The Use of Psalm 68(67).19 in Ephesians 4.8: A History of Research

Abstract

Because Eph. 4.8 has an altered citation of Ps. 68(67).19, interpreters have developed polarizing opinions about the author’s sources and his citation techniques, ranging from the claim that the citation is aberrant or that it summarizes the whole psalm. In this study, it is suggested that such diverse opinions do not take account of ancient citation practices or Jewish exegetical procedures. The survey examines key interpreters and treatments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, focusing on the question of the author’s Vorlage and the interpretive use of the psalm in Eph. 4.8. The survey shows that the prevalent view that Ephesians appropriates a (pre-)targumic or early Christian tradition has led to an under-appreciation of the christological significance of Eph. 4.8.

Keywords

Christology citation practices Ephesians Israel’s Scripture Psalm 68(67)Septuagint

Introduction

The use of Ps. 68(67).19 within Eph. 4.8 is a crux interpretum in the letter to the Ephesians. It is well known that the author of Ephesians apparently ‘misquotes’ the psalm, preferring to speak of ‘giving’ (ἔδωϰεν) rather than ‘receiving’ (ἔλαβες) gifts. Explanations for the evocation are diverse—ranging from Chrysostom’s statement that τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐϰείνῳ (‘the one is the same as the other’; Homily 11; PG 11.81) to the impression that the alternate reading ‘entirely reverses the idea of the passage’ (Longenecker 1999: 107; cf. Fitzmyer 1961: 325). The spectrum represented by these disparate explanations is suggestive of the ambit of the problem. The issues range from textual studies to tradition and reception studies, culminating with hermeneutical questions regarding the appropriation of an altered text. Furthermore, the relationship of the psalm citation to the following comments about ‘ascending’ and ‘descending’ (Eph. 4.9-10) has generated not a little debate.

Although there was once a dearth of general studies on the use of Israel’s Scripture in Ephesians (see, e.g., Lindemann 1975: 80-89; Beker 1991: 87; Hübner 1992: IV, 1098), several studies have emerged within the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, rightly emphasizing the significant role that Scripture plays in Ephesians (e.g., Maurer 1951–1952: 151-72; Lincoln 1982: 16-57; Moritz 1996; Hinkle 1997; Thielman 2007: 813-34). For present purposes this survey will examine those studies that deal explicitly and extensively with the citation of Psalm 68(67) within Eph. 4.8, focusing mainly on those from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Following the survey of interpreters, there is an analysis of the various trends that emerge. This is followed by a conclusion with suggestions for further study.

Survey

One of the key issues regarding the use of Ps. 68(67).19 in Eph. 4.8 is the question of the author’s Vorlage. Was the author of Ephesians depending upon an early Jewish tradition that had an altered text? A Christian traditional reading? The Hebrew Bible? Or, the Greek Bible? In the survey that follows, interpreters have been grouped together under categories according to their (putative) answer(s) to the question of the author’s Vorlage for the citation of Ps. 68(67).19. This will not only provide an organizational principle, but will also help to frame the question of the author’s engagement or involvement with competing interpretative traditions. The option that Ephesians unintentionally misquoted Ps. 68(67).19 has been advocated by some (e.g., Mitton 1976: 145), but has largely been dismissed because the context of Ephesians (i.e., Eph. 4.7-11) is contingent upon the alteration. Accordingly, it does not receive attention in this survey.

1. Early Judaism ➤ New Testament — The author of Ephesians drew from an interpretive tradition evident within early Judaism. Some have helpfully referred to this phenomenon as ‘echoes of interpreted scripture’ (e.g., Evans 1993: 47-51). The interpreted Scripture one must listen for, it is argued, becomes most obvious when one considers the similar reading found within Tg. Ps. 68.19. Several commentators adopt this view (e.g., Schnackenburg 1982: 179-80; Best 1998: 380-81; Aletti 2001: 215-16).

Thackeray, in The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, observed that in Eph. 4.8 ‘we may perhaps trace the influence of a Targum, the Aramaic paraphrase which [the author of Ephesians] would hear read in the synagogues’ (1900: 181-82). The key influence he detected was the shared notion of ‘giving’ found in both Tg. Ps. 68.19 and Eph. 4.8. Citing Abbott (1897: 112-13), he suggested that the targumist mentally substituted חקל (‘to receive’) for קלח (‘to give’), switching around one of the radicals to create an entirely new, opposite meaning. Such metathesis is referred to as al-tikrei (Arzi 2007: II, 20). Thackeray’s explanation for the difference between Tg. Ps. 68.19 and that of the OT versions is because he thought that the notion of God receiving gifts was incompatible with divine majesty. Such an explanation, however, is rather odd seeing that Targum Psalms does not apply this text to God, but to Moses (Rubinkiewicz 1975: 221). The Targum reads,

You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses, you took captives, you taught the words of the Law, you gave them as gifts (ןנתמ ןנהל אתבהי) to the sons of man; even among the rebellious who are converted and repent does the Shekinah of the glory of the Lord God dwell (Stec 2004: 131; original emphasis).

Why was it necessary for Tg. Ps. 68.19 to alter the reading if the referent was not God? Further, Thackeray’s proposal suffers in that he posits the alteration happened within a (pre-)targumic interpretation, presumably in Aramaic. However, in Tg. Ps. 68.19, the verb in question is בהי. Thus the suggestion that an Aramaic text facilitated this metathesis is unsustainable (Moritz 1996: 59). We will examine the problems of dating Targum Psalms and the tradition it preserves further below.

Many interpreters have built upon aspects of Thackeray’s argument. Cambier, in his ‘La Signification Christologique d’Eph. IV.7-10’, took the view that the author of Ephesians drew upon a tradition—witnessed also by Targum Psalms and the Peshitta (that reads ‘you gave gifts to the sons of men’)—that suited his needs, particularly his midrashic application in Eph. 4.9-10 (1963: 262-65). The reason for citing Psalm 68, according to Cambier, was for the purpose of drawing an analogy between the ascent of God in the psalm and that of Christ depicted in Eph. 4.8. Cambier used both Targum Psalms and the Peshitta as evidence for the antiquity of the reading of Ps. 68(67).19. However, recent scholarship has posited a textual relationship between the Targums and the Peshitta, problematizing the use of both the Targum and the Peshitta as independent evidence for the antiquity of the reading in Ephesians (Evans 2005a: 162-63).

In an essay titled ‘Ps LXVIII 19 (= Eph IV 8) Another Textual Tradition or Targum?’, Rubinkiewicz argued that the alteration from ‘receive’ to ‘gave’ found in Eph. 4.8 was connected with a Jewish exegetical practice of reading the letters of the consonantal Hebrew text in a different order (1975: 219-24). Rubinkiewicz denied that this alteration occurred within the Hebrew Psalter. Instead, he suggested that the alteration must have occurred within an early Targum tradition, much like the one represented within Targum Psalms. Furthermore, he argued the Targum reading had an earlier interpretive strand that applied the text to God (as is found in Psalm 68) and that only at a later stage was the referent altered, probably for the theological reason proposed by Thackeray (Rubinkiewicz 1975: 224).

In order to establish the antiquity of the Targum tradition, Rubinkiewicz drew upon T. Dan. 5.10-11 in order to ‘prove that the reading of the Targum was known also to other authors’ (1975: 221). The text is as follows:

ϰαὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ἐϰ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰουδὰ ϰαὶ Λευὶ τὸ σωτήριον ϰυρίου· ϰαὶ αὐτὸς ποιήσει πρὸς τὸν Βελιὰρ πόλεμον, ϰαὶ τὴν ἐϰδίϰησιν τοῦ νίϰους δώσει πατράσιν ἡμῶν.¹¹ ϰαὶ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν λάβῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ Βελιὰρ, ψυχὰς ἁγίων, ϰαὶ ἐπιστρέψει ϰαρδίας ἀπειθεῖς πρὸς ϰύριον, ϰαὶ δώσει τοῖς ἐπιϰαλουμένοις αὐτὸν εἰρήνην αἰώνιον (de Jonge 1978: 109).

