Christian Responsibility Toward Those in Need: What Does the Bible Require?
The Biblical Obligation of Compassion, Sacrificial Love, and Responsibility According to One’s Ability
Theological Abstract
Scripture presents compassionate care for those who suffer as an essential expression of genuine Christian faith. Rooted in the sacrificial love of God revealed through Jesus Christ, biblical love (agapē) extends beyond emotional affection or verbal expressions of concern to practical acts of mercy, generosity, and self-giving service. First John 3:16–18, James 1:27, James 2:15–16, and the teachings of Jesus establish that professed love for God cannot be separated from concern for vulnerable and suffering people.
This study examines the particular responsibilities Christians bear toward sick, disabled, and dependent family members, especially siblings whose needs may be prolonged or irreversible. Drawing upon Scripture and the theological contributions of Jonathan Edwards, Leon Morris, Alexander Strauch, Paul G. Hiebert, and John MacArthur, it argues that Christian compassion requires more than responding to emergencies. Believers are called to share one another's burdens, including circumstances in which assistance involves genuine personal sacrifice.
Nevertheless, Scripture also recognizes differences in financial resources, physical ability, and personal circumstances. The apostle Paul's teaching concerning generosity and proportional responsibility (2 Cor. 8:12–14) provides an important qualification: Christian love requires a willing and generous heart, but it does not establish an unlimited financial obligation upon every individual.
The central theological conclusion is that Christian responsibility is neither unlimited personal obligation nor freedom from responsibility, but sacrificial love expressed through faithful action according to genuine need and actual ability.
1. The Biblical Foundation: Love Originates in God
Any discussion of Christian responsibility toward a suffering family member must begin with the nature of God's love.
The apostle John declares:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:7–8, NKJV)
Christian love is not merely a human virtue or emotional response. It originates in God's own character and finds its supreme expression in the incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9–10). Paul G. Hiebert distinguishes between self-interested forms of human love and the self-giving love revealed in Christ. Drawing upon E. Stanley Jones, Hiebert contrasts eros, understood in this theological discussion as love oriented toward personal fulfillment, with agapē, love that seeks the welfare of another without demanding something in return.[1]
This distinction must not be pressed into the claim that every use of eros is inherently selfish. Rather, the theological contrast concerns the difference between love primarily governed by self-interest and love patterned after God's gracious initiative. The Christian loves because God has first loved him:
“We love Him because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19, NKJV)
Consequently, the Christian's obligation to love does not originate in guilt, family expectations, or the hope of receiving affection in return. It originates in the grace of God and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22–23). This becomes especially significant when caring for someone suffering from a progressive neurological illness or severe disability. The person receiving care may eventually lose the ability to communicate affection, recognize family members, or express gratitude. Yet the absence of reciprocation does not diminish that person's worth or eliminate the Christian's responsibility to love.
God's love is not dependent upon our ability to repay him. Christian love, reflecting his character, must likewise be capable of giving without expecting repayment.
2. Genuine Christian Love Cannot Remain Passive
One of Scripture's most penetrating statements concerning practical compassion appears in John's first epistle:
“But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17, NKJV)
John identifies three circumstances. First, a person possesses material resources. Second, that person becomes aware of another believer's genuine need. Third, despite possessing the ability to respond, the person deliberately closes his heart. John's rhetorical question exposes a fundamental contradiction between professed Christian love and deliberate indifference toward suffering. The apostle immediately concludes:
“My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18, NKJV)
Alexander Strauch, drawing upon Leon Morris's exposition of this passage, emphasizes that John's concern is not primarily with dramatic declarations of willingness to sacrifice one's life, but with the ordinary, practical willingness to share one's resources with people in need.[2] Morris describes the implication of Christ's sacrifice as “a readiness not only to die for others but to live for others.”[3]
This observation is particularly important. Christians may sincerely declare that they would sacrifice anything for someone they love. Yet the actual testing of that declaration frequently comes through ordinary responsibilities: contributing financially, providing transportation, making difficult telephone calls, visiting someone who is ill, or assisting an exhausted caregiver. The biblical question is not simply whether we feel compassion. It is whether compassion changes what we do.
3. Compassion Is More Than Sympathy
The New Testament repeatedly describes Jesus as being moved with compassion when confronted with human suffering.
