The Witness

the witness

In pondering the witnesses which GOD has always preserved for Himself, in this Study we will specifically consider two; the witness of the word, the witness of the works. The witness of the works entailed those actions of GOD, often through HIS servants, which demonstrated supernatural or superhuman abilities. These were intended as proof positive that divine action was at work. First though, let us consider the witness of the word, the witness of the scriptures, indeed, the witness of the Bible itself.

As a layman, I had often wondered why the theories and opinions of modern day theologians and scholars concerning the origins of the scriptures had been so undefined and nondescript. But then I stumbled upon the reason. It's because there continues to be such a wide disagreement between these same commentators pertaining to this vital and most important subject. They not only don't agree among themselves, but their theories are continually changing and mutating.

Over the years, the Documentary Theory was put forth and then rejected, being replaced with the Fragmentary Hypothesis. This one was then superseded by the Supplementary Hypothesis which was then rejected for the Crystallization Hypothesis. As such, there is still no uniform and defined and accepted theory.

Someone will throw out one conjecture and a few scholars will embrace it for a time, but then it will be challenged and they will flee that theory and adopt the next one. Hardly any of them agree with one another, and some disagree most violently with the rest. And then when one of their suppositions is met with difficulty or impassable road blocks, someone just invents another theory to supersede the previous ones, and then they all just continue along on their merry way.

Nevertheless, there is one theory which many of them do seem to gravitate towards. The basic idea which most of these critics cling to and fully endorse is that the writers of the Bible were some unknowns who got most of their tales and legends from others of a later age. They can't seem to agree on who wrote the Bible, but they do certainly declare with one voice who didn't write it.

We discover the development of this doctrine, labeled Biblical Criticism, by one of their own proponents, E. A. Speiser, in his Commentary on Genesis. We pick up his argument in the introduction on page XX.

It required, however, the penetrating probing of Spinoza (seventeenth century) to launch "higher" biblical criticism- that is, internal analysis as opposed to textual or "lower" criticism- on a truly productive course. Steady subsequent progress left little doubt that instead of being the work of Moses in its entirety, the Pentateuch was actually the product of a number of writers. In time, the critics were able to draw a sharp line between Deuteronomy (D), on the one hand, and the four preceding books- or the Tetrateuch- on the other. Within the Tetrateuch, a cleavage soon became apparent between the so-called Priestly source (P) and the outright narrative material; and the narratives, in turn, eventually yielded two main strands which came to be designated as J (Yahwist) and E (Elohist).

So initially they sliced off DEUTERONOMY from GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS and NUMBERS. But that was not good enough. That did not satisfy their craving. Eventually they found it necessary to divide the rest up into sections, often according to which name for the Deity was used, Yahweh or Elohim.

Thus, according to these skeptics, if certain sections of Pentateuch contained the word Yahweh for GOD then these critics labeled those passages as the "J" writings. But when they found passages which used the word Elohim for GOD, then they supposed that they had discovered a different writer whom they labeled "E". Then, when they couldn't decide or agree to which of these writers a certain passage belonged, they invented another writer, or school of writers, whom they labeled "P" representing some unknown priests.

The passage which apparently began their work was DEUTERONOMY 31:9, "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel". Of course Moses probably would not have written such a passage about himself, so these critics posited the theory that if Moses didn't actually write this passage, then maybe he didn't write much of the rest which has been attributed to him. They then began the arduous and evolving task of dismantling the rest of scripture.

Over time what they erected was a multitude of theories whereby they supposed that some portions were written by any number of authors while other portions were written by certain schools of writers. They attached letters to represent each section, such as D for Deuteronomy, P for priestly, J for Yahwist, E for Elohist, R for redactors and T for traditionist. They had to continue adding and adjusting their theories when general consensus took issue with what had previously been accepted. As Speiser wrote,

The critics of the nineteenth century may have felt that they had all the answers that really mattered. But fresh discoveries and more refined tools of analysis have made twentieth-century students at once more sophisticated and less sanguine. . . . . The thing to bear in mind, however, is that, where so many unknowns are involved, a reasonable margin of error must be allowed. [page XXI]

Mr. Speiser made excuse for the bogus theories created by those nineteenth critics by declaring that errors were to be expected. Thus, he named the twentieth-century scholar's opinions as fresh discoveries, using refined tools, being more sophisticated and less sanguine. They had of course come to expect errors in some of the theories concerning who wrote what sections of scripture because their theories were dealing with what they supposed to be so many unknown writers over such a long span of time.

