahweh Himself after His Advent, as portrayed by the Gospels. This context disqualifies the assumption of Mark, and the other Gospel writers, of Yahweh having come. The absence of the Ark of the Covenant and, consequently, the absence of Yahweh, from the temple at the time of Yeshua is indicative of the incomplete relationship between Yahweh and His people. Hence the need for Asham, followed by “a voice calling…”

We can, however, see the objection of the Yeshiva and the Lubavither Rebbe to the noyion of a Human sacrifice. But is such an objection justified? The Tanakh has a fearful story of such an event. The reader should turn to the pages of 2 Sam. 21:1-14 and read the account of the Bloodguilt brought upon the land by the partial massacre of the Gibeonite community - former Amorites who became Proselytes in the days of Joshua who made a covenant with them. Yahweh revealed this to David as being the cause of the severe drought which ravaged the land. David then, in consultation with the Gibeonite elders, the Priests Abiatar and Zadok and the Prophets Gad and Nathan, agreed that seven of Saul's male descendants would have to pay the price of atoning for the Bloodguilt. Two of Saul's sons and five grandsons were duly executed by the Gibeonites and impaled on poles. until the rain came and the wrath of Yahweh left the land.

The final statement of Yahweh's restoration of Israel in Yom Yahweh, according to Joel, reads;

Joel 3:21 Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon. Yahweh dwells in Zion.

What "bloodguilt" would tht be? Is there a matter of bloodguilt in present day Israel which needs to be dealt with for the "Delay" to be revoked and the land to be healed from its continues threat? Had the human Asham - the Guilt offering - to deal with this matter not been brought at the time when the "delay" came about, yet not recognised due its misrepresentation?

Where could this bloodguilt have stemmed from? It could certainly have stemmed from the abomintions of King Ahaz. Or did it come from King David himself? In denying David the privilege of building the Temple, this is what Yahweh told him;

1 Chron. 22:8. The word of the Lord came to me; "You have shed much blood and fought numerous wars.

You may not build a house for My Name because youhave shed much blood in the land in My sight."

Blood...on the hands of David/ Blood which has to be dealt with before another son of David can build the Third Temple? Will this, as in the case of Saul, not be required of a male descendant of David himself - a Suffering Messiah? And has this not been done, yet made unrecognisable by the "Delay"? Will this not change in ... "the day..." when ...

Zech.12:10 "I will pour out the Spirit of supplication on the House of David (specifically the House of David),

.......... and those dwelling in Jerusalem and they ... they (the House of David) will mourne for HIM who was pierced ...

...:11. In "that day" the mourning will be great in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadad-Rimon in the plain of Megiddo (Armageddon).

...:12. And the land will mourne by its generations; the generation of the House of David seperately ... "

.13:1. In "that day" there will be an opened fountain for the House of David and for the inhabitants of

......... Jerusalem against sin and impurity. (Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon ...in "that day.")

Nevertheless, regardless its origen, a matter of Bloodguilt had to be dealt with ... and has been dealt with.

4.4 The naming of Mark’s subject

Shm’ah Yisrael, Adonai Elohim, Adonai Echad. (Deut. 6:4)

Shm’ah Yisrael, Adonai Elohim, Adonai Echad. (Mark 12:29)

Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Yahweh is quite forthright about His personal identity on “the Day…” of His coming. He is quite adamant that when the “voice calling in the desert” for the way of Yahweh to be straightened, that it is He who will come and no one else. Not a representative, or a surrogate or a prophet or a Messiah in His stead. Prophecy of His coming is quite specific, and distinct from that of the prophet and Messiahs. In Isaiah 42, Adonai separates Himself from His conquering Messiah, whom He introduces in Isa 42:1-7, after having come in...

Isa 40 :3-5: “And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed and all

mankind together will see it”

Isa. 42 :1 Here is My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one in whom I

delight; I will put My Spirit on him and he will bring justice to

the nations.

:4 He will not be crushed or be discouraged till he establishes justice

on earth. (Another, as we have seen, will be crushed for our -

Israel’s - iniquities)

:8 “I am Yahweh; that is My Name! I will not give My glory to

another or My praise to idols”.

Zech. 3 :8 “I (Yahweh), am going to bring My servant, the Branch”.

Adonai is quite clear that He and His servant are not the same person or of the same substance. Having the Holy Spirit doesn’t turn the servant (or us) into Yahweh.

