The Sacrifice Of Animals

As the uncaused cause, God would have no need for the life or death of an animal for his own sustenance because it is animals, including people, that would metaphysically depend on him.  They are not where his existence is derived from or something he consumes (Psalm 50:12-13).  This is what God's words in Psalm 50:9-11 are about.  No animal from a person's pens or stalls was ever required by God on this level because all animals already belong to him as their creator.  When God says that he owns the cattle on a thousand hills (50:10), the context makes it clear that this is really a reference to him having all cattle under his domain and power just as he knows and has ownership over all birds and creatures of the field (50:11).  Of course, simply being the uncaused cause would already grant it this status regardless of whether the Bible says this directly.

Despite every organism already being his, the deity of the Bible does not refuse or dislike animal sacrifices by default.  Psalm 50:8, from the same chapter, says God does not rebuke people for merely offering sacrifices to him, verse 14 says to sacrifice thank offerings and fulfill vows to Yahweh, and verse 23 says that whoever sacrifices thank offerings (obviously with sincere intentions or it would otherwise be wicked) to God honors him.  More foundationally, entire sections of Mosaic Law prescribe or regulate sacrifices.  Nothing in Psalm 50 states or necessitates that divine ownership over the totality of life on Earth, and by extension the cosmos as a whole, means that there is nothing good or pleasing to God about offering animals to him in accordance with the methods and situations prescribed in the Torah.

It is not as if the Bible teaches that the blood of animals could ultimately atone for sins (Hebrews 10:4) as it is; it is repentance and commitment to God, which is in the deepest sense marked by subsequent obedience (Romans 6:1-2, James 2:26), that God truly wants, as Psalm 51:17 affirms.  Here, David says, speaking of sacrifices for sins rather than the voluntary kind of thank offerings (Leviticus 7:11-18), that the sacrifices of God are really a broken and contrite (repentant) spirit.  If there is such a thing as morality, it would by necessity be better to never sin or to cease wrongdoing than to offer animal sacrifices for one's evil.  This is what David would be referring to.  The sacrifices themselves, in the proper context and with the right motivations, are demanded by God in the Torah.  Still, to give a sin offering means one has erred, and the deeper remedy is to stop sinning.

Giving animals to God by sacrifice was/would not be handing things over to him which he had no control over beforehand, nor would it be a way to purify an unwilling sinner who thinks that insincere offerings will deliver them.  Psalm 50:16-17 adds in the midst of the aforementioned verses, "But to the wicked, God says: 'What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?  You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you.'"  In Jeremiah 7:21-23, God says that he did not just give the Israelites commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but also told them to obey him in other things (Deuteronomy 4:5-8), which would nullify the need for many sacrifices altogether (not all are for sin, like those required by Leviticus 12).  Sacrifice neither extends divine ownership nor absolves those who are not truly repentant.