Mr. Speiser continued.

A significant milestone in the literary criticism of Genesis was the observation published in 1753 by the French physician Jean Astruc that, when referring to the Deity, some narratives in this book use the personal name Yahweh ("Jehovah"), while other and apparently parallel accounts employ Elohim, the generic Hebrew term for "diving beings." It would thus seem to follow, Astruc argued, that Genesis was made up of two originally independent sources. [page XXII]

Because some sections even of GENESIS used the word Yahweh for GOD while others sections used the word Elohim, Dr. Astruc then came to the conclusion that they must be dealing with two different writers. Certainly this is possible and should be considered, but not for very long, especially when we learn that no where does scripture ever proclaim that Moses or any other single individual originally wrote this first book. The Bible clearly teaches that Moses wrote other books of the Pentateuch, but nothing is said of him actually writing GENESIS.

Church tradition has long supposed that Moses sat down one day with a blank piece of paper and GOD told him exactly what to write concerning the genesis of mankind and the history of Israel. It was generally thought that GOD revealed to him how around 4000 B.C. the earth was formed and then in what manner mankind came to exist. But the Bible says nothing of the sort. It is never stated anywhere that Moses originally wrote this most ancient book.

So, if Moses did not write GENESIS, who did? And was GENESIS written at the time of the events depicted in the book, as we believe, or was it written long after the times of the Patriarchs, as most scholars have come to proclaim? And further, does GENESIS record and convey the truth regarding the lives of those individuals, or were all the stories made up centuries later? These are the questions which must be satisfactorily answered.

We will attempt in this Study to demonstrate that there is abundant evidence that although Moses couldn't have initially written GENESIS, he did assemble and edit the original writings which had been given to him. He may very well have been given these tablets by his father-in-law Jethro, either when he first fled from Egypt around 1531 B.C. (EXODUS 2), or more likely when he later led Israel out after their captivity around 1447 B.C. (EXODUS 18). In that case, Moses could have been guided in this editing process by Jethro, who as a priest himself would likely be knowledgable of many of these lost locales.

We shall explore how there were ten ancient tablets, from Adam to Jacob, which were passed down from generation to generation, which preserved the histories of those ancient peoples. Thus, we will see that there is no good reason for suspecting that the book itself was a forgery, written many centuries after the last of the Patriarchs had passed away, but rather it recored and preserved a true history and is therefore a trustworthy witness for GOD.

Even Speiser had to admit that the critic's conflicting and changing theories were full of speculation, which needed continuing evaluation. It wasn't as if they had hit upon a final equation and now all of their perplexities had been solved. Rather, the closer their theories were examined, the more doubtful many of them became.

The question of P's date is difficult to solve for several reasons. Numerous sections, especially in the other books of the Tetrateuch, have long been relegated by the critics to a relatively late age, after the Babylonian Exile in many instances. Of late, however, there has been a growing sentiment- backed by a substantial amount of internal evidence- in favor of dating various portions of P to pre-Exilic times, and in some cases to the premonarchic period. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. A careful new look at the P material in Genesis is therefore definitely in order. [page XXV to XXVI]

So rather than thinking that all had been settled and that these scholars were ever in agreement, there has actually been much disagreement. Initially they supposed that most all of the Pentateuch must have been written after the Babylonian exile (538 B.C.); but then others came to suspect that maybe portions could have been written much earlier, perhaps even before the monarchies of Saul (1000 B.C.) and David (990 B.C.).

Let us consider a further analysis by Mr Speiser of this so-called Higher Criticism. Here he was attempting to match and align the supposed age of the writings of GENESIS with that of the Assyrian and Babylonian Dynasties, suggesting that the unknown writers of GENESIS might then have gotten much of their information from ancient Mesopotamia.

