In ethics we sometimes speak of a "conflict of duties." This means that one has an ethical obligation to do two or more mutually exclusive things. It is imbedded in most of the current problems that ethics is confronted with, whether it is the ethics of trade or war or politics. For example, there are two shipwrecked persons but there is only one piece of wreckage large enough to rescue one of them. Must the one try to rescue his life at the expense of the other and commit murder, or must he, at the expense of his own life, give that piece of wreckage to the other person and commit suicide?¹  There may also be the conflict between the obligation to preserve the life of the mother and the fetus when a continued pregnancy radically threatens the life of the mother.

Fictitious and True "Conflicts of Duty"⤒🔗

Proper distinctions must be made at this point. P. W. Buys maintains that there are two kinds of fictitious "conflicts of duties" which must be distinguished from true "conflicts of duties."²  The first fictitious "conflict of duties" is the consequence of man's own willful action. Some examples are Jephthah's vow to the Lord (Judges 11:31), Herod's oath (Mark 6:22-26), and the oath of the zealots (Acts 23:12). The second fictitious "conflict of duties" is the conflict between drive and duty. An example Buys gives is the man who for reasons of thriftiness refuses to tithe under pretence of not being able to provide for his family.³

A true "conflict of duties" is the conflict between obeying God and the government that requires something of us that God forbids, as we read in Acts 5:29 (cf. 4:19). In this conflict Peter spells out that we "ought to obey God rather than men."

Another instance of a true "conflict of duties" is the so-called "white lie." We are called to speak the truth. But what are we to do if we know that speaking the truth will result in the death of someone? A familiar illustration of a "conflict of duties" from World War II is the conflict between the obligation not to lie to the policeman of the totalitarian state and the obligation to save the life of an innocent person for whom the policeman is searching.

Causes for a "Conflict of Duties"←⤒🔗

P. W. Buys mentions three possible causes for a "conflict of duties." As first cause he mentions command­ments and promises of God that are incompatible. Consider, for example, God giving Abraham the promise that from Isaac the covenant-people of God will be born. Next, God requires Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Consider also the "opposing" command that God gives to Jeremiah, to preach to His people that deserting to the enemy is the only way of safe escape for them. Furthermore, consider Matthew 1, where Joseph, when he finds out that Mary is expect­ing a baby, according to the law of the Lord God, must have her stoned to death. Consequently, an angel of the Lord commands him to take her to be his wife. Finally, consider Acts 16:6-10 where Paul, on the one hand is labouring according to the commandment of the Lord that the Gospel be pro­claimed to all nations and on the other hand is forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in the province of Asia.⁴

Secondly, a "conflict of duties" may involve different prescriptions of love, righteousness, truth and respectability. For example, love and truth sometimes clash when it comes to the question of whether a physician should tell his patient that he or she is incurably ill. Righteousness and truth clash when in time of war someone is hiding a "wanted person" in his home and the enemy comes and questions him about that person.⁵

A third cause Buys mentions is conflicting interests. The example he gives is a politician who is so busy with public engagements that he neglects his own family.⁶

It is important to see that God is not the cause of the "conflict of duties." The conflict is not a result of God formulating or composing the commandments in a wrong way. Rather, it is a consequence of sin in God's creation and in man's life. As a result of sin, God can indeed require something that is contrary to something else He asks at the same time. In a "conflict of duties" situation we encounter the brokenness brought about by sin. That brokenness is manifested in the fact that men require something they may not require from others in the name of God. It can also be revealed in a situation that arises without anyone's immediate fault, where it is impossible to obey both requirements at the same time.⁷

In summary, by a " conflict of duties" we mean a conflict between two oblig­ations required by the law of God, both of which bear on a given situation; but only one can be followed or fulfilled due to the brokenness of God's creation because of man's fall into sin.

A Specific Case←⤒🔗

Allow me to take a special look at a case involving the ninth commandment. This commandment con­fronts us with the use of language. The Lord binds us to His commandment in our speaking. Scripture states that His "commandment is holy, and just and good" (Romans 7:12). The Lord wants our speech to be holy, right and good. He forbids falsehood and insincerity. He commands us to love the truth and in everything to speak the truth in sincerity.

God Himself is true; He does not deceive us or lead us astray. We can rely on Him. That gives peace and confidence in our relationship with God. He created us after His image and therefore we are to be truthful and reliable in our contacts with one another. That is how God's glory will become visible in our lives.

In the Garden of Eden the truth was in us and we were true to ourselves. By our fall into sin things have changed. We have forsaken the truth, namely God, and have fallen to lying, listening to Satan. As a result, we are unreliable in our relationship to God and to each other. Hosea 4:1 says: "There is no truth ... in the land.'' We are continually in danger of being deceived. Hence all the suspicion and distrust of others! That is the reality of mankind.

In his mercy, God has entered into this deceitful and untruthful world by Christ Jesus and revealed Himself as the Truth. He manifested Himself as the Truth in His speaking and in all His actions. His speaking and His actions aim to bring about redemption. The truth is in Jesus. He calls us out of our state of lying and deceit into fellowship with Himself. God regenerates. Therefore, whoever is begotten with the word of truth (James 1:18), hears the voice of truth, follows truth, and thus begins to manifest again something of the image of God.

The Lord forbids us to bear false witness against our neighbour. He commands us to be truthful. He not only wants us to speak the truth, but we are to be truthful and reliable. He commands us to love the truth. The question, however, arises: Can we always do that? What about enemies in wartime from whom one should withhold information, and from whom, like Rahab, one may have to hide fugitives?

In such exceptional cases of conflict, all courses of action have something evil in them. We are forced to make a choice. Prof. Dr. Velema rightly insists that God's commandment requires us to spare the life of the neighbour rather than giving factual information in such a situation. We are called to be loyal to him. That is the deepest design of this commandment. We must do this even if at such a time we are not able to give full and true information.⁸

Pain and Need of Forgiveness←⤒🔗

Prof. Velema says that the fact we are forced to take such deceptive actions brings pain. We may never rejoice in it. We may never easily tell a white lie. If it is right, we will always have difficulties with doing this, because the brokenness of this world, due to sin, manifests itself so clearly in such a situation.⁹

Moreover, we will, rightly, feel defiled by the white lie; and, rightly, seek renewed cleansing in the blood of Christ. We will resolve to live the only way anyone can live with a holy God — by seeking forgiveness of sins.¹⁰ We will again say: "Lord, have mercy" and "lead us not into (this particular type of) temptation," where only a choice of sins seems open to us — but "deliver us from evil!"