Acts 13:32

“"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." But, "He hath raised up Jesus again: This day," he says, "I have begotten thee." Aye, upon this the rest follows of course. Why did he not allege some text by which they would be persuaded that forgiveness of sins is by Him? Because the great point with them was to show, in the first place, that He was risen: this being acknowledged, the other was unquestionable. The reading "In the Second Psalm" is the best attested. If it is correct, we must suppose that what we now call the first psalm was considered introductory and that our second psalm was counted as the first. The expression "this day have I begotten thee" refers evidently to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is conceived as the solemn inauguration of Christ into his office as theocratic king represented under the figure of begetting.”

“Wherefore he saith also in another psalm,.... Psa 16:10 or "in another place", as the Syriac version supplies; or "in another section", as the Arabic version; or "elsewhere", as Beza's most ancient copy, the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read: thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption; which cannot be understood of David: the term "Holy One", is not so applicable to him, who was a man subject to infirmities; at least not in such sense as to Christ, who was holy in his nature, and without sin in his life and conversation; besides, David was laid in his grave, and saw corruption, as the apostle afterwards proves: the former part of this passage is not cited, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell"; which was not absolutely necessary to be mentioned, it being clearly implied in what is produced; for if he should not be suffered to see corruption, then he could not be left in the grave: moreover, the apostle cites that which he intended to reason upon, as he afterwards does, and by it makes it manifestly appear that the words do not belong to David, but the Messiah, and are a clear and pertinent proof of his resurrection from the dead. The Jew (p) objects to the apostle's version of these words, rendering by "corruption", whereas he says it signifies a "pit"; but it ought to be observed, that the word in its first proper, and literal sense, signifies "corruption"; and a pit or grave is only called by this name, because dead bodies, or carcasses, are therein corrupted; and instances may be given, wherein the word cannot be understood in another sense than in that of corruption, as in Lev 22:25. See Gill on Act 2:27. (p) R. Isaac, Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 69. p. 456.”