Although there is as yet no firm basis for dating the patriarchal period- which must technically be put down as prehistoric until a direct synchronism with the outside world can be established- conservative estimates would anchor that age in the second quarter of the second millennium B.C. (approximately the eighteenth-sixteenth centuries). In terms of equally conservative Mesopotamian chronology, such a span would take in much of the Old Babylonian Dynasty, from Hammurabi down. Now the reign of Hammurabi dovetails with that of another outstanding monarch, Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria, and it parallels an illustrious stage at Mari. (from pages XLIII to XLIV)

Thinking that most of GENESIS was not written till more than a millennium after the ages of which it depicted, and supposing that its writings then might have coincided with the writings of the scribes of Hammurabi (2,000 B.C.) from ancient Babylon, or perhaps to the times of this Shamshi-Adad of Assyria, they presume that unknown individuals took the tales and legends of these ancient pagans and then re-worked and re-fabricated much of the records into the book of GENESIS.

Because both GENESIS and other ancient writings sometimes recorded similar events (i.e., the Garden in Eden, the Tower of Babel and the Flood of Noah), they supposed that one copied from the other, which may very well be the case. But did the writers of GENESIS copy from Hammurabi's scribes, or did the writers in ancient Babylon copy from GENESIS? That is the great question of which we must search for an answered. Modern critics unfortunately suppose and affirm that it was GENESIS which contained the plagiarized material.

Today, many if not all of the modern critics have come to assume that GENESIS was written sometime after the Old Babylonian Dynasty, around 1830 B.C. The reasons for this are pretty straightforward. First, because certain passages in GENESIS clearly described places and events which came along after the times depicted in the Book, they then assume that some unknown writers must have assembled the entire book using later sources, many centuries after the fact.

Howbeit, if the first book of the Bible was instead originally written as separate ancient tablets, which Moses (1571-1451 B.C.) then took and edited and assembled into one unit, then that would fully explain why certain passages alluded to things which were not then known to the Patriarchs. Moses, or some other hand had on occasion added these clarifications to the original tablets.

That GENESIS could not have been originally authored by Moses, or some other unknown writer centuries after the fact, is intimated in many passages. One such is this one concerning the location of the border of Canaan.

GENESIS 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Obviously, even by the time of Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah no longer existed. In fact, these cities had been so obliterated that no one knew even where they had ever been. So why would someone many centuries later endeavor to pinpoint the location of this particular border by using these lost cities as reference points? Of course the logical answer is that they would not have; howbeit, a contemporary of Noah and his sons very well would have. They no doubt had known exactly where these two cities were and could define the border of the Canaanites as being in that vicinity.

Thus, when Moses surveyed these ancient tablets and came across a passage which described some place or thing which was no longer widely known by that antiquated name, he might then have had occasion to add an updated description.

An early example of this is from the second tablet where the four rivers streaming out of the Garden of Eden were described. (the red colored sections are probably that which Moses added for clarification)

GENESIS 2:10-14 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

In Moses' day the location of the first three rivers were no doubt little known, so Moses apparently thought to expand upon their location. Howbeit, the great river Euphrates being well recognized, there would have been no reason for him to note its location.

Thus, when Moses was editing these tablets, evidently recognizing that many of these ancient locales were no longer widely known, he inserted comments to help the wandering Jews recognize their actual location when they entered the Promised Land. There are many more examples of this in GENESIS ( see 14:6-7; 16:14; 23:2, 17, 19; 24:62; 25:6; 26:33; 28:19; 35:6; 36:8; 48:7; 50:11).

Then at other times, the origins of peculiar customs and manners might no longer be understood, so Moses elaborated upon them also. Here are a few examples.

GENESIS 32:32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank.
GENESIS 35:20 And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day.
GENESIS 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
GENESIS 47:22 Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.

And finally, there were circumstances, then evidently lost to time, which Moses might have thought important for his fellow countrymen to understand.

GENESIS 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
GENESIS 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
GENESIS 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

Another aspect of the error in dating GENESIS, which many of these scholars have made, was assuming that GENESIS could not have been written as early as the events which it depicted, thinking that writing had not yet been invented.

Some had therefore suggested that perhaps the GENESIS stories were passed down by oral tradition and then finally merged with the writings of Hammurabi's scribes. Howbeit, archeologist have now unearthed a multitude of written artifacts dating at least as far back as 3200 B.C., long before Hammurabi (1704-1662 B.C.) and Moses (1571-1451 B.C.), or Abraham (1996-1821 B.C.) or even Noah (2948-1998 B.C.). Indeed, these shards now reach back to the time of Adam himself (4000-3074 B.C.).

