# Ephesians 4:8 vs. Psalm 68:18



## Herald (May 6, 2006)

> Ephesians 4:8 8 Therefore it says, "When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men."







> Psalm 68:18 18 Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captive Thy captives; Thou hast received gifts among men, Even among the rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there.



In Eph. 4:8 Paul quotes Psalm 68:18. In the Psalter the writer states, "Thou has received gifts among men." In Eph. 4:8 Paul writes, "And He gave gifts to men." Why the difference between received and gave?


----------



## gwine (May 6, 2006)

A couple of quotes from Gill and JFB for your consideration. Maybe it will help.

From Gill:


> and gave gifts unto men; meaning the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and particularly such as qualify men for the work of the ministry; these he received ×‘××“×, "in man"; in human nature, in that nature in which he ascended to heaven; ×‘××“× ×”×™×“×•×¢ ×œ×ž×¢×œ×”, "in the man that is known above" (t), as say the Jews; and these he bestows on men, even rebellious ones, that the Lord God might dwell among them, and make them useful to others: wherefore the Jews have no reason to quarrel with the version of the apostle as they do (u); who, instead of "received gifts for" men, renders it, "gave gifts to men"; since the Messiah received in order to give, and gives in consequence of his having received them; and so Jarchi interprets the words, ×œ×ªÖ¾×ª××, "to give them" to the children of men; and besides, as a learned man has observed (w), one and the same Hebrew word signifies to give and to receive; to which may be added that their own Targum renders it ×™×”×‘×ª×, "and hast given gifts to the children of men"; and in like manner the Syriac and Arabic versions of Psa_68:18 render the words; very likely the apostle might use the Syriac version, which is a very ancient one: it was customary at triumphs to give gifts to the soldiers (x), to which there is an allusion here.
> 
> (t) Zohar in Numb. fol. 61. 4. (u) R. Isaac. Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 91. (w) Pocock. not. Misc. p. 24. (x) Alex. ab. Alex. ib. ut supra. (Genial. Dier. l. 6. c. 6.)



and from JFB (Jamison Fawcett Brown)


> gave gifts unto men "” in the Psalm, "œreceived gifts for men," Hebrew, "œamong men," that is, "œthou hast received gifts" to distribute among men. As a conqueror distributes in token of his triumph the spoils of foes as gifts among his people. The impartation of the gifts and graces of the Spirit depended on Christ´s ascension (Joh_7:39; Joh_14:12). Paul stops short in the middle of the verse, and does not quote "œthat the Lord God might dwell among them." This, it is true, is partly fulfilled in Christians being an "œhabitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph_2:22). But the Psalm (Psa_68:16) refers to "œthe Lord dwelling in Zion for ever"; the ascension amidst attendant angels, having as its counterpart the second advent amidst "œthousands of angels" (Psa_68:17), accompanied by the restoration of Israel (Psa_68:22), the destruction of God´s enemies and the resurrection (Psa_68:20, Psa_68:21, Psa_68:23), the conversion of the kingdoms of the world to the Lord at Jerusalem (Psa_68:29-34).



Courtesy of e-sword.


----------



## Herald (May 6, 2006)

Ahh...interesting. Both seem to indicate that Christ received in order to give.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2006)

Psalm 68 is prospective.

Eph. 4 turns it around and proclaims Ps. 68 fulfilled.

But what I really like is Calvin's gloss. After suggesting the common interpretation (who has ever "given" to God, in truth? He receives in order to dispense), Calvin says that Paul (as his custom) quotes a line or two of Scripture, more of a "passing reference" than a full-blown quote or prooftext (after all, he changes the tense and person). He ends the strict reference after "captivity captive", and _applies_ the text from that point to Christ, and the following line is a new Spirit inspired _twist_ on the Ps. 68 verse. He thinks the other explanation "forced, and utterly foreign to the argument."

"No solution in my judgment, is more natural than this, that having briefly pointed to this place in the Psalm, Paul allowed himself the liberty of adding what is *not* in the Psalm, yet nevertheless is true of Christ--in which the ascension of Christ is more excellent and wonderful than those ancient glories of God which David enumerates."


