Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
June 23, 1960
NUMBER 8, PAGE 2,14a

Comments On "Who Is Fatherless?" --- (I)

Jerry C. Ray, Irving, Texas

"The Sunny Glenn Reporter" is the official news publication of Sunny Glenn Home, which is under the supervision of the elders of the San Benito church of Christ, San Benito, Texas. Brother Ralph Godfrey is the Superintendent of Sunny Glenn and the editor of the above mentioned publication.

In the February through June, 1969 issues brother Godfrey discussed James 1:27 on the assumption (I gathered) that it offered justification for a church-supported benevolent society such as Sunny Glenn. He was trying to determine who all could be classed within the term "fatherless" as found in James. In his article brother Godfrey seemed unsure and undecided about James 1:27. Within the short article he said, "We are wondering", "it is not my intention to make an affirmation here. I only want to raise a question", it seems to me", "I ponder whether or not he is scripturally fatherless", "of this I have much doubt". All of which leads me to wonder about the wisdom of his writing articles on a subject about which he is so uncertain.

In His Article, He Writes:

"It goes unchallenged that a person is fatherless when his father has died. We are wondering whether or not a person is fatherless under any other conditions . . . It is not my intention to make an affirmation here. I only want to raise the question: When a child is deserted by his father, which father neither contributes to nor attends to the duties of a father, who never sees the child or contacts the child, is that child fatherless? ... In our text, James 1:27, the word translated into the English by "fatherless" indicated a person bereft of parent. Are we wise in limiting the bereavement of a parent to death? Is not one equally bereft who has lost his father by desertion? by mental disability? by drunkeness (sic) ? by moral degeneration? or dereliction of duty?"

This article is not written primarily to determine just who the fatherless are, because as far as the basic issue involved is concerned, it matters not what definition is given for fatherless. James 1:27 does not authorize church (collective) action in building or supporting benevolent societies under an eldership or separate from the church for the simple reason that James 1:27 is addressed to the individual Christian, not to the local church collectively. More about this later.

The purpose of this article is to point out a dangerous attitude evidenced in the article by our brother. This attitude of rationalization will lead to false conclusions and erroneous positions. The question is raised, "are we wise in limiting the bereavement of a parent to death?" This leaves the impression that mortal man has the authority to limit or extend the meaning of the scriptures. In any passage of scripture it is not mine or yours to do anything except to determine EXACTLY WHAT GOD MEANT WHEN THE WORDS WERE WRITTEN BY INSPIRED MEN. Biblical interpretation involves taking out of a passage what God intended to be conveyed, not reading into its words and phrases other meanings (which "our wisdom" dictates) than those intended by God.

Yes, I suppose you could say that a child was an "orphan", in a sense, if his father refuses to support him, but is that the idea God intended to convey in the word "orphanos" of James 1:27? No one has limited the word except to what it normally means. A common sense rule of Bible study is that words are to be understood in their commonly accepted sense unless context or other scriptures indicate otherwise.

The word translated "fatherless" (orphans) is found twice in the New Testament, in James 1:27 and John 14:18. The word is thought to have come either from the Greek "orphanos" meaning "obscure, dark" or from the Hebrew "charaph" meaning "to strip" or "make bare" (Adam Clarke, Vol. V. p. 624). It is true that bereft is the idea involved in "orphanos" but from definitions given by scholars and Translators the bereavement evidently is the destitution resulting from the deprivation by death of the parent. Thayer says orphanos means "bereft (of a father, of parents), Jas. 1:27"; Abbott-Smith says, properly "or- phan, fatherless" and cites James 1:27. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia says, "The Scriptures devote considerable attention to the widow and orphan, and the idea is that the child is fatherless" (Vol. IV, p. 2202). The King James and the American Standard translators understood it in this sense and translated it "fatherless". Webster's Dictionary says fatherless means orphaned and that an orphan is "a child bereaved by death of both father and mother, or less commonly, of either parent" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1953). Scholarship and translation can be wrong, but one should have a reason before disagreeing instead of a theory to uphold. I have been told that fatherless means "without parental care" but I have never read that definition of "orphanos". The child whose father is derelict in parental care is "bereft" of parental care, but is the child without a father — fatherless? Undoubtedly the translators did not think so or they would have translated it "without parental care" instead of "fatherless."

