How should we understand the change that the author made in quoting Psalm 40?

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 40:6–8 to show that Jesus fulfils God’s purposes. In order to emphasize Jesus’ willingness to do God’s will, he makes a couple of subtle changes to the psalm. For one, he replaces the term ear with body in Hebrews 10:5. The change is a thoughtful revision because by making the change, there is no loss of meaning from the original phrase. Still, he has been arguing that Christ’s actual blood is what atones for sin (Hebrews 9:14), and the term body suits this theme.

Next, he changes the noun burnt offering from a singular to a plural. The author of Hebrews has pointed out the various aspects of the old sacrificial system, including priests’ continually working in the outer tent (Hebrews 9:6), and the high priest’s offering annual sacrifices (Hebrews 9:7). Jesus’ bodily sacrifice is superior because it fulfils all of these.⁵

Third, the author replaces the verb ask with delight. The revision alters the phrase you have not required (Psalm 40:6) to you have taken no pleasure (Hebrews 10:6). The change is subtle, but emphasizes the fact that even though God did ask the Israelites to make sacrifices, he found no pleasure in them.⁶

Finally, the author of Hebrews simplifies Psalm 40:8 by removing the verb to plan and dropping the possessive my after God. This change leaves no ambiguity. It is not that Jesus planned to do God’s will; rather, he came to do God’s will.⁷

Counterargument:

It might be that there are some minor changes between the Septuagint and Hebrews 10:5–7 but these changes are inconsequential. It is most likely the case that the author is smoothing out the Greek. As such, we should be careful not to place any theological significance on the changes themselves. The theological significance is inherent in the messianic psalm.

Response to counterargument:

It is true that because the author of Hebrews has applied Psalm 40:1–17 to Jesus’ attitude and sacrifice it has messianic significance. Still, there is also reason to believe that the differences between Psalm 40:6–8 and Hebrews 10:5–7 are rhetorical changes that are theologically motivated. For example, changing ear (ὠτία) to body (σῶμα) introduces phonetic assonance with the plural noun burnt offerings (ὁλοκαυτώματα).⁸ This alone accounts for the two changes, and both changes not only improve the rhythm of the text but they also highlight the efficacy of Jesus’ bodily sacrifice, which replaces all offerings. There is a similar phonetic assonance between the οὐκ ἠθέλησας (you have not desired, Hebrews 10:5) and οὐκ εὐδόκησας (you do not take pleasure, Hebrews 10:6 ). This gives a phonetic reason for the revision from the verb αἰτέω (to ask) (Psalm 40:6) to εὐδοκέω (to delight) along with the theological motive.⁹ In the end, the changes seem to be deliberate because of they enhance the text both literarily and theologically.

Possible weaknesses:

One of the weaknesses of this view is the argument that the author made the changes for phonetic purposes. The notion is that the changes not only enhance the author’s theological purposes, but they also make the text more memorable and pleasing to the listener. While this is possible, if there is an effect, the effect is quite subtle. Thus, it would be easy to confuse intentional phonetic assonances with coincidence. Still, intentional phonetic assonance is possible, and the changes do seem to highlight the author’s theological purposes.

Explanation:

Earlier, in Hebrews 8:8–12 the author of Hebrews quoted from Jeremiah 31:31–34. His purpose is to show that Jeremiah prophesied that there would be a new covenant, and that Jesus fulfills the prophecy by reconciling sinners to God through the sacrifice of his body. As part of that new covenant, God will write his laws on people’s hearts (Hebrews 8:10). Still, the fact that God’s law will be written on people’s hearts is not what reconciles them with God; rather, Jesus’ sacrifice brings reconciliation, opening the way for a new law-abiding heart. How does all of this relate to the change made to Psalm 40:6–8 by the author in Hebrews 10:5–7?

When we reach Hebrews 10:5–7, the author has moved into a new theme. He is explaining that the old sacrificial system was unable to cleanse the conscience, but Jesus’ perfect sacrifice makes reconciliation once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). The author then introduces Psalm 40:6–8 to show that God never delighted in sacrifices, even if he wanted the people to offer them. God’s true desire is willing obedience from the heart. When David originally wrote these words he ends with the clause, Your law is on my heart (Psalm 40:7), and the author of Hebrews excludes this phrase. But why? Most likely, the author wants to emphasize God’s priority of obeying him with a willing heart, so he does not want to distract his audience by mentioning the Sinai laws.¹⁰

Counterargument:

The notion that the author of Hebrews omitted the clause, Your law is within my heart, is difficult to justify. The reason it is difficult to justify is that the line, Your law is within my heart, comes after the section that the author quoted. The fact is, unless he is going to quote a psalm in its entirety, an author has to conclude somewhere. Since the clause, Your law is within my heart, did not serve the author’s theological purposes, there was no reason to include it. Added to this, the verse markers for the Psalms were not part of the originals, so there is no sense in stating that the author left out part of a verse. The fact is, there was no such item as a verse when the author of Hebrews composed his work.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness with this view is that it assumes the author has left something out when in fact there is no way to confirm that this is the case. Since it is impossible to know whether the author removed the phrase intentionally, this view ends up being conjecture.

Explanation:

While it might be the case that the author has made some changes to Psalm 40:6–8, these are inconsequential. The fact is, the writer found in Psalm 40 a beautiful expression of the fact that God desires willing obedience from the heart, not sacrifice. Jesus’ ministry fulfils this desire perfectly, so the author of Hebrews uses the psalm to highlight this. While it is true that the author seems to make at least one major change, this change does not alter the original meaning of the psalm and is therefore inconsequential.

The change in mind here is the one from ear to body in Hebrews 10:5. The original psalm included the line, But you have given me an open ear, and the new transition reads, But a body you have prepared for me. Why does the author make this seemingly dramatic revision? The fact is, we find a similar phrase to the original in Isaiah 50:5. There the prophet writes, The Lord has opened my ear and I was not rebellious. The phrase is essentially the same as Psalm 40:6 and means the prophet listened obediently to God.¹¹

And what does you have prepared a body for me mean? It means essentially the same thing, the only difference being that the word ear is more specific and body is more general.¹² Still, in the end these come out to the same meaning.

Counterargument:

First, there are more changes than replacing the term ear with body. Second, even if we only dwell on this one change, this argument does not explain how the change came about; it simply points out that the change is inconsequential. It may be the change is inconsequential on some level, but this does not explain what motivated the author to do this. Did he have a version of the Septuagint that used the term body instead of ear? Or does the term body produce a better image in his original audience without loss of meaning? In any case, the use of the term body does support the author’s argument that nothing is cleansed without blood (Hebrews 9:22), making Jesus’ body the perfect sacrifice. 

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that the author makes several changes to Psalm 40:1–17 and this calls for an explanation. He not only replaces the term ear for body but he also makes singulars into plurals, reworks the order of the sentences, and tightens up the final clause. While these moves do not drastically change the meaning of Psalm 40:1–17, they all work together to heighten the author’s purpose, which is to show that Jesus is the archetype who willingly obeys God’s will.