Numbers Chapter 18: “And YHWH said to Aaron: You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood… And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar, that there be no more wrath upon the children of Israel… And YHWH spoke to Aaron: I, behold I have also given you the charge of …all the holy things of the children of Israel; I have given them to you and your sons because of the anointing, as a perpetual ordinance.”

Please correct me, anyone, if I’m wrong, but I’ve read in more than a few places which explain traditional Judaism* that Messiah, when he comes, will arise as the King and Deliverer of Israel. This is certainly true, and would to God more goyim would realize and acknowledge this. And would to God that more goyim who profess to be followers of Christ would realize and acknowledge that to truly do so is to pledge allegiance to Israel’s King.

But are we missing something here? Isn’t the anointing of the high priest just as much of an anointing as that of the king?

The high priest is the messiah of YHWH, just as much as the king. Why am I not seeing this pointed out?

We need to understand that much of what we read in Torah may be understood as illustrations of eternal truth, as well as the explicit instructions of the God of Israel. And is it just me, or isn’t there a marvelous picture in Numbers Chapter 18 of YHWH’s anointed being set out to bear a more profound iniquity than merely his own? You have to notice that the reason YHWH gives for instituting this assignment for the high priest is “that there be no more wrath upon the children of Israel.” If you go back and read the preceding chapters of the book, you’ll see that there was plenty of iniquity and plenty of resulting wrath going on! There had to be something done – the present system wasn’t working. It doesn’t seem fair to tell Aaron that from now on, he’s going to bear the iniquity of the entire community, but if you were in the shoes of anyone else there but him, you wouldn’t be the first one to point that out, would you?

It is surely an admirable thing for someone to suppose that they can atone for their own sin through repentance and prayer, and to make a sincere effort to that end. But what does it take? Is anyone good enough – can anyone be or become good enough – to satisfy Elohim’s just demand for absolute, flawless righteousness? Let’s just start with the number one requirement – to love Him with everything we’ve got, and the person across the street, to boot!

It’s not that it’s humanly impossible, but we start out just far enough behind in that quest to ever quite get caught up (you may have noticed, if you’ve had children, that the first word many learn is “no!”), and each day that we fail to live up to even the first requirement, the farther behind we get. But if we had someone to take all iniquity away from us, to bear it away for us – ah, then we might have a fresh start, mightn’t we? And what if – could it be this good? – what if that sin-bearer could always be there for us each new day, and bear it away if and when we slip up again?

Ah, but would that be what we want, really? A guarantee of sin-then-get-forgiven today, and then sin-but-get-forgiven tomorrow, and then sin-but-get-forgiven-again the next day, and so forth? I think that is, unfortunately, what we do experience in Christianity, but I don’t buy for one minute that this is what God ever intended for us. There is a much greater place for tshuva and tikkun olam in our lives than we often realize, and sometimes I think that those who see this as their only means to atonement have a practical leg up on Christians who act as though we think we can “continue in sin that grace may abound,” as Paul puts it. But first we need that fresh start. We need a High Priest who will bear our iniquity, at least until we can come into our inheritance as children of the Most High.

(* For example, Jews for Judaism is a provocative resource for understanding the traditional viewpoint, updated to our time; another detailed site is Judaism 101.

Take a look at specific and detailed references to the traditional concept of Messiah, and, if you’re brave, at an argument against vicarious atonement.)