Psalms 50:13 · Bible study
Psalms 50:13 Commentary: The God Who Needs Nothing
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
God’s rhetorical question exposes the absurdity of thinking he needs animal sacrifices. He commands them for human blessing, not his own benefit.
Research Summary
- Meaning: God’s rhetorical question denies that he needs animal sacrifices for his own benefit.
- Key words: “eat” (’ākal), “flesh” (bāśār), “blood” (dam), “bulls” (’abbîrîm), “goats” (‘attûdîm), all material, concrete terms stressing the physical nature of sacrifice.
- Main debate: Whether this verse implies the end of the ceremonial law or only a correction of wrong motives within it.
- Theological theme: God’s self-sufficiency and desire for spiritual worship over empty ritual.
- Best use: Correcting a religion of mere outward observance and calling believers to heartfelt thanksgiving and trust.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
WEB World English Bible 2000
Will I eat the meat of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
KJV King James Version 1769
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, Or drink the blood of goats?
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Do I eat the flesh of bulls, And drink the blood of he-goats?
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Should I eat the flesh of bulls, and drink the blood of goats?
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Cast me not away from thy face; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¿ Tengo de comer yo carne de toros, ó de beber sangre de machos cabríos?
Comeria eu carne de touros, ou beberia sangue de bodes?
Est-ce que je mange la chair des taureaux?
Meinst du, daß ich Ochsenfleisch essen wolle oder Bocksblut trinken?
Zou Ik stierenvlees eten, of bokkenbloed drinken?
Mangio io carne di tori, o bevo io sangue di becchi?
Izali jadam mięso wołowe? albo pijam krew kozłową?
Не отвергни меня от лица Твоего и Духа Твоего Святаго не отними от меня.
我豈吃 公牛 的肉呢？我豈喝 山羊 的血呢？
Am I to take the flesh of the ox for my food, or the blood of goats for my drink?
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Psalms 50:13
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that this verse is a forceful denial that God receives any benefit from animal sacrifices. Barnes calls the question a demonstration of the absurdity of thinking God needed the flesh for food or the blood for drink. Calvin places the verse within a wider rebuke of hypocrites who reduce religion to outward ceremony. Matthew Henry describes it as God putting a slight upon legal sacrifices when they are trusted in as sufficient. Gill adds that God takes no delight in such sacrifices as they can never take away sin. The sharpness of the rhetorical question is meant to shatter the assumption that God is served by human hands, as if he were hungry or thirsty. All agree that God's self-sufficiency is the foundation: he owns every animal of the forest (v. 10) and the whole world belongs to him (v. 12). The question exposes a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of the sacrificial system.
The pastoral warmth lies in the invitation that follows. God does not reject sacrifice itself but redirects the worshiper toward what he truly desires: thanksgiving, faithful vows, and calling on him in trouble (vv. 14, 15). The verse clears away the notion that we can bargain with God through ritual and opens the door to genuine relationship.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: God does not need animal sacrifices for his own good; he desires a heart of thanksgiving, trust, and obedience instead.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of animal sacrifices | Christians agree that sacrifices were ordained by God for Israel and that they were never for God’s own benefit or need. | Different traditions divide over whether the primary purpose was atonement (foreshadowing Christ’s sacrifice) or pedagogical (teaching Israel about holiness). Catholics and Orthodox see them as types fulfilled in the Eucharist; many Protestants emphasize that they were abolished in Christ. |
| Relevance for Christian worship | All traditions affirm that external forms without internal devotion are worthless before God. | There is disagreement over how much structure, liturgy, and physical offering remain appropriate in Christian worship, with some favoring simplicity and others ritual continuity. |
| Interpretation of the rhetorical question | Commentators concur that the question denies God’s need for material sustenance from sacrifice. | Some interpreters (especially older Reformed exegetes like Calvin) stress that the verse repudiates any merit in ceremonial works; others, such as Catholic scholars, see it as a call to proper disposition while still affirming the God-given value of the sacrificial system in its time. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Psalm 50 belongs to a small collection of psalms attributed to Asaph, a Levite appointed by David as a leader of temple music (1 Chronicles 6:31, 39; 2 Chronicles 29:30). As Calvin notes, Asaph was a seer as well as a singer. The psalm takes the form of a covenant lawsuit: God summons heaven and earth as witnesses and then addresses his people as both judge and prosecutor. The stark question of verse 13 comes in the middle of a longer argument (vv. 7, 15) that reinterprets the place of animal sacrifice.
In the ancient Near East, pagans commonly believed that their gods actually ate the food placed on altars. The priests of Baal, for example, set out meals for their deity. Barnes observes that this same misconception had crept into Israel: the people offered sacrifices as if they were doing God a favour or contributing to his happiness. The psalm cuts through that error. Verses 9, 12 already establish that God owns every animal, every bird, every creature. He is not hungry; he lacks nothing. The rhetorical question of verse 13 drives the point home with deliberate sarcasm. The verb forms are simple present tense in the Hebrew: “Do I eat? … Do I drink?”, a tone of incredulity.
The Cambridge Bible notes that this passage corresponds to the first table of the Decalogue, which governs Israel’s duty toward God. The people were keeping the forms of worship but missing the heart. The verse serves as a prophetic critique from within Israel’s own tradition, not as a rejection of the sacrificial system altogether but as a correction of its abuse. The sacrificial system was always meant to point beyond itself to the inner reality of faith and obedience.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Masoretic Text reads uniformly, and the ancient versions (LXX, Peshitta, Targum) reflect the same question. The Douay-Rheims translation included in the supplied data appears to be a copy error, as it substitutes verse 11. No textual issues affect the interpretation.