Matthew records:
“But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.” (Matt. 9:36, NKJV)
The compassion of Jesus was not detached observation. He entered the suffering of others and responded through teaching, healing, provision, and personal involvement (Matt. 14:14; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 7:11–15). Hiebert describes compassion as participation in another person's suffering rather than merely experiencing temporary feelings of pity.[4] Drawing upon the work of Donald P. McNeill, Douglas A. Morrison, and Henri J. M. Nouwen, he emphasizes that Christ willingly entered the brokenness of human existence.[5]
This understanding has profound implications for family relationships. When a brother or sister experiences a devastating illness, genuine compassion involves more than acknowledging that the situation is tragic. It requires a willingness to allow another person's suffering to affect our own priorities, decisions, and use of resources.
Paul expresses this principle in Romans:
“Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” (Rom. 12:15, NKJV)
Christian compassion involves emotional identification with those who suffer. It also seeks appropriate ways to relieve their burdens. This does not mean that Christians must experience identical suffering or possess the ability to eliminate another person's hardship. It means that love refuses to remain emotionally and practically indifferent.
4. Bearing One Another's Burdens
The apostle Paul commands:
“Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2, NKJV)
This instruction is central to understanding Christian responsibility toward suffering family members. A burden is something that weighs heavily upon another person. It may be financial, emotional, physical, relational, or spiritual. The command to bear another's burden implies accepting some measure of personal inconvenience or sacrifice for that person's benefit.
Jonathan Edwards develops this principle extensively in his treatment of Christian charity. He argues that believers should not wait until another person reaches a state of absolute desperation before offering assistance. Rather, Christian love should make believers attentive to the difficulties and burdens of others, even before those difficulties become extreme.[6] Edwards reasons from the command to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:39).
We naturally seek relief from our own suffering before it becomes unbearable. Therefore, if we genuinely love another person as ourselves, we should be similarly concerned about relieving that person's difficulties. This exposes a common weakness in our understanding of charity. We may acknowledge an obligation to help someone who faces an immediate catastrophe while overlooking the prolonged suffering of someone whose condition is steadily deteriorating. Yet a chronic illness may create a burden every bit as serious as an immediate emergency. The obligation to love does not disappear merely because the suffering continues for months or years.
The Challenge of Sacrificial Giving
Edwards goes further by challenging the assumption that Christians are obligated to help only when doing so costs them nothing. He argues that there are circumstances in which the needs of another person are sufficiently serious that believers should willingly accept some hardship themselves in order to provide relief.[7] His reasoning follows naturally from Galatians 6:2. If bearing another person's burden never requires us to carry any weight ourselves, in what meaningful sense have we shared that burden?
Paul commends the Macedonian churches because, despite their own poverty and affliction, they gave generously to assist other believers (2 Cor. 8:1–5). Their example demonstrates that Christian generosity cannot be reduced to giving only from financial abundance. Nevertheless, Edwards also acknowledges that there are circumstances in which a person is genuinely unable to contribute financially, particularly when that person's needs are comparable to those of the intended recipient.[8]
This distinction is essential. Sacrificial love may require personal inconvenience, diminished comfort, or genuine financial sacrifice. But the biblical command to give does not mean that every person must assume obligations beyond his actual capacity. The Christian must distinguish between an unwillingness to sacrifice and a genuine inability to provide.
5. Pure and Undefiled Religion: Caring for the Vulnerable
James identifies practical compassion as an essential expression of authentic religion:
“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27, NKJV)
The word translated “visit” is the Greek episkeptomai. John MacArthur explains that the term involves considerably more than making a social visit. In this context, it conveys personal concern expressed through active care, oversight, and assistance.[9] Thus, James is not merely commanding Christians to stop by occasionally and express sympathy. He is describing a willingness to become involved in meeting the actual needs of vulnerable people. Throughout Scripture, God demonstrates particular concern for those who lack the resources or social protection necessary to care for themselves. He identifies himself as a defender of widows and the fatherless (Ps. 68:5). Israel was commanded not to oppress widows or orphans (Exod. 22:22–24), and provisions were established to supply their material needs (Deut. 14:28–29).
