Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man’s] conscience?
29. why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? ] This and the following verse are a little obscure, but the sense appears to be that no man has a right to interfere with the liberty enjoyed by another, save so far as his own conduct and conscientious convictions are likely to be affected thereby. In fact the Apostle’s words in 1Co 10:28-30 may be thus paraphrased. “For conscience sake. Not that you are to feel conscience-stricken, as though you had yourself been doing something wrong, and given your neighbours a right to blame you. No man has any such right You were doing no harm. You had a perfect right to eat what was set before you with gratitude to God for what He had given. No, it is not of your own, but of your neighbour’s conscience, that I was speaking. To him you would be doing harm incalculable, if you allowed him to suppose that there was no sin in worshipping idols.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Conscience, I say, not thine own – I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that; ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.
For why is my liberty … – There is much difficulty in this clause; for as it now stands, it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect to other peoples consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an objection: Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by another mans conscience? Doddridge supposes that this and 1Co 10:30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their extending his former caution beyond what he designed. I speak only of acts obvious to human observation: for as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned, condemned at the bar of another mans conscience? But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be thus expressed: I am free; I have liberty to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty – the right which I exercise – will be misconstrued, misjudged, condemned (for so the word krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but to deny myself for the sake of others.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 29. 30. For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? c.] Though in the case of flesh offered to idols, and other matters connected with idolatry, (on which it appears there was much of a tender conscience among some of the Corinthians,) it was necessary to sacrifice something to an over-scrupulous conscience, yet the Gospel of Christ did not lay any man under this general burthen, that he must do nothing at which any weak brother might feel hurt or be stumbled for the liberty of the Gospel must not take for its rule the scrupulosity of any conscience for if a man, by grace-by the allowance or authority of the Gospel, partake of any thing that God’s bounty has sent, and which the Gospel has not forbidden, and give thanks to God for the blessing, no man has right or authority to condemn such a person. This seems to be the meaning of these two verses; and they read a lesson of caution to rash judges, and to those who are apt to take offence.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
By reason of what we had, 1Co 10:28, (where the apostle forbade eating these meats, in case any at the feast told them they had been offered to idols, both for his sake that told him so, and also for conscience sake), it is most reasonable to interpret those words not thine own in this verse, not thine own only, there being frequent instances in Scripture where the negative particle must be so restrained, as Joh 4:42; 6:27,38.
For why is my liberty judged of another mans conscience? For why should my practice in a thing wherein I have a liberty, be censured or condemned by the conscience of another, he being persuaded that what I do, and judge that I have a liberty to do, and may do lawfully, is done by me sinfully, and I by him accounted a transgressor for it; so as though I do a thing that is honest, yet it is not honest in the sight of all men, or of good report; whereas Christians are obliged, Rom 12:17, to provide things honest in the sight of all men, not in their own sight merely, end to do those things that are lovely and of good report, Phi 3:8.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
29. Conscience . . . of theotherthe weak brother introduced in 1Co10:28.
for why is my liberty judgedoff another man’s conscience?Paul passes to the first person,to teach his converts by putting himself as it were in theirposition. The Greek terms for “the other” and”another” are distinct. “The other” is theone with whom Paul’s and his Corinthian converts’ concern is;“another” is any other with whom he and they haveno concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I knowit not, I have “liberty” to eat without being condemned byhis “conscience” [GROTIUS].Thus the “for,” c., is an argument for 1Co10:27, “Eat, asking no questions.” Or, Why should Igive occasion by the rash use of my liberty that another shouldcondemn it [ESTIUS], orthat my liberty should cause the destruction of my weak brother?”[MENOCHIUS]. Or, the wordsare those of the Corinthian objector (perhaps used in their letter,and so quoted by Paul), “Why is my liberty judged by another’sconscience?” Why should not I be judged only by my own, and haveliberty to do whatever it sanctions? Paul replies in 1Co10:31, Your doing so ought always to be limited by regard to whatmost tends “to the glory of God” [VATABLUS,CONYBEARE and HOWSON].The first explanation is simplest the “for,” c., in itrefers to “not thine own” (that is, “not myown,” in Paul’s change to the first person) I am to abstain onlyin the case of liability to offend another’s conscience; incases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God’sjudgment, by any other conscience than my own.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Conscience I say, not thine own,…. Which is well informed about these things, and is fully persuaded that an idol is nothing, and that things sacrificed to idols are nothing; and as they cannot profit a man, or help forward his comfort, peace, and happiness, so they cannot hinder them:
