Journal of Confessional Bibliology — Scripture Alone, Preserved by Providence

Acts 2:30–31 — “According to the Flesh, He Would Raise Up Christ”: David’s Oath and Prophecy

by | Jul 22, 2026

Complete textual-variant dossier

Adverse entailment established

Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.

1Passage and issue

Passage

Issue

The critical form omits τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν, the clause that identifies David’s promised descendant according to the flesh as Christ.

Variant class

Omission / addition

2Textus Receptus

Greek reading

of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ

Authorized Version

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” —

Edition note

The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.

Historical annotation witness

Erasmus’s Annotationes

Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.

Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.

The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.

Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses

Westminster Annotations

Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.

Dutch Annotations

Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.

3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale

NA28 baseline reading

of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne

Translation or explanation

of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne

Metzger’s report of the UBS committee

Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 3 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, possible theological pressure in transmission; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {B}, {C}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.

Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on :30, 2:30

ECM / CBGM evidence and editors

No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.

4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision

No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.

No change row is attached to this passage.

UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.

5Doctrinal and four-point analysis

Effect class

Weakening of explicit biblical testimony

Exact proposition affected

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Doctrinal analysis

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Both forms connect Psalm 16 with resurrection, but the received text states the messianic link within the oath itself. Retain the received clause because it supplies a coherent and explicit bridge from David’s sworn promise to Peter’s resurrection exposition.

Controlled source-list matches

Doctrinal significance and Westminster use

This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.

Doctrinally significant variant listActs 2.30

Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised

Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 24–26

Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source

The inclusion of the verse strengthens the case against the Gnostics. The apostles clearly resisted the Gnostics, some of whom denied that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4.3). Indeed, the early sect of the Gnostics called the Docetics said that Christ was a spirit who only appeared to have a body. And thus, even though Peter in his sermon is plainly making an allusion to Psalm 132.11 which does not have the added words, we would think that the Apostle Peter did not intend to make an exact quote of the verse, but rather, paraphrased the verse, intentionally adding the phrase 'according to the flesh', under the perfect inspiration of the Spirit, so as to strengthen the case doctrinally against the Gnostics who would soon attempt to overrun the Church, even in his day (see 2 Peter 2). Given the witness of the overwhelming majority of the Byzantine manuscripts of this reading, and given its citation by two early eminent Byzantine authors (who clearly evince to us that these words were in their manuscripts), and given the overall demonstrable reliability of the Byzantine Text, we affirm that this phrase is authentic, and that they were in the original text. If anything, the deletion of the words 'according to the flesh' is likely the result of well-intended but mistaken Alexandrian scribes who deleted the words to make the passage conform, editorially, more exactly to Psalm 132.11: and thus, they inadvertently excised original and inspired words that came from the mouth of Peter himself.

Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (Act 2:30 Authorised Version)

Critical reading reported

Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. (Act 2:30 New Revised Standard) (NOTE: the Critical Text omits the phrase 'according to the flesh'.)

Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source

This contested phrase 'according to the flesh' in this verse is perhaps one of the more difficult to account for. It is cited without the phrase 'according to the flesh' by the early Father Irenaeus. Its parallel verse in the Old Testament, Psalm 132.11, where God swears to David in the Psalm to raise up of the fruit of his loins one to sit upon his throne, also occurs without the contested words 'according to the flesh'. "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne," Authorised Version. Indeed, in the Old Testament verse, the words 'according to the flesh' occur neither in the original Hebrew, nor in the Greek Septuagint translation of them. For this reason, John Gill, the conservative Puritan Baptist commentator of the late 17th century tells us that the words should be read parenthetically, as a comment. All difficulties notwithstanding, the added words occur in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts, and are cited by the early Byzantine Fathers. Chrysostom cites the phrase in his Commentary on Acts 22. So also does the early Byzantine Father Theodoret, who cites it more than once. The words are found in the Robinson Byzantine Majority Text and in the official Greek Patriarchal Text of the State Church of Greece, which in turn proves this is the majority reading of the Byzantine Text. Given the overall reliability of the Byzantine tradition, it is virtually certain that this is the reading of the Byzantine Text from the earliest days of the Church. Given that Luke, the inspired author of the Book of Acts, long lived in the Byzantine area as he continually accompanied the Apostle Paul, we cannot but think that the most reliable manuscripts of Acts are to be found in the Byzantine Tradition. Accordingly, we accept the added words as apostolic.

Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.

Bahnsen four-point examination

Arbitrariness

At , the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Passage: Received reading: of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ Principal competing reading: of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne Issue class: Textual Variant Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. — The critical form omits τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν, the clause that identifies David’s promised descendant according to the flesh as Christ.

Inconsistency

The criteria used at must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.

Consequences

Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Both forms connect Psalm 16 with resurrection, but the received text states the messianic link within the oath itself. Retain the received clause because it supplies a coherent and explicit bridge from David’s sworn promise to Peter’s resurrection exposition.

Preconditions of intelligibility

The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.

This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.

