The Often-Misunderstood Case of the Weaker Brother
By George “Chip” Hammond
A few years ago, I ran into a Christian man who was a King-James-only advocate (in case you are not familiar, there are people who believe that the apex of Bible translation occurred in 1611 with the translation of the KJV. This notion would be surprising to the English Puritans who detested the KJV and preferred the Geneva Bible). Unlike many KJV-only advocates, however, this man was rather genial. Though he read and used his King James Bible exclusively, he said he understood that other translations had to be used in the church “for the sake of the weaker brothers.”
His assumption was that holiness and spirituality were to be found, at least partially, in being able to understand (and maybe pray in) the English language from a certain period in history. His idea was like the advocacy of speaking in tongues by the Pentecostal holiness movement: sanctification is measured by expressing spiritual things in other than the common vernacular language.
I appreciated his cordiality, but his understanding of “the weaker brother” is contrary to the text from which that concept comes. Moreover, his belief that God was more pleased with Elizabethan English than any other language and that the use of Elizabethan English was a mark of holiness in fact indicated that he himself was “the weaker brother.”
The Text
The concept of “the weaker brother” comes from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 8):
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (ESV)
The Issue
Paul writes about a disturbance in the church that stemmed from people eating meat sacrificed to idols. Some in the church thought abstaining from such meat was the holy thing to do. Paul writes to tell them that this is not the case. Because idols are nothing, eating food sacrificed to them had no bearing on holiness. The meat did not commend them to God, nor condemn them before him. They were not better for eating the meat, and no worse if they did not.
Paul was concerned, though, because not everyone understood this. Some thought that eating meat sacrificed to idols was wrong and that doing so would show a lack of holiness. At the very least, those who abstained from eating meat sacrificed to idols thought they were more holy than those who did not.
Writing to the whole church, Paul tells them that this is not the case. He instructs them that the weak ones are those whose consciences are bothered by eating meat sacrificed to idols. He then tells those who are strong to accommodate the weak, even to the point of giving up their own rights (see 8:13).
How We Should Respond to the Weaker Brother
If we move from the specifics to the principle in 1 Corinthians 8, we will have a template for dealing with people whose consciences are weak. First, we will gain a clear understanding of what “weakness” is. Weakness of conscience is found whenever someone holds a principle for themselves -- or for themselves and others -- that holiness is found in some position or practice that is not prescribed in God’s Word.
God did not command that the King James or any translation of the Bible should be used (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8). There is certainly nothing wrong with one preferring a certain translation of the Bible, but to go beyond this and make one normative as a principle expresses weakness. In my friend’s case, he thought his use of the KJV-only was a mark of spiritual superiority. While he allowed for other translations, he thought that people who used other translations were morally or spiritually weaker than he, and that he was being magnanimous in accommodating their weakness.
In fact, however, following Paul’s principle in 1 Corinthians 8, it is evident that this man himself was the weaker brother. This fact required that stronger Christians accommodate his weakness. What would such accommodation look like? Certainly a strong Christian should not berate or mock his choice of translation, or even mock or berate him for his belief that he should read only the KJV. In Romans 14 Paul addresses a very similar issue and says, But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (14:23 ESV). While the strong should encourage the weak to become stronger, they must not tempt them into doing something they believe to be wrong, even if it is not truly wrong. To sin against conscience is to sin.
But this principle (“to sin against conscience is to sin”) is not an absolute principle. It is qualified by our text and must be qualified in our practice. Paul is writing for the church, but not about what happens in the church. In 1 Corinthians 8:10 the location of eating meat sacrificed to idols is in or, in the vicinity of, a pagan temple. In 1 Corinthians 10 (where discussion of the principle continues) the eating in question is done in a private home.
When it comes to how to behave in the church, however, Paul’s letter is instructive for us. Paul does not shy away from pointing out to the whole church who the weak ones are. This must have been a bit uncomfortable for the weak ones of the church who were presumably present. Paul does this because he does not want Christians to remain in a state of perpetual weakness, but to grow in their faith. A strong faith frees us from both an overactive conscience and our own mere preferences. Outside the church it is permissible, perhaps in some cases necessary, to have the training wheels of an overactive conscience. But inside the church is the place for the training wheels to be taken off, and to grow strong in real knowledge and holiness.
To apply this concretely to my KJV-only friend: he is clearly the weaker brother, and outside of the gathering of the church he must be accommodated. What might that accommodation look like? Aside from not berating him, It also may look like using the Bible he is comfortable with in private conservations and study to instruct him in the Word of God.
However, an individual’s overactive conscience or “sense of holiness” about things not prescribed in the Bible, or his misunderstanding of the Bible must never be allowed to hold the whole church captive. For example, it is conceivable that someone with a weak conscience who wants to dedicate his life to the Lord may, upon reading Numbers 6 (the Nazirite vow). conclude that he should never ingest anything made from grapes. If such a person comes to the pastor and, based on his sincerely held belief and conscience, asks that communion be observed from now on with bread and water based on his belief that wine or grape juice is forbidden for those dedicated to God, the pastor must not accommodate his weak conscience in the church.
The man himself may privately abstain from all grape products. If the pastor meets him for breakfast to try to better instruct him, love will dictate that the pastor put no grape jelly on his toast that morning. But in the church service itself, the man’s conscience must not be accommodated. His overactive conscience must not hold the church captive. In the safety of the church is the very place for the man begin to take off the training wheels of his overactive conscience and learn to become strong.
Although not as directly biblical, using the King James version in worship to accommodate a weaker brother would be likewise wrong. There is nothing more holy about Elizabethan English and using it in a modern setting would exclude others by violate the common (i.e., “vulgar”) language principle of Westminster Confession 1.8. It would have the effect of keeping people who were not raised with the KJV and not familiar with its language from clearly hearing the Word of God. If would be to accommodate the false notion that holiness is to be found a certain style or period of the English language.
Conclusion
My conversation with my KJV-only friend was not unlike others I have had over the years. The “weaker brother” principle of 1 Corinthians 8 is often misunderstood. Having an overactive conscience and thinking that one’s extra-biblical preferences, familiarities, or sensibilities should be normative is not the mark of a strong Christian but of a weaker brother. Having an overactive conscience and thinking that one’s extra-biblical preferences, familiarities, or sensibilities should be normative is not the mark of a strong Christian but rather of a weaker brother. Such weakness must be accommodated by the members of the church in daily life, but must be challenged in the church so that weakness can give way to strength.
