The local Reformed council has a bi-monthly 'newspaper', and I've been asked if I could provide an article for this. I've written hundreds of little article and papers, but for my own amusement- never for publication. After much thought and prayer, I've narrowed it down to two- a paper I wrote called 'His Master's Voice' and another that I wrote almost ten years ago called "The Father of Dispensationalism". Together they are somewhat long, but if anyone would care to read them and critique which, if either, might be suitable as a general article (I was not given a topic) for a dozen local Reformed Churches.
His Masters Voice
And the Lord said, I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. -Exodus 3:7-8
My parents own a large collection of turn of the 20th century records, as well as a working record player from the same period. As a kid, I would often wind this thing up, grab some fox trot or other oddity, and play these records on the player. This relic from the Teddy Roosevelt administration would fascinate me for hours: no wires, no speakers, just a needle stuck into a fancy tube.
Many of the records were of the RCA label. Their old logo showed a small dog listening to a classic Victorian phonograph with much intent. Below this picture was a caption that read, His Masters Voice. The thrust of this logo was to suggest that their recordings were so lifelike that even a dog could not tell that the voice was recorded. Now I can tell you that this was pure false advertising- those recordings were anything but clear. All of them were muffled, scratchy-sounding and had the tone of a speak-and-spell going berserk in a metal garbage can. But it was the height of technology in pre-WWI household science.
Another thing about this player is that it was not very loud. The volume control was accomplished by either opening or closing doors in the case, which was itself the sound tube. Without any amplification, you had to have a quiet room in order to hear much of anything, and thus I was usually alone when I used the thing. I was careful with it, and my folks didnt mind me using it, which, in retrospect, still baffles me. Some of these records were original cuts of John P. Sousa and Scott Joplin, and a ten-year-old unsupervised with them was a heck of a risk.
Even when I was a child, this audio system was a relic of an age long past. Now, when you compare this old player to a MP3 or a CD, it makes the comparison almost ridiculous- Abacus VS Compaq. Yet one is the ancestor of the other. Can you imagine the original owner of that old record player who bought it new being handed a modern home theatre and sound system? How astounded would he be to see what it, the player he thoroughly enjoyed in his own time, would ultimately become? All of the obstructions to the clear communication of music will be gone in the age to come, and he will understand that the shadow of fidelity he hears will eventually become the reality of modern digital media.
When I recently read this particular passage in Exodus, it reminded me of that old player, and how I used it way back then. I really liked that old Brunswick (yeah, it wasnt an RCA.) and I know it clearly in my mind. I can see the oval logo on the top of the case, the needle trays in the corner, the speed control and the slide brake, the green felt clinging tightly to the heavy turntable. If you showed me a hundred of the same model, I could pick it out in an instant- I know where all the wear marks and scratches in the case leather are.
But I was still a kid. I knew that particular machine, but I didnt know its real value (especially some of those records I mentioned). For me, it was a very special toy that was very fragile, but it was still a toy in my mind. It wasnt until years later that I came to appreciate the cultural and historical significance of this collection. I was very close- even intimate with this old player, and even some of the records (Where the Bamboo Babies Grow was one of my favorites-a fox trot from around 1914) I still recall very fondly.
Its in this context that the passage in Exodus chimes a chord in my heart. The scene is this- its some four centuries since the death of Joseph, and there are scads of Israelites living in Egypt- and the current Dynasty is out of favor with them. Israel is enslaved and abused in Egypt. Now this is long before the whole Sinai business- the word of God is in oral form, as passed through the patriarchs. Furthermore, they live in Egypt, who has a polytheistic central government. This government, like other empires to follow, requires state worship. Thus, the Hebrews are persecuted even in their slavery- The state is a god, Pharaoh is the son of Ra, and is thus, in part, divine in Egyptian doctrine; and an enemy to the true living God and His Church.
I think it would be safe to conclude that Israel at this time did not have a well-defined and documented theology. They had the Abrahamic covenant through the personal teachings of the patriarchs, but thats it. And if any of this was written down prior to the work of Moses, nothing is known of it nor mentioned in Scripture. The worship of the Lord in Israel while in Egypt was like listening to that player- it produced sound, but it was not very high quality. Likewise the people of God cried out to the Lord in prayer, and God heard them. Probably not prayers that fit well into modern orthodoxy, but the bare essentials were there- knowing their helplessness, and calling upon the Lord for salvation.
