Aside from the national sin of the people which involved a measure of will-fulness, and for which atonement was made once each year on the tenth day of the seventh month, there were sins involving a measure of ignorance for which, nevertheless, all of the children of Israel—the “whole congregation” as a single unit—were accountable! For these latter sins, the sin-offering was to be a bullock whose blood, though not brought into the Most Holy, was brought into the Holy (the Tabernacle of the Congregation). Here some of it was sprinkled “before the vail” (Lev. 4:17), some of it was placed upon the horns of the altar of incense, and the remainder was poured at the base of the altar of burnt-offering. (Lev. 4:18)

It may be that this type was intended to show that during the Millennial age, not only will the people—the whole world of mankind, then the antitypical Israel—be individually responsible for their sins, but some- times collectively, as well! (Lev. 4:27-35; Num. 15:27,28; Lev. 4:13-21; Num. 15:22-26)

It will be recalled that Israel of old was called upon to suffer retributive atonement for the sin of Achan. (See Josh. 6:17-19; 7:1-5) The reason for this seems to lie in the fact that though Achan was personally, i.e., individually, responsible for his sin for which he in turn paid the supreme penalty (Josh. 7:24-26), there must have been those who either saw or knew what Achan had done, but refused to do anything about it. Had they reported the matter to Joshua, Israel might have been spared the ignominious defeat at Ai (Josh. 7:5). There is a tendency for group or “mob” psychology to come into play in instances like this, where each, in an endeavor to “mind his own business,” fails to take the proper action in his own interests and that of all others who may in turn become involved. No one has the right to live unto himself alone; he must live for others too. This lesson will have to be learned by all mankind in the Millennium.

We do know that the old Law Covenant, which though binding upon each individual Israelite, was nevertheless entered into by the nation collectively. “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me … and ye shall be unto me a kingdom … and all the people answered together … All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” (Exod. 19:5-8) So too is it to be with the New Covenant. Not until the end of the Millennial age will the people stand in individual covenant relationship to God.

“Covenant relationship with God means perfection. Mankind will be reaching this perfection during the thousand years of Christ’s kingdom, but they will not enter into it until the end of the thousand years, when the Mediator will turn them over to God. At the close of that time, they will be privileged to enter into this covenant relationship with Jehovah. Then they must stand or fall individually.” (R5293:6)

The bringing of the bullock in the type seems to represent that the world of mankind will be called upon not only individually, but collectively also, to recognize their sins; and that Jesus’ sacrifice is still the basis of forgiveness anew.

“As the basis for all forgiveness of sins in the next age will be the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices, it would be appropriate in the type for the sinner to bring some sacrifice which would indicate a recognition of the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices, as the ground of forgiveness anew.” (T94)

Perhaps, a recognition of the Church’s share in becoming the channel of the ransom merit, through faithfulness unto death, is also implied: for the bullock of Leviticus 8 represented not only Jesus in his consecration, but the Church also. Does not the Apostle Paul suggest that our baptism is “for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29)? Surely, thankful prayers to Jehovah will then be in order as an “acknowledgment of his mercy, wisdom and love, as manifested in the broken body of the Christ—their ransom.” (T97)

But Leviticus 4 also made provision for the sin of an “anointed priest,” for whom also a bullock was to be brought as a sin-offering, the blood of which was to be handled in the manner already described for the “whole congregation.” However, since there will be no imperfect, sinning, priesthood in the Millennium, it is possible that this portion of the type finds its counterpart in the Gospel age.

Nor are we to assume that “the priest that is anointed” of Lev. 4:3 is the type of our High Priest, Christ Jesus, for we know that he was forever sinless. All the underpriesthood in the type were partakers of Aaron’s anointing, and were thus constituted an “anointed” priesthood. Just so, antitypically, the Church is partaker of Jesus’ anointing, and is thus constituted an “anointed” priesthood. So it would seem reasonable for us to understand that we are represented in Lev. 4:3 by “the priest that is anointed,” and whose sins, though involving a measure of ignorance, are nevertheless somewhat against the commandments, and require atonement. On the other hand, “the priest that is anointed” of Lev. 4:5, etc., who makes atonement for his brother priest, can represent none other than our faithful and sinless High Priest, Christ Jesus, who stands ever before the Father as our Advocate, imputing to us his (the bullock’s) merit, evermore covering us with his own righteousness. Addressing the Church, the Apostle John says, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 2:1,2)

Perhaps the “ruler” of Lev. 4:22 was a prince (see Num. 1:4-16). Then anti-typically, reference must here be to those ancient worthies who during the Millennial age are to be “princes in all the earth.” (Psa. 45:16) These ancient worthies, as partakers of a “better resurrection” (Heb. 11:35) will be restored to the earth in perfect human bodies, yet, without the right to everlasting life: for while they have had a trial of their faith, they never could have had a trial for life. For them, then, the everlasting life promised, will be something which they will during that age have to prove themselves worthy. Speaking of them, Bro. Russell says:

“It is not probable that they would make mistakes; but if upon their awakening, they should at once be turned over to Jehovah, and, as in Adam’s case, the slightest deflection would mean death, we can see that their position would be much less favorable than it will be under the New Covenant arrangement during the Millennial reign of Christ. This is a very gracious arrangement for their best interests, for any possible mistake would be covered by Christ’s mediation and not bring them under sentence of death.

