Paul’s Creative And Contextual Use Of Psalm 68 In Ephesians 4:8

By Jonathan M. Lunde And John Anthony Dunne

[Jonathan M. Lunde is Associate Professor of New Testament at Biola University in La Mirada, Calif.

John Anthony Dunne is a Ph.D. student in New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.]

It is well known that many have attempted to explain the unexpected wording of Eph 4:8 by appealing to the influence of pre-existing traditions. Several have discerned Paul’s dependence on either Jewish or Christian renditions of Ps 68 that opened the door for his creative application of the text to Jesus’ cosmic accomplishments. The important question that will likely never be answered definitively is whether scholars who follow these theories are chasing a red herring or actually closing in on their prey.

It is our contention that the former of these two possibilities is actually the case, leading exegetes down the wrong path in their attempts to discern the formative influences behind these two texts and obscuring the remarkable nature of Paul’s contextually rich typology and theologically motivated redaction.[1] Accordingly, we will seek in this article to strengthen the minority view, that it is Paul himself who is responsible for the unexpected wording of Eph 4:8 as he meditated on the original biblical text. This, in turn, will afford us a glimpse into his creative exegesis and interpretive appropriation of the OT Scriptures.[2] Our survey will begin by taking a brief look at the arguments for and against the views that pre-existing traditions lie behind both texts.

I. Arguments For And Against Extra-Canonical Influence

Paul’s quotation of Ps 68:18 (MT = 68:19; LXX = 67:19) comes at the introduction of his parenesis to the church. Having exhorted his readers to walk uprightly and in the unity of the Spirit, Paul affirms that the means by which this unity is to be realized is through the exercise of the diverse gifts which have been given to the church (vv. 11–16). Paul notes in v. 7 that grace (χάρις) was given (ἐδόθη) to each person (ἑκάστῳ) according to the measure of Christ’s gift (τῆς δωρεᾶς).

He then bases this affirmation on Ps 68:18, through a textual rendition that has occasioned no little debate:

Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (Eph 4:8 ESV)

To survey the well-known problems inherent in this citation, it is necessary first to set the psalm in its literary context.

Psalm 68 is widely assessed as textually and exegetically “the most difficult and obscure of all the Psalms,”[3] giving rise to a number of wide-ranging analyses.[4] The difficulties stem from its high frequency of hapax legomena[5] and issues related to determining the historical context of the psalm.[6] What is quite clear is that the psalmist’s intention is to trace the broad strokes of God’s faithfulness across the canvas of Israel’s history and destiny. After an initial ascription of praise (vv. 1–6), the psalmist first reminisces about God’s triumphs in the past, whereby he led his people out of bondage in Egypt (v. 7), met them at Sinai (v. 8), provided them with victory and peace in Canaan (vv. 9–14), and ascended to his sanctuary on what appears to be Mt. Zion, the envy of the other mountains in the land (vv. 15–18).[7] The psalmist then looks forward to the extension of God’s dominion over the whole earth. This confident anticipation is based on the great blessings which God provides for his people, including sustaining care (v. 19), deliverance from and vengeance on their enemies (vv. 20–23), and their eventual subjugation (vv. 28–31). Thus the psalm concludes with an ascription of praise which encompasses both the memory and anticipation of God’s mighty acts (vv. 32–35).

To ground Christ’s provision of his gifts to the church, Paul quotes from Ps 68:18, taking significant liberties with the verse’s wording.

MT (Ps 68:19)	LXX (Ps 67:19)	NT (Eph 4:8)
עלית למרום שבית שבי לקחת מתנות באדם ואף סוררים לשכן יה אלהים	ἀνέβης εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός	διὸ λέγει· ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

Among the differences between Paul’s citation and the readings preserved in the MT and LXX, the most striking is the verbal change from “you received” (לקחת/ἔλαβες) to “he gave” (ἔδωκεν), in order to accommodate Paul’s application of the verse to Jesus’ gift of the Spirit to the church.[8] The result is a jarring departure from the meaning of the psalmist and an apparent abandonment of the psalmic context. This discrepancy has motivated several scholars to postulate Jewish or prior Christian interpretive influences to explain these changes.

1. The Jewish Tradition Theory

Those who contend that pre-existing Jewish tradition is the formative influence behind Eph 4:8 appeal to the ancient connection between Ps 68 and the Feast of Pentecost, which itself had become associated with the giving of the law to Israel.[9]

Accordingly, Ps 68:18 was reinterpreted to refer to Moses’ travels up and down Sinai so as to deliver the law to the Israelites.[10] Paul then draws upon this tradition as he reshapes the verse, engaging in a Moses–Christ typology[11] in his attempt to counter this contemporary exegetical tradition.[12] Now it is Jesus, rather than Moses, who ascends to heaven rather than Sinai, from which he sends forth the Spirit rather than the torah. Thus, Paul’s modified text declares that the gift of the Spirit has now eclipsed the law to equip the people for godly living.[13] The upshot, of course, is that this creative rendition is not to be understood to be the fruit of the apostle’s direct meditation on the psalm in its original reference.

A variation of the Jewish tradition theory takes its point of departure from a later targum, which further develops the Moses/Sinai reference in the verse.[14] What ties this targum together with Eph 4:8 is its equivalent rendering of the key verb as “he gave” in place of the MT/LXX’s “you received.”[15] To facilitate the change in the psalm’s reference to Moses’ reception of the torah and his subsequent delivery of it to the Israelites, the radicals in the key verb have been reordered to achieve the swap from “received” (לקח) to “gave” (חלק).[16] Though direct Pauline dependence is ruled out by its significantly later date, supporters of this view suggest that the targum simply preserves a far older textual tradition that Paul utilizes, replete with the change of verb.[17]

2. The Christian Rebuttal Theory

A closely related approach has been to suggest that Paul is drawing upon a pre-existing, Christian response to this Jewish interpretation. Moritz develops this thesis thoroughly, contending that some in the Christian community had responded to this “misuse” of the psalm by means of their own adaptation, including the change of the key verb.[18] As such, the Christian Vorlage that lies behind 4:8 is a “polemical early Christian adaptation and response” to reclaim the psalm for Christianity.[19] Paul’s quotation in 4:8 is therefore dependent on this Christian rendering, once again linking his argument in Ephesians with an interpretive tradition rather than with the psalm itself.

To signal to his readers that this is what he is doing, Paul introduces the citation by means of the unusual formula, διὸ λέγει, which appears in the Pauline writings only here and in Eph 5:14.[20] Advocates contend that this introduction indicates Paul’s awareness of his readers’ familiarity with the pre-existing source of this quotation.[21] Furthermore, in light of its unique linkage with 5:14, it is argued that these two texts must be treated similarly. The consensus view, that 5:14 is a quotation from a pre-existing Christian hymn, only strengthens the conclusion that the quotation in 4:8 is not a direct quotation of Scripture, but rather a Christian reinterpretation.[22]

3. Weaknesses In The Pre-Existing Traditions Theories

Whether one appeals to pre-existing Jewish or Christian tradition to explain the text form in 4:8, the result is the same—Paul uses Ps 68:18 specifically to rebut the Jewish tradition that the law was God’s pre-eminent gift for righteous living. There are, however, two substantive weaknesses in the various iterations of this theory.

