Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 2:29
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.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 Peters 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. (Maundrells 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 Davids 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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 , 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 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 Abrahams, Isaacs, and Jacobs; 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
29-36. David . . . is . . . dead andburied, &c.Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, sees in thissixteenth Psalm, one Holy Man, whose life of high devotedness andlofty spirituality is crowned with the assurance, that though Hetaste of death, He shall rise again without seeing corruption, and beadmitted to the bliss of God’s immediate presence. Now as this waspalpably untrue of David, it could be meant only of One other, evenof Him whom David was taught to expect as the final Occupant of thethrone of Israel. (Those, therefore, and they are many, who takeDavid himself to be the subject of this Psalm, and the words quotedto refer to Christ only in a more eminent sense, nullify thewhole argument of the apostle). The Psalm is then affirmed to havehad its only proper fulfilment in JESUS,of whose resurrection and ascension they were witnesses, while theglorious effusion of the Spirit by the hand of the ascended One,setting an infallible seal upon all, was even then witnessed by thethousands who stood listening to Him. A further illustration ofMessiah’s ascension and session at God’s right hand is drawn from Ps110:1, in which David cannot be thought to speak of himself,seeing he is still in his grave.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
I may say ( ). Supply before , periphrastic present indicative of , to allow, permit. The Authorized Version has “Let me speak,” supplying present imperative.
Freely ( ). Telling it all (, from , to speak), with fulness, with boldness. Luke is fond of the phrase (as in 4:13). It is a new start for Simon Peter, full of boldness and courage.
The patriarch ( ). Transliteration of the word, from , family, and , to rule, the founder of a family. Late word in LXX. Used of Abraham (Heb 7:4), of the twelve sons of Jacob as founders of the several tribes (Ac 7:8), and here of David as head of the family from whom the Messiah comes.
Was buried (). Second aorist passive indicative of . His tomb was on Mt. Zion where most of the kings were buried. The tomb was said to have fallen into ruins in the time of the Emperor Hadrian. Josephus (Ant. XVI. 7, 1) attributes most of the misfortunes of Herod’s family to the fact that he tried to rifle the tomb of David.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Let me speak [ ] . Lit., it is permitted me. Rev., I may. It is allowable for him to speak, because the facts are notorious.
Freely [ ] . Lit., with freedom. The latter word from pan, all, and rJhsiv, speech; speaking everything, and therefore without reserve. The patriarch [] . 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 [ ] . 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 [ ] . On Mount Zion, where most of the Jewish kings were interred in the same tomb.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Men and brethren,” (andres adelphoi) “Men, brethren,” an affectionate form of interracial address as in Act 2:14; Act 2:22; Act 7:2; Act 22:1.
2) “Let me freely speak unto you,” (ekson eipein meta parresias pros humas) “Let (permit) me to speak to you all with boldness,” or with plain speech, unrestrained, without “pulling punches.” Peter proposed to present incontestable facts concerning David before he proceeded to give equally substantiated evidentiary facts concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of David.
3) “Of the Patriarch David,” (peri tou patriarchou David) “Concerning David the patriarch; Words that are of respect and honor to the name and memory of David. The term “patriarch” is used of Abraham, Heb 7:4, of the sons of Jacob, Act 7:8-9, in honor and esteem, and it is here used of David as a term of High honor and esteem as ancestor of the kingly royal race, of which Jesus is come, Luk 1:32-33.
4) “That he is both dead and buried,” (hoti kai eteleutesen kai etaphe) “That he both died and was buried; This statement emphasizes the certainty of David’s death and implies that his body had seen corruption, putrefaction, or normal decay. 1Ki 2:10.
5) “And his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” (kai to mnema autou estin an hemin achri tes hemeras tautes) “And his tomb is among us until this day; or his burial place is still in our midst today, up to the day when Peter was speaking on Pentecost.” As evidence that his body had seen corruption and the prophetic psalm had not been fulfilled in connection with his death and burial alone, Neh 3:16; Act 13:36.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Brethren, I may say to you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one on his throne; he foreseeing this spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.”
He declares that this Psalm could not literally apply to David because David did die, and was buried, and because his body did see corruption, as was evidenced by the fact that his tomb was with them to that day. He therefore declares that the literal fulfilment of the Psalm requires its fulfilment of another ‘David’. This fulfilment having not happened to David, it must necessarily happen to the coming David, His Holy One, the Messiah. In this way it would happen to David in his descendant.
