Direct Answer
The transcript directly addresses this temptation in relation to 1 Corinthians 11, where Bercot says modern Christians may reinterpret the covering as long hair, local culture, or no custom at all in ways that weaken or nullify Paul’s words. It does not provide a list of other modern examples beyond this passage.
Support from Transcript
- Bercot states, “An interpretation that leaves parts of Scripture void or unreasonable should be rejected.” - He says the long-hair interpretation makes Paul’s words absurd: “If a woman does not have long hair, let her also have her hair cut off.” - He asks, “Can a man’s hair be long while he is doing other things and then suddenly become short when he is praying or prophesying?” - He criticizes the prostitute/priestess interpretation because it contradicts Paul’s reason, “because of the angels.” - He says the “no such custom” interpretation makes Paul give instructions and then say, “if you don’t like these instructions, don’t follow them.” - He concludes, “Every other interpretation ends up nullifying all or part of it.”
Discussion Follow-ups
A broader discussion could ask participants to identify other texts where they may be tempted to preserve preference, but the transcript itself only develops the head-covering example.