but of the others; either the weak brother, or the unbelieving master of the feast; it is for the sake of their consciences such food must not be eaten, lest either the one should be grieved, or the other reproach:
for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? this is not an objection of the Corinthians, setting forth the unreasonableness of being condemned, for the use of their Christian liberty by another’s conscience, be he who he will, believer or unbeliever, when they had an undoubted right to such an use, and their own consciences did not condemn them: but they are the words of the apostle, expressing his own sense, that it was not right and fitting that he should make use of his liberty, and eat under such a circumstance as here pointed out, and so his liberty should be condemned as sinful by another man’s conscience; since the weak believer would be apt to censure, judge, and condemn him as a libertine, and the unbeliever as an atheist, or one that had no regard to any religion at all; and therefore he reasons, that it was best to abstain from eating, rather than expose his liberty to such a censure and condemnation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For why is my liberty judged by another conscience? ( ;). Supply (deliberative subjunctive) after . Paul deftly puts himself in the place of the strong brother at such a banquet who is expected to conform his conscience to that of the weak brother who makes the point about a particular piece of meat. It is an abridgment of one’s personal liberty in the interest of the weak brother. Two individualities clash. The only reason is love which builds up (8:2 and all of chapter 1Co 13). There is this eternal collision between the forces of progress and reaction. If they work together, they must consider the welfare of each other.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) Conscience, I say. (suneidesin de lego) “Yet, I say conscience” – The monitor of the soul – the sensorial recorder of one’s comprehension of right and wrong, based on his knowledge of moral and ethical standards.
2) “Not thine own, but of the other. (ouchi ten heautou) “Not the one (conscience) of himself.” The informed Corinth Christian would not have an accusing or confused conscience from eating meat offered to an idol, knowing that idols were fakes, frauds, nothing, Psa 115:4-8; 1Co 8:4.
3) “For why is my liberty judged. (hinati gar he eleutheria mou krinetai) “For why is the liberty or freedom of me judged (or restricted)” – The answer is that the (heteros) man of a different kind of conscience must be saved, 1Co 9:22.
4) “Of another mans conscience?” (hupo alles suneideseos) “or brought under another man’s conscience?” Paul would have the Corinth Christians not use their liberty merely to satisfaction of the flesh, but by love to serve others, Gal 5:13; 1Co 8:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
29. Conscience, I say, not thine own He always carefully takes heed not to diminish liberty, or to appear to take from it in any degree. “Thou oughtest to bear with the weak conscience of thy brother, that thou mayest not abuse thy right, so as to give occasion of offense to him; but in the meantime thy conscience remains, nevertheless, free, because it is exempted from that subjection. Let not, therefore, the restraint which I impose upon thee as to outward use, become by any means a snare to entangle thy conscience.”
It must be observed here, that the term conscience is taken here in its strict acceptation; for in Rom 13:5, and Tit 1:5, it is taken in a larger sense. “We ought, says Paul, to obey princes, not merely for the sake of wrath, but also for that of conscience ” — that is, not merely from fear of punishment, but because the Lord orders it so, and it is our duty. Is it not reasonable, too, that we should for the same reason accommodate ourselves to weak brethren — that is, because we are to this extent subject to them in the sight of God? Farther, the end of the commandment is love out of a good conscience Is not the affection of love included in a good conscience? Hence its meaning here is, as I have already stated, more restricted, inasmuch as the soul of a pious man looks exclusively to the tribunal of God, has no regard to men, is satisfied with the blessing of liberty procured for it by Christ, and is bound to no individuals, and to no circumstances of time or place.
Some manuscripts repeat the statement — The earth is the Lord’s. But the probability is, that some reader having put it on the margin, it had crept into the text. (603) It is not, however, a matter of great importance.
For why is my liberty It is doubtful, whether Paul speaks in this way of himself, or whether he makes this objection in the name of the Corinthians. If we take it as spoken in his own name, it will be a confirmation of the preceding statement. “In restricting yourself, for the sake of another man’s conscience, your liberty is not thereby made subject to him.” If in the name of the Corinthians, the meaning will be this: “You impose upon us an unjust law, in requiring that our liberty should stand or fall at the caprice of others.” I am of opinion, that Paul says this of himself, but explains it in another way, for hitherto I have been stating the views of others. To be judged, then, I explain here as meaning — to be condemned, agreeably to the common acceptation of the word in Scripture. Paul warns us of the danger that must ensue, if we make use of our liberty unreservedly, so as to give occasion of offense to our neighbors — that they will condemn it. Thus, through our fault, and our unreasonableness, the consequence will be, that this special benefit from God will be condemned If we do not guard against this danger, we corrupt our liberty by our abuse of it. This consideration, then, tends very much to confirm Paul’s exhortation.