Nevertheless, we are clearly told that these records in GENESIS were written, not spoken. They claimed to be from written records and not oral traditions.

GENESIS 5:1 This is the book [seper] of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.

This Hebrew word seper, which is rendered book in the KJV, actually means written narrative or finished writing. They wrote upon clay tablets, for there were no books as we today know them. Rather, their writings were grouped in stacks of hard, well preserved sun baked clay tablets. Some of these ancient tablets survive even unto the present time, thousands of years after they were first etched into the soft clay.

Howbeit, ignoring these archeological finds, the critics have theorized that many of the Biblical events were taken and reworked from pagan fables. Stories like the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood were similar to those unearthed in ancient Babylon, so they assumed that later writers incorporated these into GENESIS.

But isn't it just as likely that the original history of the Patriarchs were copied and re-used in the later histories of other peoples? Isn't it just as possible that the pagan world learned of these events as recorded in GENESIS, and then took them up into their own histories? Of course it is. Just because archaeologist have unearthed more ancient artifacts from the metropolises of Mesopotamia and Assyria rather than from the land of the Patriarchs, doesn't mean that the history of ancient Babylon predated that of GENESIS.

We should remember that for the most part the Patriarchs were pilgrims and sojourners, wandering and traveling from place to place with no permanent cities in which to bestow and preserve their historical writings. They were nomadic shepherds and herdsmen, who generally lived in tents.

Another difficulty with the theories of this Higher Criticism arises when we consider the monotheistic beliefs of the Patriarchs. If the writers of GENESIS got their information from the Old Babylonian Dynasty, then how are we to account for the Patriarch's belief in one GOD? Why and when then did Israel reject the universally accepted polytheism for this new and novel idea of there being one Almighty Creator?

This is a real problem for modern day scholars to overcome; trying to figure out how Moses (or whoever else they might have thought wrote GENESIS) arrived at the one-god idea from a pagan world, which worshipped many gods. If these writers copied from Mesopotamian histories, which always imagined many gods ruling and fighting over the earth, then when and how did they decide that GOD was only one single all powerful deity? Moses summed this up in his warnings to Israel if they forsook their covenant with Yahweh.

DEUTERONOMY 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

But if the record in GENESIS depicted a true witness of the events, and Moses got his enlightenment from these original historical tablets, then all is made clear. To Adam and his progeny, Yahweh was worshipped as a single Deity. While the surrounding civilizations accepted many gods, the Patriarchs continually held to the belief in one all powerful Creator. Mr. Speiser admits this problem with their theories and attempts to address this difficult issue.

Since the Mesopotamian system was vulnerable chiefly because of its own type of polytheism, a possible remedy that an inquiring mind might hit upon would lie in monotheism. But to conceive of such an ideal initially, without any precedent in the experience of mankind, called for greater resources than those of logic alone. It meant a resolute rejection of common and long-cherished beliefs, a determined challenge to the powers that were believed to dominate every aspect of nature, and the substitution of a single supreme being for that hostile coalition. The new belief, in short, would call for unparalleled inspiration and conviction. Without that kind of call, Abraham could not have become the father of the biblical process. [from page XLVIII)

Mr. Speiser wrote that an inquiring mind might have hit upon this radical belief, but also recognized that arriving at that belief would require greater resources than logic alone. Indeed. Thus, it is clearly irresponsible for us to unquestionably accept the theories and assumptions of these higher critics without serious misgivings. There are just too many insurmountable difficulties to be ironed out, and too much which they have evidently not even considered.

ye would not

The point has often been set forth in these Studies that GOD would not leave Himself without witness. There was no reason or purpose for Yeshua's life and ministry, nor for Him being betrayed and crucified and resurrected, if there was not going to be an accurate record left of those events. Why would Almighty GOD go to all the trouble to arrange and engineer all of these incidents only to then allow the true record of these happenings to be lost to time?

Surely, if these things did indeed occur, then we must acknowledge that GOD would protect and preserve a true history of those events. Surely Almighty GOD would somehow and in some fashion be able to guard the accurate truth of what happened. If not, why does it even matter if there ever was a Yeshua, or a collection of scripture? Why then even bother with reading the gospels, or epistles? Are they then good for nothing more than a few good sermons on moral living? Are they profitable for little else?

