BIBLICAL INTERTEXTUALITY:

EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED

by Mykola Leliovskyi

Submitted to Prof. Tim Dane

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF THEOLOGY

European Bible Training Center

Berlin, Germany

May 1, 2015

1

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dear friend and mentor Dr. Abner Chou

whose dedication to accurately handling the word of truth and servant-minded attitude has

encouraged me to tackle this issue and whose advice and direction has been appreciated

greatly in the analysis of Paul’s use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8.

May God receive all the glory and honor for raising up faithful men like Dr. Chou to

shepherd His Flock and lead them in imitating Christ.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

DEFINITION OF INTERTEXTUALITY ........................................................................... 6

METHOD EXPLAINED .................................................................................................... 9

METHOD ILLUSTRATED ............................................................................................. 14

Analysis of Psalm 68 ..................................................................................................... 14

Analysis of Ephesians .................................................................................................... 22

Analysis of Paul’s logic in quoting Psalm 68:18 ............................................................ 24

Synthesis ....................................................................................................................... 31

3

INTRODUCTION

Without question, the issue of the New Testament’s use of the Old is one of the

most difficult challenges in interpreting the Bible. According to a very conservative count,

there are quotations of the Old Testament on virtually every page of the new. Some 295

quotations of the Old Testament that actually occupy 352 verses of the New Testament,

which means that the New Testament uses the Old every 22 verses.1 It goes without saying

that one must not forget about a large number of Old Testament allusions ranging from

about 600 to 1, 600 and even up to 4,100.2

Although in the vast majority of instances the Apostolic hermeneutic3 does not raise

any objections, there are a several cases where modern scholars struggle to follow their

logic and the rationale behind it.4 Especially challenging for those espousing the traditional

1 Roger Nicole, “The Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Expositor’s Bible

Commentary: Introductory Articles, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 617. Another scholar references 401 quotations (and

allusions supplied with a brealdown book by book) on the basis of UBS Greek text (1st ed.), see

K. Snodgrass, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in G.K. Beale, ed., Right Doctrine

from the Wrong Text?, 35.

2 Nicole, “The Old Testament in the New Testament,” 617.

3 The term “apostolic hermeneutic” is used to refer to the New Testament’s authors use of

Scripture.

4 For instance, S. L. Edgar, “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament,”

New Testament Studies 9 (1962–63): 55-62; S. V. McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,”

in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

1994), 146-52; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Biblical and

Theological Classics Library (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 115-

17. Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green, “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament

Writers,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 223-27.

4

historical-grammatical hermeneutics5 and its foundational principle of single meaning is

the fact that at first glance these uses of the Old in the New Testament do not seem

contextual.6 Good biblical scholars have proposed different approaches to explaining the

Apostolic hermeneutic,7 and the debate continues.8

5 The purpose of the paper is not to prove the validity of the historical-grammatical

hermeneutics. This method is proven well by the test of time and, hence, is assumed valid by the

present author. As Milton Terry properly says, “[a] fundamental principle [for biblical

interpretation] is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers

intended to convey” (Terry, 1885, 173). This can only be accomplished by interpreting the text

according to the authorial intent expressed through original grammar and in a particular historical

setting.

6 Ryle’s warning still rings true, “I hold it to be a most dangerous mode of interpreting

Scripture, to regard everything which its words may be tortured into meaning as a lawful

interpretation of the words. I hold undoubtedly that there is a mighty depth in all Scripture, and

that in this respect it stands alone. But I also hold that the words of Scripture were intended to

have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere

rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all

other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say words do mean a thing, merely

because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of

handling Scripture” (Ryle, 1953, 2:383, quoted in Kaiser, 2008, 46). Terry agrees, “[a]

fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have

but one signification in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we

drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.” (Terry, 1885, 205).

7 Darrell Bock in his two-part article, “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in

the New,” identified four schools within Evangelicalism: 1) The Full Human Intent School

(Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.); 2) The Divine Intent-Human Words School (S. Lewis Johnson, James I.

Packer, Elliot E. Johnson); 3) The Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic

School (Earle E. Ellis, Richard Longenecker, Walter Dunnett); and 4) The Canonical Approach

and New Testament Priority School (Bruce K. Waltke).

8 A good assessment of the current debate can be found in Michael J. Vlach, “New

Testament Use of the Old Testament: A Survey of Where the Debate Currently Stands,”

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/files/resources/nt_use_of_ot_for_ets_2011.pdf, accessed 3-27-

2015.

5

The goal of this study is not to do an exhaustive analysis of what has been written

on this topic, for the amount and diversity of what has been said is immense. The goal of

this study is to address and illustrate the concept of intertextuality in biblical studies and to

demonstrate that it can be a helpful tool for understanding how the New Testament authors

used the Old Testament contextually, that is in accordance with its literal, grammatical, and

historical context.

6

DEFINITION OF INTERTEXTUALITY

The issue of intertextuality has recently gained wide and varying attention

especially within comparative literature and cultural criticism circles.9 The term, reaching

back to the work of poststructuralist literary critic Julia Kristeva (though building on the

concept of dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin), can mean many things in contemporary literary

theory.10 Perhaps, due to the fact of this stained pedigree, intertextuality is considered by

some an “unnecessary intrusion” into the field of biblical studies and a “fad,”11 or even an

“-ism” more appropriately associated with a “bogus system.”12 However, putting the

secular literary circles aside,

In biblical studies, “intertextuality” is sometimes used merely to refer to the

procedure by which a later biblical text refers to an earlier text, how that earlier text

enhances the meaning of the later, or and how the later one creatively develops the

earlier meaning. In this respect, “intertextuality” may be seen as a procedure of

inner-biblical or intrabiblical exegesis, which is crucial to doing biblical theology

and understanding the relation of the ОТ to the NT.13

9 George Aichele and Gary A. Phillips, “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,”

Semeia 69-70: 5. Intertextuality that is associated with the New Hermeneutic or has a

deconstructionist agenda is sometimes referred to as “progressive intertextuality” (Chou, 2007,

57).

10 David G. Firth, “When Samuel Met Esther: Narrative Focalisation, Intertextuality, and

Theology,” Southeastern Theological Review 1: 21.

11 Stanley E. Porter, “Use of Old Testament in the New: A Brief Comment on Method

and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigation and

Proposals, edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. The Library of New Testament Studies 148,

84-85.

12 Robert L. Thomas, “Biblical Hermeneutics: Foundational Considerations,” Chafer

Theological Seminary Journal, Volume 13, no. 2 (2008): 43.

13 G.K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and

Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 40.

7

Since, intertextuality, simply put, is the use of texts by other texts it is indispensable to

biblical interpretation in light of the fact that the Scriptures are full of intertextual

connections.