And there shall arise for you from the tribe of Judah and (the tribe of) Levi the Lord’s salvation. He will make war against Beliar; he will grant the vengeance of victory as our goal.¹¹ And he shall take from Beliar the captives, the souls of the saints; and he shall turn the hearts of the disobedient ones to the Lord, and [give] eternal peace to those who call upon him (Kee 1983: I, 809-10).

He argued that the terminology τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν corresponds to ᾐχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν (Ps. 67.19). Further, the phrase ἐπιστρέψει ϰαρδίας ἀπειθεῖς πρὸς ϰύριον corresponds to ϰαὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ ϰατασϰηνῶσαι (Ps. 67.19). Finally, it is suggested that δώσει τοῖς ἐπιϰαλουμένοις αὐτὸν εἰρήνην corresponds to ἔδωϰεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Eph. 4.8). Thus, Rubinkiewicz argued that both T. Dan. 5.10-11 and Eph. 4.8 share a reading of Ps. 68(67).19 that have in common the verb δίδωμι and an altered reference to ‘people’ (τοῖς ἐπιϰαλουμένοις and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις). On the basis of these connections, he concluded that ‘the reading ἔδωϰεν was known long before [Ephesians]’ (1975: 222).

However, there are problems with Rubinkiewicz’s analysis. The precise passage he identified is believed to be among the various Christian interpolations within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (cf. Evans 2005a: 40; Kee 1983: I, 777). Second, one has to ask how compelling the linguistic connections that he adduced really are. No criteria were given for establishing linguistic connections (see Koch 1986: 11-15) and the parallels he used to establish the antiquity of a particular reading of Tg. Ps. 68.19 are tenuous. Harris (1996: 107) has observed that both δίδωμι and λάμβανω occur in T. Dan. 5.11, making the notion that this text demonstrates a reading resembling Eph. 4.8 less probable. Further, Harris (1996: 109) has suggested that if any connection did exist, it is likely to be a result of later Christian redaction.

Taylor’s essay, ‘The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient Versions’, examined the Hebrew Psalm and, helpfully, cataloged eight possible solutions to the textual discrepancy found in Eph. 4.8. His own view was that the variant reading had an ancient pedigree, evidenced by Targum Psalms and also the Peshitta. In Taylor’s view, the author of Ephesians used ‘midrash pesher’ exegesis, selecting this variant textual tradition because it suited the needs of his argument in Ephesians 4 (1991: 328, 335). Accordingly, the reversal of meaning in the altered citation is not to be attributed to the author of Ephesians. He described the use of this tradition as an analogical use of the OT, wherein the former passage provides a pattern for the latter (1991: 336).

Schwindt’s Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes argued that Ephesians is aware of an exegetical tradition of Psalm 68(67) that is also evident in Targum Psalms (2002: 403-22). Examining the arguments of Lindar’s (see below), Schwindt rejected the connection of Acts 2.33 to a Moses ascent tradition because in Acts 2.34 it is David and not Moses who is presented for comparison. In a later speech in Acts 7.35-38, however, a Moses ascent tradition is evoked, comparing Christ with Moses in his vocation as προφήτης (Schwindt 2002: 414-15). Schwindt (2002: 418) explored the connections between these texts, but ultimately admitted that using Acts 2.33 as evidence for the reception of Ps. 68(67).19 is very controversial. With regard to Ps. 68(67).19, he suggested that its early Christian adaptation is similar to that of Ps. 110(109).1, a verse alluded to in Eph. 1.20. Both psalm texts introduce the theme of God’s victory over his enemies (2002: 418).

More recently Floor and Viljoen (2003: 183-201), in an article titled ‘Paulus se gebruik van Psalm 68 in Efesiërs 4’, have argued that the textual alteration preceded Ephesians and belongs to a tradition that we see also represented within the Targum (thanks to Quinton Ruiters for his assistance in translating this article). They suggest that the author of Ephesians cannot be described as a sloppy exegete of the Psalm because he used a traditional reading associated with the Psalm and adapted it within a new context. In this way, the author performed ‘midrash pesher’ exegesis on Psalm 68(67), using it analogically and drawing out a new meaning. However, the new meaning is not exclusive of its original meaning (2003: 198-99). According to Psalm 68(67), God went up to Zion as a triumphant King, worthy to receive gifts for his victories. Likewise, in Eph. 4.8, Christ also went up ‘on high’ as the triumphant victor and he distributed gifts. Whether the author of Ephesians (or the interpreters upon whom he was dependent) was a ‘sloppy exegete’ or played by the ‘rules of the game’ (Juel 1988: 31-57), will be addressed in the final sections.

Finally for this section, an article by Scholtus, ‘Exégesis e interpretación paulina de Salmos 68:18 en Efesios 4:8-10’, argued that Eph. 4.8 is related to tradition that is related to Targum Psalms (2010: 179). Scholtus argued that the interpretation found in Ephesians makes it possible to see the hermeneutical assumptions of the author of Ephesians. Among the ‘recursos hermenéuticos’ that she identified are: (1) a new spiritual age inaugurated by the Christ event that led to re-reading Scripture in light of Christ. Scholtus described this as an ‘historic’ event that was inaugurated by Jesus’ own interpretation of Israel’s Scriptures (cf. Dodd 1952: 109-10). (2) The gift of apostleship was inclusive of the revelatory message of the letter. Thus, the author of Ephesians knew that God was leading him in writing the epistle. (3) There is coherence and continuity between the OT and the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. The author of Ephesians used interpretative traditions and re-appropriated them in light of the two earlier points. Significantly, Scholtus sees the text of Ps. 68(67).19 as being of particular interest for the interpretation of the entire message of Ephesians because she connects it with the significance of divine gifts and the way God fills all the church (2010: 186).

2. Early Christianity ➤ New Testament — The author of Ephesians drew upon an Early Christian traditional reading of Psalm 68(67) in which the textual alteration had already occurred. Interpreters who adopt this view tend to find allusive references to Psalm 68(67) in other NT literature, suggesting that Christian tradition prior to Ephesians began interpreting Psalm 68(67) in relation to Christian Pentecost.

Lindars, in his influential New Testament Apologetic, argued that Ps. 68(67).19 entered into the array of OT texts deployed by the earliest Christians in connection with the formulation of the theologoumenon ‘the Gift of the Spirit’ (1961: 51-59). With regard to Psalm 68(67), he envisioned a two-staged process of reflection and appropriation. The first stage may be seen within the sermon of Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2 (cf. Chase 1902: 151). This sermon contains three explicit citations of Israel’s Scripture (i.e., Joel 3.1-5 lxx; Pss. 15.8-11 lxx; 109.1 lxx). Sandwiched between the citations of Psalm 15 and Psalm 109, Lindars argued, is a strong allusion to Psalm 68(67).

Following the explicit citation of Psalm 15, the sermon addresses ‘fellow Israelites’ (Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί) and reflects upon a Davidic ancestor who would attain David’s royal throne. In this context, the earlier citation of Psalm 15 is given explicit Messianic traction: ‘David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah (τοῦ Χριστοῦ)’ (Acts 2.31). The testimony of the resurrected Jesus is connected with his exaltation (ὑψωθείς) to the right hand of God and the promise of ‘receiving’ (λαβὼν) the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1.8). According to Lindars, these uses of ὑψόω and λαμβάνω attest to the unmodified text of Ps. 68(67).19. Immediately following this reflection is the extended introductory formula of the citation for Ps. 109.1 lxx: ‘David did not ascend (ἀνέβη) into the heavens, but he himself says…’ (Acts 2.34). If the earliest Christians associated the ‘receiving’ or ‘giving’ of the Spirit (e.g., Acts 2.33; Rom. 5.5; 1 Cor. 12.7; 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; 1 Thess. 4.8) with the ascension of Jesus, then Psalm 68(67) may have functioned as a key proof text for this exposition: ‘you ascended (ἀνέβης) on high (ὕψος); you led captivity captive; you received (ἔλαβες) gifts by a person…’ (Ps. 67.19 lxx).

