"Behold, with the Lord your God," the great prophet testifies, "is the heavens, and the heavens of heavens, the earth, and all that is in it"[21]. The Lord's is the earth and what fills it, the universe and all that lives in it[22]. The very sacrifices offered by man to God, according to the consciousness of the Old Testament believer, were offered from the Divine inheritance: His are all the beasts in the forest, and the cattle on the thousand mountains[23]; His is silver and gold,[24] and even the very life of man, his soul, is God's property, which was clearly expressed for the people's consciousness in the "redemption of souls"[25]. Thus, the conclusion clearly follows from what has been said that, according to the Old Testament view, the right of human property is God-given, but not unconditional: the Lord is the supreme Lord of all; man receives everything from God, having nothing in the world that could be the subject of man's inalienable possession: when he dies, he will take nothing, his glory will not follow him[26]. Naked I came out of my mother's womb, naked and I will return. The Lord gave, and the Lord took away[27].

In accordance with this principle of the Lord's supreme dominion over all things, we find in the Old Testament legislation a whole series of laws, on the one hand, defining and protecting the right to private property, and on the other, restricting this right, in accordance with the will of God and the relations which, according to this will, should exist between people.

As for the laws of the first kind, which protect the inviolability of private property, we need not dwell on their exposition in detail, so clear and definitely are these laws expressed. From Abraham to the last days of the history of Old Testament Israel, we find the institution of private property precisely defined by law. Any kind of theft was strictly condemned by the law[29], and the inviolability of private property was so protected that even the desire of someone else's was imputed to a sin[30]. Of greater interest to us, however, are those laws that limited the right to private property, since they determine the attitude of its owner himself to his property; And therefore here we meet not with legal, but with ethical norms of life relations. We will not speak of the laws which determine the duty of believers to offer sacrifice to God out of their possessions, which may include the "tithe" for the maintenance of the Levites. These laws are nothing but a particular expression of the principle of man's dependence and all his possessions on the supreme Lord of the Universe, of which we have already spoken above. We are especially interested in highlighting those restrictive provisions of the law in relation to private property, which are established on the basis of mutual love and the unity of vital interests of all Old Testament believers. Love your neighbor as yourself[32] — such, by the will of God, is the ideal norm of relationships between Old Testament believers. If this ideal principle had found its perfect realization in the Old Testament legislation, then, undoubtedly, the internal boundaries between "mine" and "yours" would have fallen. True love for one's neighbor, love for oneself, which leads to the complete unity of lovers, is always expressed in the renunciation of one's own, in readiness to sacrifice, in a living consciousness of the unity of interests and needs of one's own and that of one's beloved. If, from a psychological point of view, the essence of the right of property consists in the assertion of the strictest boundary between "I" and "not I," between "mine" and "yours," then love is characterized by a different tendency: to destroy the boundary between "I" and "not I," to live in another, to find the fullness and happiness of one's life not in the acquisition and increase of one's possessions, but in giving and sacrificing. For love, therefore, it is always more blessed to give than to receive[33]. But just as the Old Testament law in general did not bring anything to perfection[34] by virtue of its temporary purpose — to be only a tutor to Christ,[35] so the beginning of mutual love did not find perfect expression in the Old Testament legislation. Not only was the concept of "neighbor," whom one should love as oneself, narrowed, but love itself was defined more from the negative side (not to do harm to one's neighbor) than from the positive side — selfless sacrifice and forgiveness. In spite of this, in the Old Testament legislation, as a prototype of the future law of love, we encounter a number of such restrictive prescriptions in relation to the right of private property, which clearly preached the high principle of the unity of the people and the interests of the whole people, in the face of which the right to own one's own acquired the ethical character of the consciousness of duty or obligation to see in one's own and the common property. We shall name the most important laws of this kind, and it will become clear that the right to private property, protected by the law with the greatest possible severity, was restricted by the same law in the face of the higher principle of love in the mutual relations of men. Already in the division of the land of Canaan we see the consistent application of the principle that an inheritance should be given to each according to the number of tribe and family. But this is not enough. The unlimited right of ownership always implies the ability to freely dispose of one's property, sell it and enjoy all its fruits. However, in relation to both of these rights, the Old Testament legislation establishes certain and essential restrictions. So, first of all, the sale of land forever was prohibited. "The land," the Lord commanded, "must not be sold forever, for the land is mine: you are strangers and sojourners with me"[38]. This principle was realized in the law according to which the land sold in each anniversary year had to be returned to its first owner.37 It is of no essential interest to us whether this law was strictly enforced or not. It is important for us to note this law as restricting in principle the right of private ownership of land and striving to maintain the equal distribution of landed property, which was the basis of the original division of the promised land.

