Direct Answer
According to the transcript, visible apostolic obedience should serve as evidence for interpreting disputed commands when the written text is ambiguous. If the original disciples’ practice is known, it helps show how they understood the apostolic instruction.
Support from Transcript
- Bercot says the Corinthians knew what Paul meant because "they had literally watched Paul pray." - He adds that they knew whether Paul meant "long hair" or "a cloth covering," because "they had seen him." - Paul lived with "Aquila and Priscilla," and Bercot says he thinks they "obediently followed Paul's teaching on the head covering." - Therefore, "the Corinthians were eyewitnesses of Paul's approved practice on this subject, both as to women (Priscilla) and to men (Paul and Aquila)." - Bercot’s stated principle is: "when Scripture is ambiguous, look at the course of performance of the disciples of the apostles." - He compares this to law, where "their actions in performing the contract are the best evidence of the meaning they gave to the contract."
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript applies this especially to ambiguity. It does not say every later practice is automatically authoritative, but it does present apostolic-era practice as highly significant.