These intrabiblical associations, however, appear with varying degrees of clarity.

Sometimes the inner-biblical link can be as clear as an obvious quotation and other times it

can be a hardly noticeable inconspicuous allusion, or “echo.”14 This, of course, is not a

breakthrough in biblical exegesis. For instance, Terry writes,

In comparing Scripture with Scripture, and tracing the parallel and analogous

passages of the several sacred writers, the interpreter continually meets with

quotations, more or less exact, made by one writer from another… The verbal

variations of many of these citations, the formulas and methods of quotation, and

the illustrations they furnish of the purposes and uses of the Holy Scriptures, are all

matters of great importance to the biblical exegete.

What is of tremendous aid to the interpreter, though, is the realization of the fact that these

intertextual connections are also interactions of context. As Jobes explains,

When two texts are juxtaposed, as occurs when an OT text is quoted in the Pauline

epistles, an intertextual space is defined that forms a new interpretive context.

Concepts from each text mutually play upon and amplify one another within this

intertextual space. Because a previously existing text is being evoked from a

subsequently written text, Hays refers to instances of this intertextual play as

echoes. These echoes cannot be understood either within the original context alone

or within the new context alone, but must be viewed from within the context of the

14 See Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1989), 29-30. To illustrate these barely noticeably echoes Hays draws attention

to the possible link between Philippians 1:19 and Job 13:16. Despite the fact that Hays’ efforts to

stimulate exegetes to explore the intertextual associations between Paul and OT is very

commendable, his reader-response hermeneutical paradigm places his ultimate conclusions

outside the bounds of legitimate biblical interpretation.

8

newly created intertextual space.15

In other words, intertextuality explores not only the nature of the relationship between the

texts and their contexts, but also the “progression of thought from the referred passage to

the passage at hand.”16

15 Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians

4:21-31,” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 305.

16 Abner T. Chou, “Hermeneutical Implications of Old Testament Intertextuality on

Redemptive History,” (Master of Divinity thesis, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, 2005), 26.

9

METHOD EXPLAINED

It goes without saying that before one can analyze the intertextual connections in

the Bible, one must first identify them.17 In biblical studies, the pendulum has swung from

parallelomania to parallelophobia over the past decades.18 As with most other things in life,

the biblical exegete must avoid these extremes and stick to the proverbial golden mean.

This means that, on the one hand, not every vague similarity in phraseology or context

constitutes a legitimate intertextual connection.19 On the other hand, though, possible

parallels should not be brushed aside without careful investigation, especially if one is

dealing with a passage that presents an interpretive difficulty.

17 The fourfold method proposed below is adapted from Chou, “Hermeneutical

Implications,” 28-32. For similar approaches see also Abner T. Chou, “Multy-Textuality: A

Study of Intertextuality, Authorial Logic, and Exegesis,”

https://www.academia.edu/596673/Multi-

Textuality_A_Study_of_Intertextuality_Authorial_Logic_and_Exegesis, accessed 3-27-2015,.

Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 278; Hays, Echoes, 29-34;

Beale, Handbook on the NT’s use of the OT, 41-54.

18 G. A. Klingbeil, “Ecclesiastes 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background,” ed. Tremper

Longman III and Peter Enns, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings

(Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 133.

19 E.g. Paul R. Noble, “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical

Allusions,” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002), 222-24. Noble is actually referring to the findings of

G. A. Rendsburg, D. M. Carr, and F. van Dijk Heimnmes in a critical review of their

methodology. The examples include the fact that Hirah=Hiram, the daughter of Shua=Bathseba,

Onan=Amnon, Shela=Solomon, and Tamar corresponds with Tamar (pg. 222). Furthermore,

each Tamar of the story was mistreated by a brother-in-law (pg 223). They both must leave their

homes and live in another place (pg. 224). The perpetrators of their crimes both end up dead, one

at the hand of YHWH (Onan) and the other at the hand of Absalom (Amnon) (pg. 224).

Moreover, Judah and David may have connections in that both commit “major sins and are

embarrassed into admitting their guilt” (pg. 226). The list of supposed correspondences goes on.

Further examples of this parallelomania of sorts is found in Gershon Hepner, “Verbal Resonance

in the Bible and Intertextuality,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001): 3-27

(cited in Chou, Multi-Textuality).

10

The suggested method consists of four steps. The first one consists in identifying

the intertextual connection, the other three deal with its analysis. From the very outset, it

must be understood that although the matter is sometimes complicated, the perspicuous

nature of God’s revelation in Scripture presupposes the success of intertextual studies by

exegete who handles the Bible accurately.20 On the bright side, scholars have noted that

biblical authors typically leave behind “a matrix of context,” which clues the reader in on

the author’s intention in relation to a particular allusion to previous Scriptural revelation.21

Therefore, as a rule of thumb, the more obvious the use of the Old Testament in the New,

the more attentive and diligent the study of intertextual connections should be.

That said, citations (that is word-for-word reproductions of the text) have an

introductory formulas such as “as it is written” (Rom. 9:13), “have you not read this

scripture” (Mark 12:10-11), etc.22 Many if not most word-for-word quotations without the

introductory formula have also been identified in the critical editions of the Greek New

Testament.23 Criteria for identifying allusions to the Old Testament in the New, however,

20 Furthermore, Grant Osborn is correct to note that message of Scripture is not lost due

to a missed allusion, rather one only loses depth and precision (1991, 134).

21 Robert L. Brawley, “An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29,”

Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 434, 439.

22 David E. Aune, “Quotations,” in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament Early

Christian Literature and Rhetoric, ed. David E. Aune (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,

2003), 395. In addition to citations Aune’s helpful article discusses quotations (word-for-word

reproductions of the text without the introductory formula), allusions (references the author

assumes the readers will recognize due to sufficiently distinctive words to be traced to a known

text) and echoes (subtler than an allusion, a relatively faint reference to a text).

