Acts 2:29

Act_2:29-32

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David.

An anti-rationalist argument

Peter avers--

I. That david could not have said of himself the words here quoted, For this he states the threefold reason, that David had died, that he had been buried, and that his tomb was still shown. No one had ever heard of his returning to life; his soul was still in the kingdom of the dead, and his flesh must long since have returned to dust. Yet he had spoken the truth in the words quoted. Then those words must refer to some other than himself. To whom could they refer? For an answer to this question Peter asks his hearers to consider--

II. That david was wont to think and speak of the Messiah. God had sworn to David, and told him concerning the Messiah--

1. That He would be His descendant. The descent could be traced to the Lords mother, who was now present.

2. That He would succeed him on the throne of Israel. Davids line was to be restored and completed in Christ, though the disobedience of his posterity caused the kingdom to pass to another family for a time.

3. That He would die. This is assumed in the apostles quotation, and must be included in the meaning of Davids words. And therefore--

4. That He would rise from the dead. For the prophecy points to a sitting on the throne of David which should follow the death and the resurrection of the Messiah. All these things had been foretold by David, with conscious reference to the promises of the covenant. We need not suppose that he saw the full meaning of what he said; but that which he said of himself, and which exceeded what was true concerning himself, was proper in allusion to Christ, and ultimately found its explanation in the events of His course. And Peter takes this position without apology. What is his reason for so acting? It is--

III. That events well known had fulfilled the prophecy of David. The most striking event of the series is put forward in confirmation of the whole, and the vouchers for it are produced. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. They knew who this Jesus was, and what was His descent. They knew that He had died but a few weeks before at Jerusalem, and had been buried. Probably all the disciples now present had seen Him after His resurrection. All the mixed multitude now present were witnesses that His resurrection was affirmed by His friends, and that His enemies could not otherwise account for the disappearance of His body. They were all, therefore, Gods witnesses. The inevitable conclusion was that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; and this conclusion involved His kingship and His succession to David. This last was the only point yet remaining to be proved. We admire the precision and steady progress of this argument. Conclusion: Let us pause here and reflect on Peters way of disposing of rationalism. Those whom he addressed followed reason and judged by appearances. He met them by an appeal to facts. Whatever reason might have said beforehand, David, under Divine direction, had recorded certain predictions, and those predictions had been fulfilled. Let God be true, and every man a liar. How else can the rationalism of this day be dealt with?

1. The character of Christ as sketched beforehand in prophecy is presented in the Gospels.

2. The course of Christianity as foretold by the Lord and His apostles has been witnessed thus far through the ages.

3. The promises made to those who repent and believe are clearly fulfilled from day to day. And in the character of Christ, the fulfilment of prophecy, and the Christian life, with its blessed fellowship with God and power of virtuous conduct, there are unanswerable evidences for Christianity. (W. Hudson.)

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

The witness of the disciples

The only possible issue to the life of our Lord was His standing up again in life, and His entrance visibly as a risen Man into the spiritual, eternal world. In that world He had lived while still a mortal Man. The Son of Man which is in heaven is the sentence which contains the key to the innermost shrine of His life. This life which on earth was lived in heaven, brought to bear on mans earthly state all the influences of the eternal world. And as the life of Christ could only fulfil itself in its most quickening core of force by resurrection, so in all His previsions and predictions about His death, He included the idea of resurrection. For precisely such a phenomenon our Lords language should have prepared the disciples; and their record is the more significant inasmuch as He was wholly misapprehended by them, and only when they were compelled by overwhelming evidence to accept it as a historical fact, did they begin to realise the regenerative power with which it might be charged for the world. For the resurrection was entirely transcendent, though, like all Divine facts, when it was revealed it fitted the place in history which was vacant for it--it explained and completed the whole movement of the ages, and keyed the arch which, but for it, would have become a wreck. But the gospel is not a philosophy of resurrection, but a proclamation. It says nothing about antecedent probabilities, secular preparations, or aspirations and hopes. These we investigate and discuss, and are right in so doing. But what the gospel proclaims is the historical fact; of the resurrection, and through this proclamation the whole world of civilisation has come to believe it. But all rests on the original proclamation, the credibility and sufficiency of the original witnesses; the character and amount of the testimony which is behind the affirmation. We have a very clear and succinct statement of the evidence in the words of Paul (1Co_15:3-8), and it seems as complete as can well be conceived. The Epistle was written within the generation which followed the resurrection. The majority of the witnesses were alive when it was written. There is no question of the moral honesty of the testimony. This thing, remember, was not done in a corner. There was a powerful national party at Jerusalem whose very existence was staked on proving it a fiction. Any flaw in the harness, any weak link in the chain, keen eyes would have hunted out and exposed. But there is not a trace anywhere of an answer to the apostles precis of testimony; not a hint that this argument on the resurrection had been answered by denying it as a fact. The witnesses are ample in number, character, and opportunity of knowledge, and their testimony is that of men who had not the faintest idea that there was any one who could raise a valid doubt on the subject anywhere about the world. This leads me to the features of the evidence.

I. Surely the most prominent thing which strikes one about it is its perfect simplicity and naturalness. Pascal notes the naturalness (naivete)

with which Jesus Christ speaks of the things of God and of eternity. With the same naturalness do the apostles speak of the resurrection. In the account of the meeting at the sea of Tiberias (Joh_21:1-25.), the naturalness of their communion with the risen Saviour is the wonderful thing. Transcendently wonderful, as it was, they write about it quite as simply and naturally as about the Sermon on the Mount, or the journey to Jerusalem; and instead of spending all their strength on parading the evidence of it, they are more reticent and more artless about it than about many another far less momentous fact in the history of our Lord. The manner in which the resurrection brought itself at once so perfectly into the natural order of the disciples lives, is to me an absolute proof that they knew they were dealing with a simple though profound and far-reaching fact. They write as if the restoration of their Lord to them, when they had once grasped the fact, was the most natural thing in the world. The only key to this is its truth.

