a fairly comprehensive study of that word later, we can pass on here to the

other words used by Matthew.

It might be opportune to consider an interpretation put by some on

Ephesians 4:8, 'Wherefore He saith, when He ascended up on high, He led

captivity captive'.  If this means that at the Ascension, the Old Testament

saints were taken from the grave to Paradise, it is unbelievable that David

should have been omitted, 'For,' said Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, 'David

is not ascended into the heavens' (Acts 2:34).  How is it that this man after

God's own heart is left out?  Further, if these verses teach that the members

of the One Body go straight to glory at death, how can that be read into the

Ascension which admittedly took place before the present dispensation was

made known?

If 'deliverance of captives' is the intention of Ephesians 4:8, then

Luke 4:18 provides the correct wording, using a different word aphesis; but

Paul here uses aichmaloteuo and aichmalosia.  The former means 'to lead at

the point of a spear', a fitting word to describe an enemy taken captive, but

entirely unsuitable to represent the Lord's deliverance for the redeemed.

Cunnington renders it, 'Ascending on high, He led into captivity a host of

captives' and puts as a footnote, 'the enemies of Israel (Psa. 68:18)'.

Weymouth's version is, 'He re -ascended on high, He led captive a host of

captives', and the Berkeley version, 'As He ascended on high, He led the

captured away in captivity'.  Thus the sense is not that God's children have

been set free from the grave, but rather that His enemies have been led away

captive in triumph, the same thought being expressed in Colossians 2:15, 'And

having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly,

triumphing over them in it'.  Alford's comment on the passage is, 'In the

Psalm (Psa. 68) these would be captives from the then war.  Whatever it was,

in the interpretation (of Eph. 4:8), they were God's enemies, Satan and his

hosts'.  Thus the view we are criticizing is obviously forced, out of harmony

with the original, and only shows how hard pressed those must be who seek to

put such a construction on these words.

There can be no doubt as to the apostle's meaning when he uses

aichmaloteuo in 2 Timothy 3:6 of those who 'lead captive silly women'.  In

the same epistle he says that the words of those who taught that the

resurrection was passed already 'ate like a canker' and 'overthrew the faith

of some'.  Now it was a blessed fact that, at this time, the resurrection of

Christ was 'passed already', and therefore the words could only refer to the

resurrection of the believer; thus Ephesians 4:8 either does not teach such a

doctrine as we are criticizing, or Paul is condemning himself!  We wonder who

comes under the heading of 'silly' as we see this to be so?  The Epistle to

the Philippians which speaks of an 'out -resurrection' nevertheless says:

'For our citizenship exists in heaven; from whence also we look for the

Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change this body of our

humiliation, that it may be fashioned like unto the body of His glory

...' (Phil. 3:20,21 author's translation).

If the resurrection is passed already, we can hardly obey the

injunction of the apostle to 'Live looking for that blessed hope' (Tit.

2:13).  We trust that the seriousness of the above false teaching is