" ... Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, ... Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, ... Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself." ~ Leviticus 9:2, 7, & 8 (See also Exodus 29:1, 10-14; Leviticus 4:3)

Now the 'sin offering' or the 'atonement offering' of the priest of the temple, which priest was a representation and a similitude of the Great High Priest', even the Lord; was always a 'young bullock', a calf, unblemished. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea sets forth that Moses did, by inspired revelaiton, so call and name two by the names of The Coming Lord. Those two were Aaron his brother and Oshea the son of Nun. In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History of the Church in Book I, Chapter 3, Bishop Eusebius sets forth that the Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from the Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets.

" ... the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men ... " ~ Moses 6:52

Certainly this understanding of Bishop Eusebius was true, for we have evidence of it in the book of Moses, as Moses teaches that Enoch and Adam and all such even done to Noah, knew the name of Jesus Christ, that is 'Jehoshua Messiah' in the tranliterated Hebrew. And thus the ancient prophets knew it, Moses knew, Lehi and Nephi and the Book of Mormon prophets knew it. And there is evidence that all such prophets of God knew it (See Zechariah chapter 3 which is a vision in which Jesus is mentioned by name, 'Jehoshua' in the judgement council in heaven where determination was made between Christ Jehovah and Lucifer or Satan). Eusebius further states that Moses specifically gives the name of Jesus [Jehoshua] upon Oshea the son of Nun knowing it to be the name of Jesus to come. And he also states that Aaron was given the name of 'The Anointed One' meaning the same as Christ.

" ... he consecrated a man [Aaron] high priest of God, ... and him [Aaron] he called Christ ['The Anointed One'] ... " EH Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2

"His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus [Jehoshua], but had been called by another name, Auses [Oshea], which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus [Jehoshua/Joshua], bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honor, far greater than any kingly diadem. For Jesus [Joshua] himself, the son of Nave [Nun] (See Numbers 13:16), bore a resemblance to our Savior in the fact that he alone, after Moses and after the completion of the symbolic worship which had been transmitted by him, succeeded to the government of the true and pure religion." ~ EC Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4

Joshua as the son of Nun was the legal and rightful heir of the covenant which came of the family of Ephraim as bestowed upon the head of Ephraim by Jacob. Now, this heir of the covenant was given the name of 'Jesus' in honor of that Son of God, which according to this text, which would be his born of that covenant through that linage of the covenant of God which came down through Ephraim to Joshua and thence to Elimelech, Mahlon, Obed, Jesse and David.

Now this is not the particular point of this topic. Here we are discussing the symbolic sacrifice of the 'calf' or the 'young bullock' particularly for the 'priest of the temple', which priest was indeed the similitude of that Great High Priest, Jesus Christ who is the same as Jehovah. Now this particular 'sin offering' of the priest of the temple is always a 'calf' or 'young bullock'. It is the sacrifice of the High Priest, which is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the High Priest. That a young bullock for a 'sin offering' was particularly required for that of the priest as an individual and/or as the representative of the people, and that the priest represented Christ in his offering, it is therefore deemed with added significance. For the 'calf' or the 'young bullock' was that which also symbolized the tribe of Ephraim (Deuteronomy 33:17). That is the 'Bullock of Ephraim' was the sacrifice of the Great High Priest. And herein is the implication that Jesus was of Ephraim, he so particularly using the 'bullock' offering by but he who was representing Christ in the temple.

That is Christ is symbolically represented as the 'bullock' of sacrifice so particularly made. To this end it indicates that Christ is legally and rightfully of the tribe of the 'bullock', namely Joseph and/or Ephraim. But before we go further along this line of thought, we ought to back track a little and consider the Golden Calf of Moses' wilderness

The sacrifice of burnt offerings had long since been practiced by the people of the Lord in similitude of that eventual scarifice of the coming redeemer. But the Bible never does state the sacrifice of a calf or a bullock until the Law of Moses is given. Whether such was used previous of not it is not understood. Thus the association of the Golden Calf of Moses' people in the wilderness may have been derived from various sources, including an egyptian infulence or even that there was a previous associate with Joseph of Egypt and the maybe the cows or kine of Pharaoh's dream which Joseph interpreted. It is difficult to say.