In the New Testament, the church organized practical assistance for widows whose needs were being neglected (Acts 6:1–6). Although James specifically mentions orphans and widows, the underlying principle extends to others who are vulnerable because of illness, disability, poverty, or dependence. This has particular significance when considering someone who can no longer advocate effectively for herself. A person suffering from advanced dementia may be unable to manage finances, communicate medical concerns, explain discomfort, or recognize neglect. Such vulnerability increases the importance of compassionate advocacy by family members, caregivers, and the Christian community. To visit the afflicted in the biblical sense is not merely to be physically present, but to demonstrate genuine concern for their welfare.
6. The Example of Job: Compassion That Becomes Personal
The Old Testament provides a compelling example of practical compassion in the life of Job. In defending his integrity, Job describes his treatment of those who suffered:
“Because I delivered the poor who cried out, the fatherless and the one who had no helper.” (Job 29:12, NKJV)
He continues:
“I was eyes to the blind, and I was feet to the lame.” (Job 29:15, NKJV)
Job's compassion was not limited to financial generosity. He used his abilities, influence, and resources to assist people who could not adequately help themselves. Strauch highlights Job's example as a model of compassionate leadership, emphasizing his concern for the poor, widows, orphans, and disabled.[10]
The significance of Job's testimony lies in the personal nature of his assistance. He did not merely recognize suffering as an unfortunate feature of human existence. He made himself available as an instrument of relief. For contemporary Christians, this may involve helping someone navigate medical appointments, understand insurance benefits, obtain appropriate care, manage paperwork, or secure assistance through community organizations. The precise form of service may differ, but the underlying principle remains unchanged. God's people are called to use the abilities and resources entrusted to them for the good of others.
7. The Good Samaritan: Love That Crosses Boundaries
Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan provides one of Scripture's clearest demonstrations of compassionate action (Luke 10:25–37).
A wounded traveler lies beside the road. A priest sees him but passes by. A Levite also sees him and continues on his way. The Samaritan responds differently:
“But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion.” (Luke 10:33, NKJV)
His compassion produces practical assistance. He treats the man's injuries, transports him to an inn, provides for his immediate needs, and arranges for continuing care. Jesus concludes by commanding his listener to follow the example of the one who demonstrated mercy (Luke 10:36–37).
Edwards uses this parable to argue that the obligation of Christian charity extends even to those who may be personally disagreeable, ungrateful, or hostile toward us.[11] If love requires compassionate action toward an enemy, how much more seriously should Christians consider their responsibilities toward members of their own families? Nevertheless, the parable also illustrates that assistance may involve arranging care through others.
The Samaritan personally intervenes, provides resources, and makes arrangements with the innkeeper. He does not become the wounded man's permanent caregiver. This observation does not establish a universal limit on caregiving responsibilities. It does, however, demonstrate that compassionate action can include coordinating and financing appropriate assistance rather than personally performing every task.
8. Family Responsibility Has Particular Importance
Scripture places special emphasis upon the responsibilities believers bear toward members of their own households.
Paul writes:
“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8, NKJV)
The immediate context concerns the support of widows and the relationship between family responsibility and the church's ministry of assistance (1 Tim. 5:3–16). Paul instructs family members to care for their dependent relatives so that the church may direct its resources toward those who lack adequate family support. This passage must be interpreted carefully. It does not explicitly establish an unlimited financial obligation between all adult siblings, nor does it prescribe identical responsibilities for every family member. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Christian faith does not permit believers to dismiss family obligations as spiritually irrelevant.
The household is one of the primary settings in which Christian love becomes visible. A brother or sister who is suffering from a serious illness is not merely another person in need. The relationship carries a history of shared life, family identity, and personal responsibility.
Proverbs observes:
“A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.” (Prov. 17:17, NKJV)
This does not mean that siblings must meet every need personally. It does mean that serious adversity should awaken compassion rather than indifference.
9. Responsibility According to Ability
One of the most difficult questions arises when family members possess significantly different financial resources, physical abilities, and personal circumstances.
