The legal conception of life can find the most grounds for itself in the works of St. John Chrysostom, who, perhaps more than anyone else, had to speak against greedy heartlessness towards the poor, and, consequently, to prove, first of all, the imprudence of such behavior. He could not, by the very nature of the matter, speak to a miser and selfish man about the sweetness of a sacrifice for his neighbor – when speaking to a hireling, he had to choose a suitable language. Hence the desire noticed in some places of the works of the saint to calculate when, for what and how much exactly a person should receive. "If you, says the saint, do something good (crhstou) and do not receive recompense for it here, do not be dismayed: a reward abundantly awaits you in the future [119]." "When you see a righteous man punished, consider him blessed, and say: this righteous man either has a sin on himself, and receives retribution for it, and goes there clean, or is punished beyond his sins, and an excess is calculated for him, an appendage to his righteousness (prosJhch dicaiosunhV autw logizetai). For there is a calculation (logoV) and God says to the righteous man: "You owe me so much, let us suppose he has entrusted him with ten oxen, and put ten oxen on account for him." But if he has spent sixty oxen, God says to him, "I count ten oxen for your sin, and fifty for righteousness" [120].

If we are now from oo. If we turn to the Western, it goes without saying that in their works we will find even more traces of a legal understanding of life: these Fathers had to deal with Rome directly, and therefore they could not ignore its mode of thinking, especially since the sinfulness of man seemed to justify such an understanding of life. "From the time," says Tertullian, "when evil entered the world and the goodness of God was offended, His justice began to govern Him gracefully. It has given goodness to the worthy, denied it to the unworthy, took it away from the ungrateful, and marked it for it to its enemies. It judges, condemns, punishes: His judgments, His executions, the fear they inspire to serve as a bridle of self-will, an encouragement of virtue" [121]. Hence the designation of human deeds of "merit," common to all Western Fathers. Deeds are considered mainly as a certain value that gives the right to a reward. Thus St. Cyprian writes to the confessors: "Some of you have preceded others by performing your martyrdom and have to accept a reward from the Lord according to your merits; and some are still languishing in prison, in mines and in chains, and... by the slowness of suffering, they acquire the fullest right to merit, according to which they hope to receive from heavenly rewards as many rewards as there are now days in torture" [122]. Tertullian, on the other hand, directly represents the Lord, as if he were a debtor for man's good deeds. God, he says, not wishing the death of his saints, has declared himself their intercessor, and therefore accepts their good deeds and repentance; and accepting this, He considers it His duty to reward them for this" [123]. The relationship between God and man is sometimes strictly equated with the relationship between the members of a simple legal union: the essence is placed in mutual satisfaction, with vengeance for every violation. For example, let's take the same Tertullian. Here, for example, is what he says in his work on patience: "Bodily sorrows are a sacrifice of purification, reconciling God to us through humility, when the flesh, being content with a little bread and water, offers its poverty and abstinence as a gift to the Lord, when it adds to this frequent fasts, and when it spends the fasts in ashes and sackcloth... Thus the once proud King Nebuchadnezzar, who provoked the Lord, offered a magnificent and useful sacrifice of patience by humble and strict repentance of the seven-year exile, during which he lived with the beasts, removed from the company of men; and by this cruel sacrifice he regained his kingdom, and what is even more important, by this purifying satisfaction he again gained the mercy of God" [124].

In spite of all these numerous traces of legal understanding of life in the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and the works of oo. It is impossible for the Church to recognize this understanding of life as a real patristic or biblical understanding of life, or it is possible only if we use the Holy Scriptures. Scripture or Tradition only as a collection of incoherent sayings, and not as a single word of God, not as an expression of a single and integral worldview. All these traces must be compared with a long series of thoughts that were also constantly on the lips of sacred writers and oos. Church and who, nevertheless, directly deny the legal understanding of life.

