Psalm 50:13

The context

The question follows directly from the refusal of verse 9, and it is put as a reductio: if God owned the animals already, what would the offering add? The psalm is arguing against a transactional view of worship, and it does so by pressing the imagery of the sacrificial meal to its absurd conclusion.

What it establishes

It establishes that the psalm rejects any account of sacrifice in which God is fed or paid. The rhetorical question assumes the answer is no, and that assumption is the ground for the thanksgiving the psalm goes on to require.

What it does not establish

It does not establish that the sacrificial system was a human invention. The psalm addresses how the rites were understood, not whether they were commanded. Nor does it say ritual is worthless, only that ritual as payment is not what God seeks.

Short note, first pass, October 2026. Corrections welcome.

Cited in these answers

• The Old Testament commanded animal sacrifices. Isn’t that evil — and how could a good God require it?

Part of Scripture, Opened — the exegetical layer behind every citation on this site. Scripture quotations are from the ESV.