Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

The chapter argues that 1 Corinthians 11 isn’t a “special Corinthian commandment” but something “already in place in the rest of the church,” with Corinthians rebelling against it; how would accepting that premise challenge common evangelical assumptions about which New Testament commands are “cultural” versus universal?

Another way to ask: The chapter says the head covering practice was already used in other churches and the Corinthians were pushing back against it. If that’s true, how would it change how you decide which New Testament commands are “cultural” and which are for all churches?

Direct Answer Accepting Bercot’s premise challenges the idea that head coverings were merely a local cultural fix; instead, it suggests Paul was calling Corinthians back to an existing church-wide practice. That would push readers to be slower in labeling commands “cultural” when Paul presents them as already established beyond one city.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says commentators “mistakenly interpret… as though the head covering was a special commandment given only to the Corinthians.”
He argues the “force of Paul’s argument” is that some Corinthians “weren’t following the practice already in place in the rest of the church.”
He states plainly: “The commandment has nothing to do with Corinth.”
He explains why it appears in the letter: “apparently some of the Corinthian church were rebelling against it.”
He ties this back to his larger critique: invented Corinthian background becomes a tool to reframe what Scripture teaches.

Discussion Follow-ups If a practice was church-wide, what would that mean for how we apply it today? What other teachings do Christians often label “local” without clear evidence from the text?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10