First of all, is legal relations between God and man possible? On the basis of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and Traditions, we say that they are impossible. In fact, if a certain relation is to be presented as a legal relation, it must be required to fully conform to the concept of a legal relation; If there is no such correspondence, and the relation, however, does not contradict either reason or moral feeling, then this is because, consequently, this relation belongs to an order of phenomena different from the legal one and requires special laws and a special explanation.

Now, the legal union is based on a selfish desire for one's own well-being and is expressed in the mutual self-limitation of several selfishnesses in order that each of them may prosper to the greatest possible extent. Does this measure apply to God's relationship to man? To think so is not only impious, but also insane. "Can man," asks Eliphaz, "be of use to God? A wise man benefits himself. What pleasure is it to the Almighty that you are righteous? And will it profit Him that you keep your ways upright?" (Job XXP, 2-3). "God," says Bl. Augustine, does not need human righteousness itself, and everything in which the true worship of God is expressed is useful to man, and not to God. Of course, no one will say that he was useful to the spring when he drank from it, or to the light when he saw it" [125]. "Man, say St. Gregory of Nyssa is a weak and short-lived creature, well likened to grass (Ps. CII, 14), which exists today and tomorrow is not, believes that he has worthily honored the Divine nature. It is like lighting a thin thread of tow, thinking that with this spark you increase the brilliance of the sun's rays" [126]. "Who is man? asks St. Tikhon of Zadonsk: earth and pus. Who is God? There is the Creator of all creation, visible and invisible" [127]. Is there any comparison between them? And if it is impossible, then how can we understand the closeness of God to man? Why does the Lord, all-satisfied and all-perfect, descend to union with man, with this worm, with ashes, with this dream vision and shadow" [128]. "Lord," exclaims the Psalmist, "what is a man, that Thou knowest of him, and the Son of man, that dost Thou pay attention to him? Man is like a breath: his days are like a departing shadow" (Ps. CXLIII, 3-4), "What are the works of men? asks St. John Chrysostom: "Ashes and dust, dust before the wind, smoke and shadow, leaf and flower carried away by the wind, sleep, dream and fable, empty vibrations of the air, easily excited, feathers tossed, unstable currents, and everything that can only be more insignificant than this" [129]. Why did the Lord need these illusory human deeds? Why did He not only deign to "bring man from non-existence into existence, but also raised up the fallen and gave him the kingdom of the future" [130]. The legal principle will not explain to us this "gracious mercy" of God, by which He "did not suffer to see the tormented human race from the devil" [131]. Where right and satisfaction operate, there is no place for such causeless, unselfish goodness.

Let us take, however, the relationship between God and man as a given of experience; without thinking about their origin. Let us assume that there is a legal union between God and man at the present time: the virtue of man is the price that the Lord demands of him for the promised rewards. But even with this concession, the relationship between God and man will not be valid from a legal point of view: before thinking about any reward for his deeds, a person owes God for all the benefits received and received. "If God, say St. Macarius of Egypt, entered into court with us, then nothing would have been found, which in true truth belongs to man; for both possessions and all imaginary earthly goods, with which a person can do good, and the earth and everything that is on it, and the body itself, and the very soul belong to Him. And not only everything else, but also existence itself, man has by grace. Therefore, what property does he have, which he could rightly boast of and justify? [132]. As it is impossible to outstrip one's shadow, which advances in so far as we go forward, and always precedes us at an equal distance; just as it is impossible for the body to grow higher than the head, which always rises above it, so it is impossible for us to surpass God with our gifts. For we give nothing that does not belong to Him, or that is outside the circle of His bounty. Think, whence does being, breathing, and understanding come from in you? Whence comes the supreme advantage, that thou knowest God, that thou hast hoped for the kingdom of heaven?" [133]. "What shall we render to the merciful God for all these blessings and gifts, because He came down from heaven from the Father, or that for our sake He was incarnated in the womb, or because He was choked for us? In order to repay for one ear, then if we had lived on earth for thousands of years, we could in no way repay this mercy of God" [134] "Children," says St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, "whatever reverence and pleasing they do to their father, they give him what is due to him, as a parent, educator and provider, otherwise they would be ungrateful: so Christians, no matter how hard they try to please the heavenly Father, they give what is due, and thus they cannot deserve anything; but what they receive from God, they do not receive. For we cannot repay God for His beneficence to us, which has been shown and shown in any way, but we always remain debtors to Him" [135]. Thus, our good deeds, even if we recognize a certain value for it, still cannot deserve a reward for a person, it will go, so to speak, to pay off a debt; Thus, "if we do not do what is commanded to us, then we are not only deprived of the heavenly reward, but we have no right to be called even ineligible slaves" [136]. "You do not show mercy (to God by striving for good), says St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "because you yourself received it before: on the contrary, you repay mercy by repaying the debt to Him crucified for you on Golgotha" [137].