II. It is entirely the evidence of disciples, of those who had a deep personal interest in establishing the resurrection as a truth. Understand what the word interest means. The notion of a company of interested followers of Christ, conspiring for their own purposes to palm this tale upon the world, is abandoned on all hands as utterly inadequate. These were true men, whatever else they might be. The witnesses had the deepest interest in the truth of the resurrection, but it would have been quite worthless to them except as truth. They had nothing to gain but everything to lose by the proclamation, except in as far as the power of the resurrection as a fact lay behind it. They were the best of all possible witnesses; witnesses whose supreme interest is truth. We can, however, well imagine evidence of a different character, which we are tempted to think would have at once forced conviction home on every rational mind. If it had been proved, say to the full satisfaction of the Roman procurator, after a review of all the evidence for and against it, that would have immediately established it as an unquestionable fact in history, and the whole world would have been filled with wonder and adoration. But the actual evidence is a striking contrast to this. It made no attempt to impose itself as a fact forced by the overwhelming weight of evidence on an unwilling world. Like the Incarnation, it was to be a power, and not a portent. In this, too, the kingdom of heaven came not with observation; its mission was to open minds and believing hearts alone. The spirit which seeks a sign, and the faith which is nourished on a sign, are alike worthless in that spiritual order which the Lord came to establish. The spirit which is turned to God, by the word and the work of the Saviour, is inestimably precious in His sight, and is a power in His kingdom of heaven. The Lord put deliberately from Him through life the homage which He might have won, and the power which He might have wielded, by portents and splendours; and obeying the Divine necessity to trust to the truth alone, He put them from Him also in death and in resurrection. My kingdom is not of this world, He said through all--birth, life, death, and resurrection. The fact, then, that the evidence is entirely of the kind described, the evidence of disciples, of men in spiritual fellowship with it, and on whose lips and in whose lives it would be not a portent but a power, is in entire and beautiful harmony with the whole spirit and method of the Divine dispensations, and lies in the true line of the spiritual culture and development of mankind.

III. Granting, then, that the evidence must be that of spiritual witnesses to a fact whose whole virtue was spiritual, can anything be more explicit and complete than the testimony which they bear? We have not the witness of a single, possibly hysterical, or fanatical, follower. The evidence was offered again and again to individuals, to companies, to a great crowd of disciples, with opportunities of tactical satisfaction, leaving actually nothing to be desired. Words were spoken and are recorded which none but the risen Man could have uttered. And the demonstration is crowned by the actual effect of the resurrection, in the instant and complete transformation which it accomplished in the lives of the witnesses. We cannot read Joh_21:1-25. and Act_2:1-47. without the conviction that some such fact as the resurrection is absolutely needed to account for the contrast in the narratives. The disciples were not in a mood even to think about inventing such a fact. They accepted the decease as a death-blow to their hopes. Nothing was further from their thoughts than to lead a movement which would reconstruct and save society. And yet, in a few days, the work is in vigorous progress. As by the touch of some mighty creative Hand, these men are re-made. They are preaching the resurrection with a power which is to shake the whole structure of society, and they are kindling hearts like flame, in the very city where the events were transacted. Peter, heart-broken, going back bravely to his fishermans toils--Peter, standing out as an incomparable teacher and leader of men, founding a Church which at this day is the strongest institution upon earth--Peter the disciple, who denied his Master, Peter the apostle, who won for Him the homage and worship of mankind--what links the two but the fact of the resurrection; the fact that a risen and reigning Christ was behind him, lending heavens own force to every action, and heavens own emphasis to every word? And what happened to them, through the resurrection, happened to the world. It began to work instantly as a tremendous force in organising and uplifting human society. It is said of a city, There was great joy in that city when these evangelists came to it. It is the feature everywhere. Joy, strength, hope, vital activity, all by which men and societies grow, sprang up like willows by the watercourses, wherever the sound of that gospel of the resurrection was heard. For nearly two thousand years that order has been strengthening its foundations and widening its circuit, and its unquestioned, unquestionable basis has been and is the resurrection and reign of the risen Lord. And this you ask me to believe is an imposture or a delusion! Well, I may believe it when I am driven to believe that everything is imposture or illusion; that I am illusion; that the great world around me and the great heaven above me is illusion; that all which man holds noble and beautiful, all that he thinks worth living for, worth dying for, is illusion; and that a mocking demon is the master, the ruler, and the tormentor of the world. Till then I believe and preach Jesus and the Resurrection. (J. Baldwin Brown, B. A.)

The witness of the Church

Nothing that our Lord did on earth was enough to establish a faith in Himself which should survive His death. At the end of His career, not even the Twelve retained their conviction. If the Lord had only left us the Sermon on the Mount and the memory of a martyrdom, there would never have been a Church. The risen and ascended Christ is the only intelligible account that can be given of the existence of our faith. From beyond the grave the living Master works. And how? By a Spirit. But for that Spirit to act firmly, enduringly, there must be given an instrument, an organic body, and the office of that body is clearly determined for it by the conditions of its existence. The Spirit of truth proceeding from the Father shall bear witness of Me, and ye also shall bear witness, and so the apostles say, We are witnesses of these things.

I. The Church is the witnessing body; it proves Christs case.

1. Before God the Father. It manifests His glory by justifying His method of redemption; it bears witness before God that He has not sent His Son in vain.

2. In the face of men. It is to convince, so that even an unbelieving world may believe that the Father sent the Son.

II. In accomplishing this conversion of the world, the Church has to prove and testify.

1. That Christ is alive and at work to-day on earth, and that He can be found of them that believe, and manifest Himself to those that love Him.

2. That He is so by virtue of the deed done once for all at Calvary.

III. What proofs can the Church offer for these points?

1. Its own actual life. Its one prevailing and unanswerable proof is, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.

2. This personal life of Christ in His Church verifies and certifies to the world the reality of His life, death, and resurrection. The fact that the man at the Beautiful Gate has this perfect soundness--this makes it certain that God did send His Son Christ Jesus to be a Prince of Life. And therefore the living Church bears a book about with it, the gospel book, the witness of those who beheld, tasted, handled the Word of Life. This book, the body of Christ, declares is true, and we know that these apostles spoke true; we are here to prove it, in that we have tasted the present power of that Word whose story they saw and recorded.

3. And again, the body carries with it the apostolic rite, the act commanded by the dying Christ to be done for ever as a memorial and a witness until His coming again.