In the first place, scholars have yet to find conclusive evidence of pre-Pauline text forms that contained the crucial word changes.[23] As noted above, the Targum Psalms is most likely to be dated during the fifth century c.e., precluding any direct Pauline dependence.[24] In fact, outside of the switch to ἔδωκεν, the citation shows evidence of conformity to the LXX, rendering the notion of dependence on another textual tradition less likely.[25] In addition, the pre-existence of a polemical Christian text has to be deduced from such passages as Acts 2:33 and its implicit rebuttal of the Sinaitic interpretation of Pentecost and Ps 68. Consequently, it is important to note that in both variations of this theory, the net comes up empty when scooping for their extra-canonical Vorlagen. In light of this, Thielman makes the interesting suggestion that the direction of influence may actually be the inverse:

It seems at least as likely, then, that the targum represents a polemical response to the Christian exegesis of Ps 68:19 as that it preserves a three- or four-hundred-year-old Jewish exegetical tradition that Paul knew and used.[26]

But the true Achilles’ heel of these theories is the total lack of any development of Jesus’ superiority to Moses in the text of Ephesians.[27] If Paul is dependent on a Jewish appropriation of the psalm or on any corresponding Christian polemic, one would expect to discern at least a trace of this theme. But the motif of Moses’ mediation of the law to Israel is completely absent in Ephesians, even in 2:11–16 where it ought to be present.[28] So also is it lacking in the midrash that Paul supplies in 4:9–10. Surely this would be the place where Paul’s underlying motive in employing the citation would be exposed. Not only is Moses not mentioned, but his ascent-descent pattern is not mirrored in Paul’s description of Jesus’ movements. Instead, Paul’s wording evinces a descent-ascent pattern, setting up a parallel to Yahweh’s actions in the psalm rather than with Moses’ itinerary at Sinai.[29] Moreover, instead of noting the superiority of Christ in the giving of the Spirit over and against Moses’ giving of the law, Paul simply focuses on the meaning and implications of ἀναβάς in his midrash.

Undaunted, Moritz massages even this into support for his view, resisting the notion that Paul might actually be working with the psalm in its original reference.[30] In the end, Moritz admits that the relationship between Christ and the torah is not as explicit as in ch. 2, but he contends that the “Pentecostal sub-theme . . . probably continues to provide a significant theological framework within which to interpret the emphasis of these verses on Christ’s presence before and after the ascension.”[31] Thus, to maintain his thesis, Moritz must assume the presence of the anti-Jewish polemic from the supposed Christian tradition on which Paul apparently depends.[32] But if this combination were the driving force behind Paul’s curious citation, one would certainly expect to perceive much more than supposed whispers of this debate within Ephesians itself.[33] Because of these weaknesses, a different explanation for this provocative citation is needed.

II. Paul’s Contextually Interpretive Appropriation Of Psalm 68

It is our contention that the context of Ps 68 and the citation of it found in Eph 4:8 together suggest that Paul himself is the shaper of the text form as he meditated directly on the psalm. To advocate for this perspective, we will follow a two-step approach, arguing that the influence of context goes in two directions. First, we will demonstrate the importance of the OT context of Ps 68 in order to understand Paul’s application of the text to the Christ event. Second, we will show the influence of Christ’s fulfillment to further explain Paul’s reassignment of the text, as well as his redactional shaping of it. In the end, we contend that the evidence of this bi-directional influence will convincingly indicate that it is Paul who is to be credited with this highly interpreted appropriation of the OT text.

1. The Importance Of The Context Of Psalm 68:18 For Paul’s Use

It is true that if all that Paul is doing is drawing on Jewish or Christian tradition, the importance of the citation’s OT context is diminished significantly. But if this larger context can be discovered to have contributed to the shape and wording of Paul’s overall argument, it is eminently more plausible that Paul’s citation is the fruit of his meditation on the psalm as a whole.[34] And this is exactly what we find when we compare the context of the psalm with that which is found in Ephesians. In recent years, several scholars have moved in this direction, arguing that Paul adapted the verse in view of its larger literary context.[35] We will lend our support to this perspective and seek to strengthen it.

Recalling our earlier discussion, the psalmist surveys Yahweh’s provisions for his people, stretching from the exodus to the eschatological future, when the nations of the earth will submit to his reign and worship him as the Lord. What is most important to note is that God’s enthronement in his temple on Zion is the pivotal point of this progression.[36] This is demonstrated by the psalmist’s shift at v. 18 from recounting Yahweh’s past actions of deliverance to his present and future provisions. Accordingly, the psalmist moves from the Lord’s deliverance in the exodus (vv. 4–8), to his provision of the land through his mighty victories (vv. 9–14), to his choice of Zion as the mountain of his enthronement (vv. 15–17). Then, after his description of this enthronement (v. 18), the writer turns to survey both the LORD’s present (vv. 19–20) and future provisions (vv. 21–23, 28–31).

Yet, v. 18 is not only the mid-point in this historical flow; God’s enthronement on Zion also serves to ground the psalmist’s anticipation of these future blessings. Notice that after his brief doxological overview of God’s present and future actions on Israel’s behalf (vv. 19–23), the psalmist returns again to the events of v. 18 in his recounting of the procession that resulted in Yahweh’s entrance into his sanctuary (vv. 24–27).[37] This then grounds the psalmist’s prayer that God would repeat in the present day the sorts of victories he provided in the past (v. 28). Indeed, it is “because of your temple at Jerusalem” that the subdued kings bring their gifts of tribute (v. 29a)—an expectation that re-connects with the final line of v. 18, which affirms that the reception of gifts from “the rebellious” was “that the Lord God may dwell there.” That is to say, the enthronement of the Lord on Zion not only confirms the subjugation of the nations that stood against him in the past, it also vouchsafes his future dominion over the whole earth (v. 32). His confidence that all nations will sing God’s praises is because of his glory in his “sanctuary” (v. 35a), from which he “gives power (תעצמות) and strength (עז) to his people” (v. 35b). In light of the overall flow of the psalm, then, v. 18 can rightly be seen as the psalm’s lynchpin, both summarizing the culmination of God’s initial conquests and securing the certainty of his future blessings.

Seen in this light, it is quite plausible that Paul employs this verse because it summarizes the historical parallel between God’s actions in the psalm and those accomplished by Jesus. Consistent with the eschatological fulfillment of the OT typology, Paul shifts the verbal referents of the verse to fit their new fulfillment moment.[38] As Yahweh ascended to his temple on Zion, so also does Jesus ascend to the highest place—even to the right hand of God (cf. Eph 1:20; 2:6). As Yahweh supplied strength and power to his people as a result of his enthronement in the temple, so also does Jesus provide his people with enabling gifts as a consequence of his ascension to the highest place.[39] The christological implications of this paralleling between Yahweh and Christ are quite profound, especially since Jesus’ ascent brings Yahweh’s actions in the psalm to their cosmic telos and accomplishes a dominion that outstrips even the psalmist’s eschatological vision (Eph 1:10, 20–23; cf. Ps 68:29–33).[40] The typology between the temple on Zion and the throne in heaven to which Jesus ascends is also quite apropos. This is because the Jews perceived the entire universe to be God’s temple, so that the temple in Zion represented a microcosm of creation.[41] The historical typology between Yahweh’s and Jesus’ ascent, therefore, is quite close indeed.

Further evidence of Paul’s sensitivity to the psalmic context emerges from his midrashic commentary which follows the citation (vv. 9–10). In spite of extensive attempts to interpret Paul’s discussion in vv. 9–10 as indicating a descent of Christ after the ascent,[42] a prior descent is much more convincing.[43] This is implicitly confirmed by the parallel patterns sketched both in Ps 68 and in the text of Ephesians itself.

