Seutépw! γέγραπται, “Vids µου εἶ σύ: ἐγὼ σήµερον γεγέννηκά oe.” 34. ὅτι δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, µηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθορὰν, οὕτως εἴρηκεν, '΄ Ὅτι δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅσια Δαβὶδ τὰ πιστά. 35. διὸ” καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει, “Ob δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν.;. 36. Δαβὶδ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ ὑπηρετήσας τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ βουλῇ ἐκοιμήθη, καὶ προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶδε
1 τῳ ψαλμφ Te δευτερῳ yey. ELP, Vulg., Syr. H., R.V.(T.R.); τῳ W. yey. Te δευτ. SABC 13, 61, Arm., W.H. But in D (τφ) πρωτῳ Wp. γεγ., cf. Or., Hil., Gig., Latin MS. known to Bede, Tisch., Meyer, Blass. The δευτ. and πρωτ. is the only important var., and the authority for the latter is almost entirely Western. According to Origen the Jews frequently combined Ps, i. and ii. (cf. also Justin, Apol., i., 40; Tert., adv. Marc., iv., 22; Cypr., Testim., i., 13), ‘(so that a ‘Western’ scribe, being probably accustomed to read the two Psalms combined, would be under a temptation to alter δευτ. to πρωτ. and not vice versd,” W.H., App., p. 95. In D, Syr. Harcl. marg. the quotation also comprises Ps. ii. 5 (¢f. Blass in B, and Hilg.); see Wendt (1899), note, p. 241; Belser, p. 69. Wern. omits ev t. πρ. ψ. altogether ; ‘‘ fort. recte,” Blass.
Σεν ετερῳ, D, Gig., Vulg., Hilgs read erepws—may have been changed into ev ετερ. Stott, so NAB, R.V., W.H., under influence of Heb. v. 6, but more probably corruption.
first prophecy, ver. 33, would be fulfilled in this way, whilst in vv. 34 and 35 the prophecy would be fulfilled by the resur- rection from the dead, advac. ἐκ νεκρῶν (see Knabenbauer in loco, p. 233 ff.). Wendt argues that Heb. i. 5, where the same prophecy is quoted as in ver. 33, also refers to the raising up as the Messiah, but see on the other hand Westcott, Hebrews, in loco.
Ver. 34. µηκέτι p. ὑποσ. εἰς διαφθ., cf. Rom. vi. 9, “«πο more to return to corruption,” does not of course mean that Christ had already seen corruption, so that there is no need to understand διαφθ. of the place of corruption, sepul- chrum, with Beza, Kuinoel. Hilgenfeld refuses to follow Jiingst, Sorof, Clemen in referring vv. 34-37 to a reviser, for he justly remarks that the speech which was intended to move the Israelites to a recognition of Jesus as the promised Saviour of the seed of David, would have been imperfect, unless it had set forth His sufferings and after-resurrection.— Δώσω κ.τελ.;: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of ,David”. This rendering makes the connection with the next verse more evident, cf. Isa. lv. 3, καὶ διαθήσοµαι ὑμῖν διαθήκην αἰώνιον τὰ ὅσια Aavid τὰ πιστά. ‘‘ By David was understood the Messiah, which yet the Rabbis themselves have well observed :” j. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. (so Schottgen), in loco. ‘*The everlasting covenant,”’ what was it but the holy and sure bless- ings promised to David? But these bless- ings, ὅσια, sancta promissa Davidi data, are connected with the resurrection of
Christ because (‘ διότι not 816, T.R., see critical notes, stating the cause, not the consequence’’) only in the triumph of God’s Holy One (τὸν ὅσιον) are these blessings ratified and assured. Just as Peter (ii. 47), so here Paul applies the passage in Ps. xvi. directly to Christ, Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 151.
Ver. 36. yap: David is contrasted with Christ by St. Paul as by St. Peter, ii. 20.---ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ ὑπηρ.: “after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fellon sleep,” R.V., but in margin the rendering of A.V. is practically re- tained. It seems best to take ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ as a dative of time, ef. ver. 20, Ephes. iii. 5 (so Blass, Wendt, Zockler, Felten), and not as dat. commodi. St. Paul’s point seems to be (1) the contrast be- tween the service of David which ex- tended only for a generation, and the service of Christ which lasted through all ages permanently. But this contrast would be also marked if we adopt R.V. margin rendering and govern ἰδίᾳ γεν. by ὑπηρ. (see Weiss). (2) The second point of contrast is between the corruption which David saw, and the incorruption of the Holy One of God. Weiss still connects τῇ Θεοῦ βουλῇ with ἐκοιμήθη; see margin (2) in R.V.; but this does not seem so significant as the contrast drawn between David serving the counsel or purpose of God for one, or during one generation, whilst in Christ the eternal purpose of God was τεα]ἰθεἀ.---προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς π. αὐτοῦ: Hebraistic expression, lit., “was added,” i.e., in Sheol, cf. Gen. xxvi. 8, Judg. ii. το, 1 Macc. ii. 69.