Peter SmytheA Different Kind of Word Preacher

I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence. (Acts 2:25b-27, RSV) (Peter’s address)

Acts 2:27 presents a high obstacle to the theology of modern preachers who deny Jesus’s descent into hell (hades). Modern constructions of the verse, from Bible translations all the way to theological exegesis, have repeatedly performed all kinds of theatrics to eviscerate what couldn’t be more plain in the Greek. Since proper exegesis of Acts 2:27 is such a paramount importance to correct doctrine and actually seeing the depth and richness of Jesus’s redemptive work, parsing this verse will take more than one essay.

A Psalm of David about David

Some say that Acts 2:27 is only a psalm of David’s own deliverance. For instance, this week I received an email that said the following (after I had responded to a post on Acts 2:27):

“In Acts Chapter 2, Peter is preaching the Pentecost and with this verse he is quoting the prophecy of the resurrection (quoting Ps 16:8-11). In the passage of Psalms, David is talking about his own deliverance from death and pointing to the fact that true deliverance is fulfilled by Christ’s death and resurrection. David will die, but will not be put to death (or will not go to hell) for his sins because of the one that is coming that will be delivered OUT of death. Peter was just preaching and showing the prophecy and relating it to Christ already being delivered OUT of death. That is where the verse Act 2:27 comes from.

1. David talking about his own deliverance.
2. David saying what the ultimate deliverer will have to do.
3. Peter preaching about David’s prophesy and stating, “Look this already happened.”

(Edited version for this blog).

From Paul’s preaching about the same verse, we know that Acts 2:27 is not about David:

“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it
is written in the second psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten
thee.’ And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to
return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy
and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’ For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up saw no corruption.” Acts 13:32-37 (Paul’s address)

The rest of Peter’s own discourse also makes it plain that his statements were not about David:

“Brethren, I may say to you confidently 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 he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” Acts 2:28-31

Paul shows us that David “saw corruption” and God’s “Holy One” did not. Peter demonstrates to us that, in the psalm, David was speaking of “the resurrection of Christ.” Consequently, Acts 2:27 could not be a psalm of David about David’s own deliverance.

“To Hell” or “In Hades”

Bible translation is both a science and an art and I stand with Bruce Metzger in questioning the reasons for the proliferation of so many modern translations. Koine Greek is a dead language that, while more exacting than English, has its own phraseologies and nuances of meanings that can be colored by the biases, personal or theological, of the translator. It appears to me that more of the modern translators have exercised more “theological gloss” on their renditions than translators of the past. Below are some modern-day translations of Acts 2:27 and I have matched the Greek to the RSV translation last:

because you will not abandon my soul to hades, nor allow your holy one to undergo decay. (NASB) (all capitals in text)

because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. (NIV)

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,or let your Holy One see corruption. (ESV)

because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay. (TNIV)

“For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption.” (RSV)

As you can see, the most popular modern Bible translations have translated the Greek word eis as “to.” The word “to” suggests the idea that the Holy One has not ever been in Hades and won’t be abandoned or left to go to Hades. This translation of eis comports with the modern belief that Jesus never descended into hell as part of the plan of redemption. The translation of “to,” however, is an aberrant translation of eis. The eminent Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, in his book, The Minister and His Greek New Testament writes:

In the New Testament there is no absolute line of cleavage. It is idle to insist on a fast meaning of “into”for eis. In reality it simply means “in” just like en. One must be prepared to find en [“in’] and eis used interchangeably for they are in truth the same word. Pg. 51. (emphasis supplied).

In his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, Robertson writes specifically about Acts 2:27 saying:

“The classic use of eis hadou [hades] … is the true genitive, according to Brugmann … ‘in the sphere of Hades.’” Pg. 591. (using the King James’s Textus Receptus).

If one goes to any ordinary Greek grammar, eis is always defined as “in” or “into.” If one applies Robertson’s eis properly, the translation should be rendered, “for thou wilt not abandon my soul in [the sphere of] Hades.” There really isn’t any reason that eis is translated as “to” unless the translators believed (and wanted us to believe) that “in” is somehow a corrupt translation.

There are a few translations that I have found that have been faithful to the proper translation of eis:

because You will not leave my soul in Hades, or allow Your Holy One to see decay. (HCSB)

For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction [of the body after death]. (Amplified)

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (KJV)

In the next essay, we’ll head to “Hades” and “corruption,” both of which have been the objects of heavy theological gloss.

[Note: On the book cover of Lyland Ryken’s Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences, Dr. Wayne Grudem, a professor on the editorial committee of the ESV, writes, “… many modern translations fail to meet accepted standards in accuracy, faithfulness to the words of the author, clarity, vividness, and correctness …” Ironically, Dr. Grudem’s exegesis of Acts 2:27 and his rendering of “Hades” and “corruption” is the subject of my next essay.]