The rhetorical question about what would happen if God were hungry establishes the hypothetical and absurd nature of the suggestion that God needs human gifts. The mention of hunger suggests the fundamental needs that characterize creatures dependent on physical sustenance. Yet the rhetorical form of the question implies that God does not experience hunger; God lacks the needs that characterize created beings. The implication is that if God did not eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats, it would be because God does not need them—not because God is unwilling to accept them. The verse suggests that the people have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of sacrifice and God's relationship to material offerings.

COMMUNITY REFLECTIONS

Publish a note on this verse