IV. By believing in a body, a church, our faith lays upon us responsibilities. It gives us a call; it sets us each a task. And is not this just what our religion most lacks? There is so little sense of purpose in our religious life. Religion is a comfortable habit, a refreshment in weariness, a solace and security in the face of death. Yes, but is it the one thing that gives us a living reason for being alive? Is it that which sets us on an aim worthy and enkindling, for which it is well worth while to live? Does it come to us as something which lays upon us a service of delightful freedom under the eye of a Master who waits ever to say, Well done, well done, thou faithful servant? Is not this exactly what we lack? If Christ established a Church, this means that every member has, by believing, a definite, an urgent, a glad and proud task set before him. That task is to witness; and do you doubt whether you have any call to witness for Christ? For what is this witness? It is the evidence you can give by active personal union with your Lord, now alive at Gods right hand, of the authority of the gospel record and of the gospel Eucharist. And is there no one, then, who needs that evidence from you?

1. Can you find no one near you who is struggling with doubt and perplexity as he reads that gospel story? It is your witness and your evidence that alone can recover him his footing.

2. Is there no one who looks out upon the scenery of this bewildered earth and who can see nothing but confused suffering and unjust penalties; who can but cry out his bitter protest, Is God indeed to be found there? Is there a Divine Judge of all the earth? Where are the signs of His love? What if your witness were ready at hand?--if you could but whisper, I know that the love of God has been manifested to all who believe Christ Jesus, every one that so believeth hath the witness in him?

3. Or you may find yourself standing by one whom some strong sin has fast bound in misery and iron. Now is your time to speak, to cry to him, to deliver your testimony--My brother, you may be free, for Christ is not dead--He is risen; He the great breaker of bonds, He is strong as of old to set free the captives. Conclusion: It is for us to be sure that we know, by blessed experience, that Christ was manifested to take away our sins; and that is the message that you have to carry on your lips--We know that it is true. It would be a miserable thing to find yourself standing over some brother, with your human heart indeed yearning to help him, and yet to find yourself speechless and impotent just because you had never taken the trouble to learn, when you had time, the happy lesson which would enable you to say to him the one word that can now save him. (Canon Scott Holland.)

Our witness to the resurrection

Let us see whether it is not a fact that just after the same manner that the angel, the guard, the women, and the apostles did testify in the beginning to this cardinal truth of our holy religion, so in our own time like testimony is afforded. Daily an angel sitteth at the door of Christian hearts with the message that Christ is risen! Daily do the careless and indifferent among mankind find themselves forced to confess that there are thoughts of the future which, if they admit them into their minds, cause them to feel as dead men in the midst of all the business of the world. Daily do the godly who seek Christ rejoice in the sure signs and tokens of His resurrection. First, then, there is such a witness to the resurrection supernaturally present in our hearts. In all this assembly what man or woman can say they have never heard a voice whispering within their hearts the solemn assurance that Jesus hath risen, and that we shall rise with Him? To take an illustration. Are there not many here who have known what it is to miss from their home, from their daily walk in life, the face of parent, of brother, of friend, of husband, of wife, of child? And as you have bent with breaking heart over the sepulchre of your buried affection, has no angel spoken to you: It is not here, the object of your tender love and sorrow. All that is true and real lives still! He is risen. Behold He goeth before you into the courts of the heavenly mansions, there shall ye see Him! There is not a bitter sorrow that is not rolled away together with that stone from the door of the sepulchre of Jesus. And though the traces of our grief be left, though the earthly garments in which we had wrapped all that was lovely in our lives are lying there in a place by themselves, yet do we know by that same angelic voice that the joys that we have experienced in the past we shall possess again in the future, and that in the land whither our Saviour Christ is gone before we shall know and be known once more! The dawn of hope which we see to succeed the dark night of sorrow in these deep water-floods of affliction enables us to perceive that the stone has been rolled away from the heart, and that an angel of God is seated upon it. In our hearts, then, there is a witness to the truth of the resurrection. This Jesus hath God raised from the dead, whereof our hearts are witnesses. But although God hath His own witness in the hearts of men, to His own Divine truth, yet (since He has ever been pleased to work through human instruments) it is manifestly required by Him that we should feel, every one of us--yes, the weakest, the poorest--that our whole life and conversation is intended to be a witness to the resurrection: that we should so live that men may know that we live, yet not we ourselves, but Christ liveth in us, and that the life which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. (T. L. Claughton, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 2:29-31. Men and brethren — Thus he addresses himself to them, with a title of respect; let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David — Let it be no offence to you, if I tell you that David cannot be understood here as speaking of himself, but of the Messiah to come. David is here called a patriarch, a more honourable title than king, because he was the father of the royal family, and a man of great note and eminence in his generation; that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us — And as no one ever pretended that he had risen, therefore he could not say of himself, that he should not see, or suffer corruption; it being evident he did suffer it. St. Paul urges this same argument, chap. Act 13:35-37. Therefore, being a prophet, &c. — He therefore spoke it as a prophet, with an eye to the Messiah, to whose sufferings the prophets bore testimony beforehand, as also to the glory that should follow; knowing that God had sworn with an oath — In a special revelation from heaven; that of the fruit of his loins — Or, out of his descendants; he would raise up Christ — That is, the promised Messiah; to sit on his throne — That is, promised him a son; the throne of whose kingdom should be established for ever, 2Sa 7:12. He seeing this before — With a firm reliance on the faithfulness of God, spake of the resurrection of Christ in the words just now repeated; not meaning them of himself, or intending they should be taken in any lower sense. But how does that promise of a kingdom imply Christ’s resurrection? Because he did not receive it before he died, and because his kingdom was to endure for ever, 2Sa 7:13.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 2:29. Ἐξὸν) viz. ἔστω, let it be allowed to me. The neuter is frequently without a verb. The ellipsis in this place is expressive of ἦθος.[14]—μετὰ παῤῥησίας, freely) The Jews held David in high estimation: and it was of him that he had to say something not altogether favourable, in order that thereby the glory of Christ might be the more enhanced. There is therefore in this passage a πσοθεραπεία [see Append.], or previous mitigation of what he is about to say.—ΠΑΤΡΙΆΡΧΟΥ, the patriarch) This name is one of greater dignity than the name, ‘king.’ This, too, produces the effect of προθεραπεία.—τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ, his sepulchre) and that sepulchre containing the very body of David, which saw corruption. He speaks gently. ἐν ἡμῖν, among us) The monuments, places, institutions, manners, families, and adages of the Israelites, marvellously accorded with the Scripture of the Old Testament. So too the New Testament books accord with the state of events which followed subsequently.