According to Lindars, the citation of Ps. 68(67).19 within Eph. 4.8 represents a slightly later stage of Christian reflection. Ephesians states that ‘he gave (ἔδωϰεν) gifts to his people’ (Eph. 4.8). With regard to the textual form, Lindars concluded that the quotation ‘probably…already existed in the form of the text known to the writer of Ephesians’ (1961: 53). For Lindars, this form is not to be connected with the Targum Psalms (1961: 52-53), but rather is connected with a period of reflection represented between the sermon in Acts 2 and Ephesians. According to Lindars, the verb shifted from λαμβάνω to δίδωμι within this period in order ‘to account for the Messiah’s mediation of the Spirit’ (1961: 59). Perhaps the best summary of Lindars’s view is captured by the following statement:

[Ephesians 4.8] is thus most probably a case of the midrash pesher, and should be classified as an example of modification of text. Seeing that ἔδωϰεν in the quotation is the keyword to the whole of the argument, it is probable that it already existed in the form of the text known to the writer of Ephesians. It is our contention that it does indeed go back to a much earlier time, and is the origin of the phrase ‘the gift of the spirit’ (Lindars 1961: 53; original emphasis).

This view that Eph. 4.8 is both ‘midrash pesher’ (cf. Brownlee 1951: 54-76)—as an example of modification of the text—and that it existed already for the author of Ephesians to capitalize upon can only mean that the author of Ephesians took over not only the textual form of Ps. 68(67).19, but also the larger interpretive context of Eph. 4.8-13. This, according to Ellis (1957: 141), upon whom Lindars relies for the categorization of Eph. 4.8 as ‘midrash pesher’, occurs when ‘the interpretation or exposition is incorporated into the body of the text itself, thereby determining its textual form’. If Ephesians is engaging in ‘midrash pesher’, then the following interpretation in Eph. 4.9-10 cannot be attributed solely to the author of Ephesians. Dupont (1973: 219-28) built upon Lindars’s argument, suggesting that correspondences with Moses could also be found in the rescensional layer of Acts.

Here we will deal with the major argument of Lindars with regard to the two-stage Christian tradition, reserving further comments on his argument for later. The idea that Acts 2—Peter’s sermon at Pentecost following the giving of the Spirit—provides the first glimpse of the traditional use of Psalm 68(67) has been taken up by several commentators. C.K. Barrett took a conservative stance on this issue:

How far the echoes of Ps. 68 (67) would have been picked up by Luke’s readers, how far he intended them to be picked up, how far he was himself aware of them, are questions which [are] difficult to answer. Overtones of a familiar passage of Scripture may have come out unconsciously (1994: 149-50).

However, not all interpreters have been so delicate in their evaluation. Fitzmyer (1998: 259) referred to the association of Ps. 68(67).19 with Acts 2.33 as ‘eisegetical’ (cf. O’Toole 1983; Bock 1987: 183; Pervo 2009: 83). Additionally, we find reason to question whether Peter’s sermon preserves a more ancient tradition than Ephesians with respect to Ps. 68(67).19. The dating of both Ephesians and Acts presents problems for the interpreter and it is difficult to say which was written earlier. We must also deal with the issue of whether the speeches of Acts preserve ancient traditions of the early church or are reflecting and recasting tradition through a Lukan lens. It is regularly noted that speeches in Acts, as other speeches in antiquity, may not be presented in ‘the words actually spoken’ but ‘in the language in which…speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration’ (Thucydides, Hist. 1.22.1). Talbert (2005: 29-30) has compared instances where there are two accounts of an ancient speech, noting that one rarely finds strong agreement at the linguistic level, even if they generally agree with regard to content. If this is the case with Acts, then one can hardly build an argument for a two-stage development of the interpretation of Ps. 68(67).19 upon the specific words given to Peter in Acts 2. Thus, it is difficult to see the association of Christ (the one who ascended) with the Spirit (the one who descended) in the alleged traditional use of Ps. 68(67).19 within Acts 2.

In 1964, Caird published an essay titled ‘The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7-11’. He argued that the whole passage Christianized a rabbinic exegesis of Psalm 68(67), making Christ’s ascent and (the Spirit of) Christ’s descent cohere with the occasion of Christian Pentecost (1964: 543; cf. Porter 1966). Caird (1964: 539-40; cf. Thackeray 1921: 57) suggested that the use of Psalm 68(67) in Ephesians hinges upon the association of the psalm with Pentecost, a festival commemorating the giving of the law (cf. Jub. 1.5; 6.11, 17; 15.1-24; b. Pesaḥ 68b; b. Šabb. 88b). Although Caird admitted that Targum Psalms presents a problem with respect to its late date, he saw this problem as admitting a better option than supposing that Ephesians influenced the Targum or that both texts independently produced the same aberrant reading (1964: 541). Like Lindars before him, Caird saw a relationship between Acts and Ephesians. However, unlike Lindars, he envisioned that relationship happening in reverse order, claiming that the probability is that ‘Ephesians represents an early stage in the theological process which was ultimately to produce the Pentecost story of Acts’ (1964: 544).

3. Early Judaism ➤ New Testament (counter-reading) — The author of Ephesians presented a counter-reading of Psalm 68(67) in dialog with early Judaism. Interpreters who adopt this view go one step further than those of the previous categories by claiming that the interpretive trajectories of latter rabbinic readings of Psalm 68(67) may be read back to an earlier date and that the author of Ephesians presents a reactionary reading in dialog with its early Jewish context. Many commentators adopt this view (e.g., Schlier 1971: 192; Barth 1974: 476-77; Gnilka 1982: 207-208; Pflammater 1987: 32; Bouttier 1991: 182; Muddiman 2001: 189; Witherington 2007: 288; MacDonald 2000: 290).

Lincoln posited that the author of Ephesians knew an interpretative tradition (as is found in Targum Psalms) that contained references to Moses and, accordingly, took it over in a ‘midrash pesher’ rendering, seeking to provide a revisionary reading of the psalm. Lincoln (1982: 19-20; cf. Lincoln 1990: 243) wrote ‘the writer could be relating Christ to the similar interests of his readers and in a “new Moses” typology showing that Christ has provided a link with the heavenly world that could not be matched by Moses’. Thus, for the author of Ephesians, Psalm 68(67) is no longer to be viewed as a Jewish Pentecostal psalm concerning Moses but as a ‘Christian Pentecostal psalm, celebrating the ascension of Christ and his subsequent descent at Pentecost to bestow spiritual gifts upon the church’ (1982: 23, citing Caird 1964: 541; cf. also Lincoln 1981: 155-63). Christ gave not the Torah, but divine χάρις (cf. Jn 1.17), which consists of people who fulfill the various ministries that constitute and build up the body of Christ (cf. Eph. 4.11-12). The link between Christ and Moses in the interpretive trajectories of Psalm 68(67) is thought to be linked to this psalm’s association with the feast of Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit (Lincoln 1982: 22-24; cf. Caird 1964: 544).

Lincoln’s view requires not only a tradition of a variant word, but the entire reading of Tg. Ps. 68.19 to be available to the author of Ephesians, which is problematic with regard to dating. Further, his view requires that the recipients of Ephesians be familiar with this tradition, particularly the association with Moses, because a citation used to introduce an argument they did not know would be rhetorically ineffective (Best 1998: 379; Stanley 2004: 9-21). If Ephesians was originally written to churches in the Lycos Valley, their knowledge of this reading is unlikely.