“The history of some of these ancient worthies is very meager and does not always imply that they were ‘overcomers’ in the sense in which the church is to be. Take, for example, the case of Samson, who is mentioned as one of the ancient worthies. The last we read of Samson, still in the hands of the Philistines, is that he was still loyal to God and prayed for the opportunity of serving God’s cause; the Lord granted his prayer, permitting (him) to push down the pillars of the building in which he was making sport for the Philistines; they were the middle pillars upon which the house stood, and in its fall more than three thousand of the enemies of Israel were killed along with himself.

“Faith seems to have been the chief element of character that was developed under Samson’s experiences. We do not know how much patience, long-suffering, brotherly kindness, gentleness, meekness, etc., were developed in his character; nothing is stated in regard to the matter and we have no reason to suppose that Samson was a very gentle man. Indeed, we have never thought of gentleness and meekness as being amongst his characteristics. The slaying of one thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, as well as other experiences of his, would not seem to indicate this.

“We may reasonably suppose, therefore, that although Samson will be brought back in an absolutely perfect condition, and under the favorable environment of the Millennial age, there will probably be experiences in life that he never encountered and that will be so new that he might be in danger of making mistakes. Assuredly he will have much to learn respecting the things of the Spirit of God in the days of the blessing of ‘flesh.’ ” (R5074:5)

The type of Lev. 4:22-26 then, seems to indicate that provision has been made for this class, should they sin “somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments”—the Law of the Kingdom. The typical goat does not represent them in their fleshly perfection as partakers of the “better resurrection” (Heb. 11:35), but rather as sinners still needing to be penitent for shortcomings in the matter of their character development.

For the individual Israelite, i.e., for one of the “common people” (not an “anointed priest” nor a “ruler”), the sin-offering that might be brought for the sin of ignorance was either a female sheep (kebes—Lev. 4:32) or a female goat (ez—Lev. 4:28). It is interesting to note how the accountability of the common people is taken into account by Jehovah. Note that the “anointed priest” had a greater accountability by far, for he had to bring a male animal, a bullock (Lev. 4:3) for his sin offering for the sin of ignorance; and the “ruler” whose accountability was less than that of the anointed priest had to bring a male animal, a he-goat (Lev. 4:23) for the same type of sin; whereas the common people, who had the least accountability, were permitted to bring female animals, a ewe lamb or a she goat

(Lev. 4:32,28) for the sin committed in ignorance. Surely the priest should know far better than either the ruler or the common people what was the will of God!

It should be remembered that the bullock of the sin-offering and the ram of the Passover ritual, alike, are types or symbolisms of the ransom-sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Of course, it is not the purpose of the Tabernacle to teach the ransom, but rather to show forth the manner of its application. In this manner then, does the Tabernacle reflect the fact that all the atoning merit, ever and always, lies in the ransom-sacrifice of the man Christ Jesus—“the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29,36)

Only in connection with the sin-offerings for the “priest that is anointed” (Lev. 4:3) and for the “whole congregation” (Lev. 4:13)—both of which involve a bullock—is there any mention made of the blood being brought into the Sanctuary (Lev. 4:5,16) and of the carcasses being burnt “without the Camp” (Lev. 4:5-7,16-18)!

Accordingly we do identify the bullocks of Lev. 4:4 and 15 with the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus since it alone has all the merit needed for the atonement of both the “priest” and all the “people.” (See Lev. 9:7, also T79.) Since the blood of these bullocks was brought into the Sanctuary (the Holy, or the Tabernacle of the Congregation), there to be placed upon the horns of the Altar of Incense (Lev. 4:5-7,16-18), their bodies had to be burnt “without the Camp.” (Lev. 6:30) Accordingly, not any of the sacrifice could be appropriated (eaten) by the priest!

It was different with the remaining sacrifices of Leviticus 4—the offering brought for the “ruler” and those brought for any one of the “common people.” In these instances, the blood was not brought within the Sanctuary (Lev. 4:25,30,34), nor is there anything said about the carcasses being burnt “without the Camp.” The priest who offered any man’s sin-offering might eat of the sacrifice. (Lev. 6:26) The offering itself seems to represent the sinner himself, in the attitude of repentance and sorrow for his sin, and his seeking to come into harmony with God. (T94, 106) This, in a sense. may be considered as a form of consecration on the part of the sinner, and though not directly acceptable by God, it was acceptable because of the ministrations of the priest on the sinner’s behalf.

“The priest … took and offered to the Lord a portion of the offering as a ‘memorial,’ as a recognition that the whole plan of redemption as executed on the Atonement Day (Gospel age) was the heavenly Father’s, but appropriated to himself the remainder—by eating it.” (T99)

“Acceptance of their gifts or consecrations will signify forgiveness.” (T100)

“The ‘Royal Priesthood’ will … accept (eat) the sacrifice for sin brought by the world for their own transgressions.” (T92)

Another thought which suggests itself here, to those who are spiritually minded, is a thought based on the great principle enunciated by Jesus when he declared, “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.” (Luke 12:48)

“All this suggests the thought that responsibility increases with privilege. The anointed priest was as guilty as the entire congregation; he should have known better because he was so much nearer to God in outward privilege. Then a ruler, while not so responsible as the priest, was more so than one of the common people. There is a principle here that is well for us all to remember: The more light we have on the truth of God and the greater the privileges which we enjoy in this scene, the more responsible our God holds us; we shall be called to account in accordance with the truth He has made known to us. Alas, my brethren, is it not a lamentable fact that should bow us in shame before God that many of us who pride ourselves upon a wonderful unfolding of truth are ofttimes most careless in our behavior, and become stumbling-blocks to those who have less light than we? How we need to have recourse to the Great Sin Offering, to remember as we bow in confession of our failures before God that all our sins were dealt with on the Cross of Christ!” (Ironsides, Lectures on Levitical Offerings)