[14] See Append. on “Moratus Sermo.” Here, the feeling of modesty and courtesy.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_2:29. Μετὰ παῤῥησίας] frankly and freely, without reserve; for the main object was to show off a passage honouring David, that it had received fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel well remarks: Est igitur hoc loco προθεραπεία, praevia sermonis mitigatio.

David is called ὁ πατριάρχης as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly family, from which the nation expected their Messiah.

ὅτι] that (not for). Peter wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is allowable for him to say on account of this very notoriety; therefore with ἐξόν there is not to be supplied, as is usually done, ἔστω, but ἐστί (ἔξεστι).

ἐν ἡμῖν] David was buried at Jerusalem. Neh_3:16; Joseph. Antt. vii. 15. 3, xiii. 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. In τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ, his sepulcher, there is involved, according to the context, as self-evident: cum ipso Davidis corpore corrupto; molliter loquitur, Bengel.

Act_2:29-31. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically made known the resurrection of Christ.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 2:29 . ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί : an affectionate form of address as compared with Act 2:14 ; Act 2:22 ( cf. Act 7:2 , Act 22:1 ), but still much more formal than Act 3:17 , where we have ἀδελφοί alone in St. Peter’s pity for those who crucifying the Saviour knew not what they did. ἐξὸν , sc. , ἐστι (with infinitive), cf. 2Co 12:4 , only in N.T. Viteau, Le Grec du N. T. , p. 200 (1893), cf. LXX Est 4:2 ; 4Ma 5:18 ; not “may I speak unto you,” but “I may say unto you,” R.V., not = ἔστω , but ἐστί ( ἔξεστι ), Wendt, in loco . μετὰ παρρησίας : on the phrase, see below, Act 4:13 , and its repeated use by St. Luke; cf. Heb 4:16 ; Lat., cum fiducia , Westcott, Hebrews , p. 108. In the LXX the phrase is found, Lev 26:13 , Est 8:12 , 1Ma 4:18 , Mal 4:1Mal 4:1 ; 3Ma 7:12 . St. Peter will first of all state facts which cannot be denied, before he proceeds to show how the words used of David are fulfilled in “great David’s greater Son”. He speaks of David in terms which indicate his respect for his name and memory, and as Bengel well says, “est igitur hoc loco προθεραπεία , prævia sermonis mitigatio” (“est hæc προθερ . ut aiunt rhetores,” Blass, in loco ). τοῦ πατριάρχου , the name is emphatically used in the N.T. of Abraham; cf. Heb 7:4 (properly the ἄρχων ( auctor ), πατριᾶς ), and of the sons of Jacob, Act 7:8-9 , and cf. 4Ma 7:19 , used of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the LXX it is used of the “heads of the fathers’ houses,” 1Ch 9:9 ; 1Ch 24:31 , in a comparatively lower sense. Here used, as a term of high honour, of David, regarded as the ancestor of the kingly race. See on the word and its formation, Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek , p. 114. ὅτι καὶ ἐτελεύτησε καὶ ἐτάφη : “that he both died and was buried,” R.V. St. Peter states notorious facts, and refers to them in a way which could not wound the susceptibilities of his hearers, whilst he shows them that David’s words were not exhausted in his own case. The argument is practically the same as that of St. Paul in Act 13:36 from the same Psalm. καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἐν ἡμῖν , i.e. , in Jerusalem, the mention of the tomb emphasises the fact and certainty of the death of David, and implies that his body had seen corruption. That David’s tomb was shown in the time of Nehemiah we know from Neh 3:16 . From Jos., Ant. , vii., 15, 3; xiii., 8, 4; B. J. , i., 2, 5, we learn that Solomon had buried a large treasure in the tomb, and that on that account one of its chambers had been broken open by Hyrcanus, and another by Herod the Great. According to Jos., Ant. , xvi., 7, 1, Herod, not content with rifling the tomb, desired to penetrate further, even as far as the bodies of David and Solomon, but a flame burst forth and slew two of his guards, and the king fled. To this attempt the Jewish historian attributed the growing troubles in Herod’s family. In the time of Hadrian the tomb is said to have fallen into ruins. Whatever its exact site, it must have been within the walls, and therefore could not correspond with the so called “tombs of the kings” which De Saulcy identified with it. Those tombs are outside the walls, and are of the Roman period (Schürer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. i., p. 276, E.T., “David,” B.D. 2 ). Wetstein, in loco , quotes the testimony of Maundrell as to the sepulchres of David and his family being the only sepulchres within the walls. St. Jerome, Epist. , xlvi., writing to Marcella, expresses a hope that they might pray together in the mausoleum of David; so that at the end of the fourth century tradition must still have claimed to mark the spot.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

David . . . is . . . dead and buried, &c.--Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, sees in this sixteenth Psalm, one Holy Man, whose life of high devotedness and lofty spirituality is crowned with the assurance, that though He taste of death, He shall rise again without seeing corruption, and be admitted to the bliss of God's immediate presence. Now as this was palpably untrue of David, it could be meant only of One other, even of Him whom David was taught to expect as the final Occupant of the throne of Israel. (Those, therefore, and they are many, who take David himself to be the subject of this Psalm, and the words quoted to refer to Christ only in a more eminent sense, nullify the whole argument of the apostle). The Psalm is then affirmed to have had its only proper fulfilment in JESUS, of whose resurrection and ascension they were witnesses, while the glorious effusion of the Spirit by the hand of the ascended One, setting an infallible seal upon all, was even then witnessed by the thousands who stood listening to Him. A further illustration of Messiah's ascension and session at God's right hand is drawn from Psa 110:1, in which David cannot be thought to speak of himself, seeing he is still in his grave.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 εις αδου, 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 εξ αδου 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(29) Let me freely speak.—Better, it is lawful for me to speak with freedom. Those to whom the Apostle spoke could not for a moment dream of asserting that the words quoted had been literally and completely fulfilled in him, and it was therefore natural to look for their fulfilment elsewhere.

Of the patriarch David.—The word is used in its primary sense, as meaning the founder of a family or dynasty. In the New Testament it is applied also to Abraham (Heb_7:4) and the twelve sons of Jacob (Act_7:8). In the Greek version of the Old Testament it is used only of the comparatively subordinate “chief of the fathers” in 1Ch_9:9; 1Ch_24:31, et al.

