Everyone must have come across this phrase a few times in the Bible, because its occurrence is quite frequent. It is mentioned in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament (James 1:27, Psalm 68:5, Isaiah 1:17 &1:23, Jeremiah 49:11, Zechariah 7:9–10, Leviticus 23:22 to name just a few). The use of these terms creates an impression that taking care of orphans and widows is part of certain religious or moral obligations. However, if one intends to look deeper into the contexts, one would come up with a more comprehensive understanding.

Biblically, the term ‘orphan’ usually represents or denotes people in a vulnerable situation. These are individuals without family or social protection; they face deprivation and are bereft of the support and care of parents. On the other hand, ‘widows’ are women who have lost their husbands and often find themselves in similar situations to the orphans, owing to the lack of male support.

In the light of these definitions, we can discover the logic behind the recurrent emphasis of the Bible upon this subject. The concern for the widows and the orphans is intertwined with the broader concept of justice. The Bible underscores the fact that in a just society these groups receive care and support.

The Biblical Context

To understand this idea better, let us first examine a few biblical passages.

“…do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against one another.” (Exodus 22:22–23, ESV)

Exodus 22:22–23 is an example from the early section of the Pentateuch. Here, the command not to ‘oppress’ widows and fatherless (i.e. orphans) clearly lays out a need for creating a system to prevent exploitation of people in vulnerable positions. The statement does not limit this expectation only to individuals within the covenant community, but extends it to foreigners, or the ‘sojourners’ as well.

Another example is in Deuteronomy 10:18:

“He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.” (Deuteronomy 10:18, ESV)

The mention here of the universal nature of God’s justice signifies that the responsibility of caring for these people transcends the covenantal boundaries between the Israelites and others.

Hosea 14:3 points directly towards the obligation of Israel to do justice in society, especially in relation to widows and the fatherless. This is made even more specific through the usage of the root word ‘pake’ which means to appoint or ordain, to decree or ordain justice. This means to put something into operation, to act righteously. This has a direct reference to the above-stated social responsibilities.

In other words, the obligation to care for the widows and the fatherless (the vulnerable) is not merely a subjective religious aspiration, but is intimately connected with divine justice.

Jesus and this Obligation

Moving forward in history, Jesus builds on the same principle, re-emphasising the centrality of care and compassion for the vulnerable members of society. His famous parable of the Last Judgment, where He presents the sheep and goats as representatives of those who serve others, provides a vivid image of this point. The reference to providing food, water to the thirsty, shelter to the homeless, clothed to the bare, as well as caring for the sick and visiting prisoners (Matthew 25:34-36) expands the idea of social responsibility.

The story has an extra element which is of paramount importance: the identification of the recipients of these acts. In this parable the King identifies himself with the least and the deprived: the hungry, naked, sick and in prison. Matthew 25:40 is particularly relevant here:

“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”(Matthew 25:40, ESV)

The orphans and the widows were particularly singled out by Jesus as examples of those most in need of care and concern. By implication, the sense of moral or religious duty owed to these particular recipients was a reflection of a universal responsibility towards the disadvantaged – the those in need.

So, the responsibility here is not limited to the individual personal decision to express empathy towards a few isolated cases. Rather, the idea involves the implementation of a system in which we care for the less fortunate. By so doing, we create the circumstances that protect and nurture a just and righteous society.

Conclusion

To summarise, when the Bible talks about our responsibility towards the widows and orphans, it does not impose some subjectively moralistic agenda only. It presents a logical, social and societal need for a systemic approach to guarantee that vulnerable sections of a society do not fall through the cracks. The concern here is for the establishment of God’s justice in operation. This understanding applies to both the Old and the New Testaments and should be our guiding principle as well.

This is the essence of the argument which has been central in all the cases where the widows and the orphans feature in the biblical message. They are the representation of the helpless, the dispossessed and the marginalized of a society. As those called to be imitators of God, and with the commandment to love our neighbours (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39), the well-being of the widows and orphans within our community should be a primary concern.