Harris’s The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery was hailed as ‘the most comprehensive work on [Ps. 68.19 in Eph. 4.8] to date’ (Hoehner 1998: 499). The monograph attempted to demonstrate that Eph. 4.7-11 refers to the resurrection of Christ (i.e., ascent) and the subsequent descent to earth as the Spirit in order to empower the church with spiritual gifts (1996: 197; also Harris 1988; 1994: 198-214). This, according to Harris, mimics the pattern of Tg. Ps. 68.19, which records Moses ascending and (inferentially) descending Mount Sinai in order to receive and give the law (1996: 65). The tradition related to Moses is thought to be taken over and applied to Christ in Eph. 4.8. Thus, Christ is portrayed as one greater than Moses because he has ascended not merely to the heights of Sinai, but ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν (cf. Eph. 4.10). Additionally, the gift of Christ does not consist of Torah, but instead of divine χάρις (Eph. 4.7) given to Christians for the purpose of Christian unity (cf. Eph. 4.13).

A large amount of Harris’s work (building upon Taylor) was devoted to examining alleged interpretive uses of Ps. 68(67).19 within rabbinic and non-rabbinic sources (1996: 64-122). Although he was able to show that various rabbinic texts read Psalm 68(67) in reference to Moses (e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 20.4; 47.4; Midr. Teh. 22.19; 68.11; Sop. 16.10; Cant. Rab. 8.11.2; Pirqe R. El. 46; ’Abot R. Nat. 2.3 (18b); Exod. Rab. 28.1; b. Šabb. 88b-89a), he concluded that there are no early, non-rabbinic sources that do this unambiguously. In his attempt to argue that the association of Moses with Ps. 68(67).19 happened within or prior to the first century ce, he appealed to literature that simply speaks of an ascent of Moses, but which contains no clear associations with Psalm 68(67) itself (e.g., Ezek. Trag., Exag. 68-82; Philo, Mos. 1.158; L.A.B. 11.15; 12.1). This much even Harris admits in his own treatment: ‘while such ascent-traditions concerning Moses are not explicitly connected with the psalm, they appear to have been in general circulation’ (1996: 142). In order for his argument to work, one has to grant this association in the interpretive tradition at an early date. However, this is precisely the connection that needs to be proven.

In his work, A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians, Moritz argued that Eph. 4.8 cites a Christian tradition and that ‘the quoted text is more concerned with emulating polemically the common Jewish use of this Psalm than with interpreting the latter’ (1996: 73). He further clarified his view claiming that ‘Ephesians may have been more concerned with the way Psalm 68 was used in Judaism than with interpreting the psalm in its original setting’ (2004: 190). According to Moritz, Jewish uses of the psalm stressed that the law was God’s gift. However, the use of the psalm in Ephesians stresses Christ as the gift of God (1996: 74). Thus, for Moritz, the key contrast between these uses is on the identity of the gift.

He built his argument on the apparent ‘misquotation’ of Ps. 68(67).19 and on the use of the introductory formula διὸ λέγει, which is also used to introduce the following words from Eph. 5.14: ἔγειρε, ὁ ϰαθεύδων, ϰαὶ ἀνάστα ἐϰ τῶν νεϰρῶν, ϰαὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. The editors of Nestle-Aland’s twenty-seventh edition have rightly put ‘unde?’ (‘where?’) in the margins of this passage for it evokes no single text from Israel’s Scripture. Although some have argued that Isa. 26.19 and 60.1 provide a scriptural background to Eph. 5.14 (e.g., Qualls and Watts 1996: 254-55), most interpreters think that it is an early Christian hymn, related to scriptural reflection (perhaps those mentioned from Isaiah) (Moritz 1996: 100-105, 115). For Moritz, the use of διὸ λέγει as an introductory formula is suggestive. Thus he asks, if διὸ λέγει is used in Eph. 5.14 as a way of evoking a Christian hymn or tradition, might διὸ λέγει in Eph. 4.8 be used to evoke a Christian traditional interpretation related to Ps. 68(67).19 (1996: 84)?

Although the argument of Moritz is not unreasonable, it probably invests too much technical meaning in the formula διὸ λέγει. There are only three uses of the formula in the NT (Eph. 4.8, cf. Ps. 68[67].19; Eph. 5.14; Jas 4.6, cf. Prov. 3.34). If the uses of Philo are considered (e.g., Conf. 1.182, cf. Gen. 11.7; Ebr. 1.138, cf. Lev. 10.9; Agr. 1.100, cf. Gen. 49.17), the probability shifts against the argument of Moritz (cf. Thielman 2007: 821-22). Furthermore, his contrast between a Jewish reading with law as the gift versus a Christian reading with Christ as the gift is not borne out by the context of Ephesians. Both in Eph. 4.7 and 4.11, Christ is the one who gives. To put it in grammatical parlance, Christ is the subject of giving, not the object.

4. Hebrew Bible ➤ New Testament — The author of Ephesians drew from the Hebrew Scriptures. Many interpreters find this view attractive because of a potential metathesis between חקל (‘to receive’) and קלח (‘to give’) either in a manuscript tradition no longer extant or in the Jewish exegetical procedures of the author of Ephesians. Interpreters who adopt this view tend to pay attention to the larger scriptural context of Psalm 68. Several commentators adopt this view (e.g., Lock 1929: 47; O’Brien 1999: 293 [tentatively]; Hoehner 2002: 528 [non explicitly]; Williamson 2009: 115 [non explicitly]).

Smith’s article, ‘Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8’, denied that Ephesians drew upon a pre-targumic tradition because the basis of an agreement with Eph. 4.8 is only one word (1975: 188). Instead, he argued that ‘the controlling factor’ for the author of Ephesians ‘[is a] grammatical-historical understanding of the text quoted’ (1975: 189). For Smith, the pinnacle of Psalm 68 is v. 19, which speaks of God ascending into his sanctuary, accompanied by his heavenly retinue and a band of prisoners. He reads the phrase םדאב תנבמב חקל as indicating that Mda are the gifts; the noun introduced by ב belongs to the essence of the thing talked about (Joüon 2006: §133c). In a strange twist, however, Smith connected God’s ‘captives’ (יבש̇) with the Levites by suggesting an intertextual connection between Psalm 68 and Numbers 8 and 18 (cf. Lock 1929: 47). In Numbers, Israel’s God spoke of ‘receiving’ Levites from among the Israelite people (e.g., Num. 8.6, 14) and then ‘giving’ them back to the people (e.g., Num. 18.6). The ministry of the Levites, in turn, made it possible for God to dwell among his people (cf. Ps. 68.19). According to Smith, these intertextual connections further allowed the author of Ephesians to make the point that ‘God has chosen special men as leaders of the community of believers’ (1975: 188), a connection salient to Eph. 4.11-13.

Although a few have found Smith’s reading inviting (e.g., Miller 1981: 62; O’Brien 1999: 293), it is instructive to note that very few (if any?) commentators on the Hebrew Psalter take this view. Indeed, one wonders: what did Smith mean by ‘grammatical-historical’ when he used it in relationship to his creative reading? Furthermore, the use of ‘to take captive’ (הנש͘), the verb in collocation with ‘captives’ (ינש͘) in Ps. 68.19, is ubiquitously deployed in adversarial relationships within the Hebrew Bible. This makes Smith’s reading of the Levites as God’s ‘captives’ extremely unlikely.

Penner, in ‘The Enthronement Motif in Ephesians’, argued that Eph. 4.8 is ‘not an altered quotation of Ps. 68:18, but a statement of the central idea of the whole psalm…it abbreviates the psalm’s teaching in encapsulated form’ (1983a: 99; cf. Penner 1983b: 16-17). To accomplish this, he first argued that Hebrew Psalm 68—in its now canonized form—is a literary unity, consisting of an elaborate chiasm with its centre as Ps. 68(67).19 (1983a: 90). He argued that by quoting from this central verse, the author of Ephesians thereby pulled over the entire context of Psalm 68. Additionally, Penner saw the psalm citation in Eph. 4.8 functioning within the broader theme of the enthronement of Christ within Ephesians (e.g., Eph. 1.19-23).