His sepulchre is with us unto this day.—The king was buried in the city which bore his name (1Ki_2:10). Josephus relates that vast treasures were buried with him (Ant. vii. 15, § 4), and that John Hyrcanus opened one of the chambers of the tomb, and took out three thousand talents to pay the tribute demanded by Antiochus the Pious (Ant. xiii. 8, § 4). Herod the Great also opened it and found no money, but gold and silver vessels in abundance. The tradition was that he sought to penetrate into the inner vault, in which the bodies of David and Solomon were resting, and was deterred by a flame that issued from the recess (Ant. xvi. 7, § 1). It is difficult to understand how such a treasure could have escaped the plunderer in all the sieges and sacks to which Jerusalem had been exposed; but it is possible that its fame as a holy place may have made it, like the temples at Delphi and Ephesus, a kind of bank of deposit, in which large treasures in coin or plate were left for safety, and many of these, in the common course of things, were never claimed, and gradually accumulated. The monuments now known as the “tombs of the kings” on the north side of the city, though identified by De Sauley with the sepulchres of the house of David, are of the Roman period, and are outside the walls. David and his successors were probably buried in a vault on the eastern hill, in the city of David (1Ki_2:10), within the range of the enclosure now known as the Haram Area.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. Here the Apostle begins his argument from the words of David, and at the outset speaks to his hearers as brethren.

Men and brethren] See on Act_1:16.

let me freely speak] Better (with the margin), I may freely say unto you of the patriarch David that he both died and was burled, i.e. none of you will contradict such a statement. As St Paul using the same argument (Act_13:36), “David after he had served his own generation fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers.”

and his sepulchre is with us] thus shewing that after death he did not rise again. The sepulchre of the House of David was a famous object in the Holy City. Among the marvels of Jerusalem mentioned in the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (c. 35), we are told, “There are no graves made in Jerusalem except the tombs of the house of David and of Huldah the Prophetess, which have been there from the days of the first prophets.”

On the burial of David in Zion, cp. 1Ki_2:10 with 2Sa_5:7.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you,.... The apostle calls the Jews, brethren, whom he before only styled men of Judea, and men of Israel, because they were his brethren according to the flesh, as many of them afterwards were in a spiritual relation; and the rather he adds this affectionate appellation to soften their minds, and prepare them to receive the account he was about to give of David, and of his prophecy of the Messiah, and his resurrection; in which he used much freedom of speech, consistent with truth, good sense, and strong reasoning; which he thought might be allowed to take, and they would not be displeased at, in discoursing to them

of the patriarch David; who was a "head of the fathers", as the Syriac and Arabic versions render it; a prince of the tribes of Israel; one of the greatest kings the tribes of Israel ever had; and therefore this name well becomes him; though it is more commonly given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the heads of the twelve tribes:

that he is both dead, and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day; it is a plain case, and a certain matter of fact, which nobody disputes or denies, that David really died, and was laid in the grave, and that his monument, or tomb, was still extant, so that he was not risen from the dead; and therefore the above citation could not respect him, but another, even the Messiah, and had been literally fulfilled in Jesus. The Jews say (z), that David died on the day of Pentecost; which was the very day on which Peter was now preaching; he was buried in Jerusalem, and his sepulchral monument was in being when Peter said these words. And Josephus relates (a), that the sepulchre of David was opened by Hyrcanus, who took out of it three thousand talents; and that it was afterwards opened by Herod (b): which, if true, may serve to render credible what Peter says concerning its continuance to that day. Though it may be questioned whether any such treasure was ever in it, or taken out of it; and still less credible is the account which R. Benjamin (c) gives of two men in his time, who, under the wall of Zion, found a cave, which led them to a large palace built on pillars of marble, and covered with gold and silver; and within it was a table, and a golden sceptre, and a crown of gold; and this, says the author, was the sepulchre of David, king of Israel,

(z) T. Hieros. Chagiga, fol. 78. 1. (a) De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 2. sect. 5. & Antiqu. l. 7. c. 15. sect. 3. (b) Ib. l. 16. c. 7. sect. 1. (c) Itinerar. p. 45, 46.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Ver. 29. His sepulchre is with us] Repaired, likely, when the city was rebuilt. See Mat 23:29.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Men and brethren - This passage of the Psalms Peter now proves could not relate to David, but must have reference to the Messiah. He begins his argument in a respectful manner, addressing them as his brethren, though they had just charged him and the others with intoxication. Christians should use the usual respectful forms of salutation, whatever contempt and reproaches they may meet with from opposers.

Let me freely speak - That is, “It is lawful or proper to speak with boldness, or openly, respecting David.” Though he was eminently a pious man, though venerated by us all as a king, yet it is proper to say of him that he is dead, and has returned to corruption. This was a delicate way of expressing high respect for the monarch whom they all honored, and yet evinced boldness in examining a passage of Scripture which probably many supposed to have reference solely to him.

Of the patriarch David - The word “patriarch” properly means “the head or ruler of a family”; and then “the founder of a family, or an illustrious ancestor.” It was commonly applied to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by way of eminence, the illustrious founders of the Jewish nation, Heb 7:4; Act 7:8-9. It was also applied to the heads of the families, or the chief men of the tribes of Israel, 1Ch 24:31; 2Ch 19:8, etc. It was thus a title of honor, denoting “high respect.” Applied to David, it means that he was the illustrious head or founder of the royal family, and the word is expressive of Peter’s intention not to say anything disrespectful of such a king, at the same time that he freely canvassed a passage of Scripture which had been supposed to refer to him.

Dead and buried - The record of that fact they had in the O d Testament. There had been no pretence that he had risen, and therefore the Psalm could not apply to him.

His sepulchre is with us - Is in the city of Jerusalem., Sepulchres wore commonly situated without the walls of cities and the limits of villages. The custom of burying in towns was not commonly practiced. This was true of other ancient nations as well as the Hebrews, and is still in Eastern countries, except in the case of kings and very distinguished men, whose ashes are permitted to rest within the walls of a city: 1Sa 28:3, “Samuel was dead ...and Israel ...buried him in Ramah, in his own city”; 2Ki 21:18, “Manasseh ...was buried in the garden of his own house”; 2Ch 16:14, Asa was buried in the city of David; 2Ki 14:20. David was buried in the city of David 1Ki 2:10, with his fathers; that is, on Mount Zion, where he built a city called after his name, 2Sa 5:7. Of what form the tombs of the kings were is not certainly known. It is almost certain, however, that they would be constructed in a magnificent manner.