Although the psalmist does not use explicit “descent” language to describe Yahweh’s pre-ascent activities (v. 1), the equivalent can be surmised from the overall narrative in the psalm. This is because Yahweh’s place of residence is on high, implied by his riding “in the heavens, the ancient heavens” (Ps 68:33a) and his “power” being “in the skies” (v. 34c). Prior to his ascending “on high” (v. 18a), however, he came to the aid of his people, granting them victory over all who stood against them (vv. 1–2, 12, 14). Conceptually, this entailed God’s descent from his heavenly abode since he “went out before” his people and “marched through the wilderness” (v. 7; cf. 4b), led “the prisoners” out to prosperity (v. 6b), and scattered kings (v. 14a). But once enthroned in his temple, the psalmist does not describe any subsequent descent on Yahweh’s part. Rather, because of his continuing enthronement, he supplies his people with his sustaining provisions (Ps 68:35a).

Paul’s sensitivity to this pattern emerges in his parallel description of Jesus’ accomplishments found earlier in the letter and in his post-citation midrash. For in his conceptually and theologically related discussion of the seating of Christ at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19–23), it is crucial to note that this exaltation follows his death, which itself is the means by which God accomplished the redemption of his people (1:7). God then raised (ἐγείρας) him from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν) and enthroned him at his right hand in the heavens (ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις; 1:20), “far above (ὑπεράνω) all rule and authority and power and dominion” (1:21). The result of this exaltation is that God gave (ἔδωκεν) Christ as head over the church (1:22; cf. 4:8), which is “the fullness of him who fills all in all” (τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου; 1:23). All of this adumbrates Paul’s midrashic commentary on 4:8. For Christ’s ascension is “far above all the heavens” (ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν; 4:10) so that “he might fill all things” (πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα; 4:10).[44] This verbal mirroring must be intentional, necessitating a descent prior to the ascent.[45] This means also that the descent most likely refers to Jesus’ death, by which he defeated the powers of darkness arrayed against his people.[46] Thus, “the ascent of Christ is a victorious ascent because in his death he triumphed over his enemies.”[47]

Paul’s midrashic exposition of the ascent therefore leads naturally to his subsequent discussion concerning spiritual gifts in vv. 11–16, alluding back to Christ’s giving of gifts in v. 8 and the psalmic pattern that lies behind it. That is, after Yahweh had defeated the enemies of his people and ascended “on high” (Ps 68:18), he blessed his people “from his sanctuary” (Ps 68:35). So also has Christ ascended to the right hand of God (1:20) after his conquest of death, sin, and the spiritual foes of his people, resulting in the outpouring of the Spirit.[48]

2. The Importance Of The Context In Ephesians For Paul’s Redaction And Application Of Psalm 68:18

The literary context of Ps 68:18 is not the only perceptible influence on Paul’s use of this verse. The impact of context also goes in the opposite direction. That is to say, Paul’s reflection in Ephesians on the fulfillments that have come in Christ can also be seen to exert a formative influence on his redaction and application of the verse.[49] This, in turn, will strengthen our contention that the form of the citation reflects Paul’s careful integration of the psalm’s theology into his letter. Those points of particular importance here include: (1) Paul’s alteration of the verb ἔλαβες to ἔδωκεν; (2) the reassignment of the verse from God to Christ; (3) the substitution of the Spirit-enabled ministries in place of the blessings given by God in the psalm; (4) the non-citation of the final two strophes in the verse; and (5) the change in number and referent for ἀνθρώπῳ.

It is quite clear that Paul’s goal in citing Ps 68:18 is to provide scriptural grounding for Christ’s giving of the Spirit to the church.[50] This is evident in the verses sandwiching the citation, where he stresses that each person is “given” (ἐδόθη; 4:7a) grace, according to the “gift” (δωρεᾶς; 4:7b) that Christ “gave” (ἔδωκεν; 4:11). This sets in fine relief the significance of Paul’s alteration of the verb ἔλαβες to ἔδωκεν. His redaction of the verse therefore reflects his theological convictions regarding Christ—by virtue of his victorious ascension, he dispensed the Spirit. But even here, rather than arbitrarily switching the verb to cohere with his purpose, Paul continues to respect the psalmic context. As we have seen, Ps 68:18 grounds the remainder of the psalm, guaranteeing God’s provisions as a result of his enthronement in his sanctuary (cf. Ps 68:29, 35). So, while Paul preserves the parallelism between Yahweh and Christ in their respective ascensions, he collapses the remainder of the psalm into this revision of the verse’s key line to stress the benefits that have resulted from Christ’s own enthronement. Thus, even his christologically motivated redaction remains faithful to the thrust of the OT passage as a whole.[51]

Beyond this dramatic change in the key verb, the most stunning aspect of Paul’s interpretive application of Ps 68:18 is the switch in the referent of the verse’s subject. We noted above the paralleling that is evident between the patterns of descent, ascent, and blessing accomplished by both Yahweh and Christ. Rather than engaging in a Moses/Christ typology, Paul employs a Yahweh/Christ comparison. But this paralleling does not merely consist in a similarity of actions. Nor should Paul’s application of the verse to Christ be understood to imply some kind of replacement. Rather, it assumes a christological mediation of Yahweh’s actions.[52] Evidence for this perspective pervades Paul’s epistle.

Repeatedly, Paul emphasizes that God’s actions are done “in” (ἐν) Christ[53] and “through” (διά) him.[54] For “in Christ” God has blessed the Ephesians “with every spiritual blessing” (1:3). “In Christ” God “chose” (1:4) and “predestined” (1:5) them, granting them his grace “in the Beloved” (Christ; 1:6b), by making them alive “with Christ” (2:5). For it is God who demonstrated his marvelous power by raising Christ from the dead (1:20a) and putting all things under his feet (1:21–22a). For this reason, the Ephesians have redemption “in him” and “through his blood” (1:7; cf. 2:13; 4:32). Indeed, he has accomplished the mystery of his will “in Christ” (1:9–10), granting both Jews and Gentiles an inheritance “in him” (1:11; cf. 2:7). God also sealed them with the Holy Spirit, once again, “in him” (1:13–14; cf. 2:18, 21–22), and seated them in the heavenly places “in Christ” (2:6). And it was God who “gave” (ἔδωκεν) Christ to the church as its head (1:22b). This was his sovereign plan that has now been accomplished through Christ and made known to his people (3:1–12). It is obvious that Paul’s application of Ps 68:18 to Jesus reflects this mediatorial role.

The theme of Christ’s fulfillment of the kingly line contributes to this mediation. For when God raised Jesus, he seated him “at his right hand” (Eph 1:20b). This is a clear allusion to Ps 110:1, stressing the universal nature of Christ’s divinely authorized messianic authority.[55] In so doing, Paul taps into the tradition of the mediation of God’s reign through David’s heir.[56]

Consequently, Christ’s ascension to the heights in 4:8 should be understood to imply these connections.[57] In light of this identification, it is not surprising that the description of the Father’s sovereign dominion (4:6) is paralleled by Christ (4:10b), nor that Paul ascribes the “kingdom” to both “Christ and God” (5:5). Since Christ’s mediation of the Father’s work is woven into the fabric of Paul’s argument from the very outset of the letter, it is quite likely that the insertion of Christ in 4:8 into the role once occupied by Yahweh indicates that Paul redacted the verse in view of its OT context. To suggest that the apostle is engaging in a subtle Moses/Christ typology in this verse is to ignore this thoroughgoing coherence between Ephesians and Ps 68.