(603) It is omitted in the Alex., Clermont, and in all of the more ancient MSS.; and in the Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate versions. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(29) Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.In the previous verse there is nothing to indicate that the obligation not to eat the meat under such circumstances arises from a consideration of the tenderness of the others conscience. Here any danger of mistake as to whose conscience is meant is removed. Of course (says St. Paul) I mean his conscience, not yours. For no other mans scruples are to bind my conscience. While the opinion or weakness of another is never to make my conscience waver from what it knows to be true, it may often be a reason for our sacrificing in act some personal indulgence.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
29. Of the other St. Paul is here particular to reiterate that it is not his conscience that weakly objects, but the inquirer’s; and that it is by his conscience you must avoid being condemned.
Judged Condemned. The meaning, then, is: For why incur by my license a condemnation from my fellow-Christian’s conscience? It must be a doubtful, perhaps a reckless, use of my liberty, which is indulged in disregard of his judgment. Better offend against a man’s tastes, or his wishes, or even his temporal interests, than so transgress against his conscience as to endanger his soul.
Not thine own When you yield external compliance you do not yield also the secret convictions of your own conscience. The conscientious principle you still hold in your own heart, that the eating is not unlawful, in the expectation that when superstition and prejudice have passed away the truth will predominate.
Of the other Externally, you spare his conscience; internally, you retain your own.
My liberty Which is judged and approved by my own conscience.
Judged So as to displace my own decision.
Of another man’s conscience The unalienable rights of the individual conscience, the private judgment of every man, is here conclusively maintained against all usurpers, whether priests, popes, or potentates. No other man’s conscience can be for me a substitute for my own. St. Paul would have, in delicate regard for his neighbour’s conscience, avoided eating meat in his presence, but nothing could have compelled him to declare that the eating of it was intrinsically a sin.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
This may offend some who want to know why their freedom should be bound by someone else’s conscience. Why, if they eat the meat with gratitude to God, or do so because they enjoy the grace of God revealed in their status before Him, should they be criticised for eating what they have given thanks for? Why should they judged in terms of what others think? If they are doing right from their own viewpoint, why should they be concerned with what others think?
Paul’ reply would be, as he has already shown, that once again all their thought is of themselves and of what is for their own benefit, when what they should be thinking of is what effect it would have on others. They are lacking that consideration for others which is central to Christian love. (It is thus noteworthy that it is not only modern day men who demand their rights at any cost regardless of the effect on others).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 10:29. For why is my liberty judged of Some think that the meaning is, “Why should I use my liberty so, as to offend the conscience of any?”Others think it is an objection in the mouth of the Corinthians, and to be thus understood: “But why should I suffer myself to be thus imposed upon, and receive law from any, where Christ has left me free?” Rather, perhaps, this and 1Co 10:30 are to be considered as comingin by way of parenthesis, to prevent the Corinthians from extending the former caution beyond what the Apostle designed by it; as if he had said, “as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned, and condemned at the bar of another man’s conscience?I am not in such cases to govern myself by the judgment and apprehension of others; nor have they any authority to judge or censure me for not concurring with them in their own narrow notions and declarations.” See Doddridge, Locke, and Whitby.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 10:29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last . . as meaning one’s own conscience, as in 1Co 10:25 ; 1Co 10:27 , and so mis understand Paul with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic explanation, and the reason on which it rests ( 1Co 10:30 ).
] his own individual conscience, his, namely, who was warned.
] of the other in the case , points back to the , whose conscience, too, is afterwards included under .
. . [1720] ] For why is my liberty , etc., that is: for it is absurd that another man’s conscience should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in themselves). This is the reason , why Paul does not mean one’s own conscience when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eating in the case supposed (1Co 10:28 ), but the conscience of the other. One’s own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-consciousness, does not need such consideration; for it remains unaffected by the judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without foundation. The only motive for the abstinence, therefore, is the sparing of the conscience of others, not the danger to one’s own. Similarly Bengel; comp de Wette. The ordinary interpretation adopted by Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Rckert, Olshausen, Neander, Maier, Ewald, Hofmann; Osiander is undecided is that of Chrysostom, taking the words as the reason for the rule in 1Co 10:28 , in the sense of: “For why should I give occasion to others to pass judgment upon me and to speak evil?” or, “There is no reason for letting it come to such a pass, that a Christian’s liberty should be subjected to that tribunal of the moral consciousness of others,” Hofmann. But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing about “giving occasion,” or “letting it come to such a pass,” it is a very arbitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the course of the argument as , and to thrust it aside as something only incidentally appended. The connection, too, of the conditional protasis with the interrogative in the apodosis in 1Co 10:30 , makes it clear enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between the two conceptions. Comp Rom 3:7 , al [1723] Vatablus, Schulz, and Pott find here and in 1Co 10:30 the objection of an opponent “ad infirmitatem fratrum suorum se conformare nolentis.” The is not inconsistent with this (see Fritzsche, a [1724] Matth. p. 807), but the is (1Co 10:31 ).