The tombs were commonly excavations from rocks, or natural caves; and sepulchres cut out of the solid rock, of vast extent, are Known to have existed. The following account of the tomb called “the sepulchre of the kings” is abridged from Maundrell: “The approach is through an entrance cut out of a solid rock, which admits you into an open court about 40 paces square, cut down into the rock. On the south side is a portico nine paces long and four broad, hewn likewise out of the solid rock. At the end of the portico is the descent to the sepulchres. The descent is into a room about 7 or 8 yards square, cut out of the natural rock. From this room there are passages into six more, all of the same fabric with the first. In every one of these rooms, except the first, were coffins placed in niches in the sides of the chamber,” etc. (Maundrell’s Travels). If the tombs of the kings were of this form, it is clear that they were works of great labor and expense.

Probably, also, there were, as there are now, costly and splendid monuments erected to the memory of the mighty dead. The following extract from “The Land and the Book,” and cut on the next page (from Williams’ Holy City), will illustrate the usual construction of tombs: “The entire system of rooms, niches, and passages may be comprehended at once by an inspection of the plan of the Tombs of the Judges near Jerusalem. The entrance faces the west, and has a vestibule (a) 13 feet by 9. Chamber (B), nearly 20 feet square, and 8 high. The north side is seen in elevation in Fig. 2, and shows two tiers of niches, one over the other, not often met with in tombs. There are seven in the lower tier, each 7 feet long, 20 inches wide, and nearly 3 feet high. The upper tier has three arched recesses, and each recess has two niches. From this room (B) doors lead out into chambers (C and D), which have their own special system of niches, or Ioculi, for the reception of the bodies, as appears on the plan. I have explored scores of sepulchres at Ladakiyeh closely resembling this at Jerusalem, and there are many in the plain and on the hillsides above us here at Sidon of the same general form chambers within chambers, and each with niches for the dead, variously arranged according to taste or necessity.”

These tombs are about a mile northwest of Jerusalem. “The tombs which are commonly called the ‘Tombs of the Kings’ are in an olivegrove about half a mile north of the Damascus Gate, and a few rods east of the great road to Nablus. A court is sunk in the solid rock about 90 feet square and 20 deep. On the west side of this court is a sort of portico, 39 feet long, 17 deep, and 15 high. It was originally ornamented with grapes, garlands, and festoons, beautifully done on the cornice; and the columns in the center, and the pilasters at the corners, appear to have resembled the Corinthian order. A very low door in the south end of the portico opens into the ante-chamber - 19 feet square, and 7 or 8 high. From this three passages conduct into other rooms, two of them, to the south, having five or six crypts. A passage also leads from the west room down several steps into a large vault running north, where are crypts parallel to the sides. These rooms are all cut in rock intensely hard, and the entrances were originally closed with stone doors, made with panels and hung on stone hinges, which are now all broken. The whole series of tombs indicates the hand of royalty and the leisure of years, but by whom and for whom they were made is a mere matter of conjecture. I know no good reason for ascribing them to Helena of Adiabene. Most travelers and writers are inclined to make them the sepulchres of the Asmonean kings” (The Land and the Book, vol. 2, pp. 487, 488). The site of the tomb of David is no longer known.

Unto this day - That the sepulchre of David was well known and honored is clear from Josephus (Antiq., book 7, chapter 15, section 3): “He (David) was buried by his son Solomon in Jerusalem with great magnificence, and with all the other funeral pomps with which kings used to be buried. Moreover, he had immense wealth buried with him: for one thousand and three hundred years afterward Hyrcanus the high priest, when he was besieged by Antiochus, and was desirous of giving him money to raise the siege, opened one room of David’s sepulchre and took out three thousand talents. Herod, many years afterward, opened another room, and took away a great deal of money,” etc. See also Antiq., book 13, chapter 8, section 4. The tomb of a monarch like David would be well known and had in reverence. Peter might, then, confidently appeal to their own belief and knowledge that David had not been raised from the dead. No Jew believed or supposed it. All, by their care of his sepulchre, and by the honor with which they regarded his grave, believed that he had returned to corruption. The Psalm, therefore, could not apply to him.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Men and brethren; St. Peter bespeaks this attention and favour, intimating he was one of the same nation with themselves, than which nothing could more recommend him. David was had in great veneration, and his memory very precious amongst this people, as was Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s; who were the chief of their fathers.

He is both dead and buried; as in 1Ki 2:10, and elsewhere, is recorded of him, which they firmly believed.

His sepulchre, or monument, is with us; either not wholly spoiled by the barbarous enemies, who had destroyed Jerusalem; or rather repaired after the captivity, to keep up the memory of so great and good a man. But by this it appeared, that David did not speak these things concerning himself, who must needs have seen corruption, (themselves being witnesses), for on that account they respected his tomb, as being the repository of his ashes.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

29. Freely speak—In spite of your great reverence for David.

Patriarch—Evincing his profound respect for David by this unusual, but most venerable title, which belonged more strictly to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons, the fathers of the twelve tribes.