Here we have another case of prophecy where the original prophecy was part fulfilled, while in the fullest sense the prophecy awaited a later time. Here, says Peter, David knew that in accordance with God’s promise, God would raise up a son to David who would be ‘the everlasting King’ (2Sa 7:12-13). The promises of God were regularly of ‘everlastingness’ in the Old Testament. They did not always think it through but it was there. And that being so David had known that such a king could not possibly be held by death or the grave, otherwise he could not reign for ever. The future ‘David’, therefore, could not finally be ‘left in Hades’, nor could His flesh finally corrupt, otherwise the promise would fail. Thus, says Peter, as the Coming King is Jesus Who had been put to death, as they all knew, His resurrection was inevitable. He must rise from the dead otherwise He could not be the everlasting King. In this argument we might sense the teaching of Jesus after His resurrection and the influence of Isa 53:10-12 connected with Act 9:6-7.
Peter’s interpretation brings out an important aspect of prophecy. The prophets were often prophesying of future trends rather than of specific events. Yet it is again and again remarkable how in the later fulfilment of these trends actual details are fulfilled in a way probably not expected by the prophet. A very good example of this is found in Psa 22:14-18. This passage is another example.
His emphasis on the fact that David died, and was buried and that they knew this because his tomb was with them to this day was probably intended to remind them of the empty Tomb which Peter would remember so vividly. It suggests also that the account of Jesus’ empty tomb was not only common knowledge (as we know it was, otherwise the soldiers would not have been bribed to put the blame on the disciples – Mat 28:13), but was also such a talking point at this time that he did not feel that he had to draw attention to it when describing the tomb of David. (It was only two months later. Plenty of time for the story to get around Jerusalem, and not long enough for it to have been forgotten). He believed that they would automatically draw the parallel. Compare and contrast Paul’s declaration that Jesus ‘died — and was buried — and rose again’ (1Co 15:3-4) which is in direct contrast to what is said of David here.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Act 2:29. His sepulchre is with us unto this day, &c. The sepulchres of the Jews, in general, were without the city; but the sepulchre of David and his sons was within the city. St. Jerome mentions the remains of David’s sepulchre as extant in his time; and it is shewn to travellers even to this day. See Maundrell’s Journey, p. 76.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 2:29 . ] 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 , praevia sermonis mitigatio.”
David is called as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly family, from which the nation expected their Messiah.
] 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 there is not to be supplied, as is usually done, , but ( ).
] David was buried at Jerusalem. Neh 3:16 ; Joseph. Antt. vii. 15. 3, xiii. 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. In , his sepulcher , there is involved, according to the context, as self-evident: “cum ipso Davidis corpore corrupto; molliter loquitur,” Bengel.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Act 2:29-31 . Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically made known the resurrection of Christ.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
29. ] 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.
] supply, not , but , 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.”
] not, because ; but that , contains the subject of , 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).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 2:29 . : 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 alone in St. Peter’s pity for those who crucifying the Saviour knew not what they did. , sc. , (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 = , but ( ), Wendt, in loco . : 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 , prvia sermonis mitigatio” (“est hc . ut aiunt rhetores,” Blass, in loco ). , the name is emphatically used in the N.T. of Abraham; cf. Heb 7:4 (properly the ( auctor ), ), 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. : “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. , 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 (Schrer, 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 2:29-36
29″Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30″And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32″This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33″Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34″For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, 35Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”‘ 36″Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christthis Jesus whom you crucified.”
Act 2:29-31 It is not easy for modern western readers to follow Peter’s analysis of this Psalm because he is using rabbinical hermeneutical procedures (this is also true of the book of Hebrews). Peter may have heard this argument in the synagogue for the coming Messiah and now knows it refers to Jesus of Nazareth.
Act 2:29 Peter shows that Psalms 16, although in some ways referring to David (especially Act 16:10 b), cannot completely refer to David.
Act 2:30 “he was a prophet” The Jews believed that God spoke through prophets. Moses is called a prophet (cf. Deu 18:18). The OT books of Joshua, Judges, I and 2 Samuel, and I and 2 Kings were known in the Jewish canon as “the former prophets.” After the death of the last prophet, Malachi, the rabbis considered revelation as ceasing. It was in this Jewish sense of the term (i.e., Scripture writer) that David is considered a prophet. Earlier in the OT God had revealed to Moses (cf. Genesis 49) that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah. In 2 Samuel 7 God revealed that He would be of the royal line of David. In Psalms 110 God further revealed that He would also be of the priestly line of Melchizedek (cf Act 2:34-35).
“God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne” This is a summary or composite reference to 2Sa 7:11-16; Psa 89:3-4; or Psa 132:11. This shows that God’s ancient intent is to be fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. His death and resurrection were not plan B, but God’s pre-determined, pre-creation plan of redemption (cf. Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13).
Act 2:31 “the Christ” This is the Greek translation of “the Messiah” or literally “the Anointed One.” Not only was Jesus son of David, King of Israel, but Son of God and seated on the heavenly throne (cf. Psalms 110).
SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH
“He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay” This is not marked off as an OT quote in the 1995 NASB (updated) text. It is obviously referring to Psalms 16.