Observe the difference between ( alterius ) and ( alius , i.e. alienae ), by which any other conscience whatever is meant.
] Dative of the manner: gratefully, with thanks. Comp Eph 2:5 , where, however, the context shows that the meaning is by grace ; see in general, Bernhardy, p. 100 f. It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as beneficio Dei (Beza, Grotius, Heydenreich, Hofmann), we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, and overlook the parallel , the idea of which is the same with that of .
The twice-used is emphatic: I for my part .
] The object of the verb is self-evident: food and drink. Comp .
] “Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatem idolorum negat, Dei asserit; 1Ti 4:3 f.; Rom 14:6 ,” Bengel.
[1720] . . . .
[1723] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1724] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Ver. 29. Why is my liberty judged ] As a profane licence. We should be shy of the very shows and shadows of sin, Quicquid fuerit male coloratum, as Bernard hath it; if a thing look but ill-favoured, abstain from it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
29 .] Explanation of the last , as meaning not your own , but that of the informer . True to his interpretation (see above), De W. supposes not to refer to , but to ‘ your weak Christian brother ;’ but then how very harsh and clumsy are the various references to understood persons; and how simple, on the other interpretation, is the reference in each case of . to the subject of the clause.
] For why is my freedom judged by a conscience not mine own? i.e. ‘ Why should I be to treated (hazard by my actions such treatment) that the exercise of my Christian freedom, eating as I do and giving thanks, should become matter of condemnation to another, who conscientiously disapproves of it ?’ If (no copula) I partake thankfully ([not, as E. V., ‘ by grace ’] dat. of the manner, cf. Soph. Antig. 616, , and Bernhardy, Syntax, p.101), why am I to be spoken ill of for that for which I give thanks ? These words have been misunderstood. It has been generally supposed that the Apostle is impressing a duty , not to give occasion for the condemnation of their liberty by another’s conscience. But the ground on which he is here arguing, is the unfitness, absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause of God, 1Co 10:31 , of so acting as to be condemned for that in which a man not only allows himself, but for which he gives thanks to God . The sentiment is the same as in Rom 14:16 , .
The emphasis is each time on .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
of the other = that of the other. This must be a weak believer, who wished to give warning; a heathen would have no “conscience” in the matter. Here, after the parenthesis of verses: 1Co 10:26-28, the word “conscience” is repeated from 1Co 10:25, giving the Figure of speech Epanalepsis. App-6.
another. App-124.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
29.] Explanation of the last , as meaning not your own, but that of the informer. True to his interpretation (see above), De W. supposes not to refer to , but to your weak Christian brother; but then how very harsh and clumsy are the various references to understood persons;-and how simple, on the other interpretation, is the reference in each case of . to the subject of the clause.
] For why is my freedom judged by a conscience not mine own?-i.e. Why should I be to treated (hazard by my actions such treatment) that the exercise of my Christian freedom, eating as I do and giving thanks, should become matter of condemnation to another, who conscientiously disapproves of it? If (no copula) I partake thankfully ([not, as E. V., by grace] dat. of the manner, cf. Soph. Antig. 616, ,-and Bernhardy, Syntax, p.101), why am I to be spoken ill of for that for which I give thanks? These words have been misunderstood. It has been generally supposed that the Apostle is impressing a duty, not to give occasion for the condemnation of their liberty by anothers conscience. But the ground on which he is here arguing, is the unfitness, absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause of God, 1Co 10:31, of so acting as to be condemned for that in which a man not only allows himself, but for which he gives thanks to God. The sentiment is the same as in Rom 14:16, .
The emphasis is each time on .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 10:29. , thy own) comp. the preceding verse; or rather, because he is there speaking in the plural, my own; comp. this with what immediately follows.-, of another) of whom, 1Co 10:28.- , my liberty) i.e. [Why am] I, along with the liberty of my conscience [judged]; so immediately after, by the conscience of another, i.e. by another along with his conscience which is encumbered with scruples.-, is judged) i.e., his weak conscience cannot deprive my conscience of its liberty.-, another) This word has greater force, than if it had been said, of another [judged by ANOTHER conscience; not as Engl. V. another mans conscience].