There are several problems with Penner’s view. First, it is contingent upon a highly tentative reconstruction of the structure of Psalm 68. One can hardly broach the literature without encountering the claim that Psalm 68 is ‘the most difficult of the Psalms’ because of the frequency of rare or specialized vocabulary, the structure (or lack thereof) of Psalm 68, and the inclusion of different, archaic styles of expression (e.g., Albright 1950–1951: 7; Dahood 1968: 133; Miller 1973: 102; LePeau 1981: 62; Tate 1990: 170; Kraus 2000: 47; Vincent 2001: 9; Schaefer 2001: 163). Thus, the amount of weight he places upon Ps. 68(67).19 occurring in the middle of a proposed chiasm may not be able to hold under the pressure of these problems. Second, even if one grants his proposed structure, he does not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why altering a verse from the centre of a chiasm may be understood as abbreviating the whole psalm.

Bales wrote a dissertation titled ‘The Meaning and Function of Ephesians 4:9-10 in Both its Immediate and its More General Context’ (2002; cf. 2010: 84-100). Because Eph. 4.9-10 expands upon Eph. 4.8, he devoted an entire chapter to an examination of Eph. 4.7-8. He did not weigh in on the issue of the author’s Vorlage, noting that the presence of ἔδωϰεν rather than ἔλαβες may be drawn from either an alternate text or it may be an ad hoc formulation by the author himself (2002: 171). Yet, he did affirm that Eph. 4.8 drew upon the larger context of the psalm itself, claiming that the text is evoked in order to emphasize christological, ecclesiological and pastoral purposes (2002: 172-73). Finally, he examined the broader context of the Hebrew Psalm 68 in order to shed light on the identity of the ‘captives’ (αἰχμαλωσία) in Eph. 4.8 (2002: 173-81). He argued, similarly to Smith, that the captives are Israelites who have been liberated. In making this connection, the author of Ephesians drew an analogy between Israelites and the Christians he was addressing with respect to their enslaved status (cf. Eph. 2.1-3, 6; 4.1) (cf. Dormandy 1998: 207).

Finally for this section, Gombis, in ‘Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8’, has argued that the author of Ephesians appropriated the imagery of God as a warrior and recast it christologically (2005a; 2005b: 113-28). He argued that a pattern of divine warfare—one evident also in Eph. 1.20–2.22—animates Ephesians and that this pattern makes sense of the citation in Eph. 4.8. The salient point is that this pattern contains an element of blessing after victory and enthronement. With regard to the citation of Ps. 68(67).19, Gombis stated that ‘[t]he author is doing more than citing merely one verse within the psalm in order to provide his Scriptural warrant; rather, he is looking to the movement of the psalm as a whole’ (2005a: 373; cf. Hoehner 2002: 428). That is, for Gombis, Eph. 4.8 is more of a summary exegetical statement than a citation, per se.

Gombis also applied his reading to the following verses (i.e., Eph. 4.9-11), noting that the pattern of divine warfare connects the descent of Christ with his death ‘as the means whereby he triumphed over the powers’ (2005a: 377). The sequencing of the descent and ascent language in Eph. 4.9-10, then, refers to the death (εἰς τὰ ϰατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς) and the exaltation (ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν) of Christ. Helpfully, Gombis (2005a: 378-79) suggested that the interpretation that follows Eph. 4.8 was necessary because the author of Ephesians had to explain that it was Christ, not God, who ascended and was victorious and that this ascension secured divine χάρις for his people.

5. LXX version(s) ➤ New Testament — The author of Ephesians drew from the Greek Scriptures. Those who adopt this view focus upon the possibility that the author of Ephesians has altered Ps. 67.19 himself. As with the previous view, interpreters tend to pay attention to the larger scriptural context of Psalm 67. A few commentators adopt this view (e.g., Thielman 2010: 267; Arnold 2010: 251-52).

The doctoral dissertation of Hinkle, titled ‘Proclaiming Peace: The Use of Scripture in Ephesians’, argued that in Ephesians one sees a later author learning how to read Scripture from Paul (1997: 32). With reference to Ps. 68(67).19 in Eph. 4.8, she suggested that the author of Ephesians altered a Greek version of the psalm from ἔλαβες to ἔδωϰεν, producing a reading that emphasizes the unity of the ‘one body’ (1997: 87-88). Drawing upon the common literary motif of the ‘one body’, Hinkle compared Eph. 4.1-13 with the similar motif within Rom. 12.1-8 and 1 Corinthians 12. Yet, ‘Ephesians departs from Paul’s use of the topos, however, in its introduction of Ps. 68:18’ (1997: 89). Thus, for Hinkle, Ephesians is innovative in evoking Scripture with regard to the unity of the body. Furthermore, she suggests that the text links well with the theme of victory over the powers within Ephesians and is to result in diversity aimed at unity (1997: 88). Given the consensus view that Ephesians is literarily related to Colossians, it is interesting that she did not compare the contexts of Ephesians and Colossians, particularly the development of the motif of ‘one body’ in Col. 3.12-16. A similar critique could be made of Moritz, who acknowledged the significance of this literary relationship, but did not make much of it for interpretive purposes (cf. Moritz 2004: 181-83). A comparison of these contexts might shed greater light upon the evocation of Ps. 68(67).19 in Eph. 4.8.

Gese’s Das Vermächtnis des Apostels: die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief argued that the textual variation in Eph. 4.8 is explained by the influence of Ps. 68(67).12 upon the author’s reflection (1997: 184-85). This verse states that ‘the Lord will give (δώσει) a word to those who bring good news to a large host’. Gese’s view is best summarized:

When interpreted by the author in Eph 4.11, ἔδωϰεν…shows that he has thoroughly understood Ps 68.12 and apparently deliberately combined it with Ps 68.19, to summarize the entirety of Psalm 68 in nuce (1997: 185; my translation).

Following this, Gese briefly surveyed the contents of the psalm, suggesting that the thematic centre of the psalm is the dwelling of God at Zion. This theme is certainly evidenced within the psalm, as are other themes.

Wilder recently wrote an article titled ‘The Use (or Abuse) of Power in High Places: Gifts Given and Received in Isaiah, Psalm 68, and Ephesians 4:8’, which argued that the author of Ephesians altered Ps. 68(67).19 under the influence of Ps. 68(67).35-36 by reading it and Isaiah ‘in concert’ (2010: 185-200). Wilder ran a similar argument to that of R. Harris in his discussion on Testimonies (1920: 41), referring to a curious connection between Psalm 68 and Isaiah in both Ephesians and Justin Martyr (cf. Dial. 39.4-5). The theme of ‘giving’ (δίδωμι) in Ephesians has several OT backdrops (e.g., Isa. 11.2; 42.6 lxx; Ps. 68[67].35-36), according to Wilder. And the inclusion of the psalm citation connects this theme of gift-giving (Eph. 4.7-11) with the themes of exaltation (Eph. 1.3; 2.6; 4.9-10) and subjugation (Eph. 1.21-22; 6.10-20) (Wilder 2010: 198). Thus, Ephesians read Psalm 68(67) with canonical sensitivity. But further, he argued that a close reading of the psalm itself warrants the textual modification found within Ephesians, so that we have no need to speak of the author of Ephesians as abusing the original context (Wilder 2010: 199).

Wilder’s theory is exploratory. It is built upon a view that Ephesians draws upon an Isaianic theme of gift-giving as a strong impetus for the textual alteration of Ps. 68(67).19. It is instructive to note that there are no citations of Isaiah in Ephesians. However, several have plausibly argued that allusions to Isaiah are contained in Eph. 2.13-17 (cf. Isa. 52.7; 57.19) and Eph. 6.10, 14-17 (cf. Isa. 11.4-5; 52.7; 59.17) (e.g., Moritz 1996: 31-36, 187-95; Yoder 1997). This lends credibility to the argument, even if ultimately it fails to convince. The main problem with his view, as with several others, is in the supposition that by the alteration of a verse, Ephesians is reading a text with canonical sensitivity. More on this problem occurs in the final sections.

