Ps. 16:10: Messiah’s Incorruption

10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you allow⁷⁴ your devoted one⁷⁵ to see corruption.⁷⁶

74. “The technical expression [found here] ntn + accusative + 1` means `to allow (something) to be done”‘ (C. J. Labuschagne, TLOT, 2:785, s.v. ntn).

75. Heb. hasid is glossed in the LXX (cf. TNIV) as hosios (“holy one:’ so also Acts 2:27; 13:35).

76. According to G. E. Whitney (“Survey of the History of the Interpretation of Prophecy: How Interpreters Deal with Peter’s Use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2;’ Evangelical Theological Society [Eastern Regional Conference, April 3, 1987, Myerstown, PA]: 15), Reinke’s defense of sht meaning “decay” (against historical critics) is even more thorough than that given by P. A. Vaccari (“Salmo 16”; and “I1 Salmo delta Risurrezione;” La Redenzione [Rome, 1934]: 165-90). Building on their studies, I argued in 1993 (NIDOTTE, 4:1113):

The nom. sahat occurs twenty-five times in the OT, always in poetry. It can be derived from the verb sht, “sink down;’ or from the verb sahat “to go to ruin.” Noms. of the pattern nahat derived from hollow waw roots (e.g., swh) are fem. (i.e, final t is the fem. suff.); noms. of the latter verb are masc. (i.e., the t is part of the root). As a result homonyms, a masc. and a fem. form, are possible.

For example, nahat (fem.; BDB, 629), a derivative from nwh, means “quietness/rest;” but nahat (masc.; BDB, 639) from nahat means “descent/descending.” All the ancient versions understood nahat as a homonym. No scholar denies it sometimes means “pit;” but the LXX and Vulgate understood it to mean “corruption” or “decay” in Ps. 9:16; 29[30]:10; 34[35]7; 48[49]:9[10]; 54[55]23[24]; 102[103]:4. Sym. so understood it in Ps. 35:7; 5523[24]; Aq. in Ps. 7:15[16]; 30:9[10]; Theod. in Job 33:22, 30.

In addition to the LXX, Jerome and Syr. understood it this way in Ps. 16:10. Pope (Job, 1965, AB, 75), seemingly unaware of nahat (masc.), recognizes that it must mean “filth” in job 9:31 and tries to explain it as due to the netherworld’s putrescent nature.

A clear example, however, of masc. Sa hat is found in Job 17:14: “If I say to … (sahat)`You are my father; and to the worm (rimmh, worms; fem. coll.), `My mother; or `my sister”‘ (NRSV). K. Brugmann showed at the end of the last century that grammatical gender guided the poetic imagination in personification (cited by IBHS, p. loo, P. 6.3.1e). “Worm” (rimmh) is fem., hence its personification by “mother” and “sister.” We may confidently infer, therefore, that nahat, personified as “father;” is the masc. form, “decay/corruption.”

Moreover, it can be established that the masc. form, “corruption,” not the fem. form, “pit;” is in view in Ps. 16:10 by the verb “to see’ (lir’o).

“To see” expresses the ideas of “experiencing,” “enduring,” “proving;” and the like, and takes for its object a nom. of state of the soul or of the body; e.g., to see death (Ps. 89:48 [49]), to see trouble/evil (90:15; Jer. 44:17), to see sorrow (Jer. 20:18), to see famine (5:12), to see affliction (Lam. 3:1).

On the contrary, when indicating the idea of place (e.g., pit, grave, Sheol, gates of death, etc.), the Hebrew authors use a verb of motion; e.g., to descend (Job 21:13), to fall (Ps. 7:15 [16]; 57:6). The expression “to go down to the pit” occurs four times in the Psalter; nine times in Ezek.; cf. Prov. 1:12; Isa. 38:18.

Having demonstrated that the masc. sahat “decay” exists and that the verb [dictates this meaning] in Ps. 16:10, I conclude the ancient versions, not modern lexicographers, have the better of the argument, and so does the NT [see below IV. Conclusion]…

PART IV. CONCLUSION

In their apologias to the Jews that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Peter and Paul appeal to Psalm 16:8-11 (Acts 2:25-32;1335). They argue that David is talking about Jesus Christ, not himself, because, among other things, the after-death experience of David’s body, which decayed, contrasts with that of Christ’s body, which did not decay.

Since the experience of Christ’s body after death uniquely matches Psalm 16:1o, “your holy one will not see decay,” David, they argue, is speaking of Christ’s death and resurrection, not of his own death. Moreover, Peter says of all of Psalm 16:8-11: “David said of him [Jesus of Nazareth]; implicitly putting the first person statements in these verses, such as “you will not abandon me to the grave,” in the mouth of Jesus.

Indeed, Psalm 16:1o is probably one of the texts the original church had in mind in their basic kerygma “that Christ was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (see v. lob;1 Cor. 15:4).120 This early interpretation of Psalm 16 probably derives from Jesus himself (Luke 24:44-45). It is the traditional interpretation of the church until the ascendancy of HBC.

Yet the exegesis given above argues these are the words of David and that they refer to him. The contrast between a normal interpretation of the psalm by a hermeneutical method credible to most modern interpreters and the apostles’ use of the Psalm is a critical issue in the history of interpretation.

According to Weiser, “[The great majority of more recent expositors] hold the view that what the author has in mind is that God will protect him from a sudden, untimely, or evil death:” But Weiser rightly objects: “Neither the wording of the verse nor the general circumstances and attitude of the poet suggest such an interpretation; moreover, it is precisely the decisive feature of that interpretation – the specific kind of death – which is read into the text.” Rather, in Weiser’s opinion, the psalmist is speaking of his overcoming his fear of death. “There is no reason to doubt that the poet, speaking of death in quite general terms, has in mind death as such, that is, death in general, and that by virtue of his faith in God he is progressing towards the conquest of the fear of death in his heart.”

According to the majority of contemporary commentators, the apostles erred. These commentators validate their position by wrongly insisting with Driver that sahat derives from suah “to descend” and so must mean “pit,” not corruption.¹²²

Curiously, the classic lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs does not have an entry for sahat as a derivative of sahat, “to go to ruin,” “decay,” though they recognize the existence of that root.¹²³ If they are right, the psalm in David’s mouth cannot apply to Jesus, for Christ died a premature, evil death, contrary to a normal interpretation of the psalm. We are not aware, however, of any rebuttal to the arguments that saha_t must be II. saha_t, meaning “corruption” (see n. 76).