23 Beale, Handbook on the NT’s use of the OT, 35.

11

have been the subject of some scholarly debate.24 One important remark must be made at

this point. As Osborn correctly observes, the message of Scripture is not lost due to a

missed allusion, rather one only loses depth and precision.25 An interpreter whose goal is to

24 A full discussion of this topic is outside the scope of this paper. In his seminal work on

the subject, Hays proposes the following seven criteria for identifying OT allusions\echoes: 1)

Availability. The source text (the Greek or Hebrew ОТ) must be available to the writer. The

writer would have expected his audience on a first or subsequent reading to recognize the

intended allusion; 2) Volume. There is a significant degree of verbatim repetition of words or

syntactical patterns. 3) Recurrence. There are references in the immediate context (or elsewhere

by the same author) to the same ОТ context from which the purported allusion derives. 4)

Thematic Coherence. The alleged ОТ allusion is suitable and satisfying in that its meaning in the

ОТ not only thematically fits into the NT writer’s argument but also illuminates it. 5) Historical

Plausibility. There is plausibility that the NT writer could have intended such an allusion and that

the audience could have understood the NT writer’s use of it to varying degrees, especially on

subsequent readings of his letters. Nevertheless, it is always possible that readers may not pick up

an allusion intended by an author (this part of the criterion appears to have some overlap with the

first). Also, if it can be demonstrated that the NT writer’s use of the ОТ has parallels and

analogies to other contemporary Jewish uses of the same ОТ passages, then this may enhance the

validity of the allusion. 6) History of Interpretation. It is important to survey the history of the

interpretation of the NT passage in order to see if others have observed the allusion. Yet this is

one of the least reliable criteria in recognizing allusions. Though a study of past interpretation

may reveal the possible allusions proposed by others, it can also lead to a narrowing of the pos-

sibilities since commentators can tend to follow earlier commentators and since commentary

tradition always has the possibility of distorting or misinterpreting and losing the fresh and

creative approach of the NT writers’ inter textual collocations. 7) Satisfaction. With or without

confirmation from the preceding six criteria, does the proposed allusion and its interpretative

usage make sense in the immediate context? Does it illuminate the surrounding context? Does it

enhance the rhetorical punch of the point being made by the NT writer? Does the use of the

allusion result in a satisfying account of how the author intended the allusion and how this use of

the allusion would have made its effect upon the reader? (Hays, 1989, 29-32, summarized in

Beale, 2012, 33). Hays expands on these in Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination:

Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. For

interaction and criticism of Hays’criteria see Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the

Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 28-34; Porter,

Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed.

Porter, S. E. and Stanley, C. D., SBL Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical

Literature, 2008), 29-40.

25 Grant Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 134.

12

handle the Scriptures accurately must carefully consider the validity of each allusion and

avoid questionable strong conclusions based on doubtful echoes.

Having identified either an explicit intertextual connection (citation, quotation) or

an implicit one (a key word, allusion or echo), the interpreter can proceed to the next step,

i.e. thorough exegesis of all interconnected biblical texts. Stephen Moyise correctly

emphasizes thorough exegesis includes the analysis of intertextual relationships that each

“referred text” has, since “no text is an island.”26

Thirdly, having firmly grasped the authorial intention expressed in the context and

content of both the original and referred to passages, the interpreter can proceed to the

analysis of the authorial logic and intent behind the intertextual connection with particular

attention to the “clues” the New Testament author embedded in the context surrounding his

use of the Old Testament.27 As Chou observes,

[D]epending on the context, the connection may be simple; namely, the author

directly utilized the perspective and significance of the referred to OT passage. It

also could be complex: the author is making use of his reference as a key passage in

a long line of development in progressive revelation and redemptive history. Only

by careful weighing and comparing the exegesis of both the referred to text and the

passage of current study can one define such an association.28

Finally, the interpreter must answer the question, “what exactly is the author

26 Stephen Moyise, “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New

Testament,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, ed.

Steve Moyise (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 37.

27 As Zuck notes (1991, 253-54), of particular importance are the introductory phrases.

28 Chou, “Hermeneutical Implications,” 31.

13

claiming about the Old Testament text?” and how it fits with the argument he is making. In

other words, the results of intertextual analysis must be incorporated into the exegesis of

the passage in question. Hence, it is crucial to remember that “[i]ntertextuality in no way

substitutes for sound exegesis, rather it is supplementary to the results of the application of

literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutics” (italics original).29 To summarize:

When there is intertextuality (e.g. New Testament use of the Old Testament), one

first recognizes that this is an author controlled phenomena. The author has

involved a text in the Scriptures with his own inspired text. This interaction is not

merely between texts but also between the redemptive-historical contexts that are

tied with each respective text. Furthermore, the writer assumes that through his

clues that the readers will grasp his logic in getting from the Old Testament passage

to the New Testament. The basis for such an assumption is the common

understanding of Scripture that the author and readers share. Such logic is not

merely a juxtaposition of the meaning of both texts on top of each other but rather is

logic – a progression of thought.30

29 Ibid.

30 Chou, “Multy-Textuality.”

14

METHOD ILLUSTRATED

The concept of biblical intertextuality will be illustrated by the analysis of Paul’s

use of Psalm 68:18 (68:19 MT; 67:19 LXX) in Ephesians 4:8. This particular text is chosen

because, on the one hand, the citation of the Old Testament is obvious, yet, on the other, it

leaves many interpreters puzzled.31

Analysis of Psalm 68

Psalm 68 is a riddle of sorts. It has a reputation of being one of the most, if not the

most, textually and exegetically obscure psalm in the Bible.32 Historical-critical theories

aside,33 a high number of hapax legomena and low-frequency words in the psalm,34 and a

good deal of uncertainty about its exact historical setting are surely to blame for it.35 The

title ascribes this song to David, which has not gone uncontested, especially because of the

31 E.g., “Here Paul completely disregards the original context of the Psalm in order to

retain the words ‘he went up’ and ‘he gave’“ (Fitzmyer, 1960-61, 325).

32 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, Anchor Bible, vol. 17 (Garden City: Doubleday,

1968), 133; Clinton J. McCann, The Book of Psalms. The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 4.

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 944; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, vol. 20, Word Biblical

Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1998), 170. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A

Commentary on Psalms 51-100 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 160.

33 Some scholars contend that Psalm 68 lacks any sort of coherent compositional unity

and is an amalgamation of incipits of other psalms (Albright, 1950, 1-39). However, as Tate aptly

remarks, “critical methods have proven to be bankrupt since they destroyed the very discipline

they sought to investigate” (Tate, 1977, 279). Such for critical speculations lack any substance

and arise from naturalistic materialist bias.

34 Tate, Psalms 51-100, 170.

35 Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms: 42-89, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand

Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2013), 464.

15

mention of the “temple” in the text. However, Ross more than capably demonstrates that

there are no serious reasons to abandon the Davidic authorship of Psalm 68.36

Many attempts have been made to identify the psalm’s theme and content with a

particular event in Israel’s history based on its similarity to other praise songs and prayers

in Scripture (e.g., Exodus 15; Numbers 10; Deuteronomy 33; Judges 5 and Habakkuk 3).37

It is impossible to summarize all the proposed scenarios here; rather Goldingay’s insightful

observation must be noted. He writes, “Judges 5 is distinctively concrete; Ps. 68 is

distinctively unspecific.”38 It is best to conclude that “Ps. 68 is an ode, not based upon any

particular historical victory, but upon the victories of Yahweh in the long history of

Israel.”39 As such, it is a panoramic account about the long history of Israel.

