Basic HTML Version
347
b. The sacramental-communion theory
, based on the totemistic idea of reverencing an animal
which was supposed to share in the divine nature. On solemn occasions such an animal would
be slain to furnish a meal for man, who would thus literally eat his God and assimilate the
divine qualities. There is absolutely nothing in the book of Genesis, however, to suggest such an
utterly unspiritual and crassly material view. It is totally at variance with the Biblical
representation as a whole. This, of course, does not mean that some pagans may not have held
that view later on, but it does mean that it is entirely unwarranted to regard this as the original
view.
c. The homage-theory
, according to which sacrifices were originally expressions of homage and
dependence. Man was prompted to seek closer communion with God, not by a sense of guilt,
but by a feeling of dependence and a desire to render homage to God. This theory does not do
justice to the facts in the case of such early sacrifices as those of Noah and Job; nor does it
explain why this homage should be rendered in the form of slaying an animal.
d. The symbol-theory
, which regards the offerings as symbols of restored communion with
God. The killing of the animal took place only to secure the blood, which as a symbol of life was
brought upon the altar, signifying communion of life with God (Keil). This theory certainly does
not square with the facts in the case of the sacrifices of Noah and Job, nor with those in the
case of Abraham, when he placed Isaac upon the altar. Neither does it explain why in later days
so much importance was attached to the killing of the animal.
e. The piacular theory,
which regards sacrifices as being originally expiatory or atoning. On this
theory the fundamental idea in the slaying of the animal was that of vicarious atonement for
the sins of the offerer. In the light of Scripture this theory certainly deserves preference. The
idea that, whatever other elements may have been present, such as an expression of gratitude
to God, or of communion with Him, the piacular element was also present and was even the
most prominent element, is favored by the following considerations: (a) The recorded effect of
Noah’s burnt-offerings is expiatory, Gen. 8:21. (b) The occasion for the sacrifice of Job lay in the
sins of his children, Job 1:5. (c) This theory accounts for the fact that the sacrifices were
regularly brought in the form of slain animals, and that they were bloody, involving the
suffering and death of the victim. (d) It is fully in harmony with the fact that the sacrifices which
prevailed among heathen nations generally, were certainly regarded as expiatory. (e) It is
further in perfect agreement with the undoubted presence of several promises of the coming
Redeemer in the pre-Mosaic period. This should be borne in mind by those who regard the
piacular idea of sacrifices as too advanced for that time. (f) Finally, it also fits in well with the
fact that, when the Mosaic sacrificial ritual was introduced, in which the expiatory element was
certainly the most prominent, it was in no way represented as something entirely new.