We may conclude, then, that, according to the NT, fasting is not enjoined or even recommended as a spiritual help. The ideal is life with the Risen Christ, which involves not only total renunciation of all sinful actions but self-restraint in all conduct. When the individual Christian finds fasting to be a part of this self-restraint, then it is useful ; but one fails to find any proof in the NT that fasting is necessarilj' an element of self-restraint. When it is an etiect of an absorbing spiritual emotion, or when practised to aid the poor, or involuntarily undergone in the straits of Christian duty, then it is highly commendable.
2. The use of wine. — While drunkenness as well as gluttony is sternly condemned, nowhere is total abstinence, in our sense, enforced. In one passage it has even been contended that St. Paul indirectly opposes it (1 Ti 5^), but his words in our time would be simply equivalent to medical advice to the ett'ect that total abstinence as a principle must be subordinated to bodily health. Thus, while total abstinence is in itself not an obligatory duty, it may become so on the principle that we ought not to do anything by which our brother stumbles, or is ottended, or is made weak (1 Co 8^*). This principle, which is equally applicable to fasting, must be considered in deciding the Christian at- titude towards all outward observances. While Christianity recognizes the indifferent nature of these customs, while its liberty frees Christians from their observance, yet cases may arise when this liberty has to be subordinated to love and the interests of Christian unity. In 1 Co 8 the Apostle is dealing wdth the conditions of his own time ; our conditions did not engage his attention. Christian abstainers can find an adequate defence for their position in the degrading associations of strong drink in our modern life. On the other hand, total abstinence from strong drink is no more a univer- sally binding duty than fasting is, nor are ecclesi- astical rules called for in the one case more than in the other.* Both these customs fall within the sphere of things indifferent, and are to be deter- mined by the individual in the light of the nature of the Christian life, which is 'neither meat nor drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost' (Ro 14").
3. Marriage and celibacy. — We are not here concerned with the NT doctrine of marriage (q.v.) in its totalitj', but Mith the question as to whether celibacy is commanded as a superior grade of living, and as to whether this is based on a dualistic view which regards the sexual functions as in their very nature evil. To begin with, marriage is viewed Vjy St. Paul as being in general a human necessity, as
•The 'water-folk' found in the Eastern Church in the 3rd cent (who objected to wine at the Lord's Supper), cannot appeal to XT principles for a justification of their actions.
indeed a preventive against incontinency. It is a ' part of his greatness that, in spite of his own somew^iat ascetic temperament, he was not blind to social and physiological facts' (Drummond, quoted in EGT on 1 Th 4'*). He recommends those who can to remain single as he is himself. In view of the approaching world-end in which he believed, marriage meant the multiplication of troubles that would make fidelity to Christ more difficult ; and perhaps in this light also the propagation of the race was undesirable. It is possible also that he may have been here influenced unconsciously by his Rabbinical training, and that he interpreted his own case as too generally applicable. He was a celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Mt 1910-12^^ and he may have made the mistake of de- siring to universalize his own exceptional case.
Yet there is no ground for the view that celibacy in itself is a superior form of life. * St. Paul does not say that it can produce that life or is necessary to it, but when it is a consequence of it, then it is of value. It is the supremacy of single-hearted devotion to Christ that he holds out as an ideal, and his view is that in some cases marriage en- dangers this. Again, marriage is not to him simply a preventive against uncleanness (see art. Soberness). It is also the object of sanctification, and its relations have their own honour (1 Th 4*; see Marriage, Virginity). He uses it as an illustration of the highest relationship ; he opposes those who prohibit it (I Ti 4^) owing to a false asceticism. It is true he does not there give reasons, as he does in the case of abstinence from food, because the same principle applies to both cases. While, then, we may admit that on this ques- tion his view was narrow, we may say with Sabatier (The Apostle Paul, Eng. tr., 1891, p. 164) that ' this narrowness, for which he has been so greatly blamed, does not arise from a dualistic asceticism. There is no dualism to be found in Paul's doctrine.'
4. World-flight is not encouraged in the NT. Slaves even are warned to abide in their situations, knowing that they are God's freemen (see art. Abuse). The necessity of labour is unfolded in the Thessalonian Epistles, against the practice of those who had given up work under eschatological influences. World-flight is not conquering the world, but rather giving up the idea of conquering it, abandoning the battlefield, and, as such, is contrary to the apostolic view. St. Paul did not, it is true, expatiate after the manner of modern moralists on the dignity of labour, t but he did insist on ' the divineness of those obligations and ties which constitute man's social life. . . .' The institutions of society — 'marriage, the state, the rights of possession — are of Divine appointment, and must be upheld and honoured, however short the time before the order to which they belong shall pass away forever ' (Stevens, Theol. of NT, 1899, p. 454).