Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me:

“"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo! I come, in the volume of the book it is written of Me, to do Thy will, O God." The types therefore contain the figure only, not the power; just as in images, the image has the figure of the man, not the power. So that the reality and the type have somewhat in common with one another. For the figure exists equally in both, but not the power.”

“Above, the Apostle, having considered the things that are done in each testament, showed the preeminence of the new testament over the old; here he proves one thing that he supposes, namely that the old could not cleanse sins. And this is the last of those five things which he had set forth beforehand concerning Christ. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows the defect of the old testament concerning the abolition of guilt; second, from this he compares the priest of the new testament to the priest of the old testament, at Every priest indeed. Again, the first is divided into two. For first he proposes what he intends; second he proves it through the authority of Scripture, at Therefore entering into the world. Likewise the first is divided into two. For first he proposes his intention; second he proves it, at Otherwise they cease. Concerning the first, it must be known that the Apostle concludes to this very defect from the condition and rite of the old law. Now through sin there comes about a privation of future goods, and therefore, as it were, because that sin pertains to future goods, namely the heavenly ones, the old law stands to those goods as a shadow to the body, but the new law as an image. Now a shadow and an image agree in this, that each represents something; but a shadow represents in common, and as to the nature of the species, while an image represents in particular, and as to the nature of the individual, and specially. So too the new law, as regards future goods, represents more expressly than the old. First, because in the words of the new testament express mention and promise is made of future goods, but not in the old, but only of carnal things. Second, because the power of the new testament consists in charity, which is the fullness of the law. And although this charity is imperfect, by reason of the faith to which it adheres, nevertheless it is like the charity of our homeland. Hence the new law is called the law of love. And therefore it is called an image, because it has an express likeness of future goods. But the old law represents that likeness through certain carnal things, and from a great distance; and therefore it is called a shadow. Col. 2:17: which are a shadow of things to come. This, then, is the condition of the old testament, that it has a shadow of things to come, not the image of the realities. Now the rite was that year by year they offered on the feast of expiation the same victims, namely the blood of goats and bulls, for the same thing, namely for sin, as is clear from Lev. 23. From these two he concludes to his intention, namely that the law, having a shadow of future goods and not the image of the realities, cannot make perfect those who approach, namely the priests, by the same victims which they offer unceasingly, that is, year by year. Above, 7:19: the law brought no one to perfection. But this perfection is reserved for the new law, which consists in charity, which is the bond of perfection, Col. 3:14. Therefore it is said, Matt. 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect. Then, when he says Otherwise they would have ceased, he proves his intention from two things: first from the rite; second from the condition of the things offered, at For impossible. Now to prove that the law did not cleanse perfectly, he assumes two things. The first is that in it there occurred a frequent repetition of the same victims; and the reasoning is this: if the worshippers had once been cleansed through the same victims, since they would no longer have consciousness of sin, they would have ceased to offer, and if they had ceased, they would not need to offer. But then they did not cease, because, as has been said, year by year they offered the same victims. Therefore, because they did not cease always offering the same thing, it is a sign that they were not being cleansed. Matt. 9:12: There is no need of a physician for those who are well, but for those who are sick. But against this, because it could be said that the reasoning is not conclusive. For it could be said that that oblation cleansed from past sins, not from future ones, and therefore, because they sinned frequently, it was necessary for the oblation to be repeated frequently. I respond. It must be said that the Apostle's manner of speaking excludes this, because, since sin is a certain spiritual thing, which is opposed to the heavenly, that by which sin is cleansed must be spiritual and heavenly, and consequently must have perpetual power. Hence above, speaking of the power of the sacrifice of Christ, he attributes to it perpetual power, saying, having obtained eternal redemption. Now what has perpetual power suffices for both what is to be committed and what has been committed, and therefore it need not be repeated any further. Hence Christ by one oblation cleansed for ever those who are sanctified, as is said below. Likewise, as to what is said here, that it is not repeated: against this, because we offer daily. I