For “flesh” see Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH (sarx)
Act 2:32-33 “Jesus. . .God. . .Spirit” Although the word “trinity” is never used in the Bible, the concept of a triune God is demanded by (1) the deity of Jesus and (2) the personality of the Spirit. The Bible communicates this concept by mentioning the three persons of the Trinity in a single context (cf. Act 2:32-33; Mat 28:19; 1Co 12:4-6; 2Co 1:21-22; 2Co 13:14; Eph 4:4-6 and 1Pe 1:2).
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TRINITY
Act 2:32 “This Jesus God raised up again” See full note at Act 2:24.
“to which we are all witnesses” This refers to those who saw the resurrected Christ. See chart of the post-resurrection appearances from Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, p. 185, at Act 1:3 (p. 9).
Act 2:33 “to the right hand of God” This is an anthropomorphic metaphor for the place of power, authority, and intercession (cf. 1Jn 2:1), which is taken from Psa 110:1 (quoted more than any other Psalm in the NT) or Psa 118:16. God is eternal Spirit, present throughout physical and spiritual creation. Humans must use earth-bound language and concepts to speak of Him, but they are all (1) negations (2) analogies or (3) metaphors. Even the word “Father” to describe God or “Son” to describe Jesus are metaphorical. All metaphors break down at some point. They are meant to convey a central truth or concept about deity. Be careful of literalness! Surely you do not expect to see an old man, a young man on a throne and a white bird circling overhead when you get to heaven. See Special Topic following.
SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN (anthropomorphic language)
“the promise of the Holy Spirit” The OT promised a new day of Spirit-led righteousness, made operative by the work of the Messiah.
1. Joh 7:39, the new day has arrived
2. Gal 3:14, the blessing of Abraham (cf. Gen 12:3) is now available to the whole world
3. Eph 1:13, believers in this new age are sealed by the Spirit.
“which you both see and hear” This is the continuing emphasis in this sermon on the eyewitness nature of these hearers (cc. 14,22,32,33,36). They knew what Peter said was true because they were there. Lawyers call this primary source evidence.
Act 2:34 “the Lord said to my lord” This is a quote from Psa 110:1 (YHWH…Adon). Jesus uses it in Mat 22:41-46. In the NT it shows the dual aspect of the kingdom; Jesus is already at God’s right, but His enemies are not yet His footstool. See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KINGDOM OF GOD at Act 1:3.
Act 2:36 “Let all the house of Israel” This refers to the Jewish leadership and people, the very ones Peter is addressing. He is asserting that OT prophecy is fulfilled and culminated in Jesus of Nazareth. See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KINGDOM OF GOD at Act 1:3.
NASB”know for certain”
NKJV”know assuredly”
NRSV”know with certainty”
TEV”know for sure”
NJB”can be certain”
This reflects two Greek words, the adverb aphals, which means “to fasten securely” (metaphorically with certainty, cf. Act 16:23) and the present active imperative of ginsk, “to know.” These eyewitnesses of Jesus’ last week, death, and resurrection could have no doubt about the truthfulness of Peter’s words.
“Lord and Christ” The term “lord” (kurios) can be used in a general sense or in a specific theological sense (cf. Act 2:21). It can mean “mister,” “sir,” “master,” “owner,” “husband,” or “the full God-man.” The OT usage of this term (adon) came from the Jews’ reluctance to pronounce the covenant name for God, YHWH, from the Hebrew verb “to be” (cf. Exo 3:14). They were afraid of breaking the commandment which said, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (cf. Exo 20:7, Deu 5:11). They thought if they did not pronounce it, they could not take it in vain. So, they substituted the Hebrew wordadonai, which had a similar meaning to the Greek word, Kurios (Lord). The NT authors used this term to describe the full Deity of Christ. The phrase “Jesus is Lord” was the public confession of faith and baptismal formula of the early church (cf. Rom 10:9-13; 1Co 12:3; Php 2:11). See Special Topic: Names for Deity at Act 1:6.
“Christ” was the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term messiah, which meant “an anointed one” (cf. Act 2:31; Act 2:36; Act 3:18; Act 3:20; Act 4:26; Act 5:42; Act 8:5; Act 9:22; Act 17:3; Act 18:5; Act 18:28; Act 26:23). It implied “one called and equipped by God for a specific task.” In the OT three groups of leaders: priests, kings, and prophets, were anointed. Jesus fulfilled all three of these anointed offices (cf. Heb 1:2-3). See SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH at Act 2:31.
By using both of these OT titles for Jesus of Nazareth, Luke asserts both His deity (cf. Php 2:6-11, see Special Topic at Act 2:32) and His Messiahship (cf. Luk 2:11). This surely sets the stage for the proclamation (kerygma) of the other sermons in Acts!