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2006)

Bruce, I appreciate your insight (or should I say _Calvin's_ insight?). Looking at Psalm 68:18, can it be said that the captives themselves are the "gifts among men"? In other words, the captives (prospectively looking) are Christ's inheritance (Eph. 1:18). So could Psalm 68 would be looking _forward_ to the act of Christ's redemption of the "captives" and Ephesians 4 is looking back to the cross and the completion of that redemption? The "gifts to men" of Eph. 4:8 would be the gift of eternal life. 

????

Thoughts? Anybody?

EDIT TO EARLIER PART OF THIS POST

I am now wondering whether the "captives" are those whom Christ has purchased as His inheritance or if they are those who are under the judgment of God. The scripture says, _Psalm 8:6 6 Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet, _. Again the scripture says, _Luke 20:42-43 42 "For David himself says in the book of Psalms, 'The Lord said to my LORD, "Sit at My right hand, 43 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."' _ When Paul writes, _"He led captive a host of captives and He gave gifts to men"_, could the apostle have been separating the "captives" from those whom Christ was going to give "gifts"?

Once again, just a thought.

[Edited on 5-7-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2006)

I think one has to interpret the Psalm in its ancient context. The captives spoken of there are spoils of war. I personally do not think that God's people, i.e. the _redeemed,_ are being thought of as the captives. "Leading captivity captive" is a Hebrasism; it just means that the "captives" (those captured) are being led into captivity (like Israel would be eventually). The conqueror of the rebels, now re-seated as monarch, receives gifts from the remainder of the (formerly) rebellious, from their new, properly obsequious leadership. The picture is one of victory for the king, ruin for the captives. So, I don't believe that the captives themselves qualify as the gifts received. They are being led off as trophies, to be enslaved or killed for sport.

As for Ephesians, again I think it hard to conceive of the _redeemed_ being construed as "captives." The picture of the triumphant Jehovah is being applied to Christ Jesus. He ascends to glory, bringing with him the spoils of war, metaphorically. Captives are objects of contempt and scorn, the detritus of Satan's armies. These captives include the likes of Judas, Annas, Ciaphas, Pilate, etc. 

As Calvin puts it, what Christ does now, instead of lounging in indolent luxury waiting for the toadies to bring him their regular tribute (or else he'll get up again and thrash them!)--he instead gives to men, he pours out his Spirit and gives them gifts. Men who were captives in bondage to sin, Christ frees. Christ, by conquering, offers liberty to those who were numbered among the rebels, blind to their condition and to his goodness. And whereas they were enemies, now they have been brought near. Christ demands no tribute. He instead gives them gifts. My, what a new and different picture.


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I think one has to interpret the Psalm in its ancient context. The captives spoken of there are spoils of war. I personally do not think that God's people, i.e. the _redeemed,_ are being thought of as the captives. "Leading captivity captive" is a Hebrasism; it just means that the "captives" (those captured) are being led into captivity (like Israel would be eventually). The conqueror of the rebels, now re-seated as monarch, receives gifts from the remainder of the (formerly) rebellious, from their new, properly obsequious leadership. The picture is one of victory for the king, ruin for the captives. So, I don't believe that the captives themselves qualify as the gifts received. They are being led off as trophies, to be enslaved or killed for sport.
> 
> As for Ephesians, again I think it hard to conceive of the _redeemed_ being construed as "captives." The picture of the triumphant Jehovah is being applied to Christ Jesus. He ascends to glory, bringing with him the spoils of war, metaphorically. Captives are objects of contempt and scorn, the detritus of Satan's armies. These captives include the likes of Judas, Annas, Ciaphas, Pilate, etc.
> ...



Bruce. if you see my edit of my previous post that is _exactly_ where I am heading with this. Coming from my dispensational background it is difficult for me (sometimes) to unlearn what I have learned. I appreciate your insight and instruction.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2006)

'Kay. I dunno if disp. has anything much to do with. But you'd know better than me.

Glad it seemed helpful. Hope the study is profitable for both you and the hearers.

All the best,


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2006)

Dipsensationalism has had an adverse effect on my approach to the Old Testament. I would often times have difficulties when the N.T. would quote the O.T. I won't bore you with the reasons why, you'll have to trust me on this one. 

Thanks for your help Bruce.


----------