6Argument for the received reading

External and historical evidence

says, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Sources and further reading The Holy Bible, Authorized Version, . Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (1894), .

Internal and transcriptional evidence

A source-level internal and transcriptional synopsis remains open; consult the full essay.

Reception and ecclesiastical use

Both forms connect Psalm 16 with resurrection, but the received text states the messianic link within the oath itself.

Providential-preservation analysis

Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at . It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.

Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture

Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.

Canonical-coherence verdict

The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.

Response to the principal critical argument

Passage: Received reading: of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ Principal competing reading: of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne Issue class: Textual Variant Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. — The critical form omits τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν, the clause that identifies David’s promised descendant according to the flesh as Christ.

Passage-specific evidence from consulted works

Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.

Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument

Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 24–26

Acts 2.30: It sets “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (Act 2:30 Authorised Version)” against “Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. (Act 2:30 New Revised Standard) (NOTE: the Critical Text omits the phrase 'according to the flesh'.).” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The inclusion of the verse strengthens the case against the Gnostics. The apostles clearly resisted the Gnostics, some of whom denied that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4.3)cxviii. Indeed, the early sect of the Gnostics called the Docetics said that Christ was a spirit who only appeared to have a body.cxix And thus, even though Peter in his sermon is plainly making an allusion to Psalm 132.11 which does not have the added words, we would think that the Apostle Peter did not intend to make an exact quote of the verse, but rather, paraphrased the verse, intentionally adding the phrase 'according to the flesh', under the perfect inspiration of the Spirit, so as to strengthen the case doctrinally against the… The compilation appeals to This contested phrase 'according to the flesh' in this verse is perhaps one of the more difficult to account for. It is cited without the phrase 'according to the flesh' by the early Father Irenaeus.cxii Its parallel verse in the Old Testament, Psalm 132.11, where God swears to David in the Psalm to raise up of the fruit of his loins one to sit upon his throne, also occurs without the contested words 'according to…

Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.

Conclusion

Luke does not leave isolated from its setting. Just outside the selected unit, says, “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” says, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

Retain the received clause because it supplies a coherent and explicit bridge from David’s sworn promise to Peter’s resurrection exposition.

Logical entailment

The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.

Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.

Status: Established

Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence

At , the received text reads “of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” — ”. The assessed critical reading is “of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.

Necessary reasoning chain

  1. At , the received Hebrew/Greek form is “of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did…”. The assessed critical form is “of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne”.
  2. The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At , the received text reads “of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” — ”. The assessed critical reading is “of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
  3. If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.

Ultimate preservation consequence

If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.

Sources

Read the full research essay and its sources

Passage:

Received reading: of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ

Principal competing reading: of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon his throne

Issue class: Textual Variant

Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.

For , the received side may be summarized as “of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.”
Its principal rival is “of the fruit of his loins he would seat one upon
his throne.”

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake
of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell,
neither his flesh did see corruption.” —

The critical form omits τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν, the
clause that identifies David’s promised descendant according to the
flesh as Christ. Both forms connect Psalm 16 with resurrection, but the
received text states the messianic link within the oath itself.

The variation at changes emphasis or explicitness within
an otherwise recognizable account; shared words should be acknowledged
before the distinct reading is defended, and the difference should not
be enlarged beyond the clause that carries it.

Luke does not leave isolated from its setting. Just
outside the selected unit, says, “Men and brethren, let me
freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and
buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” says,
“This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

Retain the received clause because it supplies a coherent and
explicit bridge from David’s sworn promise to Peter’s resurrection
exposition.

Sources and further reading

  • The Holy Bible, Authorized Version, .
  • F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek
    according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version     (1894),
    .
  • Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL
    Edition    , and apparatus.

7Related materials

Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.

Articles 0

No public item is attached yet.

Books and source records 0

No public item is attached yet.

People and biographies 0

No public item is attached yet.

Audio and video 0

No public item is attached yet.

Research notes 0

No public item is attached yet.

Related passages 0

No public item is attached yet.

Downloads and dossiers 0

No public item is attached yet.

Record
VAR-2210
Status
Preliminary
Version
1.1-dossier
Review
Level B — Editorial synthesis
Editor
Chris Thomas
Reviewer
Independent reviewer pending assignment
First date
1st century · Date Range
Last revised
2026-07-22

Evidence and editorial controls

Verification
Passage, received reading, principal SBLGNT reading, and reported NA28 alignment checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the official SBLGNT text and comparison apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
Rights and access
Original editorial synthesis. Authorized Version Scripture is public domain in the United States; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
Known limitations
This staging record summarizes the defined variation unit and representative edition evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, patristic citation, or ECM coherence relation.

Links from this record

No public outgoing links are recorded.

Records that cite or connect here

No public backlinks are recorded.

Corrections and evidence submissions

No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.

Recommended citation

Chris Thomas, “Acts 2:30–31 — “According to the Flesh, He Would Raise Up Christ”: David’s Oath and Prophecy,” VAR-2210, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.

Revision history
  1. — Chris Thomas