23. Q.-Would Col. 2:20, justify a child absenting himself from the Lord's table because of his parents' orders not to go there, and would the same scripture justify him, in obedience to their orders, in going where evil doctrine was held or taught? Would doing things like these, feeling they were wrong, be loving father or mother more than Christ?
W. Y. H.
A.-The form of the exhortation as given in Eph. 6:1, has an important addition, qualifying the scope of it; we read there " Children obey your parents in the Lord," which makes it plain that, while the subjection of the child to the parent, as set by God. in the place of authority, is to be thorough (" in all things," Col. 3:20), the claims of God are above those of the parent; and, therefore, that when the parent desires the child to do things contrary to His revealed will-according to scripture, the Lord has to be obeyed and not the parent. Where the claims of the Lord and those of the parent clash, those of the Lord are absolutely paramount: and hence to disobey the Lord in order to please the parent, would be " loving father or mother more than Christ." But, as our hearts are very subtle, there is a danger lest our own wills or desires are acting, and thus leading into a disobedience to parents, rather than simple conscience toward the Lord in subjection to His -word. In the instance cited, supposing that conscience towards God is really the only motive, the path is plain, and the parents must be disobeyed in order to obey and please the Lord; as Peter says in Acts 5:29, where disobedience to divinely constituted authority was really in question, " We ought to obey God rather than men." We must add, that in the cases we are supposing, the way in which the child carries out the will of God. in opposition to the parent is of all importance; it should be done in meekness and lowliness, and the conduct in all other respects, when it is simply a question of the will and pleasure of the parents as opposed to the will and pleasure of the child, one of respectful obedience " in all things; for this, is pleasing to the Lord."
24. Q.-How do you reconcile Col. 2:20-" Why as-though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances," with 1 Peter 2:13-" Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake "? W. Y. H.
A.—"Ordinances" in Col. 2:20 is not the same thing at all as " ordinance " in 1 Peter 2, 13, nor even the same word as the original. The former his exclusive reference to the ordinances of the Jewish religious system, or law, which has its entire application to man as alive in the flesh; to this the Christian is dead-" dead with Christ," and in this sense is not " alive in the world," and thus not subject to these ordinances, which in this connection are called " the rudiments of the world." The latter has reference to the authoritative institutions, or laws of the land; and to these, as recognizing that " the powers that be are ordained of God " (Rom. 13:1), the Christian is to be subject " for the Lord's sake," but within the scope of Peter's word in Acts 5:29, to which we have already referred.
26. Q.-Why did not the Lord Himself partake of the cup in Luke 22:17, though He gave thanks for it, and gave it to His disciples? w. Y. H.
A.-The cup here was the cup of the Jewish pashcal supper, and did not typify the Lord's blood; but the wine of the feast of tabernacles when the vintage of the earth had been gathered in, and which is emblematical of human earthly happiness, of this " fruit of the vine" the Lord, while away from the earth in heaven, would not drink, but when He returns to the earth and sets up " the kingdom of God "-the millennium, as it is called, He will do so, as entering again into relationship with His Jewish people as blessed on the earth. c. w.