Now is it safe to say that the crying out of the Hebrews in this passage was an act of prayer? The term used in the text, הקעצ (tsaaqah) is derived from the Hebrew קעצ (tsaaq) which means to cry out or proclaim, as if in horror or misery. The usage here is showing a commonality of prayers- the whole congregation, in their private and corporate prayers, were speaking of the same horrors of their oppression and seeking Gods deliverance. In Psalm 9:12, which is a prayer of thanksgiving, the same word is used to promote the same concept- when Gods people are oppressed and cry out to the Lord, said prayers will be answered and the Lord will remember their plight and rescue them. The Lord commanded Israel not to oppress the orphan or widow, lest they cry out to Him in their oppression (Exodus 22:23).
Two things that stand out here: first that crying out is done verbally toward the Lord and secondly, we tend to do that when were under great stress. Now we need to take a moment to focus on speaking. A transliteration of tsaaqah would be to shriek- and its hard to do that quiet-like. In the examples given above, all of the uses of tsaaqah involved vocal communication. This context is demonstrated all over the Old Testament. In Matthew 26:39, Christ, in the darkest hour of His soul, prayed saying as opposed to prayed in His heart. Not that its inherently poor form to pray in your heart- indeed, there are times when its very appropriate. But when we are private, one-on-one with the Lord in our prayer closet and struggling in our hearts, the examples of scripture show private prayers being spoken. And, just like the RCA dog with the Victrola, even poorly spoken prayers get heard by our Lord.
Admittedly, the idea of actually talking when we pray privately rubs against the fur of American culture. When does the media show talking to ones self as being an edifying thing? Its instant ridicule and questioning of sanity in modern US culture to talk to yourself privately- so far removed is this nation from its prayerful roots. Bear in mind that as recently as the 1850s, being someone who didnt do this in America was reason to be under suspicion. It is unfortunate that our land today is so hostile towards intimacy (especially with God, for speaking to God is of the most precious intimacy) that being a man or woman of prayer is considered highly odd- even among many professing Christians. Indeed, our culture portrays intimacy as either sexual or a weakness- and thus cheapened or of little value.
A quick sidebar. Meditating on God and/or His word is not the same as praying to God. Yes, we should meditate on Gods word, and I often find myself praying to Him as a result of meditations. But they are not the same- prayer is an act of communication, while meditation is an act of reflection.
Anywho, the common thread of crying out to the Lord when in the midst of struggle are pretty standard fare in the Pentateuch and Psalms, and demonstrated all over place. And the folks in Egypt would have known this principle, for Abraham had gone through the process himself, both with Isaac and Lot. In Genesis 15, Abraham cries out in his distress over having no heir, and again in chapter 18, the Lord uses tsaaqah again to describe the sins of Sodom, and Abraham pleads mercy for Lots sake. Abraham knew who to cry to when in trouble, and even four centuries and cubic tons of Egyptian cultic influence later, His people still clung to that promise and cried out to our Father in heaven.
Here we are, on the flip side of the cross. Could you imagine giving one of those Egyptian Hebrews a modern bible (in Hebrew, of course)? How about bringing him to a Sunday service? Look how far removed we are from them and yet the common thread of special grace- the blood of the Lamb- binds us inexorably together. What they did in primitive, scratchy, speak-and-spell-in-the-garbage-can methods were cherished by God- for our loving Savior heard them and delivered them as He has also cherished and delivered us. We know that Christ intercedes for us, perfects our prayers, and grows us in His grace by His Spirit through the means of grace He has given us, which include prayer. We can point to the scripture and to the reality of the Holy Spirit in our hearts as proof of these things. Did the Hebrews of Pharaohs time have that kind of theological digital media?
They are us- a persecuted people who loved the Lord, and cried out to Him in times of trouble. As absurd as their actual spiritual lifestyle might have seemed compared to our own, what Abraham left His people was nothing less than the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, who is Christ Jesus. That when our hearts despair, we have a God in heaven, Creator of all things: holy, righteous, good and just, who will hear us when we cry out to Him. He will answer the prayers of the righteous who trust in Him. That is the extent of the Gospel they knew- And the Lord still knows the hair count on all of them. He answered their prayer for Christs sake, just as he answers ours in like manner.
