John Calvin Commentary Psalms 40:7

"Then said I, Lo, I am come; In the roll of the book it is written of me:" — Psalms 40:7 (ASV)

Then I said, Lo! I come. By the adverb then he intimates that he had not been a good scholar, capable of profiting from instruction, until God had opened his ears. But as soon as he had been instructed by the secret inspirations of the Spirit, he tells us that then his heart was ready to yield willing and cheerful obedience.

Here true obedience is very properly distinguished from a constrained and slavish subjection. Whatever service, therefore, people may offer to God, it is vain and offensive in His sight, unless at the same time they offer themselves; and, moreover, this offering of oneself is of no value unless it is done willingly.

These words, Lo! I come, ought to be observed, and likewise the words, I have delighted to do Your will. For the Hebrew word חפצתי, chaphatsti, means, “I was well pleased,” or, “I willingly condescended.” Here David indicates his readiness to yield obedience, as well as the cordial affection of his heart and persevering resolution.

His language implies that he cordially preferred the service of God to every other desire and care, and had not only yielded willing subjection but also embraced the rule of a pious and holy life with a fixed and steady purpose of adhering to it. This he confirms still further in the third clause of the verse, in which he says that the Law of God was deeply fixed in the midst of his bowels. It follows from this:

1. However beautiful and splendid the works of people may appear, yet unless they spring from the living root of the heart, they are nothing better than a mere pretense.

2. It is to no purpose that the feet, hands, and eyes are formed for keeping the Law, unless obedience begins at the heart.

Moreover, it appears from other places of Scripture that it is the specific office of the Holy Spirit to engrave the Law of God on our hearts. God, it is true, does not perform His work in us as if we were stones or logs, drawing us to Himself without the feeling or inward movement of our hearts toward Him. But as there is in us naturally a will, which, however, is depraved by the corruption of our nature, so that it always inclines us to sin, God changes it for the better. Thus, He leads us cordially to seek righteousness, to which our hearts were previously altogether averse. Hence arises that true freedom which we obtain when God shapes our hearts, which before were in bondage to sin, to obedience to Himself.

In the roll of the book. Since the Septuagint has used the word head instead of roll, some have been inclined to philosophize on this clause with such refinement of speculation that they have exposed themselves to ridicule for their foolish and silly inventions. But the etymology of the word במגלת, bemegilath, is the same as the Latin word volumen, which we call a roll. It is necessary to ascertain in what sense David claims uniquely for himself what is common or similar to all people.

Since the Law prescribes for all people the rule of a holy and upright life, it may be said that it does not appear that what is stated here pertains to any one person or any group of people. I answer that although the literal doctrine of the Law belongs to all people in common, yet as it is dead by itself and only beats the air, God teaches His own people in a different manner. As the inward and effectual teaching of the Spirit is a treasure that belongs uniquely to them, it is written of them only in the secret book of God that they should fulfill His will.

The voice of God, indeed, resounds throughout the whole world, so that all who do not obey it are rendered inexcusable. But it penetrates the hearts of the godly alone, for whose salvation it is ordained. Therefore, just as a general enrolls the names of his soldiers that he may know their exact number, and as a schoolmaster writes the names of his scholars in a scroll, so God has written the names of His children in the book of life, that He may retain them under the yoke of His own discipline.

There still remains another difficulty connected with this passage. The Apostle, in Hebrews 10:5, seems to strain the interpretation of this passage when he restricts what is spoken of all the elect to Christ alone. He expressly contends that the sacrifices of the Law—which David says are not pleasing to God in comparison with obedience of the heart—are abrogated. And when quoting the words of the Septuagint rather than those of the prophet, he infers from them more than David intended to teach.

As to his restricting this passage to the person of Christ, the solution is easy. David did not speak in his own name only but has shown in general what belongs to all the children of God. But when bringing the whole body of the Church into view, it was necessary for him to refer us to the Head Himself.

It is no objection that David soon after attributes to his own sins the miseries he endures, for it is by no means an uncommon thing to find our errors, by a mode of expression not strictly correct, transferred to Christ.

As to the abrogation of the sacrifices that were under the Law, I answer: Their abrogation may be fairly inferred from the language of the prophets. This is not like many other places in which God condemns and rejects the sacrifices offered by hypocrites, which were deservedly offensive to Him on account of their uncleanness. In those instances, God condemns the outward ceremony because of its abuse and corruption, which rendered it nothing but a vain mockery. Here, however, when the Prophet speaks of himself as one who worshipped God sincerely and yet denies that God had pleasure in these sacrifices, it may easily be inferred that the rudimentary practices God commanded His ancient people for a time had some other purpose in view and were only like basic instructions designed to prepare them for a higher state.

But if their truth and substance are contained in Christ, it is certain that they have been abolished by His coming. They were indeed still in use in the time of David; yet he admonishes us that the true service of God, even when performed without sacrifices, was perfect and complete in all its parts, and everywhere. He also teaches that the ceremonies are things that might be regarded as non-essential and, so to speak, adventitious.

This is noteworthy, so that we may know that God, even after He has removed the symbols He commanded for a time, always remains consistent with Himself; for in these outward services, His concern was solely for people.

Regarding the Apostle, following the Septuagint, adapting the word body for his own use (a word not used here by David), there is no inconsistency in such an allusion. For he does not undertake expressly to unfold and explain every point of the Psalmist’s meaning. But as he had said that by the one sacrifice of Christ all the others had been abolished, he adds at the same time that a body had been prepared for Christ, so that by offering it up, Christ might fulfill the will of God.