Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell - х eis (G1519) hadeen (G86), according to the much better supported reading, and as in the Septuagint; not hadou (G86), as in the Received Text]. Though the old English word "hell" did not necessarily denote the 'place of future torment'-the word for which in the New Testament is quite different х geenna (G1067)] - it irresistibly suggests that to the modern reader; and as this is certainly not meant here, the original and now pretty familiar word, 'Hades' [= Shª'owl (H7585)] should have been retained, which means simply 'the unseen world,' or the state or place into which the disembodied spirit enters after death. (See the note at Luke 16:23.) But is the translation 'in Hades' a correct rendering of the original words, or should they not be rendered, 'unto Hades?' They certainly were understood to mean 'in Hades' by, probably, all the fathers; and they are so rendered in the Vulgate, and by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and Beza (apud inferos). For the speaker in the Psalm was understood to say, not that he should not be left to go into Hades (or to die by the hands of his enemies), but that he should not be left to remain in it-on the contrary, that he should be shown the path of resurrection-life out of it; and Bengel tries to justify this rendering from three passages in which the same verb and preposition are used in the sense of 'leaving in' (Leviticus 19:10; Psalms 49:11; Job 39:14). But since only the last of these passages is to the purpose, and even in it the stricter sense of 'leaving unto' would suit equally well, this argument is of no value; and if 'in Hades ' is to be defended at all, it must be because the sense demands it. But it does not. For precisely the same sense comes out of the stricter sense-`unto:' thus, 'Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades'-to remain there as its rightful prey.
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One - х ton (G3588) hosion (G3741) sou (G4675) = chªciydªkaa (H2623) in the Qeriy']. The usual word for "holy" х hagios (G40), qodesh (H6944)] denotes separation from a common to a sacred use, which is the most generic and comprehensive feature of a holy character. But the much less usual word here employed expresses benignity or mercy; one characteristic feature of a holy character being put for the whole. But since in the Psalm itself, according to the present text, this word is in the plural number-`thine holy ones' х chªciydeekaa (H2623)], but in the margin is singular х chªciydªkaa (H2623) in Qeriy'], the question is, Did the apostle quote the Psalm exactly as it stood in the text then used, or did he himself alter it from the plural to the singular, in order to fix its application to Christ? Different critics decide differently; but for ourselves, we cannot doubt that in the text as Peter found it the word was in the singular number. For first, though the majority of the existing Hebrew manuscripts have the plural reading, a very great number have the singular-no fewer than 180 of Kennicott's and DeRossi's manuscripts. Next, the Septuagint version has the singular, in the identical terms of the apostle's quotation, and all the other ancient versions accord with it. Then the apostle Paul, in a precisely similar argument from this Psalm, quotes the word in question in the singular (Acts 13:35-37). Lastly, the singular number alone suits the strain of the Psalm; the speaker is one throughout; and the singular number is used from the first verse to the last: how improbable, then, is it that the plural number should have been used in this one word only!
To see corruption. The word here used х shachat (H7845)] might certainly as well be rendered 'the pit,' and more properly, as some think-having regard to the right etymology х shuwach (H7743)]. But, since the Septuagint gives it the sense of "corruption," not only here but in several other places [as if from shaachat (H7845)], it had not improbably a double etymology (like one or two other words). The apostle, at least, must have understood the word in the sense of "corruption;" and if all but rationalistic interpreters are right in belong that the Psalmist's expectation stretched beyond temporal deliverances to triumph over death and the grave, we can hardly make the apostle's argument consist with this at all, except in the sense of exemption from such a power of the grave as to involve corruption in it. But it will be necessary to recur to this important verse in the Remarks at the close of this Section.