Analysis

The author of Luke’s Gospel began his volume by noting that ‘many have undertaken to set down an orderly account… I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account’ (Lk. 1.1, 3). This statement provides a helpful analog for our task in the present essay. Some of the positions outlined above have been rehearsed in various commentaries and scholarly articles. Was there need for another rehearsal? In the analysis it was seen that the Vorlage question provided a helpful lens for understanding the various proposals for solving the problem of the citation of Ps. 68(67).19 within Eph. 4.8. The interpretive trends are as follows.

First, although a few interpreters maintained that the author of Ephesians was responsible for the textual alteration (e.g., Penner, Hinkle, Gese, Gombis; cf. Bonsirven 1969: 308; Harmon 1969: 6-7; Thielman 2007: 823), a strong trend was that interpreters have concentrated on the similarity of Tg. Ps. 68.19 (and some also on the Peshitta) in relation to Eph. 4.8. Interpreters have tried, sometimes at great length, to push these traditions back to the earliest possible date (cf. Gordon 2006: 305). Yet, scholars remain very uncertain with reference to the dating of Targum Psalms. Stec (2004: 2), for instance, commented that ‘a very tentative suggestion would be the fourth to sixth century ce, but this is little more than guesswork’. Similarly, Le Déaut (2002: 308-309) opts for a date range extending to the seventh century ce. Thus, the notion that a document as late as Targum Psalms could preserve an interpretive tradition dating back to the first or second century ce warrants caution.

A representative argumentative move is that of McNamara (1978: 80), who stated that ‘[i]t is a reasonable inference that this understanding of Ps 68,19 which we find in the Tg was known to St Paul or to the tradition behind Eph 4,8’. It is interesting to note, however, that McNamara (2010: 235) is more careful in the later revision of this book: ‘[t]he relation of this paraphrase to the Epistle to the Ephesians would be another instance of continuum in exegetical tradition’.

The relationship of Ephesians to Targum Psalms is particularly important with regard to those interpreters who posit that Ephesians is offering a reactionary reading against the association of Moses with Psalm 68(67). For Harris (1996: 180), this also provided an explanation for the language of ‘ascent’ and ‘descent’ in Eph. 4.9-10. Just as Moses ascended the mount and then, subsequently, descended in order to give the people the ‘gift’ of Torah, so the author of Ephesians argues that it was necessary for Christ, following his victorious ascent via his resurrection and exaltation, to descend. However, unless one understands אײבנ השמ in Tg. Ps. 68.19 as corresponding to προφήτας in Eph. 4.11 (Evans 2005b: 577), then it is difficult to connect Moses with Ephesians at this point. This strained reading should be rejected because nowhere within the immediate or broader context of Ephesians is Moses mentioned. While it is possible to understand the reference to τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν (Eph. 2.15) as a cipher for ‘Mosaic law’, this reading is debated (see Yee 2005: 126-36). The larger context concerns the question of how the gentiles will be appropriated into God’s people. Moreover, a possible link that Harris (1994: 212) creates with a law/grace contrast in Eph. 4.7-11 is illegitimate because the author of Ephesians views Israel’s Scriptures as a source for a retrospective reading of the promise of the gospel (cf. Eph. 3.4-6) and for ethical guidance in the present time (cf. Eph. 4.25-26; 5.31; 6.2-3).

A second trend, related to the previous discussion, is the association of Psalm 68(67) with Pentecost, seeing Acts 2 as depicting Christian Pentecost and the giving of the Spirit. This view requires the association of Christ with the Spirit. Lindars associated the idea of ‘the gift of the Spirit’ with the expression ‘he gave gifts (δόματα) to humanity’ in Eph. 4.8. However, Lindars himself recognized the following with reference to Ephesians 4: ‘[t]he unity of the Spirit is mentioned, but when it comes to the description of the charisms, they are made out to be the direct gift of Christ, without mention of the Spirit’ (Lindars 1961: 57). Harris (1996: 182-89, 191-92; cf. Caird 1964: 537) spent considerable energy establishing the identification between Christ and the Spirit, pointing to passages in the undisputed Pauline letters (e.g., Rom. 8.9-10; 2 Cor. 3.17; 1 Cor. 15.45) and Ephesians (e.g., Eph. 1.12-13; 3.14-21; 5.18) that may relate the two. The strongest argument against the association of Christ and the Spirit within Eph. 4.7-11, however, is the pronoun αὐτός in the context of the statement that ‘he who descended is also the one who ascended’ (Eph. 4.10) (pace Best 1998: 386; Muddiman 2001: 196-97). Indeed, without a ‘Spirit Christology’, this reading is untenable and ‘there is simply no such Christology in Paul’ (Fee 1994: 699). It seems best to take this as referring to Christ, who ascended on high and gave gifts to his people (Eph. 4.8). A similar statement, perhaps reflecting a similar traditional formulation of Eph. 4.9-10, is found in Jn 3.13: ‘no one has ascended into heaven (ἀναβέβηϰεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν) except the one who descended from heaven (ὁ ἐϰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ϰαταβάς), the Son of Man’.

A third trend that emerged is that many interpreters do not place their discussion of Eph. 4.8 within the broader sphere of ancient citation practices, but instead prefer to refer to the present passage as an example of ‘midrash pesher’. Despite the success of the ‘midrash pesher’ explanation, objections have been registered against this understanding. Decades ago, Black (1971: 1-29) called into question the usage of ‘midrash pesher’ as a description of Pauline exegetical method, claiming it was anachronistic. More recently, Lim (1997b) has shown that the view that ‘midrash pesher’ existed as a genre of biblical exegesis is problematic. Among the examples he cites is 4Q174 col. iii, 1.14 (4QFlorilegium): ‘The interpretation (שרדמ) is: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Ps 1:1a). The meaning (רשפ) of this word is: they are those who turn aside from the path of [the wicked]’. Here the key terms overlap in meaning and mean something more generic like ‘the interpretation of’ or ‘the instruction of’ (Lim 1997b: 291). Thus, it would seem a bit odd to allow the category of ‘midrash pesher’ to continue to have a life (in this case, a life of its own) in Pauline interpretation even after the very basis of that usage has been challenged (cf. Lim 1997a: 123-39).

Regardless of what one labels the exegetical practice, the variation from λαμβάνω (‘to receive’) to δίδωμι (‘to give’) has been used to indict the author of Ephesians, claiming that he ‘completely disregards the original context of the Psalm’ (Fitzmyer 1961: 325). The emphasis upon the fact that Ps. 68(67).19 is ‘misquoted’ within Eph. 4.8 needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Stanley (1992: 253), commenting on the citation practices within the undisputed Pauline letters, wrote that ‘there appears to be no correlation between the way a citation is introduced and the degree to which it adheres to the biblical wording’. That is, the presence of a formula of introduction is no guarantor of fidelity to the wording of the Vorlage. Further, Stanley identified that in nearly half of the instances where the Pauline citations deviate from the Septuagint tradition, the change can be attributed to Paul himself ‘with confidence’ (1992: 252-61). The implications of Stanley’s study should be considered with regard to Ephesians. To indict the author of Ephesians as ‘misquoting’ Israel’s Scripture in Eph. 4.8 is to misconstrue ancient citation practices.

A fourth trend is that sufficient attention has not always been given to the christological interpretation of the author of Ephesians by the evocation of Ps. 68(67).19. For example, Harris (1996: 170), describing the innovative interpretative use of Ps. 68(67).19, wrote that ‘[t]he innovation on the part of our author lay not in the use of the psalm in a christological sense’. This may be because Harris (and other interpreters) take(s) the opinion that here the author is citing from a known textual tradition or traditional statement and not from Israel’s Scriptures directly. A similar view is found in Longenecker (1999: 108), who wrote that ‘both the text form itself and the deductions drawn from it were widely accepted as being traditional within early Christianity, and so should not be considered strictly Pauline creations’. While this is possible, it is instructive to recall a helpful point made by Richard Hays in his volume Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul:

We should, however, be wary of interpretations that say in effect, ‘Don’t blame Paul for this crazy idea: he didn’t invent it’. Paul adheres no less firmly to the traditions that he uses than to the ideas that he coins (1989: 13).