respond. It must be said that we do not offer any other than that which Christ offered for us, namely his own blood. Hence it is not another oblation, but it is a commemoration of that victim which Christ offered. Luke 22:19: Do this in commemoration of me. The second thing he sets forth beforehand is that in the old testament a commemoration was made year by year of his own sins and those of the people; therefore they were not abolished. Hence he says that in them a commemoration is made, etc., which is true. For in general mention was made of sins, namely that one was conscious of sin, but in particular mention is made in the new. James 5:16: Confess your sins one to another. Then, when he says For it is impossible, etc., he proves the same thing from the condition of the things offered. For the most solemn of these was the oblation of goats and calves, which took place on the day of expiation. And since this was a certain obscure and imperfect representation of heavenly things, like a shadow, it is impossible for sin to be taken away by the blood of these. This is true as regards its own power. But if sins were forgiven to anyone, this was by the power of the blood of Christ, who was prefigured in that. Jer. 11:15: shall the holy flesh take away from thee thy wickednesses, in which thou hast gloried? As if to say: no. Then, when he says Therefore entering into the world, etc., he adduces the authority of Scripture, and concerning this he does two things. For first he sets it down; second he expounds it, at Saying above. This authority can be divided into two, according to the Gloss, because first it treats of the incarnation of Christ prefigured in the legal rites; second, of the passion of Christ, at Then said I. However, according to the intention of the Apostle it can be said otherwise, that first he touches on that which pertains to the rejection of the old testament; second, that which pertains to the acceptance of the new testament, at Then said I. Now this authority applies to Christ according as he enters into the world; therefore, because those things could not take away sins, the Son of God, entering into the world, says. Against this, because it is said, John 1:10: he was in the world. I respond. It must be said that it is true that he was in the world, as it were governing the whole, inasmuch as he is said to be in all things by essence, presence, and power; but he is outside the world, because he is not comprehended by the world, but has a goodness separate from the whole world, from which the goodness of the universe is caused. But because for our sake he was made a suppositum of human nature, he is said to enter into the world on account of his assumption of it, as above, 1:6: when he bringeth again the firstborn into the world, etc. Entering, therefore, into the world he says. But what does he say? Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not. Now he sets down four things which existed in the old testament, because a sacrifice was either of inanimate things, for instance bread or incense, and then it was called an oblation. Or of animate things, and then either for placating God, and it is called a holocaust, which was the most worthy, because the whole was burnt up and went to the honor of God. Or it was for the cleansing of sin, and it is called a sacrifice for sin. And this had two parts, because one part was burnt on the altar, the other went for the use of the ministers. Or it was for the benefits of God, and this was less worthy, because only a third part was burnt, and one part was given to the ministers, another to those offering. And this is called the sacrifice of peace offerings. To all these, in the new testament, there corresponds the oblation of the body of Christ, because through the body of Christ God was placated, namely in the offering of it on the cross. Rom. 5:10: when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Likewise through him sin was taken away. 1 Pet. 3:18: Christ died once for our sins. Likewise through him we are brought into eternal goods, and are advanced to the benefits of God. He says therefore, Victim, that is, sacrifice, and oblation thou wouldest not; and he interposes afterward, But a body hast thou fitted to me, that is, thou hast made it fit for immolation. And this as to two things. First, because it was most pure, that it might blot out every sin. Ex. 12:5: it shall be a lamb without blemish. Likewise, because it was passible, that it might be able to be immolated. Rom. 8:3: God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Now this body is a true victim and a true oblation. Eph. 5:2: he delivered himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. Holocausts also for sin did not please thee. It is greater to please than to will, because those things please which have in themselves something such that we will them. But we sometimes will certain things not for their own sake, but for the sake of something else. Therefore, because holocausts were the more worthy things, of which nevertheless he says that they did not please, therefore much less the others. But against this, because it is said, Lev. 1:9, that the priest burned them upon the altar for a holocaust and a sweet odor to the Lord. Moreover, if he did not will them, why did he command these to be offered to him? I respond. It must be said that this, that God says he does not will those things, can be understood in two ways. In one way, that he