Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Bible: Exploring Facts and Myths About the Word of God  /  The Apostle's Bible (Part 2)  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 5
Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as “a body hast thou prepared for me,” while the Masoretic reads “mine ears hast thou opened”; how does each reading shape your understanding of the incarnation and sacrifice, and what does Bercot’s argument imply about what modern Christians may be “missing” theologically?
Another way to ask: How does “a body you prepared for me” versus “you opened my ears” change what you think Psalm 40 is saying about Jesus becoming human and dying for us? If Bercot is right, what important idea might modern Christians be missing?

Direct Answer Bercot argues the Septuagint reading directly supports the incarnation—God preparing a body for the Son—while the Masoretic reading shifts the focus to “ears,” so modern Christians using Masoretic-based Old Testaments may miss a key messianic, incarnation-centered prophecy.

Support from Transcript:

  • Hebrews 10:5: “Sacrifice… thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”
  • Psalm 40:6 in the Masoretic/KJV reads: “Mine ears hast thou opened,” with no mention of a prepared body.
  • Bercot calls this “an important omission,” saying “the significance of the incarnation is wrapped up in that prophecy.”
  • He notes the Hebrews writer “never even quotes” the “ears” phrase, implying it “doesn’t appear in his Bible.”
  • The Septuagint reads: “but a body hast thou prepared me,” matching Hebrews.
Discussion Follow-ups How might preaching on Christmas, the cross, and atonement change if Psalm 40 is read through the lens Bercot highlights?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next