Sepulchre is with us—And the “tomb of David” is still standing on the brow of Mount Zion. From Neh_3:16, we learn that “the sepulchre of David” was near to a “pool that was made;” and the present tomb is near the pool of Gihon. It is jealously guarded by the Turks, no Christian being allowed to enter upon pain of death. Dr. Barclay, in his “City of the Great King,” narrates that his own laughter, by a singular adventure, obtained entrance long enough to sketch a picture of its gorgeous interior, which is exhibited in rich colorings in his book. Peter could, of course, assume this tomb to be monumental evidence that David had not passed through a resurrection and ascension.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Brethren for men and brethren, A.V. ; I may say unto you freely for let me freely speak unto you, A.V. ; both died and was buried for is both dead and buried, A.V.; tomb for sepulcher, A.V. Brethren; literally, men who are my brethren. Observe how gentle and conciliatory the apostle"s language is; how exactly in accordance with his own precept, (1Pe_3:8, 1Pe_3:9) "Not rendering railing for railing," etc. In addressing them as brethren, he silently claims the good will and fairness due to one who was a brother in blood and in the faith of the God of Israel. The patriarch David. The term patriarch is elsewhere in Scripture applied only to Abraham and the twelve sons of Jacob (Heb_7:4; Act_7:8, Act_7:9) It is a title of dignity, signifying the head of a house. It seems to be here applied to David, because he is spoken of as head of the family from which Christ sprang. Abraham was the head of the whole Hebrew race: "Abraham our father." The twelve patriarchs were the heads of their respective tribes. The LXX use the word patriarchv as the rendering of twObah vwOaro "chief of the fathers" houses" (1Ch_24:31; 2Ch_19:8 2Ch_26:12) which they elsewhere render by arcwn, or ajrch patriav. (Exo_6:25, etc.) In common parlance, the term is also applied to those chief persons who lived before the time of Moses, and have their record in his books. His tomb is with us, etc. Josephus speaks of David"s tomb (calling it, as St. Peter here does, his mnhma) as consisting of several chambers, and relates how one of these chambers was opened by the high priest Hyrcanus, who took from it three thousand talents of gold to give to Antiochus Pins, who was at that time laying siege to Jerusalem. He adds that another chamber was opened later by King Herod, who abstracted a great quantity of golden ornaments from it; but that neither of them penetrated to the vaults where the bodies of David and Solomon were deposited, because the entrance to them was so carefully concealed. He further mentions that Herod, having been terrified by the bursting out of flames, which stopped his further progress, built a most costly marble monument at the entrance of the tomb ("Jud. Ant.," 7. 15:3; 13. 8:4; 16. 7:1). For the sense, supply "and therefore he could not be speaking of himself." The explanation follows that he was a prophet, etc.

Vers. 29-36. The first argument for the Resurrection.

The apostles distinctly witnessed to the facts of the Resurrection, as having come within their own personal knowledge. But they also argued from Scripture, that the Lord"s resurrection was the natural and necessary completion of Messiah"s earthly mission. In the above passage is given the first specimen of such argumentation; and it should be carefully noted that it is fitted to Eastern rather than to Western modes of thought. The late Dr. Robert Vaughan says, "The Oriental intellect is not logical. Its faculty is to a high degree intuitive; it reasons, but it rarely does so formally. It passes to its conclusions with a subtle celerity, resembling what we see in women, much more than by those scientific processes which are familiar to our Western habits of thought." The audience which Peter at this time addressed was composed of devout, God-fearing Jews, who were attending the feast, and it was therefore especially appropriate that his argument should be based upon the Scriptures, and take Scripture form. "The passage which he first quotes is taken from Psa_16:8-11, and he argues that it could not be of himself that the psalmist there spake, for they had evidence that the words could not be truly said of him; but that, having regard to God"s promise, he spake of him who was to be born from his line, as identified with himself." The second quotation is from Psalm 110., and is taken to suggest that David went down to the grave, and "slept with his fathers;" and the allusion to ascension and place at Jehovah"s right hand could not possibly apply to him, but must refer to his "greater Son," of whose resurrection and ascension the apostles gave their witness. The argument may be followed through its several stages.

I DAVID PLAINLY SPEAKS OF THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF SOME ONE. He does not deal, in these psalms, in vague generalities and pious sentiment. He was a prophet, and under Divine inspiration, and speaks with distinctness and definiteness. We must seek for the person to whom he refers.

II HE COULD NOT MEAN HIMSELF, This, indeed, would be the first thought of the reader of his words, but it will not bear examination. The expressions are too large to be satisfied in the experience of any mere man. And, if taken literally, as they should be, they cannot be applied to David himself. They must refer to some great one who has no earthly sepulcher, because, though he died, he rose, and no tomb holds his body. But David"s sepulcher was then recognized, and all regarded him as awaiting the general resurrection of the just.

III HE MUST HAVE REFERRED TO MESSIAH. It must have been a prophetic utterance. And the Messianic character of both these psalms has been generally admitted by the Jews; so that Peter"s proof-texts would not be disputed by his audience as unsuitable. The only difficulty would be the identification of Messiah. To this point he leads the argument.

IV DAVID"S WORDS FIT THE FACTS WHICH THE APOSTLES WITNESSED CONCERNING JESUS OF NAZARETH. He only had been thus raised after death to the spiritual and incorruptible life. He only had passed, after resurrection, into the eternal world without another experience of death. He alone met the conditions of the psalmist, and therefore he must be the promised Messiah. The other cases of resurrection narrated in Old and New Testament Scriptures should be examined, and the points of contrast between them and our Lord"s case should be carefully noted; especially the most marked peculiarity in our Lord"s case, that ascension followed resurrection, whereas all other raised persons died a second time. If, then, Jesus be the Christ, the Messiah, to him our "knees should bow, and our tongue confess. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The patriarch - A more honourable title than king.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The application of the prophecy:

v. 29. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.

v. 30. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne,

v. 31. he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.

v. 32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Peter, in this section of his sermon, uses the intimate and confidential address "men and brethren. " He wants to make the people feel that it is in their interest to hear him out in his argument. He had quoted a passage from a Psalm which, as the people knew, was written by David, a passage held throughout in the first person. The question therefore was as to who was speaking when David wrote, he himself or someone else. Now concerning David, whom Peter here calls a patriarch, the ancestor of a kingly race, he could freely say, and without any fear of contradiction, that he died and was buried, his grave being in Jerusalem and well known to all Jews. So the death of David was a fact, and the presence of his tomb implied that this ancestor of kings, on his part, had seen corruption. Of himself David, then, had assuredly not spoken. On the other hand, as the Jews knew, he held the position of a prophet, one through whom the Lord foretold the future, and as such he knew, by a revelation of God, that God had promised him with an oath that a descendant of his would sit upon his throne. See 2Sa 7:12-13. With this knowledge in mind, David wrote this prophecy of the 16th Psalm, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, that He would not be abandoned in the kingdom of death, and that His flesh would not see corruption. Thus Peter proved clearly from his text that Jesus suffered death according to a predetermined and expressed aim of God, but that death could not hold Him, that He plainly must and did arise from the dead. And that this prophecy has been fulfilled the apostles also, the twelve men standing before them, could testify; they were witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. Their eyes, their senses, did not deceive them; they had been with the risen Lord; they had received His commission. This fact is of great comfort also to us, who place our faith in the message of the risen Lord, as recorded by these witnesses of His resurrection.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