But this is not enough. If we measure the relationship between God and man by a legal mark and consistently; to the end, it must be admitted that, just as every good deed gives a man at least a phantom of the right to a reward, so, on the other hand, every sin, every violation of the covenant with God necessarily requires satisfaction, so to speak, of payment for oneself (as the Catholics really teach), and consequently, it also takes away the last phantom of the right to some reward from God. "The corruptible human race is worthy of a thousand deaths, because it abides in sins," says St. Basil the Great [138]. Sin is not the property of the imperfect alone, it is a universal phenomenon, and everyone can say of himself without any hesitation: "How shall man be justified before God? So He does not trust His servants and sees faults in His angels: all the more so in those who dwell in tabernacles of clay, whose foundation is dust, which are destroyed more quickly than moths (Job. IX, 2; IV, 18 – 19). "In the courage of even chosen men, one can, in the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria, find something worthy of just censure, which is seen by the knowledge of the Lawgiver, although it escapes our gaze" [139]. Let someone be righteous, says St. John Chrysostom, but even if he is righteous a thousand times (can muriaciV h dicaioV) and ascends to the very top, so as to renounce sins, he cannot be clean from defilement; though he be a thousand times righteous, he is a man" [140]. Where is the possibility of demanding from God any reward, any satisfaction, when on our part there is only a violation of the covenant with God, only an increase in an already great debt? "Know," says St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, "that we have not deserved any good from God, but, on the contrary, we are worthy of any punishment, and whatever punishment may be, our sins are still worthy of a greater one" [141] If this state (i.e., the state in hell after the general judgment) were the lot of all, then even in this case no one would have the right to reproach the justice of God, the avenger." says quite justly, from a strictly legal point of view, bl. Augustine [142].

But if we forget all this, forget both the insignificance and sinfulness of man, then even then from the point of view of law we cannot explain the salvation of man: the basic principle of the legal union – the equality of sacrifice and retribution, work and reward – is not maintained. What is earthly life in comparison with bliss beyond the grave? An insignificant drop in comparison with the whole ocean. If, therefore, a person's deeds have any value, it is at least not for the purpose of obtaining eternal bliss. "If Abraham, says the Holy Apostle Paul, was justified by works, then he has praise, but not in the sight of God (Rom. IV, 2). From our earthly point of view and for earthly purposes, the righteousness of man has some value and may deserve some reward in the eyes of men, but before the Judgment of God, where the judgment on man's final fate is pronounced, this righteousness has no value, does not correspond to the greatness of the reward. First of all, this is because "the time of repentance is short, but the kingdom of heaven has no end" [143]. The labor of asceticism, like a dream, is fleeting, and the repose with which this work is rewarded is infinite and indescribable" [144]. "Our short-lived affliction produces eternal glory beyond measure" (2 Cor. IV, 17 – 18). "The thousands of years of this world are also in comparison with the eternal and incorruptible world, as if one had taken one grain of sand from all the multitude of the sands of the sea" [145]. But time and eternity are opposed to each other not only in their continuity, quantitatively, but they are much more incomparable with each other in their content, in their qualitative difference. No matter what efforts a person undertakes, no matter what sufferings he endures, all this is nothing compared to the bliss that he receives for it. "Look," says St. John Chrysostom, "what greatness of glory which the following virtues enjoy, it surpasses all (wV nican authn panta) that anyone may do; let him reach the very top, and then stay behind. What can a man do to fully deserve (epaxiwV aJlhsai) the bounty of the Lord?" [146]. "If," says St. Macarius of Egypt, every man from the time when Adam was created until the end of the world waged war with Satan and endured sorrows, then he would not have done anything great in comparison with the glory which he inherits, because he will reign with Christ for endless ages" [147].