does not will them for this present time, in which, the truth having arrived, the shadow ceases; hence now he who would offer them would sin. In another way, that he does not will them on account of the sins of those offering. Is. 1:15: for your hands are full of blood. The third response, to which the Apostle tends, is that these things never pleased God in themselves, nor were they accepted, but they are said to be accepted on account of two things. First, because they were a figure of Christ, whose passion was accepted by God. For he was not delighted in the slaying of animals, but in the faith of his passion. For all these things happened to them in figure, 1 Cor. 10:11. Second, that he might call us back from idolatry through these sacrifices; hence in the first giving of the law no mention is made of sacrifices, but only after they made the calf. Hence Jer. 7:22: I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of holocausts and victims. Then, when he says Then said I, etc., he continues concerning the approbation of the new testament, and according to the Gloss it is read thus: then, namely when thou hadst fitted a body to me, namely at the conception, I said, Behold I come, that is, I proposed to come, namely to the passion. 1 John 5:6: this is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. Or it is better that it be referred to the coming into the world thus: then, namely when holocausts did not please thee, I said, I come, through the incarnation. John 16:28: I came out from the Father, and am come into the world. And this, that I might offer myself unto the passion. And therefore he says: behold. But will this sacrifice indeed be accepted? Certainly so, because in the head of the book it is written of me. This book is Christ according to his human nature, in whom are written all things necessary for man unto salvation. Is. 8:1: take thee a great book. Now the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3. In the head of the book, that is, in the ordination of God, who is the head of Christ, who is the book, it is written that the Son of God was to be incarnate and to die. Or the book, that is, the Psalter, whose first Psalm is about Christ. Or better, the book of life, which is nothing other than the knowledge which God has of the predestination of the saints who are saved through Christ. Therefore in this book it is written of me, because the saints are predestined through me. Eph. 1:4: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. Rom. 8:29: whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son. If therefore predestination is called a book, it is manifest that Christ is the head of the book. Apoc. 21:27: who are not written in the book of life of the Lamb. Who is simply predestined. Rom. 1:4: who was predestinated the Son of God in power. Therefore in the head of the book, that is, in me according to the divine nature, it is written of me according to the human nature, that I should do the will, namely thine, that is, this was foreordained, that through thy grace I should do thy will, by offering myself for the redemption of the human race. Then, when he says Saying above, he expounds the authority set forth before. And concerning this he does two things. For first, by assigning the order of the things to be said, he sets down the difference between the new and the old testament; second he expounds specially a certain thing supposed in the authority, at In which will. Now it has been said that two things were touched on in the authority alleged. One, which pertains to the rejection of the old testament; the other, to the approbation of the new testament. Now the old testament is rejected in two ways, both because God does not will its sacrifices, and because they do not please him; and thus David the prophet, saying above, that is, at the beginning. And what does he say? That sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts, and for sin thou wouldest not. Is. 1:11: the holocaust of rams, and the fat of fatlings, and the blood of calves, and lambs, and goats, I would not, etc. Thou wouldest not — this is true in itself; nor are the things pleasing to thee which are offered according to the law, that is, thou dost not delight in these, Ps. 50:17: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted — unless because they are a figure, or insofar as through them men were drawn back from idolatry. Therefore, having said this first, he subjoins Then said I, namely when thou hadst fitted flesh to me for the passion, or when these things did not please: Behold I come, whether unto the incarnation or unto the passion. But unto what? That I may do thy will. John 6:38: I came down from heaven, that I may do the will of him that sent me. John 4:34: my meat is to do the will of him that sent me. The prophet, therefore, saying this, takes away the first, that he may establish the second. In which he shows the difference between the old and the new testament, because speaking of the old he says that he does not will them, nor are they pleasing to God, namely in themselves; therefore they are taken away. But when he speaks of the new, he says that he wills it, because unto this I come, that I may do thy will. Therefore the new is established, that is, it is confirmed to be according to the will of God. Lev. 26:10: you shall cast away the old, the new coming on. Then, when he says In which will, he expounds that which he had said about the will of God, which Christ came to fulfill, namely what that will is. Now this is as it is said, 1 Thess. 