Another important initial observation is that the actions of God referred to in Psalm

68 not only look back at what happened in the past, but also look forward to what He will

do in the future. Hence, it has an eschatological directions and is based upon not only the

36 First, the use of the word “temple” does not automatically rule out Davidic authorship

since the word was used earlier in Scripture for the tabernacle; second, the four tribes mentioned

represent the south and the north of the kingdom and would not apply after the captivity; third,

Benjamin is mentioned as the ruler perhaps because the memory of Saul as the first king was still

vivid; and, fourth, Egypt and Ethiopia are referred to as the great powers, not Assyria and

Babylon (Ross, 2013, 465).

37 Tate refers to one nineteenth century writer’s remarks about “four hundred different

commentaries on the Psalm, ‘with results which can easily be imagined.’ Such a summary today

would be far more extensive but equally confusing,” he adds (Tate, 1998, 171).

38 John Goldingay, Psalms 42-89, vol. 2, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament

Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 310.

39 Charles Augustus, Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs. Psalms, 51-150: Critical and

Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2 (Edisnburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1907), 95.

16

Psalter, but extends to several Old Testament passages found in different sections of the

canon.40 These two observations are invaluable for proper understanding of Paul’s use of

this text in Ephesians.

Division and structure of the psalm have also been topics of some debate among

scholarship.41 Leaving aside the psalm’s title, it consists of nine strophes of varying length

(2-3, 4-6, 7-10, 11-14, 15-19, 20-23, 25-27, 28-31, 32-35).42

Following the psalms title (v. 1) The phraseology of the opening (vv. 2-3) alludes to

the ark saying made by Moses in Numbers 10:35 that proclaimed YHWH as Lord of the

armies of Israel and the heavens would shatter and scatter the enemies of God.43 God’s

military “arising” is in the Psalter often complemented by His arising to judge the wicked

and to vindicate the afflicted (See Ps. 7:7; 9:20; 10:12).44 So here, the dreadful fate of the

wicked is poetically described as the slowing smoke and melting wax, whereas the destiny

40 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 168; See also Hermann Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms: the

Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 263-64.

41 See, for instance, Tate, Psalms 51-100, 170-175; Nancy deClaisse-Walford, Rolf A.

Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms, New International Commentary On the

Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 542.

42 This structure has been adapted from Hossfeld, Psalms, 161.

43 R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, vol. 3B, The New American Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 179.

44 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 164. This is a crucial observation often missed by those who

see a Divine Warrior (Tanner, 2014, 548) or Procession ceremony (e.g. Ross, 2013, 468) as the

chief motif of this psalm, as well as see the direction of the psalm as historical and not

eschatological.

17

of the righteous is exulting and jubilation. 45 Hossfeld observes that “the prelude transforms

the rest of the psalm into a scenario of the eschatological final judgment.”46

The second strophe (vv. 4-6) is a call to praise that continues what is said earlier

and presents YHWH as the Champion of the oppressed,47 Who exercises His office of a

Father and an Advocate from His “holy habitation.”48 There is an interpretive issue in verse

4 in relation to the phrase lārōḵêḇ bā‘ărāḇōwṯ. If taken as “He Who of the clouds,”49 as

opposed to “He Who rides the deserts,”50 which is strongly favored due to verse 33, which

depicts God as the one who “rides on the sky,” this title have vast intertextual connections

extending all the way through the Old Testament canon (Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 18:10;

68:33; Isaiah 19:1; Daniel 7:13) into the New (Matthew 24:30; 26:64 cf. Mark 13:26,

14:62; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9).

Kaiser sums up the first two strophes well,

What is expected is the magnificent coming and appearance of God in one of his

theophanies, or as we shall see, a Christophany. This coming will mean that the

wicked and all their opposition to God will be as useful as wax is before a fire: they

45 Ibid.; Briggs, Psalms 51-150, 97.

46 Ibid.; He also says, “the ark saying from Num 10:35 is introduced, because it combines

the terminology about enemies that fits the basic psalm with the judgment theme, that is, God’s

arising for judgment.” Cf. Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms, 263-64.

47 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 470.

can refer here to the Temple, but is better understood as (dwelling place, v. 5) ָמעֹון 48

heaven (Ross, 470; Wilson, 936; VanGemeren, 444; Goldingay, 316, Briggs, 97).

49 NET; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 176; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 445; Tanner, Psalms, 548;

Briggs, Psalms 51-150, 97.

50 NASB; ESV, Ross, Psalms 42-89, 468; Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 164. The LXX has

“west,” taking the word as ʿereb (sunset).

18

will be blown away like smoke is dispersed by the wind. God will come in his

chariot supplied by the clouds (v. 4). The defenseless will suddenly sense that their

champion has intervened on their behalf. In the past, this was the day of God's

visitation; but it is also, by the same token, a harbinger of the final day of the Lord

in the end times.51

The third strophe (vv. 7-10), in terms reminiscent of Judges 5:4-5, describes a

theophany, in which “[j]ust as nature responds to the command of God during the plagues

and in the original wilderness journey, here the creation responds to God’s movement.”52

The same motifs are found in Deuteronomy 33:2b-5 and Habakkuk (3:6, 10).53

The fourth strophe (vv. 11-14) describes women as messengers of good news of

victory in battle accomplished by God Almighty (El-Shadday), according to a prophetic

word.54

The fifth strophe (vv. 15-19) speaks of God passing up the mightiest mountain, the

mountain of many peaks, the mountain of Bashan and choosing the lowly hill of Zion as

His dwelling place forever.55 The ascent of YHWH “on high” is described in verses 18 and

19. It is noteworthy that despite the fact that many interpreters tie these verses with an ark

51 Walter C. Kaiser and Jr, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1995), 131.

52 Tanner, Psalms, 548.

53 Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 433.

54 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 165.

55 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 474. Ross observes, “The passage reminds the reader of God’s

choice of David, after he had passed over the older and stronger of the sons of Jesse. God does

not often choose that which appears to be the greatest and mightiest; he rather chooses the lesser

in order to exalt it above the greater.”

19

procession,56 nothing is said of it.

Verse 18 is the verse Paul quotes in Ephesians 4:8, “You have ascended on high,

You have led captive Your captives; You have received gifts among men, Even among the

rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there.” Walter Kaiser notes, “David surveys

in verses 7-17 what God has done in the past. On that basis, the rest of the psalm looks

forward to what God will do in the future. This makes verse 18 both the pivotal and

climactic verse. It is the grand messianic verse of the psalm as well.”57 He further notes the

following: 1) the psalmist suddenly turns to address someone in the second person; 2) this

person “ascends,” rather than processes in some line of march on earth; 3) the place this

person ascends to is “on high.”58 The phrase lammārōwm (“on high”) has many intertextual

connections in the Psalter dealing with heaven, the heavenly throne and victory.

