The following scenario was posted in one of my philosophy classes. I have posted the question and my answer.
Scenario: Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist and Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug. This was much more than the Heinz could afford. He could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained this to the chemist and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Question: Was Heinz justified in stealing the drug?
Question: Was Heinz justified in stealing the drug?
Answer:
The entire scenario above is flawed. When hypothetical questions like this are staged, the purpose is to get Christians to admit that God's commandments are sometimes wrong. In this case, Heinz is justified in stealing even though he is breaking one of God's most fundamental laws. The Christian does not have to fall into such a trap. Heinz is not at the mercy of a pharmacist who will not provide medicine. Our God is able to supply all of our needs. God would not give us a commandment that we could not keep. He is a just judge. According to God's word, one day we will be judged for the deeds done in our lifetime (II Corinthians 5:10). God will not be guilty on that day of setting us up to fail. We are serving the God who parted the Red Sea. Surely he can provide a way for Heinz to honor his word. The Christian must be careful not to be sucked into such "what if" arguments. They are designed to make us question our faith. God's word has the answer for such questions. The answer in this case is that God will provide.
The entire scenario above is flawed. When hypothetical questions like this are staged, the purpose is to get Christians to admit that God's commandments are sometimes wrong. In this case, Heinz is justified in stealing even though he is breaking one of God's most fundamental laws. The Christian does not have to fall into such a trap. Heinz is not at the mercy of a pharmacist who will not provide medicine. Our God is able to supply all of our needs. God would not give us a commandment that we could not keep. He is a just judge. According to God's word, one day we will be judged for the deeds done in our lifetime (II Corinthians 5:10). God will not be guilty on that day of setting us up to fail. We are serving the God who parted the Red Sea. Surely he can provide a way for Heinz to honor his word. The Christian must be careful not to be sucked into such "what if" arguments. They are designed to make us question our faith. God's word has the answer for such questions. The answer in this case is that God will provide.
Blessings,
Sullivan