The impossibility of understanding salvation from the point of view of law is further revealed by the inadmissible and inconceivable phenomenon in a legal union, that one of the members of the union (God) not only does not need the other members and does not seek to use their labors and forces for his own benefit, but turns out to be a constant and necessary helper to them in everything with which the latter want to oblige Him. Each member of a legal union has its own well-being as its goal and, as is natural, wants to have it at the lowest price on its part. And the Lord possesses blessedness apart from man, and so, in spite of this, He not only acknowledges Himself as a debtor to everyone who does good, but also strives for some reason to increase His debt, Himself working for people and considering what He has done to be the work of people. "Virtue," says Bl. Augustine, whatever they may be, although called ours, is given to us by Divine grace" [148]. "Your merits," says St. John Chrysostom, "are not from you, but from the grace of God. If you point to faith, it is from a calling; whether you point to the remission of sins, to the gifts, to the ability to teach, to the virtues, you have received all from there. What, tell me, do you have that you have that you have received, but have achieved by yourself? You can't point to anything. You have received, and yet you are exalted? At the same time, one should humble oneself; for what is given does not belong to you, but to Him who gave it. If you have received, you have received from Him; if you have received from Him, you have not received what is yours; If you have not received what is your own, then why are you exalted, as if you had everything from yourself? [149] "How can we deserve eternal life by our obedience, when true obedience is not our own, but God's work, and it is ascribed to us that we do not resist the grace of God, but cooperate with that which works in us?" [150] What kind of merit can there be on the part of a person when he cannot take a step in moral development without God's help? "If Thy mercy had not covered me, says St. John. Ephraim the Syrian: I would perish now, as dust before the wind, as I have never appeared in this life" [151] Without God, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, we are all mortal playthings of vanity, the living dead, stinking of sins" You have not seen a bird fly where there is no air, a dolphin swims where there is no water; so a man without Christ does not lift his feet up" [152]. Thus, in the essence of the matter, man not only does not oblige the Lord with his merits, but rather owes them to Him. How can we understand the union of God with man after this, if we stand strictly from a legal point of view? I enter into a union not at all out of a desire to serve or help my neighbor, but, on the contrary, out of a desire to use the powers of my neighbor for my own well-being. At the same time, my goal, of course, is to receive as much as possible and give as little as possible. Shall I, therefore, assume any obligations if I do not expect to receive a greater or, at the very least, equal remuneration for them? Meanwhile, the Lord not only enters into a union with man and assumes obligations upon Himself, having no need of this union or of man in general, not only gives man a reward infinitely superior to the latter's labor and forgets all his untruths, without demanding payment for them, but He Himself also produces good in man, so that He Himself may be obliged to man for this good. "God, who, according to St. Irenaeus of Lyons, needs nothing, accepts our good works in order to reward us with His blessings, as our Lord says: Come in the blessing of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat... Inasmuch as you have done this to one of the least of my brethren, you have done it to me (Matt. XXV, 34 et seq.). He does not need it, but he wants us to do it for our own benefit, so that we may not be barren." From a legal point of view, this phenomenon is incomprehensible, even downright meaningless.