As in Pss 7:8; 93:4… and 102:20… so also in Ps 68:19 marom describes the high,

imposing place where heaven and earth are intertwined. According to Ps 68:16-19

this place is identical with heaven and at the same time with the (cosmically dimen-

sioned) sanctuary (interchangeability of ‘mountain of God,’ v. 16, ‘sanctuary,’ v.

18, and ‘heights [of heaven],’ v. 19/heavenly dwelling, vv. 17, 19.59

Furthermore, it is said that the One Who ascended on high has led captives and

received gifts. The latter issue has been addressed at the beginning of the analysis of Psalm

68 (see note 34 above). As to the former, two main alternatives have emerged as

56 E.g. Ross, Psalms 42-89, 476.

57 Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 130.

58 Ibid., 131.

59 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 165.

20

identifications of the captives here. Some see captives here as referring to Israelites,60

specifically to the Levites (based on supposed allusions to Numbers 8 and 18) taken captive

by the Lord to himself, Who both received the Levites and gave them back to Israel as His

gifts for cultic ministry.61 As attractive and commendable as this approach offered by

Smith may be, it must ultimately be rejected due the lack of support for the allusions to

Numbers 8 and 18 in the psalm itself, as well as its context which is not retrospective at this

point, but prospective. The surrounding strophes suggest the second alternative, i.e.

captives are God’s subdued and conquered foes.62 This image seems more fitting and

resembles “[p]alace art in the ancient Near East was famously decorated with portraits of

subdued people being led captive and bringing their gifts of tribute before the king.”63

The six strophe (vv. 20-23) contains praise and thanksgiving to God for bearing His

peoples’ burdens, giving them salvation and delivering them from enemies and trials.64

Verses 22-23 introduce a new divine discourse.65 Though some interpreters lean towards an

understanding that this text refers to God bringing back His enemies from whence they

60 E.g., Briggs, Psalms 51-150, 102.

61 Gary V. Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 18, no. 3 (1975): 180-89.

62 So Tate, Psalms 51-100, 181; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 450; Ross, Psalms 42-89, 475;

Goldingay, Psalms 42-89, 316,

63 John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary,

vol. 5, John Walton, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 376.

64 Briggs, Psalms 51-150, 102.

65 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 166.

21

have fled to exact His vengeance upon them,66 it is also possible that the retrieval refers to

the restoration of the tribes of Israel and Juda that will march behind the Messiah as He

trumps His enemies.67

The seventh strophe (vv. 24-27) describes a triumphal thanksgiving procession to

the sanctuary.68 The mention of two Northern tribes (Zebulon and Naphtali, cf. Isaiah

9:1ff.) and two Southern tribes (Benjamin and Judah) is probably a reference to the totality

of all the tribes.69 The reference to the “fountain of Israel” is found once again in

Deuteronomy 33:28.70

The eight strophe (vv. 28-31) is a prayer to strengthen the nation in anticipation of

the Lord’s future victories on behalf of His people,71 which will result in the fact that kings

will brings gifts and former enemies will be subdued and join the people of Israel in

worshipping their God.72 Or as Kaiser put it, “As the Messiah is ensconced in Jerusalem,

66 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 477; Goldingay, Psalms 42-89, 327; Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100,

166; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 450; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 181.

67 Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 133. This view was also preferred by older

commentators, e.g., Mowinckel, 49–50; Buttenwieser, 257–61; Robinson in Oesterley, 325

(Ross, 2013, 477).

68 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 478; Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 166.

69 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 478.

70 The parallels between Psalm 68 and the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 33 (especially

33:26-29) are striking: God is described as “riding on heavens,” protecting His people and

defeating their enemies.

71 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 479.

72 Tanner, Psalms, 551.

22

the Gentile nations of the world will send their tribute to him at his temple.”73

The final strophe (vv. 32-35) rounds off the psalm with a call to universal praise of

the divine King.74 “The whole world is invited to acknowledge that the God who appeared

in the past and who appeared on Sinai is the God who rules over all, and the nations declare

that God is indeed an ‘awesome’ God.”75

In summary, Psalm 68 is a panoramic overview of redemptive history centering on

God’s ascent “on high,” triumph over His enemies, and future judgement and blessings for

His people when all the nations of the earth will turn to Him in praise and adoration.

Analysis of Ephesians

The Epistle to Ephesians opens with Paul’s grandiose prayer of praise to God for

His grace in bestowing the riches of spiritual blessing on His people in Christ (1:3-14),

gives thanks for their faith and love, as well as intercedes for their understanding (1:15-19)

of how God put His mighty strength into effect for believers (1:20-23): “which He brought

about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the

heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name

that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in

subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His

73 Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 133.

74 Hossfeld, Psalms 51-100, 167.

75 Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 133.

23

body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”76

In chapter 2 Paul adduces evidences of the facts stated in the opening of the letter

by demonstrating that by grace in Christ God saved transformed His elect from children of

wrath into useful tools of His majestic workmanship (2:1-10) and broke the dividing barrier

that stood for those who existed without God to bring them into union with Himself in the

one new man (2:11-22).77

Paul’s digression from prayer in 3:2-13 presents an epitome of God’s triumph in

Christ through the mystery of the church put on display before the rulers and authorities.78

The prayer itself is concern for an intercession for power, love, and spiritual maturity.79

Based on the power and triumphal work on behalf of his Gentile readers, Paul

exhorts them to walk in unity (4:1–16), holiness (4:17–32), love (5:1–6), light (5:7–14),

and wisdom (5:15–6:9).80 In the final section of the exhortatory material of Ephesians

(6:10-20) the readers are urged to be strong in the Lord and to put on God’s mighty armour

as they engage in a spiritual warfare with the powers of evil, which is followed by the

76 Frank Thielman, Ephesians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 90.

77 Timothy G. Gombis, “Ephesians 2 as a Narrative of Divine Warfare,” Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 403-418.

78 Timothy G. Gombis, “Ephesians 3:2-13: Pointless Digression or Epitome of the

Triumph of God in Christ,” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 331-323.

79 Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 252.

80 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2002), 817.

24

letter’s closing (6:21-24).81

Paul’s exhortations in 4:1-16, the passage that contains the quotation of Psalm

68:18, center around the unity, yet diversity in the church. God through the work of Christ

has brought people from diverse backgrounds into spiritual unity in the “one new man,”

however, endowing them with multitude of spiritual gifts to enable them do the work of the

ministry for the maturation of the Body of Christ, the church.82 To ground this last claim

Paul refers to Psalm 68.

Analysis of Paul’s logic in quoting Psalm 68:18

Paul introduces his quotation of Psalm 68:18 with the phrase “therefore, it says.”

