Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

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.
Among those who believe that the piacular element was present even in the pre-
Mosaic sacrifices, there is a difference of opinion as to the origin of this type of
sacrifices. Some are of the opinion that God instituted them by a direct divine
command, while others hold that they were brought in obedience to a natural impulse
of man, coupled with reflection. The Bible does not record any special statement to the
effect that God commanded man to serve Him with sacrifices in those early days. And it
is not impossible that man expressed His gratitude and devotion in sacrifices, even
before the fall, led by the inner promptings of his own nature. But it would seem that
the expiatory sacrifices after the fall could originate only in a divine appointment. There
is considerable force in the arguments of Dr. A. A. Hodge. Says he: “(1) It is
inconceivable that either the propriety or probable utility of presenting material gifts to
399