Thus I am glad that I cherish that old Brunswick. It reminds me of the core simplicity of our faith- that no matter how hi-fi we get; good old-fashioned talking to God in prayer will always be a core essential to Christian daily life. The Lord moves us through prayer, and so we, as did our brethren of old, cry out to the Lord- and listen for our Masters voice.
The other possible article is located in the post directly beneath this one.
Theognome
His Masters Voice
And the Lord said, I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. -Exodus 3:7-8
My parents own a large collection of turn of the 20th century records, as well as a working record player from the same period. As a kid, I would often wind this thing up, grab some fox trot or other oddity, and play these records on the player. This relic from the Teddy Roosevelt administration would fascinate me for hours: no wires, no speakers, just a needle stuck into a fancy tube.
Many of the records were of the RCA label. Their old logo showed a small dog listening to a classic Victorian phonograph with much intent. Below this picture was a caption that read, His Masters Voice. The thrust of this logo was to suggest that their recordings were so lifelike that even a dog could not tell that the voice was recorded. Now I can tell you that this was pure false advertising- those recordings were anything but clear. All of them were muffled, scratchy-sounding and had the tone of a speak-and-spell going berserk in a metal garbage can. But it was the height of technology in pre-WWI household science.
Another thing about this player is that it was not very loud. The volume control was accomplished by either opening or closing doors in the case, which was itself the sound tube. Without any amplification, you had to have a quiet room in order to hear much of anything, and thus I was usually alone when I used the thing. I was careful with it, and my folks didnt mind me using it, which, in retrospect, still baffles me. Some of these records were original cuts of John P. Sousa and Scott Joplin, and a ten-year-old unsupervised with them was a heck of a risk.
Even when I was a child, this audio system was a relic of an age long past. Now, when you compare this old player to a MP3 or a CD, it makes the comparison almost ridiculous- Abacus VS Compaq. Yet one is the ancestor of the other. Can you imagine the original owner of that old record player who bought it new being handed a modern home theatre and sound system? How astounded would he be to see what it, the player he thoroughly enjoyed in his own time, would ultimately become? All of the obstructions to the clear communication of music will be gone in the age to come, and he will understand that the shadow of fidelity he hears will eventually become the reality of modern digital media.
When I recently read this particular passage in Exodus, it reminded me of that old player, and how I used it way back then. I really liked that old Brunswick (yeah, it wasnt an RCA.) and I know it clearly in my mind. I can see the oval logo on the top of the case, the needle trays in the corner, the speed control and the slide brake, the green felt clinging tightly to the heavy turntable. If you showed me a hundred of the same model, I could pick it out in an instant- I know where all the wear marks and scratches in the case leather are.
But I was still a kid. I knew that particular machine, but I didnt know its real value (especially some of those records I mentioned). For me, it was a very special toy that was very fragile, but it was still a toy in my mind. It wasnt until years later that I came to appreciate the cultural and historical significance of this collection. I was very close- even intimate with this old player, and even some of the records (Where the Bamboo Babies Grow was one of my favorites-a fox trot from around 1914) I still recall very fondly.
Its in this context that the passage in Exodus chimes a chord in my heart. The scene is this- its some four centuries since the death of Joseph, and there are scads of Israelites living in Egypt- and the current Dynasty is out of favor with them. Israel is enslaved and abused in Egypt. Now this is long before the whole Sinai business- the word of God is in oral form, as passed through the patriarchs. Furthermore, they live in Egypt, who has a polytheistic central government. This government, like other empires to follow, requires state worship. Thus, the Hebrews are persecuted even in their slavery- The state is a god, Pharaoh is the son of Ra, and is thus, in part, divine in Egyptian doctrine; and an enemy to the true living God and His Church.
I think it would be safe to conclude that Israel at this time did not have a well-defined and documented theology. They had the Abrahamic covenant through the personal teachings of the patriarchs, but thats it. And if any of this was written down prior to the work of Moses, nothing is known of it nor mentioned in Scripture. The worship of the Lord in Israel while in Egypt was like listening to that player- it produced sound, but it was not very high quality. Likewise the people of God cried out to the Lord in prayer, and God heard them. Probably not prayers that fit well into modern orthodoxy, but the bare essentials were there- knowing their helplessness, and calling upon the Lord for salvation.