Reception History
Early Christian writers, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, read verses like this as prefiguring the end of the Levitical sacrificial system, pointing instead to Christ’s once-for-all offering (Hebrews 10:1, 10). In the patristic period, the verse was often cited to argue that God did not take delight in the blood of animals but in a pure heart. The Reformers, especially Calvin and the Geneva Bible commentators, made Psalm 50 a key text for distinguishing between outward ceremony and inward faith. Modern scholarship treats the verse as a prophetic critique emerging from within Israel’s own temple tradition, not as an abolition of sacrifice but as a restoration of its intended purpose. Across all eras, the verse has been sung in Christian hymns that emphasize God’s self-sufficiency and call for spiritual worship.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God owns everything (vv. 9, 12). Before the question of verse 13, the psalm establishes that all animals, birds, and creatures belong to God. He does not need to take from us; he gives to us.
- God does not need our offerings (v. 13). The rhetorical question dismisses the idea that God benefits from the material of sacrifice. It strips away any thought that worship is about supplying what God lacks.
- God wants our hearts (vv. 14, 15). Immediately after the question, the psalm pivots to what God truly desires: thanksgiving, fulfilled vows, and calling on him in trouble. The order matters, first the correction, then the invitation.
Five-point outline
- The covenant setting: God speaks as judge and witness (vv. 1, 6).
- The divine disclaimer: God has no need for bulls or goats (vv. 7, 13).
- The shocking question: “Will I eat the flesh of bulls?” (v. 13).
- The positive summons: offer thanksgiving, pay vows, call on God (vv. 14, 15).
- The warning and promise: God will deliver those who genuinely worship (vv. 22, 23).
Illustration hooks
- A person who gives a birthday gift to a wealthy friend who already owns everything. The gift is not for the friend’s need but is an expression of love. Sacrifice works the same way, it is for the worshiper’s good, not for God’s lack.
- A child who thinks doing chores earns their parent’s love. The parent corrects them: “I love you already; I want your company, not your work.” The verse corrects a similar misunderstanding about religious performance.
- A congregation that focuses on the style of music, the building, or the liturgy while missing the point of connecting with God. The rhetorical question asks: are you offering these things to me, or are you doing them for yourselves?
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why did God command animal sacrifices if he didn’t need them?
- Does this verse mean I shouldn’t bring offerings or tithes to church?
- What does it look like to offer thanksgiving as a sacrifice instead?
Leading a Discussion
This verse confronts a comfortable assumption: that our religious activities somehow put God in our debt. The rhetorical question is meant to stop us short and make us rethink why we worship. As you discuss, let the verse challenge your motives without discouraging the practice of giving.
Discussion questions
- What does this verse tell you about God’s nature? How is he different from the pagan gods of the ancient world?
- Why do you think the people of Israel had come to believe that God needed their animal sacrifices? What subtle dangers does that misunderstanding carry?
- In what ways do Christians today act as though God needs our worship, our money, or our service?
- Read verses 14, 15. What does God say he wants instead of animal sacrifice? How do these actions benefit the worshiper?
- Jesus said that God is spirit and seeks worshippers who worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). How does that connect with Psalm 50:13?
- If God doesn’t need our offerings, what is the purpose of giving in the New Covenant context?
- This psalm calls for thanksgiving and calling on God in trouble. How can you make those practices more central in your daily life this week?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke argues that animal sacrifices were never intended for God's own gratification. Instead, they served as symbols pointing to a spiritual worship and, ultimately, to the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, who would take away the world's sin.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes sees the verse's question as exposing the absurdity behind the sacrificial system when it is misunderstood. If sacrifices were meant to supply God's needs, then God would be like a creature requiring food and drink. The question cuts through that error, reminding Israel that God is Spirit and cannot be served by material offerings.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin insists that true worship is spiritual, not a matter of outward ceremonies. He argues that hypocrites dishonor God by confusing ritual with religion itself, and he points to two essential elements: prayer and thanksgiving.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
God acts as both accuser and judge, and his complaint is not against Israel's outward sacrifices but against the lack of heartfelt devotion behind them. What God truly wants is thanksgiving and trust, with prayer as the evidence of that trust. The duty demanded here matches the first table of the Ten Commandments, worship directed to God alone.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note drives home that God has no need for sacrifices as though He were hungry or thirsty. The rhetorical question makes clear that animal offerings do not supply any lack in God; He is entirely self-sufficient and requires nothing from His creatures.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses that God finds no pleasure in animal sacrifices because they can never take away sin. Their insufficiency is the very reason the psalmist moves on to mention sacrifices more in line with the Gospel. The old rites are not rejected arbitrarily but because they point beyond themselves.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch see this psalm as already turning away from outward sacrifices toward the spiritual offering of thanksgiving and prayer. They read it as a predictive movement within the Old Testament toward the new covenant worship of God in spirit and truth, a shift they trace back to Deuteronomy’s emphasis on love as the heart of the law.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads this psalm as a prophetic vision of God coming from Zion as judge to correct a deep misunderstanding. The issue is not that Israel neglected sacrifices, but that they thought God needed them. Heaven and earth serve as witnesses while God calls for thanksgiving and obedience, not empty ritual.