But Paul’s hermeneutical method is not merely christological in 4:8—it is Trinitarian. This is because Christ’s mediation of Yahweh’s actions also involves the Spirit.[58] For even as Christ poured out the Spirit’s enabling presence on the church (4:11–12), God sealed the Ephesians by the Spirit when they first believed (1:13; cf. 4:30). God also continues to empower them in this way, leading to their comprehension of the love of Christ (3:16–19) and the defeat of the spiritual powers arrayed against them (6:11, 17–18). Therefore, Paul depicts God’s work throughout Ephesians as being mediated both through Christ and the Spirit. Notice how fluidly this Trinitarian theology emerges, even in the flow of Paul’s argument prior to 4:8. Beginning in ch. 2, Paul moves from talking about what God has done in Christ (2:4–10, 13) to what Christ himself has accomplished (2:14–17). But then he also inserts the Spirit into this discussion at two places (2:18, 22), succinctly capturing his Trinitarian description of the Ephesians’ salvation and sanctification.[59] Paul does the same thing again in 4:1–7, in which he moves from the Spirit (vv. 3–4), to Christ (implied by κύριος in v. 5), and then to the Father (v. 6). This is even suggested by the divine passive of v. 7 (ἐδόθη), which could imply the Father’s work, but which also becomes τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.[60] All of this helps to explain the Trinitarian theology that is implied in 4:8 and explained more fully in vv. 11–16. The typological fulfillment of what is summarily assigned to Yahweh in the psalmic context is described in this new fulfillment moment as the work of the Father, the Christ, and the Spirit.[61]

Another place where the influence of the new fulfillment context is seen is in Paul’s non-inclusion of the final line of the thought that concludes our v. 18. One might initially surmise that this absence is of no significance. In reality, however, this omission exposes the impact of the new context in which Ps 68:18 is coming to fulfillment. Though the general pattern of the psalm is recurring, there are now new actors in the drama, necessitating a reshaping of the psalmist’s thought. In this regard, it is important to note that in the psalm, those who are defeated and brought under Yahweh’s dominion are the military enemies of his people (vv. 1–2, 12, 14). The “captives” in v. 18 must therefore refer to the prisoners of war taken during those successful military campaigns. This gives rise to the expectation of similar subjugation in the future (v. 30) and the bringing of tribute to Jerusalem by apparently subdued kings (v. 29).[62] Confirmation for this interpretation is found in the observation that the psalmist himself draws heavily upon Deborah’s song in Judg 5, in which the key phrase, “take captive your captives” appears (v. 12).[63] Given these shared contexts, the “captives” of Ps 68:18 must be understood as prisoners of war and the “gifts” must be tributary offerings from the subjugated nations.[64]

Tracing these militaristic connections through Paul’s typological lens, the enemies who are defeated in the new fulfillment context are the spiritual powers to which he has already made reference in Eph 1:21; 2:2; and 3:10, and which he will discuss again in 4:27 and 6:11–16.[65] Thus, those taken “captive” in Ephesians are the spiritual powers which were defeated in Jesus’ heavenly enthronement (1:21–23). This may be the reason for Paul’s reminder to his readers that their struggle is not “against flesh and blood” (6:12). But this shift in referent necessitates yet another change in the text. Since there is no corresponding payment of tribute that the spiritual powers make to the ascended Christ, the final line of Ps 68:18—”even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there”—is not included in Paul’s rendition.

This also explains the change from ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ (Ps 67:19 LXX) to τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Eph 4:8). Consistent with the interpretation outlined here, the consequence of Jesus’ enthronement is his pouring forth of the Spirit unto his church. As a result, the “men” are no longer subjugated enemies, but refer rather to the people of God, now equipped with the Spirit’s enablement. Yet even this dramatic shift in referent preserves the overall sense of the psalm, as the Ephesians take the place of the people of God in the psalm (rather than the enemies of Israel) in their experience of God’s provisions—now in the form of the Spirit’s equipping, mediated through the enthroned Christ.[66]

III. Conclusions

(1) First of all, it is quite apparent that Paul appropriates the OT verse with full awareness of its larger context. His tracing of the remarkable typology that exists between the actions of Yahweh in the whole psalm and those accomplished by Christ in his work on the cross, resurrection, and ascension indicates an intimate acquaintance with the original setting of Ps 68:18. In the brief summary of his larger work on the NT use of the OT, C. H. Dodd writes of the NT authors as they appropriated the Scriptures in relation to Jesus’ life and death:

We have reason to suppose that they often quoted a single phrase or sentence not merely for its own sake, but as a pointer to a whole context—a practice by no means uncommon among contemporary Jewish teachers, as they are reported in the rabbinic literature. The reader is invited to study the context as a whole, and to reflect upon the “plot” there unfolded.[67]

Our study of this difficult citation has demonstrated the accuracy of Dodd’s insight.

(2) Secondly, Paul’s unexpected reshaping of Ps 68:18 suggests that the role of context also flows in reverse, influencing the form of the citation as it now applies to the fulfillments that have come in Christ. If this is on target, Paul’s method is a classic example of midrash pesher—a method in which “the exposition of the text determined the textual form of the quotation itself.”[68] Yet, Paul’s employment of this interpretive approach is grounded in an historically sensitive typology, salvation-historically adjusted in light of Christ’s fulfillments.[69] Paul therefore sits comfortably within the confines of ancient Jewish exegetical practice, and at the same time is absolved from the accusation of arbitrarily appropriating passages to suit his purposes.[70] While he grounds his use of these passages in their original reference, he reshapes and applies them to cohere with Christ’s fulfillments. Thus, Paul’s use of the OT is both christological—or “christotelic”—as well as contextual. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.[71] But his redaction and application of this verse serve to identify Jesus closely with God rather than Moses, distancing Paul’s interpretive framework from the debate between first-century Judaism and Jewish Christianity regarding the law and the Spirit. This also suggests that Paul’s introductory formula should not be interpreted as indicating the influence of extra-canonical tradition. Rather, it urges his readers to ponder the OT text through the lens of his theological interpretation.[72]

(3) This suggests, thirdly, that the influence of Ps 68 on Ephesians is much more pervasive than is oftentimes assumed. Rather than Paul’s memory of this passage being jogged simply at the notion of the “gift” (δωρεά) of Christ (Eph 4:7), the intricate typology that Paul implies between Yahweh’s work in Israel’s past and the Trinity’s work in the Christ event suggests that he was ruminating on these profound parallels throughout his writing of Ephesians. The citation in Eph 4:8 should therefore be understood as the consummation of his meditation on the psalm in light of its fulfillment in Christ, rather than an ad hoc midrash to undergird Jesus’ ascension and subsequent bestowal of the Spirit.