Hays’s observation is on point. Above it was seen that several interpreters (e.g., Taylor, Floor and Viljoen) have downplayed the author of Ephesians’ interpretive contribution because they believe the citation came from interpretative traditions rather than personal interpretive reflection. In light of Hays’s observation, a hermeneutical account must be given—whether or not the author of Ephesians altered the text himself—for the citation as we find it within Eph. 4.8. As was seen above, the dominant approach to the hermeneutical appropriation of Psalm 68(67) among interpreters was that of drawing an analogy (e.g., Cambier, Taylor, Floor and Viljoen, Smith, Miller, Bales). Just as God ascended his holy mountain in victory, so also Christ ascended ‘into the heavenlies’ (ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις) defeating his cosmic enemies. However, only a few major treatments have begun to reflect upon the theological significance of the identification of Χριστός (Eph. 4.7) with the ϰύριος of Ps. 67.19. Cambier (1963: 265) picked up on this significant identification, commenting that ϰύριος in Ps. 68(67).19 ‘a pu faciliter la transposition de la phrase au Christ’ (could facilitate transposition of the sentence to Christ). More recently Gombis (2005a: 378-79) has observed that Christ is included in the divine identity by means of his depiction as a Divine Warrior (cf. Bauckham 1998: 46). And Fee (2007: 356-59) has included Eph. 4.8 among several passages where Christ is understood as ϰύριος.

The final trend that emerged is the use of the Hebrew Bible for consideration of the OT context of Psalm 68(67). With only few exceptions (e.g., Hinkle, Gese, Wilder), interpreters focused their efforts primarily upon the Hebrew Bible. This is somewhat surprising considering that interpreters have long noted the significance of the Septuagint for studying the use of Israel’s Scriptures in Ephesians (e.g., Lincoln 1982: 45). However, because of the unique factors seen above—i.e., the possible al-tikrei reading or the relationship to a pre-targumic tradition—few interpreters have followed that observation through, providing an examination in relation to Psalm 67 lxx discretely. One example will suffice to make the point. In his analysis of Eph. 4.8, Moritz rejected a view of the structural unity presented by Penner (1983a: 90-99), wherein Ps. 68.19 functions as the centre point of an elaborate chiasm. Moritz’s argument, based upon an analysis of the Hebrew text, is that the centre point is Ps. 68.20. Thus, Moritz (1996: 66; cf. Moritz 2004: 191) concluded that ‘I would hold that [Ps. 68.19] is not the focal point of the Psalm and would question [Penner’s] explanation that Ephesians quoted [Ps. 68.19] because of its structural significance’. This, however, is to say nothing of the structure of the Greek Psalm. In that context, one finds additional words (e.g., Ps. 67.3, 12, 14, 18, 19, 25, 28, 31, 36) or phrases (e.g., Ps. 67.5, 34), omissions (e.g., Ps. 67.9, 29), and differing syntactical relationships (e.g., Ps. 67.3, 7, 19).

Conclusions

Because of the enormous body of literature on the use of Israel’s Scripture in the NT generally, and on the citation of Ps. 68(67).19 within Eph. 4.8 specifically, this has only been a representative sample of the views espoused. Nevertheless, the key interpreters surveyed clearly delineate several interpretive trends that were outlined above. In addition to these, we offer three suggestions for further research on this notorious crux.

First, studies on this text would do well to consider hermeneutical questions of the author of Ephesians’ approach to citations of Scripture. We saw that both Moritz and Hinkle provided analyses of the use of Israel’s Scripture in Ephesians. Hinkle’s larger thesis—that the author of Ephesians has learned to read Scripture from the canonical Paul—shed light upon the function of Scripture in Ephesians. As noted above, this approach should be used with respect to Colossians, a text that is literarily related to Ephesians (Hengel 1983: 79). Moritz (1996: 219; cf. Moritz 2004: 181-83) acknowledged this approach in his own work, but at the end of his study he concluded that ‘[t]he relationship between Ephesians and Colossians was not at the centre of this investigation’.

Second, drawing from the observations above, there is need for interpreters to consider the Septuagint text discretely when examining the broader context from whence a citation comes. It is methodologically problematic to insist on the significance of the Greek Bible for Ephesians, on the one hand, only to turn and examine the Hebrew context, on the other.

Third, the polarizing opinions that the author of Ephesians either summarizes the entirety of the psalm (e.g., Smith, Penner, Gese, Gombis, Wilder) or ‘misquotes’ Ps. 68(67).19 (various interpreters) needs to be abandoned. The former appears to be something of an effort to counter the accusation of the latter. The latter is a pejorative label that does not judge the author of Ephesians by the ‘rules of the game’ of Jewish biblical exegesis (Juel 1988: 56-57). To accuse Ephesians of ‘misquoting’ in this manner would require the same accusation to be issued against many other interpreters of the era (e.g., Qumran pesherists, Philo). The work of Francis Watson can helpfully be invoked when he argued that Paul (in Romans and Galatians) offers a ‘reading’ of Scripture rather than an ‘exegesis’ of it. The latter is obliged to account for everything (significant) in the text but a ‘reading’ is a ‘construal of the whole from a particular perspective’ (Watson 2004: 515). For the author of Ephesians, both the perspective and the reading offered is that Christ is the ϰύριος of Ps. 67.19 lxx.

References

Abbott

T.K.

1897 The Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Albright

W.F.

1950–1951 ‘A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII)’, HUCA 23: 1-39.

Aletti

J.-N., SJ

2001 Saint Paul Épître aux Éphésiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire (EBib, 42; Paris: J. Gabalda).

Arnold

C.E.

2010 Ephesians (ZECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Arzi

2007 ‘Al Tikrei’, in Skolnik

Berenbaum

(eds.), Encyclopedia Judaica: Second Edition (22 vols.; London: Thomason Gale): 2:20.

Bales

W.A.

2002 ‘The Meaning and Function of Ephesians 4:9-10 in Both its Immediate and its More General Context’ (PhD diss., Catholic University of America).

Bales

W.A.

2010 ‘The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9’, CBQ 72.1: 84-100.

Barrett

C.K.

1994 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Barth

1974 Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (AB, 34; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

10.

Bauckham

1998 God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster).

11.

Beker

J.C.

1991 Heirs of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress).

12.

Best

1998 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

13.

Black

1971 ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, NTS 18.1: 1-14.

14.

Bock

D.L.

1987 Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

15.

Bonsirven

1969 Exégèse Rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne).

16.

Bouttier

1991 L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Éphésiens (CNT, 9b; Geneva: Labor et Fides).

17.

Brownlee

W.H.

1951 ‘Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, BA 14.3: 54-76.

18.

Caird

G.B.

1964 ‘The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7-11’, in Cross

F.L.

(eds.), Studia Evangelica II. Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Christ Church Oxford, 1961 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag): 535-45.

19.

Cambier

1963 ‘La Signification Christologique d’Eph. IV.7-10’, NTS 9.3: 262-75.

20.

Chase

F.H.

1902 The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan).

21.

Dahood

1968 Psalms II: 51–100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company).

22.

de Jonge

1978 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG; Leiden: Brill).

23.

Dodd

C.H.

1952 According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet).

24.

Dormandy

1998 ‘The Ascended Christ and His Gifts’, ExpTim 109: 206-207.

25.

Dupont

1973 ‘Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33’, in Lindars

Smalley

S.S.

(eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 219-28.

26.

Ellis

E.E.

1957 Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

27.

Evans

C.A.

1993 ‘Listening for Echoes of Interpreted Scripture’, in Evans

C.A.

Sanders

J.A.

(eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; SSEJC, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 47-51.

28.

Evans

C.A.

