Nitpickerus: I asked you in the last issue if it was ever justifiable for a Christian to lie in order to obstruct an evil person or to protect the innocent? What about those people who sheltered Jews during the Second World War and lied to the governing authorities. This seems a clear choice between two conflicting duties. Either you tell a lie to save a life, or you tell the truth and fail to protect the innocent.

Dionysius: Isn't this a case of choosing to obey the higher law?

Nitpickerus: But aren't all God's laws equally important?

Dionysius: If that were true then why does Jesus talk about the greatest[1] and least[2] commandments, the greater sin,[3] the more important elements of the law?[4] Why does John talk about sins that do and don't lead to death?[5] Why are there some sins which call for excommunication[6] and others which are unforgivable?[7] Why is there a graded system of penalties in the Old Testament for different offences?[8]

Nitpickerus: But surely you're not saying that sin's not important;[9] that we should go on sinning?[10]

Dionysius: By no means.[11] Jesus said that those who break even the least of the commandments and teach others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.[12] He told the pharisees that they were right to obey the lesser commandments.[13] I'm not trying to advocate that we should deliberately break any of God's commands. I'm simply saying that some are more important than others and that in situations where they conflict we should obey the higher one.

Nitpickerus: But then you're breaking the lesser one!

Dionysius: But if you have no choice - if it's simply logically impossible to obey both, then you have to do something.

Nitpickerus: Isn't it better to do nothing?

Dionysius: But by doing nothing you're doing something. You're still making a choice. It's a fact of life that there are moral conflicts like this. Look at the Bible: there are conflicts between telling the truth and saving lives, between obeying it, between not stealing and feeding the hungry. What's more, God seemed to approve of those who recognised the conflict and made the choice to obey the higher command.

Nitpickerus: I don't believe it.

Dionysius: Let's consider some examples. There is no suggestion that the Israelite midwives were wrong to lie to the king of Egypt in order to stop him killing innocent children,[14] or that Rahab was wrong to deceive the king of Jericho to protect the spies,[15] or that the woman of Bahurim was breaking God's law in lying to Absalom's men about Ahimaaz' and Jonathan's whereabouts.[16] We are commanded to obey the governing authorities Nitpickerus.[17] Does that mean Mordecai[18] and Daniel[19] were wrong to disobey the king's edict? Does it mean the apostles were wrong to go on preaching when ordered to stop?[20] Weren't they simply obeying a higher law? Was David wrong to take the consecrated bread to feed his starving troops?[21] You can't deny that there are moral conflicts.

Nitpickerus: But these people were still sinning. I just can't believe that Jesus would ever get into situations like that. He seemed to find a way of fulfilling both duties in every conflict situation. When faced with a chronic illness near at hand and a rapidly fatal one at a distance, he healed the first patient and raised the second from the dead.[22] When faced with a crowd hungry both for food and teaching he fed 5,000 people with a handful of fish and bread rather than turn them away.[23]

Dionysius: But weren't there other occasions when he made a choice between two conflicting moral duties? If we deny that Jesus faced moral conflicts then aren't we in effect denying that he was tempted in all ways as we are.[24] If we say that he sinned by neglecting one duty to perform another then aren't we in effect saying that he was not the perfect sacrifice.[25] We can't have it both ways Nitpickerus:

Nitpickerus: Then give me some examples of moral conflicts Jesus faced.

Dionysius: Gladly. Didn't he choose when priorities clearly conflicted to obey God rather than his family[26] or the governing authorities?[27] Didn't he offer mercy rather than insist upon justice?[28] Didn't he heal rather than rest on the Sabbath?[29]

Nitpickerus: So are you saying that Jesus chose to disobey certain less important laws?

Dionysius: I'm saying that in situations of conflict Jesus simply did what was most important.

Nitpickerus: So he sinned?

Dionysius: No! That's the whole point. If it is not logically possible to obey both laws in a given situation, then the more important principle takes precedence. Jesus didn't always employ his miraculous powers to get out of ethical difficulty.[30] Sometimes he let obedience to a more important principle take precedence. His critics were unable to see this. They were constantly accusing him of neglecting parts of the law, when they themselves neglected God's law in favour of their traditions.[31] They majored on minutiae while neglecting the most important commandments.[32] They operated on an unbiblical hierarchy of sins and duties. Jesus, by contrast, had a godly sense of priorities.

Nitpickerus: Isn't there a danger here of slipping into situation ethics? Don't we end up being able to justify anything at all in the name of the highest law of love? Adultery, murder, telling lies?

Dionysius: Not if we understand that love means imitating Christ himself,[33] and not if we establish our ordering of moral principles from the Bible.[34] As we have already seen, Scripture does not leave us in the dark concerning the way God grades moral duties: Love for God takes precedence over parents and family,[35] Obeying God is more important than obeying government,[36] Mercy triumphs over judgment,[37] preserving innocent life takes precedence over veracity,[14,15] preaching the Gospel is more important than healing[38] and obedience to God's commands more important than exercising spiritual gifts.[39]

Nitpickerus: So how do we gain the wisdom to know which principles are more important?

Dionysius: By careful study of God's revealed word.[40]

Nitpickerus: So deceiving an evil person can be justified if the intention is to protect innocent life?

Dionysius: If there is no alternative, that's what Scripture seems to suggest. Judas told the truth about Jesus' whereabouts on Good Friday but it was hardly a charitable act.[41]

Nitpickerus: What about taking an innocent life?

Dionysius: Can you think of a single instance where God approved of it?

Nitpickerus: What about adultery?

Dionysius: Can you give me a precedent from Scripture?

Nitpickerus: What about stealing? People have been hanged in the past for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their hungry families. Is it wrong to steal in that situation?

Dionysius: I think a discussion of the eighth commandment[42] should wait for the next issue of Nucleus.