Does genuine Christian love require everyone to contribute equally? The apostle Paul provides an important principle in his discussion of financial generosity:
“For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.” (2 Cor. 8:12, NKJV)
Paul continues:
“For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack.” (2 Cor. 8:13–14, NKJV)
The immediate subject is a collection for needy believers, not the specific responsibilities of adult siblings. Nevertheless, the passage provides a relevant principle for Christian generosity. Paul recognizes that giving must be considered in relation to actual resources. The objective is not to relieve one person's hardship by creating an equally destructive hardship for another. Rather, those who possess greater resources are positioned to supply the needs of those who lack them.
This principle is especially important in families confronting prolonged illness. One sibling may possess significant financial resources but limited time. Another may have modest finances but greater availability. Another may struggle with illness or disability and be unable to provide substantial financial or physical assistance. Their responsibilities need not be identical. Christian love may be expressed through financial support, personal care, advocacy, administration, transportation, companionship, prayer, or assistance to the primary caregiver. The biblical principle is not that every person must contribute the same amount. It is that each person should sincerely consider what faithful love requires within the circumstances God has permitted.
The Difference Between Inability and Unwillingness
This distinction must not become an excuse for avoiding sacrifice. Edwards warns that people may define their own needs so broadly that they convince themselves they have nothing available to share.[12] The question is not merely whether giving would require us to surrender something we value. Sacrificial love frequently does. The deeper question is whether the sacrifice is reasonably possible and proportionate to the need.
There is a meaningful difference between surrendering discretionary comforts to assist a suffering sibling and assuming financial obligations that jeopardize one's own necessary medical care, housing, or basic provision. Scripture calls believers to generosity, but it also recognizes legitimate responsibilities toward their own households (1 Tim. 5:8). Thus, responsibility according to ability must be understood as a call to honest self-examination, not as an automatic justification for either refusing assistance or demanding unlimited sacrifice.
10. The Reality of Long-Term Illness and Caregiving
Caring for someone suffering from a progressive illness presents challenges that differ significantly from responding to a temporary emergency. The need may continue for years. Medical expenses may increase. The person may gradually lose the ability to communicate, recognize family members, make decisions, or care for basic physical needs. These circumstances create significant burdens not only for the person who is ill but also for those responsible for coordinating and providing care.
Bill Gaventa and Elizabeth L. Hinson-Hasty examine the complex demands experienced by families affected by long-term mental illness, including the emotional, financial, relational, and practical challenges of sustained caregiving.[13] Although their discussion focuses on mental illness rather than specifically on Alzheimer's disease, the broader concern about family caregiving burdens is relevant. Caregivers may experience exhaustion, financial pressure, anxiety, grief, and the loss of personal freedom. These realities should not be dismissed as evidence of inadequate love. They are reminders that human beings possess genuine limitations.
Paul's command to bear one another's burdens applies not only to the person who is ill but also to those carrying the responsibilities of care. A family member who assumes primary responsibility for a dependent relative may herself become someone in need of assistance. Consequently, Christian compassion should consider both the suffering person and the caregiver. Sometimes the most meaningful contribution may be providing financial assistance toward professional care. At other times, it may involve offering respite, assisting with administrative responsibilities, or simply providing emotional and spiritual encouragement.
Supporting the caregiver can itself be an important expression of love toward the person receiving care.
11. Loving Someone Who Can No Longer Respond
One of the most painful dimensions of progressive neurological illness is the gradual loss of recognizable personal interaction. A sibling who once shared conversations, memories, laughter, and affection may eventually become unable to communicate in familiar ways. The emotional relationship changes.
The healthy family member may continue to recognize the person who is ill while no longer experiencing the mutual recognition that once characterized the relationship. This can produce profound grief even while the person remains physically present. Yet Christian theology provides a foundation for love that does not depend upon cognitive ability or reciprocal affection.
Human dignity is grounded in creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), not in intelligence, memory, productivity, or independence. Severe cognitive decline does not remove a person's humanity or diminish the moral obligation to treat that person with dignity. Moreover, the love revealed in Christ is not dependent upon the recipient's ability to respond appropriately.
Paul writes:
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, NKJV)
Christ loved us before we were capable of responding to him in faith. Likewise, Christian compassion must be capable of loving someone who can no longer remember our name, recognize our face, or thank us for our care. Such love may be expressed through simple acts of presence: holding a hand, speaking gently, providing reassurance, playing familiar music, or ensuring that appropriate care is available. These actions may appear small when measured against the magnitude of the illness. Yet they embody the biblical conviction that the person remains worthy of love.