Notes

1. The same observation applies to the study of Paul’s paraphrase of Isa 26:19 and 60:1-2 in Eph 5:14. For a treatment of that text through a similar contextual and typological lens, see our companion article, Jonathan M. Lunde and John Anthony Dunne, “Paul’s Creative and Contextual Use of Isaiah in Ephesians 5:14,” JETS (forthcoming, 2012).
2. The question of the authorship of Ephesians is not within the purview of this article. We will assume Pauline authorship, acknowledging that this does not necessarily represent the views of the scholars cited in this article.
3. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms (3 vols.; AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-1970), 2:133.
4. Cf. Samuel Iwry, “Notes on Psalm 68,” JBL 71 (1952): 161-62; Gary V. Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,” JETS 18 (1975): 184. Albright contends that Ps 68 is a catalogue of about thirty incipits of Hebrew lyric poems, though he admits that the editor may not have recognized that he was dealing with such a collection. W. F. Albright, “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII),” HUCA 23 (1950-1951): 1-39.
5. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 170.
6. Goldingay suggests that “it is unwise to make any specific historical occasion the key to the psalm’s interpretation” (John Goldingay, Psalms [3 vols.; Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006-2008], 2:310).
7. There are a number of reasons why it is best to understand Zion as the mountain implied by “the heights.” First, the progression in the psalm itself suggests that the writer has already moved the scope of his vision from the wilderness to Canaan. After recounting the terrible sight of the Lord at Sinai (v. 8), he moves on to describe the conquest (vv. 17-18) and settlement of Canaan, culminating in the picturesque metaphors of “lying among the sheepfolds” and the “dove” glistening with silver and gold (v. 13), representing Israel at peace and enjoying prosperity (cf. Ps 74:19). The psalmist then proceeds to describe this mountain which, though less impressive in stature than many of the other mountains in the land, is the mountain which is God’s choice, where he will “dwell forever” (v. 16; cf. Ps 78:68-69). This must be Zion, since it is only there that God is said to dwell forever. See Frank Thielman, “Ephesians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 820; Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 2 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883), 259. This is contra those who argue for other mountains such as Sinai (Dahood, Psalms, 2:143) or Mt. Tabor (Thorsten Moritz, A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians [SNT 85; New York: E. J. Brill, 1996], 65).
8. Other differences include the switch from the finite verb עלית to the participle ἀναβάς in both the LXX and Eph 4:8. Also, the verbs in the MT are second person (עלית/שבית/לקחת), whereas Eph 4:8 uses third person verbs (ᾐχμαλώτευσεν/ἔδωκεν). The rendering ᾐχμαλώτευσεν in Eph 4:8 is also distinct from the LXX, which has the participle ᾐχμαλώτευσας. The LXX appropriately translates באדם as ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, but in Eph 4:8 this phrase is changed to τοῖς ἀνθρώποις to accommodate the switch to ἔδωκεν. Lastly, there is the non-inclusion of the final line of Ps 68:18 in Eph 4:8, καί γάρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι. Lincoln notes that the Vaticanus text of the LXX already has the aorist participle of ἀναβαίνω, possibly preparing the way for the alteration in the verbs to the third person the rest of the way. See Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982): 18.
9. E.g., G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7-11,” in Studia Evangelica, Vol. 2: Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies, Part 1: The New Testament Scriptures (ed. F. L. Cross; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), 539-40.
10. Caird, “Descent of Christ,” 540. Harris notes, “Every time Ps 68:19 was mentioned in the rabbinic literature, it was (without exception) interpreted of Moses and his ascent to heaven to receive the Torah” (W. Hall Harris III, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery [AGJU 32; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], 91). Note, e.g., Midr. Tehillim to Ps 68.11 which states, “The words, ‘thou hast received gifts for men,’ refer to the Torah which was bestowed upon Israel as a gift.” Harris appeals also to echoes of Ps 68 in Acts 2:33 as evidence of the Christian counteraction of these traditions (Descent of Christ, 144-70).
11. Caird, “Descent of Christ,” 543-44; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990), 243. To support this, attention is drawn to the “Moses mysticism” that exists in several Jewish sources (e.g., Philo, Mos. 1.158; Post. 14; Midr. Tehillim to Ps 24:1 and 106:2; b. Šabb. 88b). Paul may then have been relating Christ to the similar interest of his readers in this “new Moses” typology, showing that Christ has provided a link with the heavenly world that could not be matched by Moses (Lincoln, “The Use,” 20).
12. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4-6 (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 475-76.
13. Harris tweaks this interpretation, contending that Eph 4:9-10 should be understood to depict the descent as transpiring after the ascent. Thus, Paul’s innovation in the use of this text lies in his identification of Jesus with the Spirit, who is poured out on the church (Descent of Christ, 171-91).
14. E.g., Brooke Foss Westcott, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek Text with Notes and Addenda (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 60. Paul’s dependence on this targumic tradition finds further support by appeal to other places where he presumably does the same. See Roger LeDeaut, “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation,” BTB 4 (1974): 253, who posits a targumic influence behind Rom 10:6-8.
15. Tg. Ps reads, “You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses, you took captives, you taught the words of the Law, you gave them as gifts to the sons of man; even among the rebellious who are converted and repent does the Shekinah glory of the Lord God dwell” (see David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms: Translated, With a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2004], 131). A similar change can be perceived in the Syriac Peshitta, though Lindars suggests that this reading may be a corruption (Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 52 n. 2).
16. This would then be an example of the rabbinic practice of substituting one word for another through the reordering of the letters—a practice known as al-tikre. See Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Second Printing, With Supplement Containing Additions and Corrections (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 80; Henry St. John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan & Co., 1900), 182.
17. E.g., T. K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905), 112-13; Richard Rubinkiewicz, “Ps LXVIII 19 (= Eph 4:8): Another Textual Tradition or Targum?” NovT 17 (1975): 221-22; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 340-43; A. T. Hanson, The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London: SPCK, 1980), 180; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 108; LeDeaut, “Targumic Literature,” 253; Lincoln, “The Use,” 19; Harris, Descent of Christ; Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis,” JETS 51 (2008): 368-70; Michael B. Shepherd, “Targums, the New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah,” JETS 51 (2008): 45-58.
18. Moritz, Profound Mystery, 74-75; Thorsten Moritz, “The Psalms in Ephesians and Colossians,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 192-93; preceded by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. Helen Heron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 177.
19. Moritz, Profound Mystery, 72-73; Moritz, “Psalms in Ephesians and Colossians,” 190.
20. Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 381; Moritz, Profound Mystery, 71-72. Likewise, McNamara, who argues that Paul is relying on the targum, claims that the quotation cannot be a scriptural citation because the introductory formula, διὸ λέγει, does not have a defined subject (see McNamara, Palestinian Targum, 79). And yet, this combination does appear in Jas 4:6 to introduce an OT text. Heb 3:7 is also relevant, which reads, Διό, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. However, there is a clear subject in this case.
21. Moritz, Profound Mystery, 72-73.
22. See our response to this view in Lunde and Dunne, “Use of Ephesians 5:14,” (forthcoming, 2012).
23. With regard to 4:8, Harris’s (Descent of Christ) extensive pursuit fails to reach its goal to identify pre-Christian evidence of textual traditions that adumbrate the text form that is found in the later targum.
