Collision of Duties

In response to Jesus’ call for his disciples to go over to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (Matt 8:18), a disciple replied, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father” (Matt 9:21 ESV). On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable request, but at the same time it appears to put the love of God and a love of neighbor, or the two tables of the law, on a collision course. Objectively and in isolation, burying one’s father is a good and necessary consequence of the fifth commandment, the first to contain a promise, Paul reminds us (Eph 6:2). But at the same time, following Jesus is an objectively positive good. Even if nobody knew at that time who exactly Jesus was, at the very least, he was recognized as a prophet of God. Therefore, his command to follow him carried significant weight. It seems, then, at least on the surface, that with this disciple’s reply to Jesus there is a collision of duties: shall this disciple show love for God by following Jesus, or should he show love for neighbor by honoring his father with a proper burial?

While Jesus ably helps us off the horns of this dilemma in his reply (cf. Matt 8:22), a deeper reflection on the question of whether or not duties can collide is worthwhile. In his own day, Herman Bavinck addressed this matter. After noting that most ethicists deny an objective collision of duties, he writes, “Nevertheless, all are compelled to assume that duties can conflict subjectively—that is, for and in the subject. This occurs in cases where the subject feels confronted by two duties, both of which demand to be fulfilled, and the subject now tries to discover which duty should be done.”[1] The disciple who asks to bury his father appears to fit such a situation when he asks first to bury his father before following Jesus. Bavinck goes on, however, to note that matters might be more complicated when the duties of one sphere of life come into conflict with those of another. So, Bavinck writes,

Intrinsically, in abstract, all commandments together form a single harmonious whole; love governs all. But the law of God comprises many commandments, specifically two tables: commandment with respect to God and commandments having to do with our neighbor. … In a word, we live in a great variety of spheres, and every sphere comes with its own duties. … Why would it not be possible that the duties of one sphere clash with those of another? Why could there not be cases in which we are bidden to do this by the duties of one sphere and to do that by those of another? … Precisely because we live in various spheres, standing in various relationships to various objects, God’s commandments may therefore occasionally conflict, objectively and genuinely.[2]

With this added nuance, the disciple in question now appears to present a genuine conflict between the two tables of the law (as we understand the situation given Jesus’ deity).

But there is a proper resolution to this collision of duties. Bavinck goes on to write that such a collision of duties does not mean that

the singular law of God is laying upon us, in two of its commandments, differing, mutually exclusive duties that would force us in every case to violate one duty or commandment, and thereby compel us to sin. … No, if two commandments come to us, and one of them, the lesser one, is neglected in order to uphold the greater one, then the lesser yields to the greater, and then the lesser commandment ceases for that time to oblige us to follow it. At that time, it is not our duty to fulfill the lesser commandment, but rather it is our duty, while doing the greater, not to heed the lesser. This is precisely a proof for the unity and harmony of the law; the lower commandment itself yields to the higher one.[3]

That is why Jesus levels a rebuke at the disciple, for in his response to Jesus he elevated the lesser commandment to honor his father above the greater commandment to follow Jesus. Here we have to understand that such a qualified commitment to discipleship is contrary to the first of the ten commandments. Jesus will later corroborate this connection when he says, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:37 ESV). The point for us is to appreciate that the commitment to follow Jesus is serious, for it is inseparably tied up with the greatest commandment.

[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Ethics, ed. John Bolt (Baker Academic, 2019), 2:74-75.

[2] Bavinck, Reformed Ethics, 2:75-76.

[3] Bavinck, Reformed Ethics, 2:76-77.