12. Love Without Reciprocity
Edwards argues that Christians are commanded to show kindness even toward people who are ungrateful or unable to repay them.[14] His reasoning rests upon the example of Christ.
Jesus commands his disciples:
“Love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return.” (Luke 6:35, NKJV)
If Christian love extends even to enemies who may never respond with gratitude, it certainly cannot be limited to family members who remain capable of expressing appreciation. This is especially important when caring for someone with severe dementia. The person may no longer understand the sacrifices being made on her behalf. She may be unable to express thanks. She may not even recognize the person providing assistance. But Christian love is not a transaction.
It is an expression of the character of God. The absence of gratitude does not make the act of compassion meaningless. Indeed, care given without the expectation of recognition may be one of the clearest demonstrations of selfless love.
13. The Church's Responsibility to Share the Burden
Although family relationships carry particular responsibilities, Scripture does not place the entire burden of compassionate care upon isolated individuals. The early church understood material assistance as an expression of shared life in Christ. Acts records that believers distributed resources to those who experienced genuine need (Acts 4:32–35). When widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution, the apostles directed the congregation to establish an organized response (Acts 6:1–6). These passages demonstrate that compassion may require more than spontaneous individual generosity.
It may also require coordination, organization, and shared responsibility. Strauch emphasizes that Christian leaders should cultivate communities in which compassionate assistance becomes an intentional expression of congregational life.[15] Such assistance may include benevolence funds, transportation, practical support for disabled members, assistance with medical or financial paperwork, and care for elderly or isolated individuals. The church should not automatically replace the responsibilities of capable family members. Neither should families assume that they must face every difficulty without assistance from the broader Christian community.
The New Testament presents believers as members of one body, called to share in one another's suffering:
“And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.” (1 Cor. 12:26, NKJV)
Christian responsibility is therefore both personal and communal.
14. The Spiritual Danger of a Closed Heart
The most serious warning in these passages concerns not the person who lacks resources but the person who possesses the ability to help and deliberately refuses to respond.
John asks:
“How does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17, NKJV)
James likewise challenges the value of religious words that are not accompanied by appropriate action:
“If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15–16, NKJV)
MacArthur observes that genuine religion is demonstrated through compassionate concern for those in distress, particularly those who cannot reciprocate the assistance they receive.[16] The warning is unmistakable. A Christian cannot consistently profess devotion to a loving God while deliberately cultivating indifference toward suffering people. Yet this warning must also be applied with pastoral care. A person's inability to meet a financial obligation does not necessarily indicate spiritual indifference. Nor can another person's heart be judged simply by comparing the amount of money or time that different family members contribute.
God knows the resources, limitations, motives, and responsibilities of each individual. The proper response to these passages is therefore personal examination rather than immediate condemnation of others. We should ask whether our hearts are open, whether our assessments of our abilities are honest, and whether our compassion is producing appropriate action.
15. Love Requires Action, but Wisdom Determines Its Form
The biblical teaching brings together several principles that must remain in balance. Christian love is sacrificial. It is concerned with the welfare of others. It does not wait for suffering to become unbearable before responding. It is willing to accept personal inconvenience and, when appropriate, genuine material sacrifice. Yet Scripture also recognizes that people possess different abilities and resources.
Love cannot be measured solely by the amount of money contributed or the number of hours spent providing care. A Christian may demonstrate faithful compassion through actions that are modest in financial value but substantial in personal significance. Conversely, someone with considerable resources may need to examine whether relatively small contributions adequately reflect the seriousness of another person's need.
The important question is not simply:
Have I done as much as someone else?
It is:
Have I responded faithfully to the need before me according to the resources, opportunities, and abilities God has entrusted to me?
That question requires honesty. It may expose selfishness. It may call for sacrifice. It may also relieve unnecessary guilt when a person genuinely lacks the capacity to provide more. Christian love is not measured by impossible expectations but by faithful obedience.
