Ps. 50.8-9 (approaching the mystery of sacrifice)

“I will not / take a steer / from your household, - or billy-goats, / from your pens - for / every creature / of the forest / is mine, - and the beasts / of the thousand hills.” There is something to this verse in particular that is perplexing, though not at first glance. We know that the appearance of God has been to give instruction and to enter into covenant with his devotees. We also know that that entrance is to be made by and through sacrifice. It is therefore odd when we read here that God “will not take a steer” or “bill-goat”. Isn’t that precisely what happens in sacrifice? Indeed, God is not ‘reproving them’ for their sacrifices. I think, in fact, that this ambiguity is precisely what God is attempting to address. And I think we can get some traction on what he is getting at in two ways. First, we have to admit that sacrifice is performed and so obviously what God means by not ‘taking’ a steer or billy-goat is not simply the act of sacrifice itself. Rather, it appears that the act of sacrifice is not a ‘taking’ at all by God, even though something is being ‘handed over’ to him (or, is it?). The immediately point is obvious—God does not ‘take’ what is already ‘his’. This dynamism between what is from ‘your household’ and what ‘is mine’ is central. If everything is already ‘owned’ by God, then the nature of sacrifice itself cannot be his ‘taking’, nor can it be a providing to him of some form of benefit. One is not, in an economic fashion, transferring goods in sacrifice to God. It is a fascinating reality though: these animals are both ‘owned’ by God and man (they are from “your household” and “your pens”). God’s ownership and man’s ownership is, apparently, non-competitive and non-exclusive. The same animal can be owned by both. This reorientation transforms not only the nature, but the meaning of sacrifice. If it is not a transfer (between either party), what is it? Here we come a second observation: when God turns to the wicked they will be accused of delighting in the company of thieves (vs. 18). I believe we are to see in this contrast, the fact that joining into covenant with God (joining his ‘company’) is not joining the company of a thief, someone who ‘takes steers and billy-goats’. Furthermore, the wicked are marked by exploitation. It is their ‘hallmark’ in the second half of the psalm. What we are to see, then, is that the sacrifices offered to God are the antithesis of exploitation. God is not, as the wicked are, arrogating to himself something he doesn’t already possess. He does not need to take advantage of the weaker party as they, literally, have nothing to give him. We can, therefore, come to some tentative conclusions about the nature and purpose of sacrifice: it is not a transfer in any normal understanding of that term (one is not ‘adding’ anything to God’s possessions); the sacrifice is of a mutually-owned animal; it is not only not a moment of thievery, but it is not, in any way, an act of exploitation. We can begin to see here, however faintly, that this act is one of light and of mutual giving (rather than mutual taking). And, it is this animal, owned by both, that will be killed and used as the entrance to covenant (and eaten by the participant, but not God).