Funny how when I fall behind in posting about Numbers, it tends to correspond with the times when Numbers decides to completely abandon narrative and story and revert back to that which earned it its name...
I swear it's not on purpose - it just happens that way.
Anyway, on days 53 and 54, Numbers did just that, and we're back with *drum roll* another census!
Sure, traditionally it was Moses, but I say the author(s) of most of Numbers were these guys...
I'll be the first to admit that all these numbers seem somewhat pointless. I sort of get the idea of a census for posterity, statistics, etc, and I do find it nerdily interesting that the actual population of Israel didn't really change much (still kicking around the 600,000 mark) despite the 40 years of wilderness wandering, and the fact that only a handful of the ones counted here were there when they first arrived at the Promised Land.
As an aside, I think this census, or rather the description of it in chapter 26, is one of those places that could get pointed to as an internal inconsistency with the Bible (and yes, there are people who would delve into the bowels of Numbers to come up with something to wave around in the face of Christians who profess faith in the Bible). Specifically, it says that nobody except for Joshua and Caleb were there from the first time Israel was numbered, but that seems odd, since Aaron's sons still come up in conversation (although they may, I suppose, have been born in the interim - I'll have to look back and check), and Moses was definitely there.
My favourite reaction when someone brings something like that up is to chuckle and say "yeah that's weird." Tends to deflate the situation nicely.
---
Now that the people are counted, it's time for the offerings to be painstakingly enumerated and detailed.
First, thankfully, there's a bit of a break in the monotony, and a rather progressive law is established that lets a woman inherit from a man if she's the only relative (baby steps, people - we're still talking about the ancient near-east here). Oh, and Joshua is officially set up as heir to Moses's role as God's intercessor and general leader of Israel.
Now then - sacrifices. These are, as I said, painstakingly outlined, with every sacrifice for every date, and all the requisite ingredients, spelled out to the nth degree. About half way through, I got to thinking (this is not uncommon in situations like this) "why the heck is this stuff even in here?"
I have heard that this blog contains what some would call a certain (hopefully understood as playful) irreverence, and I'm afraid I don't have much defense for that, since the following story, taken from the cinematic masterpiece that was Wayne's World 2, came to mind shortly after I asked myself the aforementioned question.
The whole concept of concert riders has been taken to ridiculous extremes by bands throughout the now-somewhat-aged rock era, but the most famous has got to be Van Halen's 1982 world tour rider (that I can only assume largely inspired the above clip) that specified that the band was to be served absolutely no brown M&Ms with their post-show snacks.
The Foo Fighters also have an awesome one, less for the specifics of their demands, but for the bonus points they get for presentation.
The thing is, concert riders are often just the most extravagant-seeming and compartmentalized facets of a complicated relationship between agents, promoters, venues and band management, and things like "no brown M&Ms" can often serve as an easy way for tour managers to tell if a venue's reps are actually reading the words on the page or not, something that can go a long way towards either building up or tearing down a business relationship. It's frivolous on one end, but understandably important from another point of view.
In this particular way, Van Halen circa 1982 (or at least their tour management team) was like God.
I think.
There is, of course a difference. In the case of Van Halen and (to a lesser extent) the Foo Fighters, the demands are issued from a place of superficial "authority". Yes, they're awesome at guitar and rock in general. Yes, they provide a solid night's entertainment and a great concert experience, but that's where their contribution ends.
On the other side of things, the concert promoters/agents/venue personnel provide the bands with a location, fans, loads of money, and - in short - the ability to continue doing what they're doing. It's not quite one sided, but the role of chief contributor definitely falls on the opposite side from those making the extravagant demands.
In the case of God and Israel, however, the roles are completely reversed, and then amplified.
God provides, freedom, protection, life necessities (and life itself, for that matter), military immunity and a host of other things to the Israelites, and the Israelites just have to not screw it all up. And they have to offer sacrifices. Specific ones, as it turns out.
Everything the Israelites have (everything) is because God's there looking out and providing for them, so when He issues demands to keep up their covenantal relationship, He does so from the place of supreme authority, and is ultimately justified in anything He asks.
When you look at the length of God's end of the covenantal contract, it's hard to blame him for wanting Israel to read the fine print, as it were, and invest something of their own in the relationship.
I don't even really think that it's God who needs those sacrifices, really, but people tend to be more interested and intentional about something if they're invested in it. Free things are perceived as being disposable and not particularly worthwhile in the grand scheme of things. The Israelites have a hard enough time appreciating the gifts God's given them - can you imagine what they'd be like if God didn't even ask for something in return?
So there we have it, a one-in-the-morning tagline for the movie version of Numbers, directed by the extras from Terry Gilliam's Brazil:
Numbers: the movie
It's not about the M&Ms, it's about the relationship
No comments:
Post a Comment