Joel 2 :11b The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful.

Who can endure it?

:27 Then you will know that I am in Israel,

that I am Yahweh your Elohim, and that there is NO OTHER,

never again will My people be shamed.”

Zech 14:1 A day of the Lord is coming…

:9 Yahweh will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will

be ONE YAWEH AND HIS NAME THE ONLY NAME.

(Or; On that day YAHWEH will be ECHAD and His Name ECHAD)

Isa. 12 :1 In that Day you will say…

:6 “Shout aloud and sing for joy, people of Zion, for great is the Holy

One of Israel among you.”

In the face of such evidence, on what grounds can all the Gospel writers have an Elijah figure introduce Yahweh… and call Him by another name, have Him evolve into a suffering and conquering Messiah and more? Chapter 10; Yahweh - A Case of Multiple Mistaken Identity will look further into this problem.

We will see how that Yahweh is the Redeemer/Saviour of Israel. “Saviour” (Yeshuot) is one of Yahweh’s attributes. It is not His name. He has many other attributes eg.

Yahweh tzidkenu = Yahweh our righteousness;

Yahweh rafah (or ropheka) = Yahweh our healer;

Yahweh sibaoth = Yahweh of hosts

and then

Yahweh yeshuot = Yahweh our redeemer/saviour.

The Gospel writers have confusingly named Yahweh by one of His many attributes. He does not have many names. His Name is One - Echad. His Name is Yahweh. Baruch Ha’Shem = Blessed is the Name.

Strange how Luke miss-represents this “…glory of Yahweh will be revealed”, to read;

Luke 3:7 “And all mankind shall see God’s salvation (yeshuot)”…..which became Yeshua.

This miss-quote immediately changes the emphasis from Yahweh to Yeshua. Who, in Luke’s view, had then come?

4.5 The Corrective Denial of Revelation

It is the year 96 CE. It has been 25 years since the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The people who survived the siege and the purge are devastated and in diasporah. It is patently evident that Yahweh had not come to their aid. Nor had any Messiah come or returned then either. Nineteen hundred years later they would have to come to the same conclusion. Yet, at the time of Jerusalem’s demise, three scrolls began circulating; all claiming that Elijah had come and had introduced Yahweh. The significance was clear: Their final redemption had come.

Amazingly, fifteen years earlier, another writer, Paul - deemed to be associated with the three scrolls – had written to some people in Thessalonika, warning them not to believe a rumour suggesting that Yom Yahweh had come. He foresees other events to take place prior to the Day of the Lord - the appearance of a false God who would deny Torah (2.Thes.2:1-4). Paul doesn’t know John the Baptist, knows nothing about Elijah and is unaware that Yahweh had come, finally to redeem Israel. He clearly has a different identity for Jesus. In fact, this Paul would deem any god, introduced by a premature “day of the Lord” scenario... to be a false god.

Total confusion. How could the first Church - the Jewish Church - possibly survive this crisis of credibility?

And then, in this year of 96 CE, in the midst of this crisis - Adonai speaks a word of correction, to restore His intent, to inform His people that He had not yet come; is yet to come and that His coming... has been delayed. The Revelation.

Rev. 1 :4 Grace and peace to you from Him who was and who is and who is to come...

:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Yahweh Elohim, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty”

:10 I was in the Spirit on the Yom Yahweh... (when this coming would be)

Rev. 4 :8 “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh Holy, holy,holy

Adonai Elohim Tz’vaot is the Lord God Almighty,

Ha sher, haya ve hove, who was and who is

ve yavoh. and who is to come.

Rev. 16 :14 “…..to gather them for the battle on the great day of God

Almighty.

:15 “Behold, I (Adonai) come like a thief…”

:16 ...Armageddon.

Adonai says: I have not yet come.

Revelation is a book of restoration and reassurance. A confirmation of the original intent that became confused. Its main subject, “The Day…” is such a Jewish thing, with the interest of the Jewish people at its very soul. They were surely the most shattered, hurt, dislodged and confused people - including that first Jewish Church - of all, following the holocaust of 70 CE. Where then, among the letters to the seven Gentile communities, is the letter of comfort to the people of Israel - the very people of “The Day...”?