However, he makes six changes from the LXX, which translates the MT verbatim.83 The

most significant one relates to the fact that in the MT of Psalm 68, YHWH is said to have

received gifts from men, whereas in Ephesians 4:8 Paul speaks of Christ giving gifts to the

church, which seemingly “almost reverses the meaning of the actual text.”84 A number of

possible explanations have been proposed. Richard Taylor after looking at eight

81 O’Brien, Ephesians, 457.

82 Frank Thielman, “Ephesians,” in Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old

Testament, D.A. Carson and G. K. Beale, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 820.

83 “(1) He changes the finite verb ἀνέβης to the participle ἀναβάς; (2) he changes the

person of both verbs from second person singular (ᾐχμαλώτευσας, ἔλαβες) to third person

singular (ᾐχμαλώτευσεν, ἔδωκεν); (3) he changes the action of the last verb from “receiving”

(ἔλαβες) to “giving” (ἔδωκεν); (4) he changes the singular ἀνθρώπῳ to the plural ἀνθρώποις; (5)

he leaves out the preposition ἐν; and (6) he adds the article τοῖς (Hoehner, 2002, 524-25).

84 C. L. Mitton, Ephesians (London: Oliphants, 1976) 145, quoted in Timothy G.

Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8,” Novum

Testamentum 47 (2005): 367.

25

possibilities concludes that Paul must have referred back not to the MT/LXX textual

tradition of Psalm 68, but rather to an alternative text-form found in the Aramaic Targum

and the Syriac Peshiṭta.85 Another probable solution discussed by Taylor and O’Brien is

that the Hebrew term lāqaḥ (“recieved”) has within itself the idea of “taking with the

purpose of giving.” Hoehner focuses on the many “gifts” that God gives to His people in

the psalm: His active presence, His care for the needy, His faithfulness to Israel throughout

its history (especially in giving them victory over their enemies), His entrance into His

sanctuary, and His removal of the wicked and concludes that the change from “you

received” to “he gave” is not arbitrary.86 Admittedly, this is difficult issue and it is hard to

be absolutely certain about any of the possible explanations mentioned above. They,

however, seem to offer adequate explanations for the change in the text found in Pau’s

quotation.

After, figuratively speaking, surveying the two sides of the intertextual canyon, it is

appropriate to proceed with building the superstructure of the bridge, i.e. build the initial

connection between the Old and the New.87 This task, of course, has been undertaken by

many scholars. Some have simply dismissed the interpretive difficulty by describing Paul’s

use of the Old Testament as erroneous and unwarranted.88 This cop out is frequently used

85 Richard A. Taylor, “The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient

Versions” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 591 (1991): 318-36; so O’Brien, Ephesians, 290.

86 Hoehner, Ephesians, 528.

87 The analogy of the bridge is helpfully suggested in Chou, “Multy-Textuality,” 11-12.

88 Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London:

SCM, 1958), 203; Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran

26

in liberal scholarly circles lacking a high view of Scripture. As Smith correctly points out,

this is “due to an inability to understand the methods of exegesis used in the New

Testament.”89 Others have proposed that Paul does not quote Scripture in 4:8, but some sort

of a Christian tradition related to Ps. 68:18.90 However, this is most improbable in light of a

clear correspondence to Psalm 68:18.

Thirdly, contemporary scholarship seems to favor the notion that New Testament

writers employed Jewish methods of interpretation, such as Midrash and Pesher, 91 i.e. non-

contextual allegorizations of the text similar in some ways to certain early and medieval

Church writers. It is claimed that Paul employed such a non-contextual technique of Jewish

hermeneutics, in which his exposition of the text in the light of its fulfilment in Christ is

integrated into the actual quotation without any particular regard for the significance of the

original authorial intent.92 Osborn writes,

In Psalm 68 it is Yahweh the divine Warrior who ascends to his newly chosen

abode on Mount Zion and ‘receives’ gifts from the defeated foes of his people…in

Literature and in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960-61): 305 (cited in Taylor,

1991, 324).

89 Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,” 180.

90 Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (Edinburgh: T & T

Clark, 1998), 378–82. Also Thorsten Moritz, “The Use of Israel’s Scriptures in Ephesians,”

Tyndale Bulletin 46.2 (1995): 394.

91 Klyne Snodgrass, “The Use of the Testament in the New,” in The Right Doctrine from

the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 43.

92 E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1981), 144, 149; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to

the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 342-43; Hoehner,

Ephesians, 527; O’Brien, Ephesians, 290; Taylor, 1991, 328.

27

a midrashic type of exegesis Paul is taking the fits of Yahweh to the people of Israel

in the psalm and applying it to the gifts of the ascended Christ to the people of the

new Israel”93

In response to these notions, it must, first of all, be pointed out that, as Beale remarks, “it is

not at all clear that non-contextual midrashic exegesis was as central to earlier Pharisaic

and Qumran exegesis as is suggested by scholars favoring the approach we have

described.”94 Furthermore, midrash persher is an illegitimate and arbitrary hermeneutic that

violates the fundamental principles of single meaning and authorial intent and as will be

demonstrated below is not the best approach to handling Paul’s use of Psalm 68 here.

The fourth approach attempts to demonstrate Paul’s logic here by appealing to a

supposed connection between Psalm and the Feast of Pentecost, which by the time of the

writing of the New Testament became associated with the giving of the Law to Moses on

Sinai.95 Accordingly, Paul parallels the exaltation of Christ and his distribution of spiritual

gifts to Moses and giving of the Law at Sinai, countering the rabbinic tradition based on a

93 Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Paul: Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:7-10 as a Test

Case,” in Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo, Matthew Harmon,

and Jay E. Smith, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 172-173.

94 G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong

Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” in

The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New,

ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 388.

95 W. Hall Harris, III, “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10,”

Bibliotheca Sacra 151, no. 602 (1994): 209.

28

suggestion that Psalm 68:18 lies behind Acts 2:33.96 This attempt is unconvincing for the

following reasons: a) the analysis of Psalm 68 shows no reason to associate it with the

giving of the Law to Moses and its rabbinic interpretation is post-Christian; b) there is no

textual evidence of the use of Psalm 68 in Acts 2; 3) there is no anti-Moses polemic in

Ephesians, a law/grace contrast, or an identification of Christ with the Spirit suggested by

Harris and others.97

Fifthly, the intertextual connection between Eph. 4:8 and Psalm 68:18 is explained

as analogous, i.e. the movement of the ark up to Zion was analogous to the ascension of

Jesus Christ to the heavenly sanctuary.98 However, the analysis of the psalm showed that

the ark procession concretization is invalid and the passage instead of looking backward

has eschatological overtones. The sixth suggestion by Gary Smith that Psalm 68 ‘echoes’

the language of Numbers 8 and 18 has been discussed and dismissed earlier.