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 10:29
1Co 10:29
conscience, I say, not thine own, but the others;-Not for the sake of his own conscience, which could eat without injury, knowing that the idol is nothing; but for the sake of the weak brother or the unbeliever who sits at meat with him. He is not to eat lest the weak brother be encouraged to eat in worship to the idol.
for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?-Why should he make such a use of his liberty as to give offense when no good end will be served by his eating?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
not: 1Co 10:32, 1Co 8:9-13, Rom 14:15-21
why: Rom 14:16, 2Co 8:21, 1Th 5:22
Reciprocal: Rom 14:3 – judge Rom 15:8 – I say 1Co 8:7 – with 1Co 8:10 – shall not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 10:29. Paul explains that it is the other man’s conscience he means, not the one who would otherwise eat. For why, etc., means as if Paul said, “Why do I give you this instruction? Answer, because my liberty is to be controlled by the other man’s conscience with reference to these un-legislated questions.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Here the apostle tells them that they ought to abstain from that which is lawful and indifferent in itself, for the sake of another man’s conscience. This meat had not been unlawful to them, though offered to idols, had they not been told that it was so offered; but being made acquainted therewith, for the sake of him that showed thee it was offered to idols, forbear eating; for why should our liberty be so used by us as to be judged of and condemned by another man’s conscience? It is not enough that we do what is just and right in our own sight, but we must provide things honest in the sight of all men. Whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; these we must practise, and none but these.
And observable is the apostle’s reason, why we should, for the sake of another, abstain from eating that meat which was lawful in itself, 1Co 10:30 : namely, to prevent being evil spoken of: Why am I evil spoken of? That is, why should I cause another to speak evil of me, for eating that meat which I might without any prejudice forbear? For in so doing I shall certainly abuse my liberty, grieve God, and offend the weak.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other’s; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? [Christianity did not forbid a man to retain his friendships among pagans, nor did it prohibit fellowship with them. If such a friend should ask a Christian to a meal in a private house and not to a sacrificial feast in an idol temple, the Christian need not trouble himself to ask whether the meat that was served was part of all idol sacrifice, for such a dining was in no sense an act of worship. If, however, some scrupulous Christian or half-converted person should point out that the meat was idolatrous, then it was not to be eaten, for the sake of the man who regarded it as idolatrous. But so far as the real question of liberty was concerned, each man’s liberty is finally judged by his own conscience and not by that of another. Liberty may be waived for the sake of another’s conscience, but it is never thus surrendered. Paul’s teaching, therefore, is that food is not tainted, and so it is always right to eat it as food, but all the rites of idolatry are tainted, and the Christian must do nothing which gives countenance to those rites, and for the sake of others he must abstain from seeming to countenance them even when his own conscience acquits him of so doing.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
29. I say not the conscience of yourself, but of the other one. Hence you see from this that you are bound in all the transactions of life to keep a constant outlook for the interest of others, watching, praying and asking God to keep you from becoming a stumbling-block to any, and make you a constant inspiration for good to all who come within your influence.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 29
For why is my liberty judged, &c. This is to show why the duty of abstaining, in such cases, is not on account of one’s own conscience, but out of regard to that of, the other, as is stated in the 1 Corinthians 10:28; for, so far as the individual himself is concerned, his conduct, in a moral point of view, depends, in such a case as this, upon his own views of right. This clause and the 1 Corinthians 10:29 show, tool that the scrupulous brother has no right to complain, and condemn the other, even if he does not comply, with his wishes. Thus there is a double safeguard against contention and ill-will. On the one hand, the enlightened are required to yield to the conscientious scruples of the weak; and, on the other, if they do not, the latter are taught that they have no right to insist upon and exact such conformity.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: {8} for why is my liberty judged of another [man’s] conscience?
(8) A reason: for we must take heed that our liberty is not spoken of as evil, and that the benefit of God which we ought to use with thanksgiving is not changed into impiety. And this is through our fault, if we choose rather to offend the conscience of the weak, than to yield a little of our liberty in a matter of no importance, and so give occasion to the weak to judge in such sort of us, and of Christian liberty. And the apostle takes these things upon his own person, that the Corinthians may have so much the less occasion to oppose anything against him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This question resumes the thought of 1Co 10:26-27. 1Co 10:28-29 a are somewhat parenthetical being an illustration. We could restate Paul’s thought this way. Why should another person’s scruples determine my liberty? The answer is, They should because his spiritual welfare is more important than my Christian freedom.