4:3: this is the will of God, your sanctification. Therefore he says, In which will we are sanctified, and this, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, namely made. Eph. 5:2: he offered himself an oblation and a sacrifice to God. And this, once. 1 Pet. 3:18: Christ died once for our sins. Then, when he says And every priest indeed, he shows the comparison of the priest of the new and of the old testament. Now it must be known that in the law there were two solemn sacrifices. One on the day of expiation, which was done by the high priest alone, concerning which much has already been said. The other was the continual sacrifice, in which one lamb was offered in the morning, and another in the evening, concerning which Num. 28:4. Of this also the Apostle here intends, and concerning this he does three things. For first he sets down that which pertains to the priest of the old testament; second he sets down that which pertains to the priest of the new; third he confirms it through authority. The second, at But this one, one; the third, at But he testifies. He says therefore, Every priest, etc. He says every, to differentiate from the sacrifice of expiation, which was done only by the high priest; but in this one, every priest is ready at hand, ministering the whole day, and often offering the same victims, because he always offered a lamb. These, namely the daily victims, could not take away sins, because they were repeated. Jer. 11:15: shall the holy flesh take away from thee thy wickednesses, in which thou hast gloried? Through this continual sacrifice is figured Christ, and the eternity of him who is the spotless lamb. Then, when he says But this one, one for sins, he shows that which pertains to the priesthood of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down his intention; second he assigns the reason, at For one. He says therefore, But this one, namely Christ, offering one victim for sins, namely one that takes away sins. But that old law offered many victims that did not expiate sins; this one, therefore, namely Christ, offering one victim, because he offered himself once for our sins, sits, not as a minister, as the legal priest who is always ready at hand, but as lord. Ps. 109:1: the Lord said to my Lord: sit thou at my right hand. Mark, last chapter: he sitteth at the right hand of God. At the right hand of God the Father, as to equality of power according to the divinity, but in the more excellent goods according to the humanity. Above, 1:3: he sitteth at the right hand of majesty, etc. And this forever. For he will not die again, because Christ rising from the dead, etc. Rom. 6:9; Dan. 7:14: his power, an everlasting power. For the rest, waiting until his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. This waiting does not suggest any anxiety in Christ, as in men. Hope that is deferred afflicts the soul, as is said, Prov. 13:12. But it designates the will of showing mercy, which God has toward us. Is. 30:18: the Lord waiteth, that he may have mercy on us. There are subjected, therefore, to his feet, that is, to the humanity of Christ, some who are willing, and in this their salvation consists, namely in doing his will. Ex. 10:3: how long refusest thou to be subject to me? But the wicked, unwilling, are themselves subjected, because even if they do not of themselves fulfill his will, nevertheless it is fulfilled concerning them as to the work of justice. And thus all things are subjected to him in one or another of these ways. Ps. 8:7: thou hast subjected all things under his feet. Then, when he says For by one oblation, he assigns the reason, namely why he sits as lord, and not as a minister, like the legal priest, because that one did not take away sins by one victim, and therefore it was necessary to offer many others, and frequently. Above, 5:1: for every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. But the victim which Christ offered takes away all sins. Above, 9:28: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. And therefore he says that by one oblation he consummated, that is, perfected, that which he accomplished by reconciling and joining us to God as to our principle — those sanctified forever, because the victim of Christ, who is God and man, has an eternal power of sanctifying. Below, 13:12: Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, etc. For through Christ we are perfected and joined to God. Rom. 5:2: through whom we have access to God. Then, when he says But he testifies, he confirms what he had said through the authority which is taken from Jer. 31:33, which, because it was expounded above in the eighth chapter, is for the present omitted. And nevertheless it can be divided into two parts. First he sets down the authority; second he argues from it, at But where there is remission of these. And he makes such an argument: in the new testament sins are remitted through the oblation of Christ, because the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins; therefore in the new testament, in which sins and iniquities are remitted, as was said in the authority, there is no oblation for sin — supply, to be repeated any further. Matt. 9:12: there is no need of a physician for those who are well, but for those who are sick. Where therefore there is remission of these, etc. For an injury would be done to the victim of Christ.”

“Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith,.... In Psa 40:7. This was said by David, not of himself, and his own times, for sacrifice and offering were desired and required in his times; nor was he able to do the will of God; so as to fulfil the law, and make void legal sacrifices; nor did he engage as a surety to do this; nor was it written of him in the volume of the book that he should: besides, he speaks of one that was not yet come, though ready to come, when the fulness of time should be up; and who is here spoken of as coming into the world, and who is no other than Jesus Christ; and this is to be understood, not of his coming into Judea, or the temple at Jerusalem; or out of a private, into a public life; nor of his entrance into the world to come, into heaven, into life eternal, as the Targum on Psa 40:7 paraphrases it, after he had done his work on earth, for the other world is never expressed by the world only; nor did Christ go into that to do the will of God, but to sit down there, after he had done it; besides, Christ's entrance into heaven was a going out of the world, and not into it. To which may be added, that this phrase always signifies coming into this terrene world, and intends men's coming into it at their birth; See Gill on Joh 1:9 and must be understood of Christ's incarnation, which was an instance of great love, condescension, and grace; and the, reason of it was to do what the law, and the blood of bulls and goats, could not do. For it follows, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; or didst not desire and delight in, as the word used in Psa 40:6 signifies; meaning not the sacrifices of wicked men, or such as were offered up without faith in Christ; but the ceremonial sacrifices God himself had instituted, and which were offered in the best manner; and that not merely in a comparative sense, as in Hos 6:6 but the meaning is, that God would not have these continue any longer, they being only imposed for a time, and this time being come; nor would he accept of them, as terms, conditions, and causes of righteousness, pardon, peace, and reconciliation; but he willed that his Son should offer himself an offering, and a sacrifice for a sweet smelting savour to him. But a body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psa 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Phi 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exo 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice.”

“When he (the Messiah) cometh into the world - Was about to be incarnated, He saith to God the Father, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not - it was never thy will and design that the sacrifices under thy own law should be considered as making atonement for sin, they were only designed to point out my incarnation and consequent sacrificial death, and therefore a body hast thou prepared me, by a miraculous conception in the womb of a virgin, according to thy word, The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent. A body hast thou prepared me - The quotation in this and the two following verses is taken from Psalm 40, 6th, 7th, and 8th verses, as they stand now in the Septuagint, with scarcely any variety of reading; but, although the general meaning is the same, they are widely different in verbal expression in the Hebrew. David's words are, אזנים כרית לי oznayim caritha li, which we translate, My ears hast thou opened; but they might be more properly rendered, My ears hast thou bored, that is, thou hast made me thy servant for ever, to dwell in thine own house; for the allusion is evidently to the custom mentioned, Exo 21:2, etc.: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free; but if the servant shall positively say, I love my master, etc., I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him to the door post, and shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever." But how is it possible that the Septuagint and the apostle should take a meaning so totally different from the sense of the Hebrew? Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word אזנים oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for אז גוה az gevah, Then a Body. The first syllable אז, Then, is the same in both; and the latter נים, which joined to אז, makes אזנים oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for גוה gevah, Body; נ nun, being very like ג gimel; י yod, like ו vau; and ה he, like final ם mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root כרה carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, etc. On this supposition the ancient copy, translated by the Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: אז גוה כרית לי az gevah caritha li, σωμα δε κατηρτισω μοι, then a body thou hast prepared me: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world. The Ethiopic has nearly the same reading; the Arabic has both, A body hast thou prepared me, and mine ears thou hast opened. But the Syriac, the Chaldee, and the Vulgate, agree with the present Hebrew text; and none of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi have any various reading on the disputed words. It is remarkable that all the offerings and sacrifices which were considered to be of an atoning or cleansing nature, offered under the law, are here enumerated by the psalmist and the apostle, to show that none of them nor all of them could take away sin, and that the grand sacrifice of Christ was that alone which could do it. Four kinds are here specified, both by the psalmist and the apostle, viz.: Sacrifice, זבח zebach, θυσια· Offering, מנחה minchah, προσφορα· Burnt-Offering, עולה olah, ὁλοκαυτωμα· Sin-Offering, חטאה chataah, περι ἁμαρτιας. Of all these we may say, with the apostle, it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats, etc., should take away sin.”

