Direct Answer
Within the transcript, Bercot presents the argument as strongly persuasive by analogy: when a written document is ambiguous, the best evidence of its meaning is how the original parties acted on it. He applies that same logic to Scripture by looking at the practices of the apostles’ disciples when Paul and the Corinthians cannot be asked directly.
Support from Transcript
- In the chair example, the contract "did not address the issue of delivery at all," creating ambiguity. - The common-sense solution was to ask what the original parties did, or consult "family or employees" and other evidence. - Bercot says, "In law, we refer to this as the course of performance." - He states the principle: "when Scripture is ambiguous, look at the course of performance of the disciples of the apostles." - In law, "if a portion of a contract is ambiguous, we look at how the parties themselves interpreted that contract." - He explains why: "their actions in performing the contract are the best evidence of the meaning they gave to the contract."
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript does not yet provide the historical evidence itself; it ends by asking where that evidence comes from. So the argument’s persuasiveness depends partly on the quality of that evidence.