Act 2:29-30 | Clarke | e4.org | Verse 29. Let me speak freely-of the patriarch David ] In Midris Tillin , it is said, in a paraphrase on the words, my flesh shall rest in hope , "Neither worm nor insect had power over David." It is possible that this opinion prevailed in the time of St. Peter, and, if so, his words are the more pointed and forcible; and therefore thus applied by Dr. Lightfoot: "That this passage, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell , &c., is not to be applied to David himself appears in that I may confidently aver concerning him, that he was dead and buried , and never rose again ; but his soul was left ειςαδου, in the state of the dead , and HE saw corruption ; for his sepulchre is with us to this day, under that very notion, that it is the sepulchre of David, who died and was there buried; nor is there one syllable mentioned any where of the resurrection of his body, or the return of his soul εξαδου from the state of the dead ." To this the same author adds the following remarkable note: I cannot slip over that passage, Hieros. Chagig . fol. 78: Rab. Jose saith, David died at pentecost, and all Israel bewailed him, and offered their sacrifices the day following . This is a remarkable coincidence; and may be easily applied to him of whom David was a type .

‏ Acts 2:29-30

Verse 29. Let me speak freely-of the patriarch David] In Midris Tillin, it is said, in a paraphrase on the words, my flesh shall rest in hope, "Neither worm nor insect had power over David." It is possible that this opinion prevailed in the time of St. Peter, and, if so, his words are the more pointed and forcible; and therefore thus applied by Dr. Lightfoot: "That this passage, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, &c., is not to be applied to David himself appears in that I may confidently aver concerning him, that he was dead and buried, and never rose again; but his soul was left ειςαδου, in the state of the dead, and HE saw corruption; for his sepulchre is with us to this day, under that very notion, that it is the sepulchre of David, who died and was there buried; nor is there one syllable mentioned any where of the resurrection of his body, or the return of his soul εξαδου from the state of the dead." To this the same author adds the following remarkable note: I cannot slip over that passage, Hieros. Chagig. fol. 78: Rab. Jose saith, David died at pentecost, and all Israel bewailed him, and offered their sacrifices the day following. This is a remarkable coincidence; and may be easily applied to him of whom David was a type.

Verse 30. According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ] This whole clause is wanting in ACD, one of the Syriac, the Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate; and is variously entered in others. Griesbach rejects it from the text, and Professor White says of the words, "certissime delenda," they should doubtless be expunged. This is a gloss, says Schoettgen, that has crept into the text, which I prove thus: 1. The Syriac and Vulgate, the most ancient of the versions, have not these words. 2. The passage is consistent enough and intelligible without them. 3. They are superfluous, as the mind of the apostle concerning the resurrection of Christ follows immediately in the succeeding verse. The passage therefore, according to Bp. Pearce, should be read thus: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, of the fruit of his loins, to set on his throne; and foreseeing that he (God) would raise up Christ, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, &c. "In this transition, the words which Peter quotes for David's are exactly the same with what we read in the psalm above mentioned; and the circumstance of David's foreseeing that Christ was to be raised up, and was the person meant, is not represented as a part of the oath; but is only made to be Peter's assertion, that David, as a prophet, did foresee it, and meant it."