2005a Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

29.

Evans

C.A.

2005b ‘Praise and Prophecy in the Psalter and in the New Testament’, in Flint

P.W.

Miller

P.D.

Jr. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill): 551-79.

30.

Fee

G.D.

1994 God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

31.

Fee

G.D.

2007 Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

32.

Fitzmyer

J.A.

1961 ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7.4: 297-333.

33.

Fitzmyer

J.A.

1998 The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 31; New York: Doubleday).

34.

Floor

Viljoen

F.P.

2003 ‘Paulus se gebruik van Psalm 68 in Efesiërs 4’, IDS 37.2: 183-201.

35.

Gese

1997 Das Vermächtnis des Apostels: die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief (WUNT, 2.99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

36.

Gnilka

1982 Der Epheserbrief (HTKNT, 10; Freiburg: Herder).

37.

Gombis

T.G.

2005a ‘Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8’, NovT 47.4: 367-80.

38.

Gombis

T.G.

2005b ‘The Triumph of God in Christ: Divine Warfare in the Argument of Ephesians’ (PhD diss., University of St. Andrews).

39.

Gordon

R.P.

2006 ‘The Targumists as Eschatologists’, in Gordon

R.P.

(ed.), Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions: Selected Essays of Robert P. Gordon (Hants: Ashgate): 303-16.

40.

Harmon

A.M.

1969 ‘Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Psalms’, WTJ 32.1: 1-23.

41.

Harris

J.R.

1920 Testimonies: Part II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

42.

Harris

W.H.

III

1988 ‘The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7-11: An Exegetical Investigation with Special Reference to the Influence of Traditions about Moses Associated with Psalm 68:19’ (PhD diss., University of Sheffield).

43.

Harris

W.H.

III

1994 ‘The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10’, BSac 151: 198-214.

44.

Harris

W.H.

III

1996 The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery (AGJU, 32; Leiden: Brill).

45.

Hays

R.B.

1989 Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

46.

Hengel

1983 Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. Bowden

John

; London: SCM Press).

47.

Hinkle

M.E.

1997 ‘Proclaiming Peace: The Use of Scripture in Ephesians’ (PhD diss., Duke University).

48.

Hoehner

H.W.

1998 Review of W.H. Harris, III, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery, in BSac 155: 497-99.

49.

Hoehner

H.W.

2002Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

50.

Hübner

1992 ‘New Testament, OT Quotations in the’, in Freedman

D.N.

(ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday): 4: 1096-1104.

51.

Joüon

Muraoka

2006 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico).

52.

Juel

D.H.

1988 Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress).

53.

Kee

H.C.

1983 ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, in Charlesworth

J.H.

(ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson):1: 775-828.

54.

Koch

D.-A.

1986 Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

55.

Kraus

H.-J.

2000 Psalms 60–150 (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress).

56.

Le Déaut

2002 ‘Targum’, in Cazelles

Briend

(eds.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible: Targum (Paris: Letouzey & Ané): 308-309.

57.

LePeau

J.P.

1981 ‘Psalm 68: An Exegetical and Theological Study’ (PhD diss., University of Iowa).

58.

Lim

T.H.

1997a Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

59.

Lim

T.H.

1997b ‘Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters’, in Porter

S.E.

Evans

C.A.

(eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 280-92.

60.

Lincoln

A.T.

1981 Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS, 43; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

61.

Lincoln

A.T.

1982 ‘The Use of the OT in Ephesians’, JSNT 14: 16-57.

62.

Lincoln

A.T.

1990 Ephesians (WBC, 42; Waco, TX: Word Books).

63.

Lindars

SSF

1961 New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM Press).

64.

Lindemann

1975 Die Aufhebung der Zeit: Geschichtsverständnis und Eschatologie im Epheserbrief (SNT, 12; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus).

65.

Lock

1929 The Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Methuen).

66.

Longenecker

R.N.

1999 Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

67.

MacDonald

M.Y.

2000 Colossians and Ephesians (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

68.

Maurer

1951–1952 ‘Der Hymnus von Epheser 1 als Schlüssel zum ganzen Briefe’, EvT 11: 151-72.

69.

McNamara

1978 The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).

70.

McNamara

2010 Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

71.

Miller

1981 ‘The Use of Psalm 68:19 in Ephesians 4:8’ (ThM diss., Grace Theological Seminary).

72.

Miller

P.D.

Jr.

1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM, 5; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

73.

Mitton

C.L.

1976 Ephesians (NCB; London: Oliphants).

74.

Moritz

1996 A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians (NovTSup, 85; Leiden: Brill).

75.

Moritz

2004 ‘The Psalms in Ephesians and Colossians’, in Moyise

Menken

M.J.J.

(eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark): 181-96.

76.

Muddiman

2001 The Epistle to the Ephesians (BNTC; London: Continuum).

77.

O’Brien

P.T.

1999 The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

78.

O’Toole

R.F.

1983 ‘Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost’, JBL 102.2: 245-58.

79.

Penner

1983a ‘The Enthronement Motif in Ephesians’ (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary).

80.

Penner

1983b ‘The Enthronement of Christ in Ephesians’, Direction 12.3: 12-19.

81.

Pervo

R. I.

2009 Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress).

82.

Pflammater

1987 Epheserbrief, Kolosserbrief (Würzburg: Echter).

83.

Porter

C.L.

1966 ‘Descent of Christ: An Exegetical Study of Ephesians 4:7-11’, in Simpson

R.L.

(ed.), One Faith: Its Biblical, Historical, and Ecumenical Dimensions (Enid, OK: Phillips University Press): 45-55.

84.

Qualls

Watts

J.D.W.

1996 ‘Isaiah in Ephesians’, RevExp 93: 249-59.

85.

Rubinkiewicz

1975 ‘Ps LXVIII 19 (= Eph IV 8) Another Textual Tradition or Targum?’, NovT 17.3: 219-24.

86.

Schaefer

2001 Psalms (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

87.

Schlier

1971 Der Brief an die Epheser: Ein Kommentar (Düsseldorf: Patmos).

88.

Schnackenburg

1982 Der Brief an die Epheser (EKKNT, 10; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener).

89.

Scholtus

2010 ‘Exégesis e interpretación paulina de Salmos 68:18 en Efesios 4:8-10’, DavarLogos 9.2: 171-86.

90.

Schwindt

2002 Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes: Eine religionsgeschichtlich-exegetische Studie (WUNT, 148; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

91.

Smith

G.V.

1975 ‘Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8’, JETS 18: 181-89.

92.

Stanley

C.D.

1992 Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

93.

Stanley

C.D.

2004 Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T&T Clark).

94.

Stec

D.M.

2004 The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 16; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

95.

Talbert

C.H.

2005 Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (rev. edn; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys).

96.

Tate

M.E.

1990 Psalms 51–100 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books).

97.

Taylor

R.A.

1991 ‘The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient Versions’, BSac 148: 319-36.

98.

Thackeray

H.St.J.

1900 The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan).

99.

Thackeray

H.St.J.

1921 The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University Press).

100.

Thielman

2007 ‘Ephesians’, in Beale

G.K.

Carson

D.A.

(eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Nottingham: Apollos/InterVarsity Press): 813-34.

101.

Thielman

2010 Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

102.

Vincent

M.A.

2001 ‘From Sinai to Jerusalem: A Study of the Hebrew Text of Psalm 68’ (PhD diss., University of Durham).

103.

Watson

2004 Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark).

104.

Wilder

W.N.

2010 ‘The Use (or Abuse) of Power in High Places: Gifts Given and Received in Isaiah, Psalm 68, and Ephesians 4:8’, BBR 20.2: 185-200.

105.

Williamson

P.S.

2009 Ephesians (CCSS; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

106.

Witherington

III

2007 The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

107.

Yee

T.-L.N.

2005 Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians (SNTSMS, 130; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

108.

Yoder Neufeld

T.R.

1997 ‘Put on the Armour of God’: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians (JSNTSup, 140; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).