§1. Principle of Case-Law

1. Definition of Case-Law. Much Biblical instruction, especially practical instruction, is not in the form of abstract propositions, but rather in the form of rather specific examples. Yet clearly a general principle stands behind the examples. It is our obligation to grasp the general principle so that we may apply Biblical principle to situations not explicitly listed amongst the specific Biblical examples.
2. Rule of Two-or-Three. In every Biblical context where Case-Law is appropriate, there are at least two or three examples to generalize from. Restated, there can be no case law without two or three adducible examples which the context indicates are related. This is supported by the rule of two or three witnesses: Deut. 17:6, II Cor. 13:1, I Tim. 5:19, Heb. 10:29. The minimum two or three examples may be viewed as witnesses to the general principle standing behind.
3. Rule of Least Generalization. In every situation, the proper general principle behind the Biblical examples is that minimally general or least general principle which covers all the Biblical examples; in mathematical parlance, the general principle is the "join" or "least upper bound" of the examples. Least generalization safeguards against unwarranted generalization.

• Mosaic Examples of Case-Law: Ex. 22:21-27. The examples include protecting widows, orphans, foreigners, poor people's finances, a neighbor's coat. The general principle is that people should not be taken advantage of, especially those who are vulnerable. Examples not mentioned which can now be adjudicated: lending an ox to a poor man, borrowing a neighbor's ax, etc. Test the general principle by further Biblical examples: try Ex. 21:22-25 (the anti-abortion passage) or Ex. 21:26–27 (the anti-slave-abuse passage).
• Pauline Examples of Case-Law. Much of this outline is an exercise in Pauline Case-Law. The reader can test for himself/herself whether the text furnishes the requisite examples and whether the principles we claim from them are indeed minimal.
• Opposition to Case-Law. There are those who oppose Case-Law; but there is no understanding of any literary document without it. We assign meanings to words, grammatical constructions, idioms, etc by this very epistomology (methodology). No doctrine in Scripture is constructible without it, e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who really oppose it are opposed to using their minds to understand Scripture, and are therefore opposed to Deut. 29:29, Matt. 22:37, etc. There is a frightful parallel with the Parable of the Talents: the one who will not work, under the excuse that he does not want to damage his one talent, typifies the Saduceean approach to Scripture---no inference is allowed whatsoever because we might pollute the pure Scripture with our evil reason---and the Saducees in the evangelical camp appear to be legion and as yet unsaved.

§2. Prohibition Against Religious Surgery

1. Israel and Religious Surgery
   1. Circumcision required: Gen. 17:11, Deut. 10:16, Ezek. 44:9.
   2. Surgery for religious reasons allowed: Matt. 5:29–30; 18:9; 19:12
2. Pauline Prohibition Against Circumcision. Circumcision is expressly forbidden: Gal. 5:2, Philip. 3:3, Col. 2:11. We are circumcised in Christ, and to be physically circumcised would circumcise Christ yet again.
3. Pauline Prohibition Against Uncircumcision. Uncircumcision, using the spater in a procedure called epispasm, is expressly forbidden: I Cor. 7:18–20, Gal. 6:15, Col. 3:11
4. Pauline Case-Law: No Religious Surgery. We have the requisite two or three examples. This means no circumcision by Messianic Jews, no religious mutilation of female genitalia by Nubian tribes, no cutting of hands or plucking out eyes by evangelicals, etc.

§3. Prohibition Against Religious Bathing

1. Israel and Religious Baths
2. Ritual bathing of the priests: Ex. 30:17–21; 40:12,30–32, Lev. 8:6, Lev. 16:4,24,26,29
3. Baptisms of houses, clothes, times of purification (after childbirth), etc (see references in [DS7]), and note Heb. 6:2; 9:10; 10:22.
4. Baptism into Israel's future kingdom: Matt. 28:19–20, Mark 1:3, Acts 2:38, Heb. 6:2; 10:22
5. Pauline Prohibition Against Religious Baths: I Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27, Eph. 4:5, Col. 2:12. This prohibition applies to Muslim everyday bathings in which prayers are offered up for specific body parts as they are bathed, to every brand of so-called Christianity baptizing right and left for some ill-defined reason (infant baptism, believer's baptism, etc), etc. Note that more than one baptism is prohibited, allowing case-law to work and prohibit all religious bathing. This is confirmed by Paul's Law that there be One Baptism.

§4. Prohibition Against Religious Times.

