Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath, of the fruit of his loins to set upon his throne;
Peter stands in Jerusalem and argues from a grave: David died and was buried, so his psalm about a body that would not decay must point to someone else. Verse 30 gives the missing link — David was a prophet, and he knew God had sworn an oath about one of his descendants and a throne.
Peter's case rests on a fact anyone in the crowd could check.
The Psalm writer speaks in the first person all the way through. I, me, or my turns up in every verse. Was David writing about himself? Impossible. He had died and was buried, and his tomb was there among them, still holding his dust... People had read that Psalm for centuries. Most likely everyone in the crowd knew it. But to that day none of them could point to anyone who had died and say, "Here is the man."
Being a prophet did not make David a passive channel. He understood something of what he was writing.
David was surely aware that he was describing more than his friend's betrayal... So we see that David knew he was an instrument in the hands of the Spirit of God. Through him God announced in advance His purposes about Christ: both His allowing the wickedness that brought Him to the cross, and the grace that by that very means accomplished our redemption.
Peter points back to an oath in the Psalms. Writers note that the same passage holds two promises side by side: one absolute, one conditional.
In verse 11 it is the expression of the divine purpose, "The LORD swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: 'One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.'"... So when Christ, as the Son of David, is in the Spirit's view, the promise is unconditional, because it announces God's purpose in grace. But when David's own children, his immediate descendants, are in view, whether they stay on his throne depends on their responsibility.
This is why the resurrection carries the argument. An oath about a throne that lasts for ever needs an heir death cannot remove.
In his argument the apostle cites Psalm 132, the great psalm of the kingdom settled for ever in the son of David... This, and this alone, explains why the kingdom is so glorious, even in its earthly side. Even now the King is risen from the dead. Nothing else could stamp it with permanence like that. Yet it is still the kingdom of a man — only a man risen from the dead.
The oath calls for a descendant from David's own body. If Joseph was only Jesus' supposed father, how can Jesus be that descendant? The answer points to two lines meeting in one Person.
The Lord's manhood was real because He was born of Mary, "the Virgin" of David's house. If He had not truly been the Son of God on the other side, the truth of His Godhead would have been overthrown. And if He had not held the legal rights of Solomon's line through Joseph — though Joseph was only His supposed father — He would not be the true Messiah under the oath God swore to David.
Did the oath reach its goal when Jesus rose and ascended? Commentators say no. David himself, they point out, foretold a waiting time before that throne is taken.
Peter would have them know what David has shown: for that Son whom David calls his Lord there would be a time of waiting for the Kingdom, with enemies opposing... So the pause before He takes David's throne is itself a proof that Jesus is the Messiah, instead of an argument against it. And it is David himself who testifies to this.
The throne He sits on now is not the throne He was promised.
Now the Messiah rejected by the Jews sits on the throne of God His Father, in contrast with His own throne, which He is to take another day. Neither David nor any other sat on the Father's throne... At His coming again He will sit upon the throne of David according to the prophecy before us and many more.
- Oath. God swore an oath to seat one of David's descendants on David's throne. That promise rests on His purpose alone, not on anyone's obedience.
- Prophet. David knew it, and wrote about Someone else. His own tomb was still in Jerusalem, and his own body had decayed.
- Descent. The oath called for a real son of David: true manhood through Mary, of David's house, and the legal royal title through Joseph.
- Resurrection. A throne promised for ever needs a King death cannot hold. God raised Jesus, and that stamps the kingdom with permanence.
- Waiting. He now sits on His Father's throne, not yet on David's. David foretold that very pause before He takes it.
he, seeing [it] before, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither has he been left in hades nor his flesh seen corruption.
Peter's sermon at Pentecost reaches its turning point here, in words David wrote long before. The verse makes two claims — a soul not abandoned to Hades, a body that did not decay — and neither one fits David himself.
Peter's argument rests on a fact his hearers could check. David was still in his grave.
Was David writing of himself? Impossible. He had died and was buried, and his tomb was with them, still holding his dust. Clearly his tomb was well known then. And everyone agreed that he, the first of his dynasty, had not risen from the dead. Yet he wrote of One who would die and would soon be raised. God would not leave that One's soul in Hades — the place of spirits without their bodies — nor would He let His body see corruption.
Hades means the state of the dead apart from the body. The second half of the verse turns to the body itself.
His soul would not be left in hades, which is the unseen state of separation from His body. Also, "your Holy One" would not see corruption. This of course refers to His body. The body was in a state of death, because the spirit and soul had left it. Yet it would not see corruption.
Commentators differ over the exact wording. One traces a long-standing error to a rendering the text does not support.
Psalm 16:10 teaches that the Lord would not leave Messiah's soul to Hades, any more than His body to see corruption. "To leave in" does not seem to fit either the Hebrew or the Greek in the correct text. Early superstition made much of that error, and many revive it today.
The verse names soul and body apart, because death parted them. Neither was lost.
His soul was in hades, His body in the grave. Death separated His soul from His body, but divine power held both, so to speak, for His resurrection and glory. I see no difficulty here. His soul was in paradise, His body in the grave. Hades is only the invisible place of departed spirits, nothing more.
Every other body begins to decay at death. His did not, and one writer traces the reason to who He was and to what His death settled.
It is clear that our Lord could not go to a place of torment. It is just as clear that His soul was without its body, while His precious incorruptible body lay in the grave those memorable three days. The Lord was perfectly sinless. So we can understand how His blessed holy body saw no corruption, for corruption is the effect of sin. The blessed Lord had also fully settled the question of sin by His atoning death on the cross. So death could have no further claim on Him. When sinful bodies die, death holds its sway and decay sets in at once. In this verse our Lord's incorruptible body and His soul without its body were not to be left in death and hades. On the third day body and soul were re-united and His glorious resurrection took place — proof that the work of redemption was complete.
Peter does not stop to answer excuses. He rests his case on Scripture.
Peter does not even notice such an unworthy excuse. He simply states the grand truth on which the gospel rests… The word of God through David pointed to the resurrection of the Messiah. God showed Him openly, when risen, to witnesses He had chosen beforehand. But indeed death could not hold Him fast. He, the Holy One, had submitted to death for sin, to God's glory. Nor was it possible for the Scripture to be broken which said, "You will not leave My soul to Hades, nor let Your Holy One see corruption." … Here Peter, and Paul in Acts 13:33-37, declare that God fulfilled this when He raised Jesus from the dead. It was not fulfilled in David, and still less in anyone else.
The verse also settles what resurrection means.
What did the apostles regard as an essential feature of the resurrection? Let Peter instruct us, as he did his hearers on the day of Pentecost. David, he said, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, "that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." Peter did not preach a resurrection of the person apart from the body that died.
- Foreseen — David wrote as a prophet about One still to come. His own tomb, well known in Jerusalem, proved he was not writing about himself.
- Separated — Death parted soul from body. His soul was in the unseen place, His body in the grave. Divine power held both for His resurrection.
- Preserved — Decay is the effect of sin. The sinless One's body did not decay, and His atoning death left death no further claim on Him.
- Raised — Scripture could not be broken, and death could not hold Him. God raised Him and showed Him to witnesses He had chosen.
- Bodily — Peter preached the resurrection of the very body that died, not of a person apart from his body.