Conclusion: When Love Becomes Action
The biblical obligation toward a sick or dependent sibling cannot be reduced to a simple financial formula. Scripture does not teach that every family member must contribute equally, nor does it establish an unlimited obligation to assume another person's lifelong expenses. But neither does Scripture permit Christians to dismiss serious suffering when they possess the means to provide meaningful assistance. The example of Christ, the teaching of the apostles, the testimony of Job, and the exhortations of Christian theologians all point toward the same essential truth:
Genuine Christian love does not remain passive in the presence of suffering.
It sees.
It cares.
It considers what can be done.
And, when possible, it acts.
Sometimes that action requires financial sacrifice. Sometimes it requires time, inconvenience, emotional involvement, or personal service. Sometimes it requires supporting the person who has already assumed the heaviest burden. And sometimes it requires accepting that we cannot do everything while remaining committed to doing what we reasonably can.
The Christian's responsibility is not to eliminate every consequence of another person's suffering. That is often beyond human ability. Our responsibility is to refuse indifference and to allow the love of Christ to shape our response.
John's exhortation remains the controlling principle:
“My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18, NKJV)
Ultimately, the question is not whether we can do everything for someone we love. It is whether we are willing to do what love, guided by Scripture and wisdom, genuinely requires of us.
Footnotes
1. Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 292–93. Hiebert discusses E. Stanley Jones's contrast between eros and agapē. The excerpt identifies Jones's 1957 work by year and page but does not supply a complete title.
2. Alexander Strauch, Leading with Love (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth Publishers, 2006), 111–14.
3. Leon Morris, Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), 179, quoted in Strauch, Leading with Love, 111–14.
4. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews, 292–93.
5. Donald P. McNeill, Douglas A. Morrison, and Henri J. M. Nouwen, work cited in Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews, 292–93.
6. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 170–71.
7. Edwards, Works, 2:170–71.
8. Edwards, Works, 2:170–71.
9. John F. MacArthur Jr., James, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1998), 88–91.
10. Strauch, Leading with Love, 111–14.
11. Edwards, Works, 2:170–71.
12. Edwards, Works, 2:170–71.
13. Bill Gaventa and Elizabeth L. Hinson-Hasty, Dutiful Love: Empowering Individuals and Families Affected by Mental Illness (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2021), ebook.
14. Edwards, Works, 2:170–71. See also Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits (1852; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1978), 8, as cited in Strauch, Leading with Love, 111–14.
15. Strauch, Leading with Love, 111–14.
16. MacArthur, James, 88–91.
Scriptures Cited
Genesis 1:26–27
Exodus 22:22–24
Deuteronomy 14:28–29; 15:7–11
Job 29:12–16; 30:25; 31:16–22
Psalms 68:5
Proverbs 3:27–28; 17:17; 21:13
Matthew 9:36; 14:14; 22:39; 25:31–46
Mark 1:40–42
Luke 6:35; 7:11–15; 10:25–37
John 3:16; 13:34–35
Acts 4:32–35; 6:1–6
Romans 5:5, 8; 12:15
1 Corinthians 12:26
2 Corinthians8:1–14
Galatians 5:22–23; 6:2
1 Timothy 5:3–16
James 1:27; 2:15–16
1 John 3:16–18; 4:7–10, 19–20
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (NKJV).
Questions for Reflection
1. How does the sacrificial love of Christ establish the standard for our treatment of suffering family members?
2. What is the difference between feeling sympathy for another person's suffering and demonstrating biblical compassion?
3. How does Jonathan Edwards's understanding of bearing one another's burdens challenge the assumption that Christians should help only when assistance involves no personal sacrifice?
4. What does James mean by “pure and undefiled religion,” and how should that principle influence our treatment of elderly, disabled, or dependent family members?
5. How should Christians distinguish between genuine financial inability and an unwillingness to surrender personal comfort?
6. What guidance does 2 Corinthians 8:12–14 provide when family members possess substantially different financial resources and physical abilities?
7. How does the biblical doctrine of humanity created in God's image shape our responsibility toward someone who has lost memory, independence, or the ability to communicate?
8. What responsibility do other family members and the local church have toward someone who has assumed the primary burden of caregiving?
9. How can Christians practice sacrificial love without assuming responsibilities that exceed their actual capacity?
10. When examining our response to someone who is suffering, are we primarily concerned with defending what we cannot do, or are we sincerely seeking opportunities to do what we can?