24. See Timothy Edwards, “The Targum of the Psalms,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 284-85; Moritz, Profound Mystery, 60. Rubinkiewicz represents those who have theorized an early date of the tradition behind the targum of Ps 68 based upon what appears to be dependence on the targum in other literature. The two most significant texts that he cites are T. Dan and a citation of Ps 68 by Justin Martyr. Rubinkiewicz argues that T. Dan reflects the targumic tradition in light of the presence of αἰχμαλωσίαν and δώσει in the passage. Furthermore, since the passage mentions τὸν βελιάρ, Rubinkiewicz argues that this text dates to the time of the Maccabean struggle (“Ps LXVIII 19,” 221-22). However, there is nothing else in the text that warrants any connection either to Ps 68 or the targum. The “giving” is of eternal peace (εἰρήνην αἰώνιον), not gifts. It is unwarranted to suggest literary dependence simply because these two words appear together. Rubinkiewicz also argues that Justin Martyr appears to quote a similar tradition as the targum. Justin writes, ᾿Ανεβη εἰς ὕψος, αἰχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔκωκεν δόματα τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. In light of this, Rubinkiewicz concludes, “[The] two readings ἔκωκεν and τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων are in perfect conformity with the Aramaic version” (“Ps. LXVIII 19,” 223). In a similar fashion, Best notes that this quotation from Justin Martyr “follows the form of Ps 68:18 as found in Ephesians but shows no sign of knowing Ephesians” (Ephesians, 380). However, Justin’s quotation contains no imagery related to Moses. It seems unwarranted to suggest that both Paul and Justin relied upon an early tradition of the targum and independently omitted references to Moses and the torah. Furthermore, Taylor notes that the patristic evidence is faulty because the patristic writers were “without question susceptible to New Testament influence in their wording of the Old Testament citation.” See Richard Taylor, “The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient Versions,” BibSac 148 (1991): 335; cf. also Moritz, “Psalms in Ephesians and Colossians,” 189.
25. Moritz states, “Twice Ephesians agrees with LXX and MT against the Targum and is therefore, on purely verbal grounds, closer to the former than to the latter” (Profound Mystery, 58-59; cf. also Taylor, “The Use,” 333). For this reason, Moritz appeals to a Christian Vorlage (rather than a Jewish one) to explain the author’s wording. Harmon notes that there are no examples of quotations of the psalms which agree with the MT against the LXX in Paul’s quotations, and that the quotations that differ from the LXX Psalter are primarily due to the presence of the quotation in a new context. See Andrew Harmon, “Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Psalms,” WTJ 32 (1969): 4.
26. Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 267. Thielman goes on to point out the unlikelihood that his audience was familiar with the Jewish targumic traditions. Consequently, Thielman contends that Paul himself fashioned the quotation to suit his argument. He appeals to other times Paul changes the text (Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11 and Rom 1:17; Deut 30:12-14 in Rom 10:6-8), yet still maintaining consistency with the overall argument of the OT passage. Thus, he has similarly adjusted the Ps 68 text, preserving its contextual message. In this, Thielman follows Timothy G. Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8,” NovT 47 (2005): 367-80.
27. Admitted by Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 178.
28. We will develop this argumentation more fully below. See Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship,” 370. For an opposing view on this very text, see Moritz, Profound Mystery, 74-76, who perceives an implicit anti-torah/Moses polemic in these verses, especially in view of the strong language against the law and the mention of the “covenants of promise” in v. 12.
29. Even Moritz admits this (Profound Mystery, 80-82, 85). Since we will go into more detail on the ordering of the descent and ascent later on, we will refrain from addressing this issue here.
30. “The implication that Christ’s prior descent more closely resembles that of Yhwh, as implied in Ps 68, than does Moses’ subsequent descent can only serve to underline the strength of the Christian adaptation quoted in v8: Christ had emulated Yhwh to an extent which does not apply to Moses” (Moritz, Profound Mystery, 82 n. 114).
31. Ibid., 82; see also 85.
32. Ironically, Moritz actually follows our tack when he discusses the Sitz im Leben behind the tradition in Eph 5:14. Rejecting the theory that the snippet comes from a baptismal context, he writes: “Discussing the function of a given text in its present co-text is not the same as examining a hypothetical tradition-historical provenance” (Profound Mystery, 106-7). His privileging of the immediate literary context over a supposed hypothetical context applies equally well here.
33. Taylor agrees with this assessment, suggesting that the use of Eph 4:8 to correct the Jewish interpretation would be too subtle for Paul’s audience to pick up. See Taylor, “The Use,” 326.
34. Only from this point of view is the context of the psalm of any value in determining the meaning of the citation. As we have seen, if the source or inspiration for the citation lies in an extra-canonical Jewish or Christian Vorlage, v. 18’s original reference to Yahweh’s subjugation of Israel’s enemies and enthronement on Zion is virtually unrelated to Paul’s actual argument. Best’s comment is representative: “Since AE [Author of Ephesians] probably did not derive v. 8 directly from Ps 68, the Psalm can provide no answer” (Ephesians, 382; cf. Moritz, Profound Mystery, 73). This is also evinced by Lincoln, whose assumption of prior tradition’s formative influence results in his minimal engagement with the context of Ps 68:18 (Ephesians, 242-44).
35. This view was suggested by Ellis (Paul’s Use, 138-39), but developed more fully by Erwin Penner, “The Enthronement Motif in Ephesians” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983), 92, 98-99; cf. also Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 528-30; Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship,” 372-80; and William N. Wilder, “The Use (or Abuse) of Power in High Places: Gifts Given and Received in Isaiah, Psalm 68, and Ephesians 4:8,” BBR 20 (2010): 185-200; suggested also by Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72: An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the Psalms (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 242.
36. See esp. Penner, “Enthronement Motif,” 88-94, who argues for a chiastic structure in the psalm with v. 18 as the high point.
37. Although uncertainty will inevitably remain, this is likely a reference to the placement of the Ark of the Covenant in the temple, symbolizing Yahweh’s enthronement on his mountain. Terrien notes in light of Ps 68:1, “Traditions of the ark are closely related to this optative expression, ‘Let God arise!’” See Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 491. Furthermore, Terrien notes that the invitation to praise in the introduction to the psalm reflects the language of Num 10:35-36, which relates to the ark (ibid., 492). Note the frequent allusions to God’s sanctuary in the psalm: his “holy habitation” (v. 5), his “sanctuary” (vv. 24, 35), his “abode” (v. 16), and the temple (v. 29).
38. Bock notes that in a typological fulfillment there can be multiple referents due to the presence of a new context. See Darrell Bock, “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 113-15.
39. See esp. Wilder, “The Use,” 196-98.
40. This theological connection cannot be made unless Paul is quoting directly from Ps 68. If he is drawing on extracanonical tradition, the referent has merely changed from Moses to Christ. There is clear warrant for divine identification elsewhere in Ephesians (cf. 1:4; 4:4-6; 4:13; 5:14), though there is no warrant for a Moses–Christ typology.
41. E.g., Isa 66:1; Philo, Spec. 1.66; Josephus, B.J. 3.7.7. See Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 285; John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 123.
42. Caird, “The Descent of Christ,” 537; Harris, Descent of Christ, esp. 143-97.
43. Cf. Westcott, Ephesians, 61-62; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 178-79. Even Moritz, who defends an extracanonical source of the quotation, admits the greater likelihood of a prior descent. Yet he contends that this is because this pattern was simply part of the Christian tradition (Profound Mystery, 77, 81).