HEAVENLY CORONATION

29-35. When I was in Jerusalem and visiting this spot, on which they were praying when the Holy Ghost fell on them, my guide pointed me out David’s tomb right there in full view. Silly heretics have construed the statement (Act 2:34), “For David has not yet ascended into the heavens,” as an argument for soul-sleeping, i. e., that David had no soul to go to heaven. It is a humiliating illustration of the perversity of human sectarianism to sacrifice all truth, reason and intelligence to sustain their poor little foolish creed. The obliquity of sectarians is always ready to bend all of the Bible to their creed, instead of bending their creed to the Bible, or throwing it away altogether, as certainly God’s plain Word is all the creed and all the authority His children need or have any business with. The Bible, like all other good books, is in harmony with practical truth and common-sense. There is no allusion whatever to the soul of David, which had long ago left the body; but Peter at this point is simply speaking of the resurrection of Christ, simultaneously showing that this prophecy could not refer to David, though spoken by him, because his body had not yet risen, which he proved by pointing out his sepulcher.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29-31. Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, "the determined purpose, and foreknowledge of God," in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical necessities of his argument, next considers the only objection which his hearers would likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the words quoted, David speaks in the first person, and this might lead some to object, that he was speaking of himself, and not of the Messiah. If, however, it be proved that he did not speak of himself, they would readily admit that he spoke in the name of the Christ. Peter proves this, in these words: (29) " Brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us to this day. (30) Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God had sworn to him, that from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ, according to the flesh, to sit on his throne; (31) foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption. " David's own flesh having seen corruption, as they themselves admitted, and his soul being still in hades, there was no alternative but to admit that he spoke of the Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted the supposed objection, but opened the minds of his hearers, to an entirely new conception of the prophetic throne of David, and of the Messiah, who was to occupy it; showing, that instead of being the ruler of an earthly kingdom, however, glorious, he was to sit upon the throne of the whole universe.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

29. He is both dead and buried. David. His sepulchre was in their midst, within the walls of the city. All his hearers had seen it.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Peter continues his speech that he began in Acts 1:16 to the Jews that surround him and the other believers in Jerusalem.

General Information:

In verses 29 & 30, the words he," "his," and "him" refer to David. In verse 31, the first "He" refers to David and the words within the quote "He" and "his" refer to Christ.

Brothers, I

"My fellow Jews, I"

he both died and was buried

This can be stated in active form. AT: "he died and people buried him" (See: Active or Passive)

he would set one of the fruit of his body upon his throne

"God would set one of David's descendants upon David's throne." AT: "God would appoint one of David's descendants to be king in David's place" (See: Metonymy)

one of the fruit of his body

Here the word "fruit" refers to what "his body" produces. AT: "one of his descendants" (See: Idiom)

He was neither abandoned to Hades

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God did not abandon him to Hades" (See: Active or Passive)

nor did his flesh see decay

Here the word "see" means to experience something. The word "decay" refers to the decomposition of his body after death. See how you translated this in Acts 2:27. AT: "nor did his flesh decay" or "nor did he remain dead long enough for his flesh to decay" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

brother

patriarch

David

die

grave

prophet

God

oath

fruit

throne

resurrection

Hades

flesh

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

29. ἐξὸν εἰπεῖν. Here ἔστι is the verb to be supplied. Render ‘It is allowed me = I may freely say unto you concerning the patriarch David that he both died and was buried.’ Here St Peter begins his argument with a statement which none of them will gainsay. St Paul makes use of the selfsame argument (Act 13:36) ‘David after he had served his own generation … fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers.’

τὸ μνῆμα. The existence of the sepulchre is evidence that David did not rise again. The sepulchre of the House of David was a famous object in the Holy City. Among the marvels of Jerusalem mentioned in the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (c. 35), we are told, ‘There are no graves made in Jerusalem except the tombs of the House of David and of Huldah the Prophetess, which have been there from the days of the first prophets.’

On the burial of David in Zion, cp. 1Ki 2:10 with 2Sa 5:7.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί] q. d., ‘I am your brother, an Israelite, and therefore would not speak with disrespect of David.’ He prepares the way for the apologetic sentence which follows.

ἐξόν] supply, not ἔστω, but ἐστίν, I may, &c.

The title ‘Patriarch’ is only here applied to David, as the progenitor of the kingly race:—Abraham and the sons of Jacob are so called in the N. T. reff. In the LXX, the word is used of chief men, and heads of families, with the exception of 2Ch 23:20, where it represents “captains of hundreds.”

ὅτι] not, because; but that,—contains the subject of εἰπεῖν, and is that for which the apology is made.

We learn from 1Ki 2:10, and Neh 3:16, that David was buried at Jerusalem, in the city of David, i.e. the stronghold of Zion, 2Sa 5:7.

Josephus, Antt. vii. 15. 3, gives an account of the high priest Hyrcanus, when besieged by Antiochus Eusebes,—and afterwards King Herod, opening the tomb and taking treasure from it. See also xiii. 8. 4; xvi. 7. 1; B. J. i. 2. 5. Dio Cassius (lxix. 14) mentions, among the prodigies which preceded Hadrian’s war, that the tomb of Solomon (the same with that of David, see Jos. Antt. xvi. 7. 1) fell down. Jerome mentions (Epist. xlvi. (xvii.) ad Marcellam, vol. i. p. 209) that the tomb of David was visited in his time (the end of the fourth century).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let me speak [εξον ειπειν] . Lit., it is permitted me. Rev., I may. It is allowable for him to speak, because the facts are notorious.

Freely [μετα παρρησιας] . Lit., with freedom. The latter word from pan, all, and rJhsiv, speech; speaking everything, and therefore without reserve. The patriarch [πατριαρχου] . From arcw, to begin, and patria, a pedigree. Applied to David as the father of the royal family from which the Messiah sprang. It is used in the New Testament of Abraham (Heb 7:4), and of the sons of Jacob (Act 7:8).

He is dead and buried [ετελευτησε και εταφη] . Aorists, denoting what occurred at a definite past time. Rev., rightly, he both died and was buried. His sepulchre is with us. Or among us [εν ημιν] . On Mount Zion, where most of the Jewish kings were interred in the same tomb.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.