See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KERYGMA OF THE EARLY CHURCH at Act 2:14.
“this Jesus whom you crucified” Peter accused these inhabitants of Jerusalem with duplicity in Jesus’ death. All fallen humans are equally involved in the guilt. See note at Act 2:23.
“this Jesus” The designation “this Jesus” (cf. Act 2:23; Act 2:32; Act 2:36) links Peter’s proclamation of the historical Jesus to the resurrected, exalted Christ. Both concepts are true. There is no biblical distinction between the early Jesus and the Jesus of faith!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Men, &c. See note on Act 1:11.
let me = I may.
freely = with (App-104.) frankness.
unto. App-104.
patriarch. Occurs here, Act 7:8, Act 7:9, and Heb 7:4. Applied to Abraham and the sons of Jacob, as founders of’ the nation, and to David, as founder of the monarchy.
sepulchre = tomb, as in Mar 5:5. Greek. mnema. Compare Act 7:16. Luk 23:53. The more usual word is mnemeion, as in Act 13:29.
with = among Greek. en. App-104.
unto = until Greek. achri.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
29. ] 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.
] supply, not , but , 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.
] not, because; but that,-contains the subject of , 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 Hadrians 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).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 2:29. ) viz. , let it be allowed to me. The neuter is frequently without a verb. The ellipsis in this place is expressive of .[14]- , 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 [see Append.], or previous mitigation of what he is about to say.-, the patriarch) This name is one of greater dignity than the name, king. This, too, produces the effect of .- , his sepulchre) and that sepulchre containing the very body of David, which saw corruption. He speaks gently. , 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
let me: or, I may
freely: Act 26:26
the patriarch: Act 7:8, Act 7:9, Heb 7:4
David: Act 13:36, 1Ki 2:10
Reciprocal: Gen 44:18 – let thy 1Ch 17:11 – go to be 2Ch 24:16 – in the city Neh 3:16 – the sepulchres Mat 23:29 – ye build Luk 4:21 – This day Act 1:16 – Men Act 2:25 – David Act 13:15 – Ye men Act 15:13 – Men 1Co 12:10 – prophecy Heb 4:7 – saying Heb 11:32 – David
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The listeners might not understand the form of language where one writer would speak as it meaning himself, but was really talking for another. To show them that David was not writing about himself personally, Peter reminded them that he had been dead all these years, because his tomb (still occupied) was yet with them, whereas his prediction concerned a person who was to leave his grave after three days.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 2:29. Let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David. Freely (frei und offen, Meyer and Ewald), without fear of being thought unjust to the great memory of the royal patriarch, the founder of the kingly house of Judah.
That he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us. This was a notorious fact. No one ever pretended that King David had risen; his tomb all knew. We have a mention of the sepulchre of David on the return of Judah from Babylon (Neh 3:16). His resting-place was violated by the high priest, John Hyrcanus, and also by Herod the Great. The first found a treasure of money, the second some gold furniture in it. Jerome (end of 4th century) tells us that the tomb was visited in his day.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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 Christs resurrection? Because he did not receive it before he died, and because his kingdom was to endure for ever, 2Sa 7:13.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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 Davids 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 Gods 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.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 29
He, is both dead and buried, &c., and of course the above language cannot apply to him.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Peter next argued that David’s words just quoted could not refer literally to David since David had indeed died and his body had undergone corruption. Ancient tradition places the location of King David’s tomb south of the old city of David, near the Pool of Siloam. David’s words were a prophecy that referred to Messiah as well as a description of his own experience. God’s oath to place one of David’s descendants on his throne as Israel’s king is in Psa 132:11 (cf. 2Sa 7:16). [Note: See Robert F. O’Toole, "Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost," Journal of Biblical Literature 102:2 (1983):245-58.]
Peter did not say that Jesus now sits on David’s throne (Act 2:30), which is what many progressive dispensationalists affirm. [Note: E.g., Bock, Dispensationalism, . . ., pp. 49-50; Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 175-87; and Saucy, The Case . . ., p. 59-80. For refutations of the progressive dispensationalist view, see John F. Walvoord, "Biblical Kingdoms Compared and Contrasted," in Issues in Dispensationalism, especially pp. 89-90; David A. Dean, "A Study of the Enthronement of Christ in Acts 2, 3" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992); McLean, pp. 223-24; Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 168-69; Hodges, "A Dispensational . . .," pp. 174-78; and Stanley D. Toussaint, "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 231-32. See Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 81-82; and John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, pp. 224-26, for the normative dispensational interpretations of the Davidic Covenant passages.] He said that David prophesied that God had sworn to seat a descendant of David on David’s throne. Jesus now sits on a throne in heaven, but He has yet to sit on David’s throne, which is a throne on earth. He will sit on David’s throne when He returns to the earth to reign as Messiah.