1. Israel and Religious Times
   1. Israel had specific religious times as described throughout the Law (Lev. 16, 23, etc): weekly sabbaths, monthly days, annual festivals and convocations, special times of the day.
   2. The observance of these continues in Israel's future empire: Ezek. 40–47, Acts 2:1; 3:1.
2. Pauline Prohibition Against Religious Times. The proof-texts are Gal. 4:8–11, Col. 2:16, in order, in context. These texts forbid any pagan or Jewish religious time or day for the Body of Christ. The general, case-law principle is that there are no religiously set times for the Body of Christ as a whole or for any of its members, regardless of the source of the time or day (e.g. personal preference). For example, it is forbidden for one to decide that each Tuesday morning will be given over to prayer, study, and meditation in order to give God a day out of each seven since one must work Sundays as a fireman. Actually, this principle becomes the rigorous principle of "Universal Generalization" IF we define "pagan" to mean any religious rule we impose ourselves; in which case imposing Tuesday as the "Lord's Day" comes under the condemnation of Gal. 4 and all the Law and the Gospels as well. (But the justification of such a definition of "pagan" takes us back to Case-Law!) Further applications include participating in any of the external celebration of those times defined by others as having religious meaning or significance, all of which would subject Christ Himself to such times:
3. Christmas is forbidden (so no tree, presents, etc in the period right before and including Christmas Day)
4. Easter is forbidden (no bunnies, no eggs, no special Easter Day Cantata, etc)
5. Sunrise services are forbidden
6. Mother's Day services are forbidden
7. Etc.

§5. Prohibition Against Religious Places

1. Israel and Religious Places. The various parts of Israel's Law (Moses, Writings, Prophets, non-Pauline New Testament) describe various holy places, Land, and succession of temples culminating in New Jerusalem as the final, eternal temple of the Holy Nation.
2. Pauline Prohibition Against Religious Places.
   1. Since there are no priests (Rom. 8:26–27, 34, I Tim. 2:5–6) or divisions with the Body (Eph. 4:4), there can be no holy place since such always implies the need for a distinguished priesthood.
   2. Since the Body inhabits the Third Heaven above the angelic hosts (I Cor. 6:3, II Cor. 12:1–4, Eph. 2:6, Philip. 3:20, Col. 3:1, etc), it has no holy land in this life.
   3. The Body is the Holy of Holies of God's Elect (Eph. 2:19–22 (Greek text)), it is a defilement of the Body and its Head to have a "holy place".
   4. Case-Law implies there are no religious or holy places today. This means it is sin to have votives or meeting rooms designated as sanctuaries or altars of any kind or etc.

§6. Prohibition Against Religious Foods/Food Rules

1. Israel and Religious Foods/Food Rules. The Law for Israel is rife with food rules of various kinds.
2. Certain foods were forbidden at all times.
3. Certain foods were required at certain times.
4. Certain preparations were required of certain foods.
5. Eating together was a demonstration of covenant relationship.
6. Pauline Prohibitions Against Religious Foods/Food Rules
   1. There is no need of Case-Law here, for the prohibition is explicit in Col. 2:16–23 (cf. Greek text).
   2. The Lord's Table is not an exercise in religious foods or symbols, but a real meal. See the Appendix for a summary of the reality and generosity of the Lord's Table in the local assembly.

§7. Prohibition Against Religious Clothes

1. Israel and Religious Clothes. Throughour Israel's past and her yet glorious future, the priesthood, and especially the high priest, was required to wear certain types of clothes: linen, mitre, ephod, breastplate, etc; this can be seen in Moses' Law and Ezekiel's Law (e.g. 44:17–20).
2. Pauline Prohibition Against Religious Clothes
3. Men in Corinth, who normally were bareheaded in society, were to pray and speak forth in the assembly in the same manner, without wrapping themselves in tallith: I Cor. 11:4
4. Women in Corinth, who normally were veiled or had something on their head in society, were to conduct themselves in the same manner in the assembly, without letting their hair loose: I Cor. 11:5–6.
5. Case-Law implies that there one must dress in assembly as they would normally. This means it is sin to wear academic robes in the pulpit or a priest's garb or nun's habit or Jewish tallith or choir robes or choir doilies, etc.

§8. Pauline Prohibition Against All Religious Symbols/Acts

1. Proof from Confession of Faith: Rom. 10:6–13. No religious act is allowed by Case Law in the confession of faith, and hence is not allowed. Such is not the exercise of saving faith.
2. Proof from Co. 2:21 in Context. No religious rule concerning handle and touch—hence no holy things, no religious rule concerning taste—hence no religious foods and regulation of foods by time and place—and hence no regulation of times and places, etc.
3. Proof by Case-Law applied to the previous conclusions obtained from Case-Law: if there are no religious surgeries and baths and times and places and foods and clothes, then there are no religious things or symbols whatsoever. What there is, is the reality of Christ as Head (Col. 2:8–23).

• The following additional religious items are thereby condemned:

1. Angel pins.
2. Fishes.
3. Angel forms
4. Protestant crosses and Catholic crucifixes.

• This negativity of Paul's gospel is due to the fact that Christ destroyed all religious things with His blood for the Body of Christ (Eph. 2:11–16, Col. 2:11–18), while at the same time, He established the religious things of Israel for Elect Israel and her future empire by His blood (I Pet. 2:21, Rev. 5:9–10 (Greek text)). Restated, Christ established Himself as the sole priest for the Body (I Tim. 2:5–6) by the same blood by which He established Himself as the High Priest, Israel as a Nation of Priests (Is. 61:6, I Pet. 2:9, Rev. 5:9–10) to the Gentiles, and the holy angels as priests over Israel (Rev. 8:1–4); i.e. in the Kingdom program there are many priests, but for the Body there is One Priest.

Appendix: Brief comparison of approaches to the Lord's Table