Obviously, this union of God with man must be understood from a different point of view, and not from a legal one, which can only distort it, and not explain it. It is not the right that is at work here, not the desire for "one's own", but mercy, forgetfulness of oneself and the desire to serve another, lesser one. What a distance; asks St. John Chrysostom, do you imagine between God and man? How is it between a man and a worm? But even imagining this difference in this way, you have said nothing, and nothing can be said. But will you seek for yourself from the worm of loud glory? No. If, with all your love of glory, you do not want this, will He be in need of your glorification, Who does not have such a partiality and stands so high above you? However, not needing glory, He says for your sake that He desires it. And if He did not disdain to become a slave for your sake, is it any wonder that for the same motive, He gives His consent to something else? Whatever contributes to our salvation, He considers nothing unworthy of Himself" [154].

That is why the Fathers of the Church, who used the analogy of labor and reward, podvig and crown, never forgot and did not conceal from their listeners that this is only an analogy, only an approximate comparison, which by no means expresses the essence of our salvation, that salvation is not accomplished according to the external law of equal reward. Here, for example, are a few examples from the works of St. John Chrysostom, who, as we noted above, most often and in detail dwelt on this analogy of podvig and crown. Wishing to explain to man his salvation, many, including the Holy Father himself, follow in the footsteps of St. Paul. Paul, to the analogues of competitions on the lists: both here and there a reward is given for victory. But the resemblance is only visible, the difference; (At the Olympic Games), says St. Chrysostom, the teacher of wrestlers stands, remaining only a spectator, not being able to do anything else, but only waiting on whose side the victory will be. Not so our Lord: He fights and stretches out His hand, and touches, and, as if Himself overcoming the enemy from all sides, delivers him into our hands, does and arranges everything so that we can stand firm in the struggle and gain victory, and he can lay on our head an unfading crown" [155]. A comparison with a battle is used, but this comparison must also be understood with a great limitation. "Do not hide behind the burden of labors and feats: not only by the hope of 6 good things, but also by another way, God has made virtue easy for us: He always helps and helps us. Only wish to show even a little diligence, and then everything else will follow by itself. For this He requires of you at least a little labor, so that your victory may be yours. As a king commands his son to stand in ranks, shoot arrows, and be in sight in order to attribute victory to him, and yet he himself directs the course of the battle, so God acts in our war against the devil. He demands of you only that you declare open enmity towards the devil – and if you do this, then He Himself will have already ended the whole war" [156]. One can compare the relationship between God and man with the relationship of a lender and a debtor, but "among men who have accepted the pledge think that they show mercy to us, keeping what they have received: but with Christ it is the opposite: having received a pledge from you, He, according to Him, does not show mercy, but on the contrary receives, and for the very care that He shows to your possessions, He does not demand payment from you, but he repays you" [157].

Thus, all these and similar comparisons, while presenting a certain external resemblance to the work of our salvation, do not express such an essential, fundamental feature of it, without which it appears in a false light: according to them we should serve God, whereas He "came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life" for us (Matt. XX, 28). According to the legal understanding, it turns out that by our deeds we show something to God, that we must quench His wrath with our sorrows and sufferings, that we must pay for ourselves, that for the future pleasure that God has promised us. He deprives us of our temporal pleasures, as if he does not have such generosity as to grant man complete bliss. In fact, God is ready to do everything to save man, to bring him into that bliss – He does not consider anything so great and dear to Himself that He does not sacrifice it for the salvation of man. Our deeds are insignificant and illusory, and if God were as the legal understanding of life imagines Him to be, like a lazy servant who has buried his talent, if He were a reaper where He did not sow, and a gatherer where He did not scatter (Matt. XXV, 24), then, of course, He would not have given anything for these works of ours (nor would we have had them then), and we would never have been able to "get rid of our body of death" (Rom. VII, 24). But "thanks be to God" – He is not such as to be afraid to have mercy and squander His gifts – He does not calculate how much a person should, on the contrary, He "only expects an occasion from us to show His great mercy" [158]. "Man, to say St. Ephraim the Syrian can receive a reward for his labors more than by goodness. (But) whose work is equivalent to a kingdom? Who (therefore) can receive the kingdom in righteousness, if he does not inherit it? Is a drop given in truth, and the rest makes up for goodness? The work of righteousness gives only chance, and will reward the giver with great wealth for a little" [159].