Now is it safe to say that the crying out of the Hebrews in this passage was an act of prayer? The term used in the text, הקעצ (tsaaqah) is derived from the Hebrew קעצ (tsaaq) which means to cry out or proclaim, as if in horror or misery. The usage here is showing a commonality of prayers- the whole congregation, in their private and corporate prayers, were speaking of the same horrors of their oppression and seeking Gods deliverance. In Psalm 9:12, which is a prayer of thanksgiving, the same word is used to promote the same concept- when Gods people are oppressed and cry out to the Lord, said prayers will be answered and the Lord will remember their plight and rescue them. The Lord commanded Israel not to oppress the orphan or widow, lest they cry out to Him in their oppression (Exodus 22:23).
Two things that stand out here: first that crying out is done verbally toward the Lord and secondly, we tend to do that when were under great stress. Now we need to take a moment to focus on speaking. A transliteration of tsaaqah would be to shriek- and its hard to do that quiet-like. In the examples given above, all of the uses of tsaaqah involved vocal communication. This context is demonstrated all over the Old Testament. In Matthew 26:39, Christ, in the darkest hour of His soul, prayed saying as opposed to prayed in His heart. Not that its inherently poor form to pray in your heart- indeed, there are times when its very appropriate. But when we are private, one-on-one with the Lord in our prayer closet and struggling in our hearts, the examples of scripture show private prayers being spoken. And, just like the RCA dog with the Victrola, even poorly spoken prayers get heard by our Lord.
Admittedly, the idea of actually talking when we pray privately rubs against the fur of American culture. When does the media show talking to ones self as being an edifying thing? Its instant ridicule and questioning of sanity in modern US culture to talk to yourself privately- so far removed is this nation from its prayerful roots. Bear in mind that as recently as the 1850s, being someone who didnt do this in America was reason to be under suspicion. It is unfortunate that our land today is so hostile towards intimacy (especially with God, for speaking to God is of the most precious intimacy) that being a man or woman of prayer is considered highly odd- even among many professing Christians. Indeed, our culture portrays intimacy as either sexual or a weakness- and thus cheapened or of little value.
A quick sidebar. Meditating on God and/or His word is not the same as praying to God. Yes, we should meditate on Gods word, and I often find myself praying to Him as a result of meditations. But they are not the same- prayer is an act of communication, while meditation is an act of reflection.
Anywho, the common thread of crying out to the Lord when in the midst of struggle are pretty standard fare in the Pentateuch and Psalms, and demonstrated all over place. And the folks in Egypt would have known this principle, for Abraham had gone through the process himself, both with Isaac and Lot. In Genesis 15, Abraham cries out in his distress over having no heir, and again in chapter 18, the Lord uses tsaaqah again to describe the sins of Sodom, and Abraham pleads mercy for Lots sake. Abraham knew who to cry to when in trouble, and even four centuries and cubic tons of Egyptian cultic influence later, His people still clung to that promise and cried out to our Father in heaven.
Here we are, on the flip side of the cross. Could you imagine giving one of those Egyptian Hebrews a modern bible (in Hebrew, of course)? How about bringing him to a Sunday service? Look how far removed we are from them and yet the common thread of special grace- the blood of the Lamb- binds us inexorably together. What they did in primitive, scratchy, speak-and-spell-in-the-garbage-can methods were cherished by God- for our loving Savior heard them and delivered them as He has also cherished and delivered us. We know that Christ intercedes for us, perfects our prayers, and grows us in His grace by His Spirit through the means of grace He has given us, which include prayer. We can point to the scripture and to the reality of the Holy Spirit in our hearts as proof of these things. Did the Hebrews of Pharaohs time have that kind of theological digital media?
They are us- a persecuted people who loved the Lord, and cried out to Him in times of trouble. As absurd as their actual spiritual lifestyle might have seemed compared to our own, what Abraham left His people was nothing less than the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, who is Christ Jesus. That when our hearts despair, we have a God in heaven, Creator of all things: holy, righteous, good and just, who will hear us when we cry out to Him. He will answer the prayers of the righteous who trust in Him. That is the extent of the Gospel they knew- And the Lord still knows the hair count on all of them. He answered their prayer for Christs sake, just as he answers ours in like manner.
Thus I am glad that I cherish that old Brunswick. It reminds me of the core simplicity of our faith- that no matter how hi-fi we get; good old-fashioned talking to God in prayer will always be a core essential to Christian daily life. The Lord moves us through prayer, and so we, as did our brethren of old, cry out to the Lord- and listen for our Masters voice.
The other possible article is located in the post directly beneath this one.
Theognome