All prophecy pertaining to “the Day…” always conclude with the comforting message of restoration. Was it removed from the scripture… in the same way as Yeshua’s concluding statements in his Prophetic sermon were removed from, or not reported, in the Synoptic Gospels? Where are those statements in that sermon pertaining to the great day of redemption of Israel, following the appearance of the signs in the heavenly bodies? This great “omission” is corrected by Revelation in the seventh seal, with its seven shofars which culminate in the kingdom of Yahweh and His Messiah.

In reviewing the presentation of “the Day…” as found in the four Gospels, it appears that two opposing, incompatible scenarios, with two equally incompatible main characters, are constructed. Revelation does not know the first, supports the second and has a third.

1. The God/man Kerugmatic Christ of the Church - a Construct of the Gospel writers.

Let’s call him 1 Jesus.

2. The Prophet Messiah, who also appears to be the Suffering Messiah - the Lamb - by virtue of their identical prophetic positions, as will be seen - Mashiach Ben Yosef.

Let’s call him 2 Jesus.

3. Then there is the third - Mashiach Ben David - the Conquering Messiah.

Let’s call him 3 Jesus.

All three will be analysed in Chapter 6: Yahweh and the Three Messiah’s. Nevertheless, Church theology has endeavoured to join them into one, together with the Holy Spirit, creating an unrecognisable fourfold “Trinity”.

Why the writers of the Synoptic Gospels persisted with their Elijah /Yom Yahweh / Yahweh = Jesus construction, some forty to seventy years after the fact, when all of the required evidence failed to materialise, remains an enigma. There is no evidence whatsoever from Isa 40 and beyond that Yahweh, having come, would have to die, resurrect Himself and leave indefinitely - leaving Israel in complete disarray. Yet the “other” Jesus - 2 Jesus - foresaw the events of tribulation in his Prophetic Sermon, which are now history, and which do not agree with the expectation found in Isa. 40.. There must be a fundamental reason for the error and we must find it.

The most important conclusion that emerges from this construction is that, having failed to discern between Yahweh and His Messiah, the Gospel writers have a clear understanding that neither could come outside of Yom Yahweh. Hence their need for an Elijah figure. Conversely, however, the Yeshua of the Prophetic Sermon, who is also the Lamb who opens the Seals of Revelation, emphatically denies that Yom Yahweh, and consequently Elijah, Yahweh and the Davidic Messiah had come. We will scrutinize this Prophetic Sermon and the seals and find that 2 Jesus DENIES that he is the Son of Man Davidic Messiah, the latter will only appear following the preceding signs of Yom Yaweh in the heavens... in the future.

Finally, to make the association between the prophets and Revelation complete, let us compare and combine Ezekiel and Revelation;

Ezek. 39 :1 ...,o Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.

:2 I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far

north and send you against the mountains of Israel.

:4 On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and

the nations with you.

:8b THIS IS THE DAY I HAVE SPOKEN OF!

Rev. 16 :14. They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world to gather them for the battle

ON THE GREAT DAY OF GOD ALMIGHTY!

:16 ….THIS IS ARMAGEDDON!

This is the association between Prophet and Prophet.

Therefore; From Armageddon onwards in Revelation, everything in Ezekiel 39 through 48 should be read in, namely:

1. The great Alliyah - return (Ezek. 39:25. Also Matth. 24:31)

2. Full recovery of the land (Ezek. 39:28)

3. The Holy Spirit poured out on Israel (Ezek. 39:29. Also Joel 2:28; Isa.32:15, 59:21)

4. The new Sanctuary (Ezek. 40 - 42)

5. Yahweh comes to His Sanctuary (Ezek. 43:1-7)

6. The Davidic Prince in Israel, in the presence of Yahweh (Ezek. 44:3. Also Ps 110:1)

7. Gentile believers in God’s house of prayer for all nations (Ezek. 44:9. Also Isa.56:7;

Matth. 21:13)

8. Melchizedek Priesthood in the Prince (Ezek. 45:13 - 46:15. Also Ps.110:1; Zech.6:13)

9. Levitical Priesthood in the house of Zadok (Ezek. 44:15)

10. Reintroduction of the festivals (Ezek. 45:21-25)

11. Division of the land (Ezek. 48)

As well as

12. The New Covenant (Isa.59:21; Jer.31:31-33)

This is what Revelation’s Armageddon stands for... which we, the readers should have known.

Conclusion: The prophecies of Isa,40:3 and Mal.3:1a cannot be applied to the introduction of the Messiah. They introduce Yahweh who

in turn, introduces His Conquering Messiah in Isa.42 and Mal.3b.