“Therefore, Christ as it were, coming into the world, he saith, by the psalmist, (Psalm xxxix. 7. 8.) Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire, &c. That is, such sacrifices as were offered in the former law, they could not please thee, appease thy anger, nor make a sufficient reparation for sin. — But a [3] body thou hast fitted to me. Thou didst decree I should be made man, to suffer and die upon a cross to redeem mankind. And I as willingly undertook the work of man’s redemption. — Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me. [4] That is, in the volumes of the Scriptures. — He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. That is, he taketh away what I first mentioned, the imperfect sacrifices of the law of Moses, that to them might succeed the sacrifice of Christ. (Witham)”

“Christ's voluntary self offering, in contrast to those inefficient sacrifices, is shown to fulfill perfectly "the will of God" as to our redemption, by completely atoning "for (our) sins." Wherefore--seeing that a nobler than animal sacrifices was needed to "take away sins." when he cometh--Greek, "coming." The time referred to is the period before His entrance into the world, when the inefficiency of animal sacrifices for expiation had been proved [THOLUCK]. Or, the time is that between Jesus' first dawning of reason as a child, and the beginning of His public ministry, during which, being ripened in human resolution, He was intently devoting Himself to the doing of His Father's will [ALFORD]. But the time of "coming" is present; not "when He had come," but "when coming into the world"; so, in order to accord with ALFORD'S view, "the world" must mean His PUBLIC ministry: when coming, or about to come, into public. The Greek verbs are in the past: "sacrifice . . . Thou didst not wish, but a body Thou didst prepare for Me"; and, "Lo, I am come." Therefore, in order to harmonize these times, the present coming, or about to come, with the past, "A body Thou didst prepare for Me," we must either explain as ALFORD, or else, if we take the period to be before His actual arrival in the world (the earth) or incarnation, we must explain the past tenses to refer to God's purpose, which speaks of what He designed from eternity as though it were already fulfilled. "A body Thou didst prepare in Thy eternal counsel." This seems to me more likely than explaining "coming into the world," "coming into public," or entering on His public ministry. David, in the fortieth Psalm (here quoted), reviews his past troubles and God's having delivered him from them, and his consequent desire to render willing obedience to God as more acceptable than sacrifices; but the Spirit puts into his mouth language finding its partial application to David, and its full realization only in the divine Son of David. "The more any son of man approaches the incarnate Son of God in position, or office, or individual spiritual experience, the more directly may his holy breathings in the power of Christ's Spirit be taken as utterances of Christ Himself. Of all men, the prophet-king of Israel resembled and foreshadowed Him the most" [ALFORD]. a body hast thou prepared me--Greek, "Thou didst fit for Me a body." "In Thy counsels Thou didst determine to make for Me a body, to be given up to death as a sacrificial victim" [WAHL]. In the Hebrew, Psa 40:6, it is "mine ears hast thou opened," or "dug." Perhaps this alludes to the custom of boring the ear of a slave who volunteers to remain under his master when he might be free. Christ's assuming a human body, in obedience to the Father's will, in order to die the death of a slave (Heb 2:14), was virtually the same act of voluntary submission to service as that of a slave suffering his ear to be bored by his master. His willing obedience to the Father's will is what is dwelt on as giving especial virtue to His sacrifice (Heb 10:7, Heb 10:9-10). The preparing, or fitting of a body for Him, is not with a view to His mere incarnation, but to His expiatory sacrifice (Heb 10:10), as the contrast to "sacrifice and offering" requires; compare also Rom 7:4; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22. More probably "opened mine ears" means opened mine inward ear, so as to be attentively obedient to what God wills me to do, namely, to assume the body He has prepared for me for my sacrifice, so Job 33:16, Margin; Job 36:10 (doubtless the boring of a slave's "ear" was the symbol of such willing obedience); Isa 50:5, "The Lord God hath opened mine ear," that is, made me obediently attentive as a slave to his master. Others somewhat similarly explain, "Mine ears hast thou digged," or "fashioned," not with allusion to Exo 21:6, but to the true office of the ear--a willing, submissive attention to the voice of God (Isa 50:4-5). The forming of the ear implies the preparation of the body, that is, the incarnation; this secondary idea, really in the Hebrew, though less prominent, is the one which Paul uses for his argument. In either explanation the idea of Christ taking on Him the form, and becoming obedient as a servant, is implied. As He assumed a body in which to make His self-sacrifice, so ought we present our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1).”