It follows then, that each of us are saddled with a responsibility concerning the Bible. We either throw out all of these ancient writings as false and untrue, as invented and untrustworthy, as fables and legends, or else we admit that any so called discrepancies must then lie in our own understanding and not in the integrity of the Word. Perhaps it is we who have erred and not the scriptures. Perhaps it is the scholars and theologians who have lost their way.

Do we trust what men of renown speculate about the scriptures, or do we trust what Yeshua and the other Biblical characters believed about those ancient writings?

LUKE 16:31 And he [Yeshua] said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The only way for the critics to ignore the clear endorsement which Yeshua made of the Mosaic writings, is to question the authenticity of the gospels themselves; and that is what the skeptics have done. These scholars doubt that Yeshua even said such a thing. That gets rid of their problem. They don't have to try to explain why Yeshua believed what they don't, if they can cast doubt upon the records of the evangelists (see the Study, The Source and Sequence of the Gospels).

The choice for us is pretty straightforward. Are we willing to disregard the writings and testimonies of the Bible, or are we to be seduced away from the truth. Do we believe that Moses and the prophets wrote, or do we believe that they didn't write? Is there something in scripture which GOD has for us to hear, or is there not?

HEBREWS 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . .

Did GOD so speak in times past unto the fathers through the prophets? And did HE then speak unto the apostles through HIS Son? Did Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Peter, James and Paul write words of truth from GOD, or not? Modern criticism confidently says No! They believe and affirm that both the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and the Christian scriptures (the New Testament) were written long after the events which they depicted, by some unknowns.

First they have to get rid of GENESIS and the writings of Moses by declaring that they were written by those of a later age. But as Yeshua quoted those writings, now they have to get rid of His words too, so they proclaim that the gospels themselves were not even written by those to whom they have been attributed. Howbeit, as Almighty GOD would surely preserve an accurate record of the events surrounding the life and ministry and death and resurrection of His Son, then they must get rid of GOD himself, which the evolutionists have well done (see the Study, Consider the Lilies). Now you bundle up the whole mess in a neat little package called Higher Criticism.

Howbeit, for those of us who dwell in a different world than the pagan scholars, the evidence is overwhelming. We can't imagine Almighty GOD, the creator of the whole Universe, not being able to preserve and protect a record of HIS deeds. It is thus a perilous pentacle upon which the skeptics have perched themselves. Scripture gives us a different perspective.

1 JOHN 5:9-11 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

If we come to decide that the record cannot be trusted, then what are we left with? What have we then? We have just what many suppose, a bunch of wearisome contradictions. Just another old and outdated book among the many collections of the ages. But on the other hand, if the testimony of scripture can be trusted, then what we possess is the key to unlocking the purpose of the ages. Indeed, we then have opened to us the purpose of our own existence!

The great witness borne to in this Study is both of the words and works of GOD. We shall see that we have the words of the Patriarchs, and Moses, the Prophets, of Yeshua and His apostles. But we shall also see that we have their works. We have the works of Yeshua which account for the loyalty and commitment of His followers. Then we have the works of His followers which also account for the spreading flame of the first century Church.

How can one explain the world-wide success of the Gospel's message, when Yeshua never traveled more that a hundred miles from His home. We have no evidence that His ministry endured for more than three or four years, and then His life was snuffed out. And his original rag tag group of followers were not some elite academics or renown men of influence, who ruled over and controlled the halls of power, but rather were for the most part poor and unlearned and unlettered fishermen. Yet somehow their message has endured, even prevailed for over two millennium.

Nor were these first Christians always welcomed with open arms by their fellow Jews, but instead they were often rejected and persecuted and chased from their homes and communities. How then did they amass such an astounding following? How then did their writings not end up in the ash heap of history?

These are facts which are rarely recognized by the skeptics and agnostics. As such, this is a reality which the scholars and critics seem little interested in discussing. But this is the real lay of the land, so to speak. If the Bible does not reflect the true history of GOD's workings among men, then we need and should expect decisive answers and explanations to these inquiries. But generally what we hear is silence. That or else ridiculous and absurd endeavors to explain away what for us cannot be explained away.