In view of such inconsistencies in the legal understanding of life. The Churches have allowed it only as a comparison, they have always been aware that in our salvation there is the mercy of God, which is always ready to give more even than is required, and not a dry calculation that thinks only of not passing on the superfluous, so as not to cause loss to itself. The Church, however, ascribed salvation not to works, not to merit, but exclusively to the mercy of God. We work, we do good, but we are saved not by work, "we are rewarded by Christ the Lord in the age to come according to His mercy alone, and not according to merit" [160]. "Eternal rest," says St. Basil the Great, "awaits those who have lawfully asceticized in this life, (but) rest, not given according to the merit of works, but according to the grace of the great-gifted God, granted to those who trust in Him" [161]. Interpreting Rom. VI, 23, St. John Chrysostom says: "The Apostle did not say that it (eternal life) is the reward for your merits, but: "the gift of God," meaning that we were not freed by ourselves and did not receive a debt, not a reward, not a reward for labors, on the contrary, all this is a work of grace. And from this we can see the advantage of grace: it has not only freed us and improved our lot, but has even accomplished all this without our efforts and labors" [162]. "Everything good and salvific is done not out of duty, but by grace and grace alone (cariti panta cai agaJothti), and we have not given us any reason to do us good" [163]. Our personal participation in our salvation seems to disappear before the greatness of what the Lord does for us and in us, so that St. Athanasius of Alexandria expresses the Orthodox teaching on the salvation of man quite accurately, saying that all our salvation must be attributed to the mercy of God" [164].

Only such a teaching is reconciled to this concept of God; "which God Himself has revealed to us; only with such an idea of salvation will we understand that God is a God of love, there is, indeed, our heavenly Father, Who is indifferently ready to have mercy on everyone, if only they would turn for this mercy. "Ask, saith the Lord, and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find; For if you are evil, you know how to give good to your children: how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him" (Matt. VII, 7 – 11). "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy (this is the basic thesis of the legal, legal understanding of life: to repay what is due to everyone). But I say, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who despitefully and persecute you (the mood is directly opposite to legalism, why is it necessary?): that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust, without asking how much they deserve these mercies, and not fearing to reward the unworthy. (Matthew V:43-45). Does the legal concept of Him correspond to such a concept of God? Can we say that the Lord "is good for those without grace and evil" (Luke 2:10). VI, 35), if He gives only what is equal, if He has mercy only on the worthy. What is the difference between such retribution and ordinary human justice? "If you, saith the Lord, will love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what special do you do? Do not the Gentiles do the same?" (Matt. V, 36 – 47). The same can be said about the legal concept of God. If He has mercy only on the worthy, then is this love? Would not each of us, imbued with selfishness, do the same? In what, then, is the superiority of Divine mercy over ours? "If," we confess to God in our daily evening prayers, "Thou shalt save the righteous, nothing great; and if Thou wilt have mercy on the pure, it is no wonder: for the essence of Thy mercy is worthy." But "in this is love, that we did not love God, but He first loved us" (I Jn. IV, 10); but "God commendeth his love, in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. V, 8), "But upon me (we pray), surprise sinners with Thy mercy, for this manifest Thy love for mankind, so that my malice may not overcome Thy ineffable goodness and mercy" [165]. If the Lord teaches us to forgive our neighbor his sins against us, it is because He forbade us to demand any satisfaction for the offenses inflicted on us, although the law of righteousness not only permits this, but also requires it, then He forbade it because He Himself does not demand satisfaction from us, which He Himself forgives us. Only the law represented the Lord as the guardian of righteousness, but with the coming of Christ, the law was recognized as imperfect (Rom. III, 21, etc.), ceased to exist, and we saw our Heavenly Father as His Only-begotten Son revealed Him to us.