44. Interestingly, there are a few other places where Paul describes the locus of divine blessing as being in the heavenly realm. Paul begins his epistle by declaring that the Father has blessed us “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:3). Furthermore, in light of being “made alive with Christ,” believers are now “raised up and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6).
45. These connections also contribute to our understanding that the “captivity” is a reference to evil forces. Accordingly, the midrash does indeed develop the theme of “captivity” from the quotation, which is in a manner consistent with the militaristic imagery of the psalm. Furthermore, the subjection language of 1:22 taken from Ps 110:1, πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, provides a nice precedent for conceiving the “powers” as “captives”; contra John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 190, who argues that the captives cannot be the powers because they are not captive, but still at work. Clearly, the language of subjection provides enough support for this claim within Ephesians.
46. Note esp. Col 2:15: “He disarmed the rulers (τὰς ἀρχάς) and authorities (τὰς ἐξουσίας) and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them (θριαμβεύσας) in him.” If we allow Paul’s discussion in Eph 1:7-23 to suggest to us how we might construe τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς, the genitive should be understood as partitive (or wholative), specifying τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] as Jesus’ tomb. See Hoehner, Ephesians, 535-36. This obviously also fits with Paul’s consistent pattern elsewhere, where he presents Jesus’ death as prior to his exaltation (Phil 2:8-9; Rom 1:4; 8:34; Col 3:1) and necessary for the defeat of the powers arrayed against his people (1 Cor 15:20-26). For this reason, Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s death throughout Ephesians should be seen as related to the “descent” (cf. Eph 1:7, 20; 2:13, 16; 5:2, 25; cf. also 1 Cor 1:17; 2:2; Gal 6:14). See Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship,” 377. Of course, various interpretations exist for this sticky passage. For the interpretation that takes τῆς γῆς as a comparative genitive referring to the “underworld” or “Hades,” see Clinton E. Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1989), 56-58; Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 252-54; Thielman, Ephesians, 271. For the common interpretation that understands τῆς γῆς as an epexegetical genitive referring to the incarnation see John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (trans. Rev. William Pringle; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 275; Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 99-100; Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 112. For the epexegetical interpretation of τῆς γῆς as a reference to the descent of the Spirit to the earth as subsequent to the ascent of Christ see esp. Harris, Descent of Christ, 152-59, 171-97.
47. Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship,” 378. This view is not to be confused with the interpretation that the descent and ascent of Christ are simultaneous events. Representative of this view, Muddiman states, “The Crucified Christ ‘raised up on high’ at that very moment plumbed the depths; his humiliation was his exaltation.” See Muddiman, Ephesians, 195; cf. also Thielman, Ephesians, 271. Although fitting well in a Johannine context, it struggles to find a place in Paul’s thought.
48. Although Paul focuses on the ascension, Wallace (Greek Grammar, 238) suggests that the odd phrase, τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, implies that the entire quotation is under examination. Certainly Paul does have the entire quotation in mind, but his main focus is on understanding the meaning of ἀνέβη. The reason is because ἀναβάς in the quotation is an aorist participle, which is connected to two aorist finite verbs, ᾐχμαλώτευσεν and ἔδωκεν. Thus, the actions of “giving gifts” and “taking captives” are related to the ascension. Furthermore, since the ending of the midrash concludes with the reference that Christ has ascended above the heavens, the continuation of the theme of giving gifts in v. 11 ought to be understood as finding its basis in Christ’s position as the one who is ascended above all things. This is contra Harris (Descent of Christ, 173), who argues that there is no purpose for the midrash if the gifts are associated with the ascension. Those who interpret the “descent” as a reference to the Spirit claim that their interpretation alone maintains a consistent focus from the quotation of Ps 68:18 to the giving of gifts in vv. 11-16. Lincoln argues that it is only this interpretation that allows the “gifts” to maintain their central focus in the passage. See Lincoln, Ephesians, 246. However, the midrash is not tangential to Paul’s thought, but rather provides the basis for Christ’s ascent.
49. So also Pickup, who observes that Paul’s midrashic approach reads the psalm “within the context of God’s final revelation concerning Jesus Christ” (“New Testament Interpretation,” 368).
50. Barth, Ephesians 4-6, 476.
51. So also Penner, “Enthronement Motif,” 99; Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship,” 375. Moritz remains unconvinced that Paul would have so transformed a verse’s reading when he could have achieved the same result and retained the emphasis on “giving” by citing the psalm’s final verse (Profound Mystery, 66-69). But Moritz has overlooked the thematic significance of God’s enthronement in the temple that continues from v. 18 through the remainder of the psalm, as well as the depiction of Yahweh as the Divine Warrior.
52. O’Brien observes that Paul applies the psalmic picture to Jesus’ ascension, “not because there was some vague analogy between the two events, but because he saw in Jesus’ exaltation a further fulfillment of this triumph of God” (O’Brien, Ephesians, 288-89).
53. See Eph 1:3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 [2x], 11, 12, 13 [2x], 20; 2:6, 7, 10, 13; 3:11, 12, 21; 4:32; cf. also the simple dative in 2:5.
54. See Eph 1:5, 7; note also the instrumental dative in 2:13.
55. Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 72; Moritz, Profound Mystery, 9-22; Wilder, “The Use,” 188-89.
56. See Barth, Ephesians 4-6, 474, 476; Penner, “Enthronement Motif,” 68-74. This mediation is implied in the anointing of the king by God (Ps 2:2, 6) and the ascription of the title “son” to David’s heirs (2 Sam 7:14), who will inherit the throne from God himself (Ps 2:7-8; 2 Sam 7:12-16). There is likely also an allusion to Ps 8:6 in Eph 1:22 (καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ), fulfilling and extending humanity’s destiny. See Penner, “Enthronement Motif,” 75-80; Wilder, “The Use,” 188-89.
57. It certainly is not unimportant that God’s own enthronement is established on Zion (2 Sam 6:12-19), prior to the eternal establishment of David’s line (2 Sam 7:4-16). The latter is predicated on the former, even as the former is mediated through the latter. This pattern underlies the typology resident in 4:8.
58. Paul’s redaction of Isa 60:1-2 follows along the same Trinitarian lines in Eph 5:14. See Lunde and Dunne, “Use of Isaiah in Ephesians 5:14,” (forthcoming, 2012).
59. Notice also the close identification of Christ with the Spirit’s work in 3:16-17. It is unreasonable to assume that a natural progression from “giving gifts” to “gifts of the Spirit” could not be made without an association with Moses and the giving of the law. Moritz claims that the “irony” of this quotation is that the Spirit is celebrated as “the greatest gift,” rather than the torah (“Psalms in Ephesians and Colossians,” 190). However, if Paul is contextually quoting the psalm, as we think likely, then the association with “giving gifts” from the psalm with Christ’s gifting the church is a natural one, as Paul has elsewhere addressed the issue of the “gifts” without association to Moses (cf. Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11).
60. Τοῦ Χριστοῦ should be understood as a subjective genitive in this passage as the following verses make clear—it is Christ who gives gifts to the church. See Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical–Theological Study (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 356.