What we do know is that Moses presents the symbol of the bullock as that of Ephraim. And we know that Israel has so worship the Golden Calf. That Israel may have understood there to be a natural link between Joseph of Egypt and the leadership of Israel can only be presumed by the fact of Joseph's dreams, the leadership and salvation he provided in Egypt for Israel. And that ten of the tribes and a half of Israel tribes of Israel followed Ephraim's lead in Jeroboam against David's grandson Rehoboam. And that Joshua was Moses' successor. Thus there is a strong possibility which will be here presumed that the Golden calf had some relationship to Joseph of Egypt, Ephraim and the God of Israel, Jehovah. And that relationship would seem to be that as a symbol of the house of Joseph and Ephraim, the calf or young bullock was also a symbol of the God Jehovah in relationship to the great sacrifice of the atonement.

Now even if the calf was a representation of the Messiah ben Joseph to come, it is a step of corruption taken from a symbolized image to an icon to a golden idol of worship. The Catholic church at one time fought against the use of any type of icons. But icons became quite popular and they became accepted. And though most of the icons of the Catholic Church represents people, saints and the virgin Mary, there is still something vastly wrong with the worship or the praying to any thing or any one other than God. 'Thou shalt have no other before me.' A prayer to anyone or anything other than to God is a form of worshipping that which is other than God. And thus it was with the Golden Calf. It may have been the symbol of the God of Israel, but that did not make it right to begin the path to idol worship by counting that visible characature as God or God's representation.

Now, when Israel, that is Ephraim representing the 10 tribes, withdrew or parted from Judah's king, Jeroboam prepared means and places of worship for Israel so they would not go to Jerusalem to worship. Now one immediately sees in the two Golden Calfs of Jeroboam but that which is idol worship, for indeed the calfs were made by the hand of man. But, just as the golden calf in the wilderness of Moses, the Golden Calfs of Jeroboam were but symbolic representations of God, that God which the bullock did signify. That God which would come of Ephraim. The tribe of the bullock. And though it was a corruption in the true worship of God, the intermediate step was not that great. The northern tribes easily saw in it their familiar worship of the Lord. And though the Lord God was now symbolized by a bullock, is was not that much different that such as the Egyptian Gods which were known to be true persons, but reprented by the symbolism of cast figures of animal forms. But it would lead Israel into the deeper tenent of the cult worshippers of idols, for though the calf represented Jehovah, it was not Jehovah and not acceptable unto Jehovah as a proper order of worshipping him, for indeed it was a graven image.

Now before we leave this topic, we ought to speak somewhat to the concept of the day of atonement, for indeed that was the day and sacrifice which did particularly reprent that atoning sacrifice performed by Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane to come. Now, the day of atonement, which represents the Lord's atoning sacrifice, is just one of the group of performing sacrifices which uses the 'bullock' of Ephraim as being and representing Christ. But indeed the bullock of that day for the priest, does particularly preprent Jesus as the bullock of Ephraim, the heir of the covenant which did come by the right of the house of Joseph (D&C 27:10) and not of Judah. Though when David chose Judah over Ephraim and subsequently when Israel or Ephraim was scattered or lost, Judah would fain, usurp, and claim it as having 'prevailed' in Israel for Ephraim was gone and David had chosen Judah over Ephraim.

And this is the perspective of the Jewish Bible which is the Bible that we have. And all the Jews of Jesus day would have been of this mind. And indeed Jesus was of the blood of Boaz or Judah, though his legal descent and right to the covenant would come through Mahlon and Ephraim. The only people of Jesus day that had an understanding that Christ was in truth of Ephraim as so was David, were the Samaritans and certain well schooled Jews who had studied and knew of it. Thus Philip knew that Jesus was the prophecied Son of Joseph meaning Joseph of Egypt (John 1:45). And also the scholars of the Jews knew it when they 'said well' and accused him of being a Samaritan (John 8:48). And only in that they pronounced in it that he was of a 'devil', did the Lord contest against them that they had thrown dispursion upon the Father and the son (John 8:49). He did not, he could not contest against being a Samaritan, for by his genealogy the whole house of David was of such a mixed linage with foriegners and of Ephraim as were the Samaritans.

Now to summarize: Specifically the 'sin sacrifice' animal representing and as offered in conjunction with the High Priest of the Temple, had to be a 'young bullock' which was a 'calf'. That priest himself was a similitude of the Great High Priest of the atonement, even Jesus Christ, 'The Anointed One' of God. Thus the sacrifice of the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, was the bullock and the bullock was the symbol of the tribe of Joseph, more specifically Ephraim. In short, the sacrifice of Jesus was as the bullock of Ephraim. No other in Israel was required to so sacrifice a bullock, though they could. The conclusion is that Jesus was of the tribe of the bullock, Ephraim.