The article also suggests that "a morally degenerate alcoholic, living in the same house with his child, but making no constructive contribution to the child's welfare — giving neither guidance, security, nor example to the child — can hardly be recognized as a father in the commonly accepted sense of the term. He reasons that failure to meet God's requirements of fatherhood renders one no longer a father. By the same reasoning, would you say that the man who fails to live up to God's requirements of husbandhood would thus invalidate his marriage, making his wife "husbandless" and free to marry someone else? If he fails to provide for his wife and deserts her would she be free to marry? You can see that it is one thing to be fatherless and husbandless, and another thing to be deprived of parental or marital care.

This present article was written in September, 1959. Since that time we have seen an article in the Texas Bible Banner, Feb., 1960, by Bryan Vinson dealing with the "fatherless" in James 1:27. He takes the position that the "fatherless and widows" are the children and wife of one deceased. There are some thoughts that touch on our present article, which we take the liberty to present now:

"We ask, what constitutes the widow of this passage? Does not the same condition precedent to creating the widow exist in creating the fatherless? In other words, does not the loss of a husband make a widow of the wife, and at the same time and by virtue of the same fact make an orphan of the child? Does not this misfortune in the loss of the husband and father bring about a state or condition of need as contemplated by the expression, "in their affliction"? Is not the relief embodied in the matter of visiting necessitated by this state of affliction, and limited thereto? Furthermore, where the father and mother are living and oftentimes even together, does the child become "fatherless" as contemplated in this passage? Yet these orphan homes are filled with children who are not the fatherless within the context of this statement in James 1:27."

Abbott-Smith says that in a general sense as found in John 14:18, "orphanos" means "bereft, friendless, desolate". From the fact that a Hebrew teacher's disciples were called his children (Clarke, Vol. V, p. 624) and Jesus spoke of his disciples as "little children" (John 13:33) when speaking of his return to heaven, we can see why Jesus would use the word "orphanos" in this figurative sense. He would go away, but He would not leave His children "fatherless", They would have another teacher, the Holy Spirit. But to put any such general meaning in the word in James 1:27 is contrary to the Greek lexicographers and to the translators. One is guilty of reading something into the passage that God never intended to convey.

This type of rationalization is used concerning other words; for instance, the word "fellowship". I have been asked if coming together and eating is not "fellowship". To which I reply, yes according to the dictionary, but the idea of social activities and recreation are not found in the New Testament usage of the word "fellowship". Some profess to see church kitchens, fun, frolic and recreation in passages such as Acts 2:42 where the disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers" but I fail to see any such indication of social activities in any passage where the word is found. Some might reason thusly: "It goes unchallenged that fellowship means spiritual relationships and activities, but we are wondering if there are not other forms of fellowship? Don't we have fellowship when we eat together? Are we wise in limiting the word to only spiritual fellowship and not social fellowship?" The question is not whether the word "fellowship" could include social activities. The question is whether the meaning inheres in the New Testament usage; is that what God intended to convey when He spoke through inspired men?

But just suppose the word "fatherless" could be made to include any child whose father is derelict in his duty as a father, that still would not prove the Sunny Glenn Home to be scriptural. If James 1:27 could be stretched to include all the children in the world, one would still be without scripture to prove the church from its treasury could take care of those outside of the body of Christ. The New Testament teaches that the church, from the treasury is to take care of indigent saints (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:4, 14; 2 Cor. 9:1, 1213; 1 Tim. 5:9-10, 16), but WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE AUTHORIZING THE SPENDING OF CHURCH FUNDS FOR BENEVOLENCE FOR THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST? Let no one quibble about the mother who is a Christian but her child not and say that we advocate helping the mother, but letting the children starve. Those children are her responsibility; when they are wanting, since she is responsible for them, she is in need. The church supplies her need, and only indirectly the need of the children.

James 1:27 is written to the individual Christian, as a reading of the chapter will indicate. Verse 27 describes the conduct of a Christian, not a church. In like manner Gal. 6:10 gives no help to the benevolent societies, as a reading of the preceding verses will easily bear out Some would even go to the story of the Good Samaritan, when this is an individual, not a church, rendering aid.

If James included all the children in the world, one would still be without authority for the elders of one church overseeing the work of other churches in violation of the restrictions set forth in 1 Pet. 5:2 and Acts 20:28. Where is the authority for the elders of the San Benito church taking care of the supposed work (orphans) of churches all over the Rio Grande Valley? What right have they to oversee the "work" of other churches?

In answer to the question asked, "Who is Fatherless? I would say what difference does it make? As far as the individual is concerned, Gal. 6:10 would include all the needy, orphans or not; as far as the church is concerned, it makes no difference, since it is not written to command church action.