Psalms 50:10

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Ver. 10. For every beast of the forest is mine] God is the great proprietary; and all is his by primitive right. It is but of his own, therefore, that any man giveth him aught; as David freely acknowledgeth, 1Ch 29:14; and that great emperor, who, dedicating his rich communion table to Jesus Christ, wrote upon it τα σο εκ των σων σοι προσφερομεν, Thine own, and of thine own, Lord, present we unto thee (Justinian apud Cedren.). And yet vain man is apt to conceit that God is obliged unto him when he offereth unto God any part of his goods.

And the cattle upon a thousand hills] Or, upon the hills of a thousand owners.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. (Psa 50:10) For to me (belongs) every beast of the forest, the cattle in hills of a thousand. This last idiomatic phrase may either mean a thousand hills, or hills where the cattle rove by thousands, with probable allusion to the hilly grounds of Bashan beyond Jordan. See above, on Psa 22:13 (12). According to etymology, the noun in the first clause means an animal, and that in the second beasts or brutes in general. See above, on Psa 49:13(12). But when placed in antithesis, the first denotes a wild beast, and the second domesticated animals or cattle. Both words were necessary to express God's sovereign propriety in the whole animal creation. Thus understood, the verse assigns a reason for the negative assertion in the one before it. Even if God could stand in need of animal oblations, for his own sake, or for their sake, he would not be under the necessity of coming to man for them, since the whole animal creation is his property and perfectly at his disposal.

Joseph Addison Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained (1850) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

50:10 I own the cattle on a thousand hills: God has no needs; he possesses everything.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Though he did delight in sacrifice, yet had he no need of man’s help thereunto.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 10. Every beast of the forest is mine] Can ye suppose that ye are laying me under obligation to you, when ye present me with a part of my own property?

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(10) A thousand hills.—Literally, mountains of a thousand, an expression for which there is no analogy, but which might conceivably mean, “mountains where the cattle are by thousands;” but surely the LXX. and Vulg. are right here, in rendering “oxen” instead of “a thousand,” and we should read “hills of oxen.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For every beast of the forest is mine,.... By creation and preservation; and therefore he stood in no need of their bullocks and he goats;

and the cattle upon a thousand hills; meaning all the cattle in the whole world.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

For every beast of the forest is mine - All the beasts that roam at large in the wilderness; all that are untamed and unclaimed by man. The idea is, that even if God “needed” such offerings, he was not dependent on them - for the numberless beasts that roamed at large as his own would yield an ample supply.

And the cattle upon a thousand hills - This may mean either the cattle that roamed by thousands on the hills, or the cattle on numberless hills. The Hebrew will bear either construction. The former is most likely to be the meaning. The allusion is probably to the animals that were pastured in great numbers on the hills, and that were claimed by men. The idea is, that all - whether wild or tame - belonged to God, and he had a right to them, to dispose of them as he pleased. He was not, therefore, in any way dependent on sacrifices. It is a beautiful and impressive thought, that the “property” in all these animals - in all living things on the earth - is in God, and that he has a right to dispose of them as he pleases. What man owns, he owns under God, and has no right to complain when God comes and asserts his superior claim to dispose of it at his pleasure. God has never given to man the absolute proprietorship in “any” thing; nor does he invade our rights when he comes and claims what we possess, or when in any way he removes what is most valuable to us. Compare Job 1:21.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I would command or dispose them at my pleasure, without thy leave or assistance, even the cattle which feed upon innumerable hills, or in valleys and fields.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 10. For every beast of the forest is mine. How could they imagine that the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, had need of beasts, when all the countless hordes that find shelter in a thousand forests and wildernesses belong to him? And the cattle upon a thousand hills. Not alone the wild beasts, but also the tamer creatures are all his own. Even if God cared for these things, he could supply himself. Their cattle were not, after all, their own, but were still the great Creator's property, why then should he be beholden to them. From Dan to Beersheba, from Nebaioth to Lebanon, there fed not a beast which was not marked with the name of the great Shepherd; why, then, should he crave oblations of Israel? What a slight is here put even upon sacrifices of divine appointment when wrongly viewed as in themselves pleasing to God! And all this to be so expressly stated under the law! How much more is this clear under the gospel, when it is so much more plainly revealed, that "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"? Ye Ritualists, ye Sacramentarians, ye modern Pharisees, what say ye to this?

Ver. 10. "For to me (belongs) every beast of the forest, the cattle in hills of a thousand." This last idiomatic phrase may either mean a thousand hills, or hills where the cattle rove by thousands, with probable allusion to the hilly grounds of Bashan beyond Jordan. According to etymology, the noun in the first clause means an animal, and that in the second beasts or brutes in general. But when placed in antithesis, the first denotes a wild beast, and the second domesticated animals or cattle. Both words were necessary to express God's sovereign propriety in the whole animal creation. Thus understood, the verse assigns a reason for the negative assertion in the one before it. Even if God could stand in need of animal oblations, for his own sake, or for their sake, he would not be under the necessity of coming to man for them, since the whole animal creation is his property and perfectly at his disposal. J. A. Alexander.

Charles H. Spurgeon's The Treasury of David (1869–1885) — public domain. Psalms only. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. So the Revised Version, Dr. Kay, Canon Cook, the Four Friends, and others; but many critics regard such a rendering as impossible. Of these, some translate, "And the cattle upon the hills, where there are thousands" (Hupfeld, Hengstenberg, etc.); while others read for pla, and render, "And the cattle upon the mountains of God" (Olshausen, Cheyne).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the behemoth of the thousand mountains That is (the bull) destined for the future feast [of the righteous], which grazes on a thousand mountains daily, and every day they grow back. Others explain this to mean one thousand mountains or one thousand parasangs (i.e., one mountain that is 1,000 parasangs long, or perhaps it should read: 1,000 bulls. The plural “mountains” indicates that there were many mountains of that type.[Shem Ephraim]) Others explain that this is like (Deut. 7:13): “the litter of your cattle (אלפיך).” i.e., mountains full of cattle, because he says, “I will not take from your household a bull.”

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.