Skip to content
The Historic Faith

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 4
Bercot argues that Paul’s interpretation of the oxen passage had to make logical sense to the Corinthians, not merely rest on Paul’s inspiration; how does this affect the way we think about apostolic reasoning, persuasion, and the shared assumptions of the early church?
Another way to ask: Bercot says Paul's use of the oxen law had to make sense to the Corinthians, not just depend on Paul being inspired. What does this teach us about how the apostles reasoned and persuaded people?

Direct Answer

Bercot’s point suggests that apostolic reasoning was not presented as arbitrary or meaningful only because the writer was inspired. Paul expected his readers to recognize the logic of drawing spiritual principles from the Law, implying shared interpretive assumptions in that early Christian world.

Support from Transcript

- Bercot says, “Please don’t say that it was all right for Paul to do this only because he was inspired.” - He emphasizes that “Paul was presenting an argument in order to persuade his readers.” - He adds, “He was trying to reason with them.” - Bercot argues, “A person doesn’t reason with somebody by throwing out an argument that makes no logical sense to them.” - He concludes, “Paul’s argument made logical sense to his Corinthian readers.” - Therefore, the argument “was not dependent solely on inspiration.”

Discussion Follow-ups

This does not deny inspiration; Bercot explicitly says he is “neither denying nor minimizing the inspiration of Scripture.” His focus is on the historical and logical context in which inspired writers communicated.