The preferred explanation takes into account the fact that Psalm 68 corresponds

significantly to one of Paul’s central concerns in Ephesians. As shown above the psalm is a

big picture of redemptive history. It seems then that logic behind Paul’s quotation of Psalm

68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 is to indicate that the death and vindication of Jesus Christ

96 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word,

Incorporated, 1990), 244; cf. G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7-11,” in Studia

Evangelica II, ed. Frank L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie, 1964), 535-45.

97 Gombis, “Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8,” 369; Jonathan M. Lunde and John A. Dunne,

“Paul’s Creative and Contextual Use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8,” Westminster Theological

Journal 74 (2012): 102-03.

98 Ross, Psalms 42-89, 464, 476, 482.

29

corresponds to the heart of that Old Testament text, which speaks of an eschatological

victorious ascendancy of the theophanic person into heaven in preparation for future

judgement and blessings for all the nations in the world.

The reader is clued in on this by observing that in “Ephesians Paul is also interested

in the theme that God, in Christ, has triumphed over the enemies of God’s people (1:20–23;

2:5–6; 3:10; cf. 6:12).”99 Thielman is right to point out that Paul’s interest in Psalm 68:18

lays not only in the mentioned “gifts,” but “also in the psalm’s expression of God’s triumph

over his enemies. This second theme of triumph, therefore, dominates Paul’s exegesis of

his quotation in 4:9–10.”100

In Paul’s mind, Christ victorious resurrection and ascension is the basis for the

distribution of the gifts to the Body of believers. This outpouring of the Spirit on the

church could not have occurred prior to Christ’s incarnation. In 4:9 Paul asks a rhetorical

question, “‘He ascended,’ what does it mean except that He also had descended into the

lower parts of the earth?”101 In Philippians 2:6-8 Paul puts it this way, “although He existed

99 Thielman, “Ephesians,” in CNTUOT, 824.

100 Ibid., 825. Arnold agrees and adds that “There are additional points of correspondence

between the language and thought of this psalm that lead one to wonder if the entirety of this

psalm may have been on Paul’s mind as he penned Ephesians.” He mentions, first of all, that the

psalm ends with the declaration that God gives his power and strength to his people and observes

that this thought corresponds significantly with Paul’s prayerful concern for his readers of this

letter. Additionally, Arnold points out that God is praised throughout this psalm with the same

language that we find in the introductory eulogy of Ephesians and that in both texts that God is

praised by his people for his power and mighty acts of deliverance. Also in Psalm 68 God loves

Hhis people and cherishes them as His “inheritance” (ἡ κληρονομία; 68:9 [67:10])—the very

status Paul wants his readers to recognize as characterizing their new relationship with God (Eph

1:18) (Arnold, 2010, 248).

101 The phrase “the lower parts of the earth” can be taken in three ways: a) as a genitive of

comparison referring to Christ’s descent into Hades; b) a genitive of apposition signifying “the

30

in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied

Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being

found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of

death, even death on a cross.” Scriptures make it clear that the Spirit outpouring on the

Church could happen prior to Christ’s glorification, as John put it “for the Spirit was not

yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).

Paul continues in verse 10, “who descended is Himself also He who ascended far

above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.” Christ’s death accomplished victory

over the evil powers and sin and redemption for those who believe.102 The gifts are given to

those redeemed saints.103 After Jesus Christ died on the cross, He rose triumphantly from

the grave, and after showing himself to many people he ascended on high. His resurrection

declared that he had conquered sin, death and the grave, and His ascension demonstrated

that He is indeed the Lord of heaven and earth. His victory was a spiritual victory as well as

physical; He took into captivity sin and death and all the forces of evil involved with them.

Paul explains that the gifts from this eternal and spiritual conquest are correspondingly

spiritual gifts. And these he begins to enumerate in Ephesians 4 (and Romans 12, 1 Peter 4

lower parts, namely, the earth,” as distinct from heaven; and 3) a partitive or possessive genitive

indicating that Christ descended into “the earth’s lower part, the grave” (Hoehner, 2002, 535).

The first interpretation is highly unlikely and third seems to best fit Paul’s statement in light of

1:20-23.

102 Arnold observes, “In Col 2:15, Paul specifically says that by the cross and

resurrection, Christ stripped them of their power and authority, publicly exposed them, and led

them in a triumphal procession” (2010, 252).

103 Hoehner, Ephesians, 536.

31

and 1 Corinthians 12).104

This, according to Paul, was in order that “He might fill all things.” Arnold

explains,

“filling all things” has to do with extending his reign over all of his enemies (which,

again, is the vision of Psalm 68 that Paul has cited earlier). At the present time, this

“filling” involves the extension of the church through its evangelistic ministry (thus,

the role of “evangelists,” e.g., in 4:11). It also involves helping people defeat the

power of the enemy in their lives and growing to stature of Christ’s fullness (4:13).

But in the future, it will involve Christ’s bringing all of the rebellious creation

under his headship.105

Synthesis

Having surveyed both sides of the canyon and proposed a superstructure for

intertextual bridge, it is appropriate synthesize the analysis and to lay out the bridge itself.

Paul’s use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 was not non-contextual, but in accord with the

historical-grammatical sense and authorial intent of the original passage. He zooms in on a

certain event portrayed in the panorama of redemptive history in Psalm 68:18 and shows

how it has been fulfilled in Christ.

In the psalm God’s past faithfulness to his people reaches a climax in his ascent to

Mount Zion, and that ascent holds promise for the salvation of his people in even

more glorious ways in the present and future. God will rescue them from death,

deal their enemies far and wide a fatal blow, and receive the worship of the earth’s

rulers... [His ascent to the Father’s right hand begins the eschatological ascent in

victory, which will culminate at Mount Zion in the end times at His Second

Coming] Acting in the role of God himself in Ps. 68:17–18, Christ had triumphed

over the cosmic forces arrayed against God’s people. …he distributed gifts to God’s

104 Ross, Psalms, 476.

105 Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 255.

32

people. These gifts would enable them to become, as a people, the “mature man”

(Eph. 4:13) that God created humanity to be.106

Recording for God’s people fresh prophetic revelation, Paul enables us to

understand the profound mystery of the church, unknown to previous generations of

believers and concealed from the psalmist who gave the Old Testament saints a broad-

brush picture of God’s redemptive plan. By means of progressive revelation, Paul is able

show how the Church age inaugurated at Pentecost by the pouring forth of the promised

Holy Spirit from God by the exalted Christ fits into this panorama of salvation.

The ultimate goal both of creation and redemption is the manifestation of the divine

wisdom. In particular, the commission Paul himself has received to proclaim the

mystery is designed to promote this objective as the church becomes its instrument.

