Stupid Reading

 There is obviously a tension between Psalm 51v16 and v19. Does God want animal sacrifice or not? But it would be stupid to call this a contradiction. And stupid to say that one or other of these ideas must be a later editorial addition. This would assume that either the author or the editor or both were a bit thicker than we are. Maybe the original author was as sophisticated as we are, or perhaps more so, and was making a complex point in an artistic mode. Of course God had commanded animal sacrifice. But of course he wanted those sacrifices offered with penitential hearts. Clearly the author of the Psalm knew that the more important thing is to offer up our broken and contrite hearts, and that we should also perform our external religious duties. It's almost as if Jesus had taken this Psalm to heart too (e.g. Matthew 23:23).