61. Additional Trinitarian elements appear throughout Ephesians quite naturally. For instance, God’s creative work of fashioning a new self that is in his likeness (4:24; 5:1) is also consistent with what they have learned “in Jesus” (4:20-21; 5:2). As they live as imitators of God, they are light “in the Lord” (5:8; most likely this is a reference to Christ). Note also the pairing of the “will of the Lord” (5:17) and being “filled with the Spirit” (5:18), as well as the “knowledge of the love of Christ” (3:19a) and being filled up with the “fullness of God” (3:19b). There is also a close association in the focus of worship to the “Lord” [Jesus] (5:19), which involves thanksgiving to the Father (5:20a) “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:20b). Moreover, Paul exhorts his readers to conduct themselves in the “fear” of Christ (5:21), where one might have expected the “fear” of God (e.g., Rom 3:18). Notice also the references to the “Lord” in the context of the OT commandment (6:1, 4), which most likely refers to Jesus, since Paul has consistently used this title for Christ and has just exhorted spouses to godliness in relation to the “Lord”—namely, Christ (5:22-33). Similarly, slaves and masters are to conduct themselves in righteousness in relation to Christ (6:5-9), which amounts to doing the “will of God” (6:6b). Indeed, donning the whole armor “of God” (6:11, 13) amounts to being strong “in the Lord” (6:10). But notice also, among this armor is the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (6:17; cf. v. 18). Finally, grace, peace, and love are said to be supplied to the readers from “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2; 6:23).
62. Contra Gombis, who views these as the Israelites themselves (“Cosmic Lordship,” 374).
63. Although the words are inflected differently, both the verb and noun form of “captive” appear in direct succession to one another in both Judg 5 and Ps 68. The evidence of the psalmist’s borrowing from the imagery and wording of Judg 5 is substantial. Among these connections, note the following: the nearly identical description of the apocalyptic coloring accompanying Yahweh’s rise to defend his people (cf. Judg 5:4-5 with Ps 68:7-8); the references to Benjamin, Zebulun, and Naphtali (cf. Judg 5:14-15, 18 with Ps 68:27); the mention of the “sheepfolds” as a reference to the men who did not participate in the battle or the procession (cf. Judg 5:16 with Ps 68:13); the failure of the kings to take plunder and the reference to the maidens dividing the spoil (cf. Judg 5:19, 30 with Ps 68:12); the mention of the striking of the “heads” of the enemies (cf. Judg 5:26 with Ps 68:21); and the similar references to the cosmic imagery associated with the divine deliverance (cf. Judg 5:20 with Ps 68:33-34). Note also the reference to the “princes of Issachar” in Judg 5:15, which likely explains the multiple use of “princes” in Ps 68:27. There is a plausible parallel between the two contexts as the imagery of “stars fighting in the heavens” in Judg 5 is paralleled by the psalmist’s affirmations that the Lord “rides the heavens” and has “power in the skies.” Notice also the possible allusion to Judg 5:31 in Ps 68:1-3. There is an antithetical parallel between the dispersion of the enemies when the Lord arises to scatter them (Ps 68:1) and the safety of God’s friends when he rises in his might against his enemies at the end of Deborah’s song (Judg 5:31). Also, the language in Ps 68:2 of wax melting before a fire in relation to the wicked perishing is conceptually parallel to the imagery of a rising sun in Judg 5:31. Interestingly, Moritz notices these allusions, but since he is convinced of Paul’s dependence on a pre-existing Christian Vorlage that is countering the Jewish misappropriation, they only serve to distance Paul’s interpretation from the psalm’s original reference (Profound Mystery, 64-65, esp. n. 39).
64. This then rules out the view that the “captives” and “gifts” should be interpreted as the Levites whom God has consecrated as priests for his sanctuary, analogous to the clergy of the church. See Westcott, Ephesians, 60-61; Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18,” 186-88. Note especially Num 8:19 and 18:6 where the Levites are “taken” by God for his service and “given as a gift” to the people. Smith argues that this conclusion is made because the leading of captives and the giving of gifts allows God to dwell in his sanctuary (Ps 68:18). But Smith’s association of Levites with the “captives” is unwarranted because none of the passages that he cites from Numbers pictures the Levites as “captive” to God. Furthermore, the use of the noun ביש occurs fifty times in the OT and always refers to subjugation (cf. Num 21:1; 31:12, 19, 26; Deut 21:10, 13; 28:41; Judg 5:12; Isa 20:4; 46:2; 49:24-25; 52:2; Jer 15:2; 20:6; 22:22; 30:10, 16; 43:11; 46:27; 48:46; Ezek 12:11; 30:17-18; Amos 4:10; 9:4; Nah 3:10; Hab 1:9; Ps 78:61; Lam 1:5, 18; Dan 11:8, 33; Ezra 2:1; 3:8; 8:35; 9:7; Neh 1:2-3; 7:6; 8:17; 2 Chr 6:37-38; 28:17; 29:9; cf. also Exod 12:29 which refers more generally to imprisonment). Likewise, the verb form שבה is used similarly in reference to taking prisoners and stealing plunder (cf. Gen 14:14; 31:26; 34:29; Num 21:1; 24:22; 31:9; Deut 21:10; Judg 5:12; 1 Sam 30:2-3, 5; 1 Kgs 8:46-48, 50; 2 Kgs 5:2; 6:22; Isa 14:2; 61:1; Jer 13:17; 41:10, 14; 43:12; 50:33; Ezek 6:9; Obad 11; Ps 106:46; 137:3; 1 Chr 5:21; 2 Chr 6:36-38; 14:14; 21:17; 25:12; 28:5, 8, 11, 17; 30:9; cf. also Exod 22:9, which refers more generally to stealing). This then is also contra Muddiman, who argues that the “captives” are Christian converts by making note of God “triumphing over us” (θριαμβεύοντι) in 2 Cor 2:14, and Paul’s designation of himself as a “prisoner” of Christ (Muddiman, Ephesians, 190), and Williamson, who suggests that the referent is the Gentiles who formerly were captives of the demonic powers (Ephesians, 115). The fundamental weakness of these interpretations is their failure to discern the militaristic background of Ps 68, the negative implications for those “taken captive” in the OT literature, and the pervasive imagery of Christ’s supremacy over the powers in Ephesians. This conclusion is virtually confirmed by the fact that שבית שבי in Ps 68:18 parallels ושבה שביך in Judg 5:12.
65. Arnold concurs: “In light of the subjugation of forces in 1:20ff. it seems likely that the same subjugation is taking place in Eph 4:8” (Power and Magic, 56).
66. It is interesting to note that the specific blessings mentioned in Ps 68:35 are “strength” and “might.” This motif is also expressed in v. 28, in which the psalmist calls upon God to summon his “power” (עזך) so as to be “strong” for them (עוזה). Additionally, God is depicted as the one who rides the skies and whose “power” (עז) is in the skies (Ps 68:34). This motif in Ps 68 is consistent with the pervasive theme of “enabling power” in Ephesians (cf. Eph 1:19; 3:14-21; 6:10). See Arnold, Power and Magic, 70-102.
67. C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 20.
68. Ellis confirms this tendency in several of Paul’s uses of the OT, where each “variation seems to be a deliberate adaptation to the NT context . . . [and] in some cases the alteration has a definite bearing on the interpretation of the passage” (Paul’s Use, 144; cf. also 149; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 52-54; Harris, Descent of Christ, 197; Lincoln, Ephesians, 243). Likewise, Lincoln states that the writer to the Ephesians “integrates his exposition of its meaning in light of the fulfillment of Christ into the actual quotation” (“The Use of the OT in Ephesians,” 19; so also Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 22). This is contra Moritz, who rejects the midrash pesher label since Paul’s change of verbs goes beyond the rabbinic traditions associated with Ps 68 (Profound Mystery, 67). Though similar verbal changes may be lacking in the literature pertaining to this particular verse, plenty of examples exist where an intentional change of wording is evident (see esp. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 139-47).
69. This helps to alleviate the concerns of Harmon, who suggests that we should avoid using this designation since Paul’s respect for context is distinct from the exegesis of Qumran (“Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Psalms,” 17-18). However, there is nothing inherent in this method that designates it as a-contextual. The contextual basis of midrash pesher ought to be evaluated use by use in the NT, rather than holding a priori prejudices against the exegetical method altogether.
70. Arnold’s comment on 4:8 therefore applies to both of these texts: “But neither here nor elsewhere does Paul ever force the Scripture to say what he wants it to say with no sensitivity to its meaning in its original context” (Ephesians, 251).
71. Contra Enns, who asserts, “New Testament authors were not engaging the Old Testament in an effort to remain consistent with the original context and intention of the Old Testament author,” but rather simply to explain “what the Old Testament means in light of Christ’s coming” (Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], 115, 116; emphasis original). The present study has attempted to demonstrate that the christological appropriation of OT passages need not be inconsistent with faithfulness to the context of the OT.
72. The same then is true of its occurrence in Eph 5:14. See Lunde and Dunne, “Use of Isaiah in Ephesians 5:14,” (forthcoming, 2012).