What had been screened from the angelic hierarchy is now to be declared through the

body of Christ on earth (Eph 2:6, 7). The ecclesiological implications of such a verse

as this are staggering indeed (cf. 1 Peter 1:12).107

The author can only hope and pray that this paper would shine the light brighter on the

beauty of the One who in accordance with the eternal purpose and the kind intention of His

will, works all things to the praise of the glory of His grace.

106 Thielman, “Ephesians,” in CNTUOT, 825.

107 A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians

through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,

1981), 47.

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Aichele, George and Phillips, Gary A. “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis.” Semeia

69/70 (1995): 7–18.

Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Aune, David E. “Quotations,” in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament Early

Christian Literature and Rhetoric, ed. Aune, David E. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2003.

Beale, G.K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and

Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

________, ed. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

Beetham, Christopher A. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.

Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,

1998.

Bock, Darrell L. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New: Part 1.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 567 (1985): 205-20.

________. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New: Part 2.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 142, no. 568 (1985): 302-15.

Brawley, Robert L. “An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 427-443.

Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. Psalms, 51-150: Critical and Exegetical

Commentary. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1907.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Caird, G. B. “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7-11.” In Studia Evangelica II, edited by

Frank L. Cross, 535-545. Berlin: Akademie, 1964.

Carson, D. A., and G. K. Beale, eds. Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Chou, Abner T. “Hermeneutical Implications of Old Testament Intertextuality on Redemptive

History.” Master of Divinity thesis, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, 2005.

34

________. “Multy-Textuality: A Study of Intertextuality, Authorial Logic, and Exegesis,”

https://www.academia.edu/596673/Multi-

Textuality_A_Study_of_Intertextuality_Authorial_Logic_and_Exegesis, accessed 3-

27-2015.

________. “The Prophetic Hermeneutic: Hermeneutically Defined Theologically Displayed.”

Master of Theology thesis, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, 2007.

Cole, R. Dennis Numbers, vol. 3B. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 2000.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51–100. Anchor Bible, vol. 17. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.

deClaisse-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms.

New International Commentary on the Old Testament Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014.

Edgar, S. L. “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament,” New Testament

Studies 9 (1962–63): 55-62.

Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,

1981.

Firth, David G. “When Samuel Met Esther: Narrative Focalisation, Intertextuality, and

Theology.” Southeastern Theological Review 1:1 (Winter 2010): 17-30.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1989.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and

in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960-61): 297-333.

Goldingay, John. Psalms 42-89. Vol. 2. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and

Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Gombis, Timothy G. “Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8.”

Novum Testamentum 47 (2005): 367–80.

________. “Ephesians 2 as a Narrative of Divine Warfare.” Journal for the Study of the New

Testament 26 (2004): 403-18.

________. “Ephesians 3:2-13: Pointless Digression or Epitome of the Triumph of God in

Christ.” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 331-323.

Green, Joel B., ed. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

35

Gunkel, Hermann. Introduction to Psalms: the Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Macon:

Mercer University Press, 1998.

Harmon, Allan M. “Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Psalms.” Westminster Theological Journal 32

(1969): 1-23.

Harris, W. Hall, III, “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10,” Bibliotheca

Sacra 151, no. 602 (1994): 198-214.

Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture.

Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.

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

Hilber, John W. “Psalms.” In Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Vol. 5.

John Walton, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2002.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Zenger, Erich. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Jobes, Karen H. “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21-31.”

Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 297-319.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Preaching and Teaching the Last Things: Old Testament Eschatology for

the Life of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

________. “Single Meaning, Unified Referents: Accurate and Authoritative Citations of the

Old Testament by the New Testament.” In Three Views On the New Testament Use of

the Old Testament. Berding, Kenneth, and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2008.

________. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Kobayashi, Takanori. “The use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:7-16.” Master of Theology thesis,

Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, 1989.

LePeau, John Philip. “Psalm 68: An Exegetical and Theological Study.” Ph.D. diss., University

of Iowa, Iowa City, 1981.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians Vol. 42. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word,

Incorporated, 1990.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Biblical and Theological

Classics Library. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

36

Lunde, Jonathan M., and Dunne, John A. “Paul’s Creative and Contextual Use of Psalm 68 in

Ephesians 4:8.” Westminster Theological Journal 74 (2012): 99-117.

McCann, Clinton J. The Book of Psalms. The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 4. Nashville:

Abingdon, 1996.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Vol. 4. The New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Miller, Chris. “The use of Psalm 68:19 in Ephesians 4:8.” Master of Theology thesis, Grace

Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, 1981.

Moritz, Thorsten. “The Use of Israel’s Scriptures in Ephesians.” Tyndale Bulletin 46.2 (1995):

393-396.

Moyise, Stephen. “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament.”

in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, ed.

Moyise, Steve. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Nicole, Roger. “The Old Testament in the New Testament.” In The Expositor’s Bible

Commentary: Introductory Articles, vol. 1. Ed. Gaebelein, Frank E. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1979.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999.

Osborne, Grant R. “Hermeneutics and Paul: Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:7-10 as a Test Case.”

In Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo, Harmon,

Matthew, and Jay E. Smith, eds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

________. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Porter, Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of

Scripture, ed. Porter, S. E. and Stanley, C. D., SBL Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 29-40.

________. “Use of Old Testament in the New: A Brief Comment on Method and

Terminology.” In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel:

Investigation and Proposals, C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds.The Library of New

Testament Studies 148. London: T&T Clark, 1997.

Ross, Allen P. A Commentary on the Psalms: 42-89. Kregel Exegetical Library. Grand Rapids:

Kregel Academic, 2013.

Ryle, J. C. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953.

37

Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13.

Smith, Gary V. “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8.” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 18, no. 3 (1975): 180-89.

Tate, Marvin E. “Old Testament Theology: the Current Situation.” Review and Expositor 74

(1977): 228-294.

________. Psalms 51–100, vol. 20. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1998.

Taylor, Richard A. “The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient

Versions.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 591 (1991): 318-36.

Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New

Testament. New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1885.

Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010

________. “Ephesians.” In Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,

Carson, D. A., and G. K. Beale, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Thomas, Robert L. “Biblical Hermeneutics: Foundational Considerations,” Chafer Theological

Seminary Journal, Volume 13, no. 2 (2008): 31-44.

________. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids: Kregel

Publications, 2002.

Vlach, Michael J. “New Testament Use of the Old Testament: A Survey of Where the Debate

Currently Stands,”

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/files/resources/nt_use_of_ot_for_ets_2011.pdf,

accessed 3-27-2015.

Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Wood, A. Skevington. “Ephesians” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through

Philemon. Vol. 11. Ed. Gaebelein, Frank E. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1981.