Let us now turn to the works of GOD. It is perplexing to us why so many don't seem to consider and ponder the works of the Creator. Why don't they see the world which we see? Why do the skeptics not recognize the reality which lies plainly before them? Perhaps an answer to this quandary lies in Yeshua's own words, where He explained why the unbelievers and agnostics didn't recognize all which GOD was bringing to pass in their age.

JOHN 10:25-28 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

They believed not because they couldn't believe. Their was a veil over their eyes blocking out the true light. Their minds were closed to the true reality of all that was occurring around them. Their prejudice refused to allow them to see what was in plain sight. The purpose of the ages was completely hid from their view. They were blind and unknowing. They had closed off their hearts to the working of the Holy Spirit.

The Prince of Peace, the giver of life was walking among them and what did they do? They sought His destruction. These were the men of letters. These were the religious and political leaders of that age. These were the scholars which knew the ancient languages of their religion. Indeed, they knew the scriptures better than most.

Nevertheless they thus blinded? Blinded evidently because they were not of His flock. They had not been called and chosen. They had not been enlightened. All of the great events of their age was speeding past them with them being totally oblivious. They were to miss out on the purpose of the ages, the great Resurrection, and the setting up of GOD's new kingdom in heaven.

They were like their ancestors of old, who refused to see because their hearts had become hard to the workings of the spirit. They refused to hear HIS voice any longer.

HEBREWS 3:7-11 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith,
- To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) [PSALM 95:7b-11]

GOD had performed many outstanding works, not only so as to get Pharaoh to release Israel from bondage, but also to guide them through the wilderness in which they now wandered. Yet many of them still refused to believe and acknowledge HIM and recognize HIS guiding presence. As such, they hardened their hearts and insisted on going their own way. Therefore, GOD let them go. They insisted in finding their own way, so they died in the wilderness and never found that Promised Land which had once been theirs for the taking.

So it is with many today. Not believing the witness of scripture, they invent their own way. Not believing the records which have been preserved for us, not accepting the witness which GOD has provided, they turn away and go their own way. They have been persuaded that these records cannot possibly be true so they create another reality.

Our first chore today is to believe that GOD is, "for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (HEBREWS 11:6). Once we have awakened to that reality, then all the rest is only a matter of a faithful and diligent search, a relentless knocking upon the door of truth. GOD is then able to lead us with one experience after another to guide us unto and into HIS word.

The evidence that Yeshua was who He said He was is the works which He accomplished. Without that, without accepting that Almighty GOD was with Yeshua in performing all of these wonderful works, we will have little inclination to approach His words, let alone discipline and devote ourselves to a lifelong quest for truth.

JOHN 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Nicodemus recognized that GOD was at work in Yeshua's ministry. So did Joseph of Aramatheia, but the vast majority of the religious leaders simply closed their eyes to this reality. This was indeed their unforgivable sin because they refused to consider, they refused to ponder the fact that GOD was involved in this ministry. Indeed, the works themselves, the works which Yeshua accomplished, which were plain for all to see, these works geared testimony that GOD had sent Him (JOHN 5:36; 10:37-38; 14:11).

Yeshua clearly stated that the works which He was performing, in themselves, separated the goats from the sheep. These works divided the believers from the unbelievers, the faithful from the unfaithful.

JOHN 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

His disciples themselves also witnessed to this fact, that Yeshua's works demonstrated that GOD had approved of Him.

ACTS 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

But the primary purpose of these mighty signs and wonders was not to heal and cure and free the oppressed, but rather they were for the purpose of proving that He was who He said He was.

ACTS 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.

Howbeit, if we find ourselves among those agnostics, those scorners who turn a blind eye to the acts of those men of GOD, we can't help but find ourselves also imprisoned and enslaved to our sin.

HEBREWS 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

HEBREWS 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

LUKE 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

JOHN 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

JOHN 5:39-47 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [Seems imperative, "Ye search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life", CNT] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

ACTS 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

ACTS 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

1CORINTHIANS 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

The Holy Spirit

HEBREWS 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

False witnesses

1 CORINTHIANS 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

REVELATION 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of [bourn to, VCD pg 440] Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. [12:17 & 19:10]

active- #3144
passive- #3140
#4901, 1263