The right of the owner to use the fruits of his land plot was no less clearly limited by law. The most important thing here is the law of the "Sabbath rest" of the earth. "Six years," says the lawgiver, "sow your land and gather in its produce, and in the seventh you shall leave it alone, so that the poor of your people may eat, and the beasts of the field may eat the remnants of them. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive tree."38 By this law, as it were, the boundaries of private property were completely abolished for a year, and the poor and the rich were to use the native products of the land equally. In the seventh year, the forgiveness of all debt obligations was also determined[39]. But the right to use the fruits of the land during the six years preceding the Sabbath year was limited in the most essential way in the face of the principle that the right of property should not completely block the possibility for all those in need to enjoy the fruits of the land and the labor of the owner. These laws, the content of which we will quote below, amaze us with their humanity and, from the point of view of modern law, are the most flagrant violation of the right to private property. But from the point of view of ethical evaluation, these laws most clearly indicate that already in the Old Testament legislation there was a shadow of the future perfect law of love in the Kingdom of Christ, under the rule of which law the inner boundary between "mine" and "yours" falls for the one who owns something. "When you enter your neighbor's vineyard," the law commands, "you may eat the berries to your heart's content, as much as your soul desires; but thou shalt not put it in thy vessel. When you come to harvest your neighbor, pluck the ears of grain with your hands, but do not bring the sickle into your neighbor's harvest"[40]. The laws on residues had a similar significance. When you reap the harvest in your land, do not reap to the edge of your field, and do not gather what is left of your harvest: leave it to the poor and to the stranger[41]. The same is said about the harvesting of the olive[42]. The laws that forbade the use of this right cruelly, even to the point of oppressing one's neighbor, had the same restrictive character in relation to the right to property. For example, it was required to return the outerwear of the nearest person taken as a pledge before sunset[43] and it was forbidden to take basic necessities as a pledge[44].

Finally, a very important limitation of the right to property, namely, from an ethical point of view, is the clearly recognized and definitely expressed duty of alms to the needy in the Old Testament. The view of alms in the Old Testament will be discussed in detail below. Here we will only emphasize the point of view, which is interesting for us in this case, that the exclusive possession of one's property is considered not as a legal human right, which is legally indisputable, but as a grave crime. A great sin will be on the one who, having wealth, refuses to help a brother in need[45]. In such a view of the subject we have the right to see such an ethical evaluation of the institution of private property, when the possession of the latter is inseparably linked with the duty to serve one's neighbor out of one's wealth. That is why in the Old Testament understanding of life those traits of the righteous man type stand out so clearly, according to which he willingly does good to the needy[46]; And vice versa, the refusal to help the needy, the view of one's property, therefore, as only personal property, is always considered as a great sin, entailing all kinds of misfortunes. To this may also be reckoned the laws which forbid to take the growth from the loan given to fellow countrymen;

laws that also provide for the joint use of property and the owner's refusal for a period of time from the normal operation of his property[48].

We have characterized the Old Testament legislation in its relation to the right of private property only in the most general terms, since for us this legislation has a limited significance, as a shadow of the future law of love in the Kingdom of Christ.

But it is quite natural that the internal boundaries of the right of property could only be significantly narrowed, but not destroyed in the consciousness of Old Testament mankind. For such annihilation, perfect love, complete unity with the beloved, was needed. In relation to God, man gave the firstfruits of fruit, tithed the temple, and felt himself to be a redeemed servant of Jehovah. If he gave a tenth of his income to the poor,[49] he was aware that the duty of philanthropy had been fulfilled. Only perfect love transcends the boundaries of number and measure, and such perfect love has been revealed to the world in the person and work of Christ the Savior.

First of all, it is hardly necessary to dwell for a long time on the thesis that in the New Testament teaching, as well as in the Old Testament, God is presented as the one supreme Lord of all. The New Testament man also brings nothing with him into the world and, dying, cannot take anything out of it[50], just as the Old Testament man does, but receives everything from God[51]. The difference between the two Testaments in this respect is that Christians have received new and immeasurable gifts of saving grace, spiritual gifts, before the greatness of which all the blessings of the visible world, all the happiness of the present life, are insignificant. For the Christian consciousness, the truth that everything in the world is God's, and everything that is good in us is a gift of God's grace. A Christian cannot make a single hair white or black, nor add even one cubit to his height[53], but stands in the grace of God and only boasts of it at every moment of the truly Christian life[54]. Many parables

Gentlemen, for example, speak of talents and minas, of evil husbandmen, unrighteous bailiffs, and others, speak with all certainty that man in this world is an owner only in the conditional sense of the word: not the lord of creation, but as if he were the administrator of another's property, called upon to give an account of the faithfulness of the management of the property entrusted to him. Even the very souls and bodies of the faithful are considered in the same dignity: as God's[55], called to be temples of the Holy Spirit[56].

Thus, it is the first duty for a Christian in his attitude to his property to dispose of it in accordance with the will of God.

In Christianity we do not find particular laws restricting the right of Christians to dispose of their property, like the Old Testament laws prohibiting the sale of land forever, commanding not to reap the edges of the field, leaving the remains to the poor, etc. All such laws could not have a place in the Kingdom of Christ, where the perfect law of freedom reigns[57]; such laws are not needed in the Kingdom of Christ, where perfect love should reign. For such love there is no need for restrictions in number and measure, since truly Christian love by its very nature is imbued with the principle of boundless self-denial and readiness for sacrifice. Christianity never encroached on the right to private property and asserted with all force and certainty the inviolability of this right[58]. But when it proclaimed that the true disciples of Christ are only those who love one another,[59] and indicated in the person of Christ the Savior the ideal of such love,[60] it thereby radically changed man's view of his right to own property. We have already said that the essence of love consists in a living striving for unity with the beloved, in the merging of the interests of lovers, in the readiness for the sake of love for any self-restraint and sacrifice. All these are qualities of love that are inherently incompatible with the principles underlying the ethical foundation of the right to property. Let us not repeat what has been said and turn to the exposition of the Gospel teaching on the attitude of a Christian to his property.

We have said that the characteristic sign of love is always self-denial, the willingness to give up one's own for the sake of the beloved. And indeed, in the Gospel we find many exhortations to be prepared for such self-denial and a constant call to share one's own with others.

"I say to you," Christ the Savior taught, "do not resist evil... but whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt from you, give him also your outer garments"[61]. Thus, the principle of the inviolability of the right of property for a Christian has full force and significance only in relation to the property of others, and in his personal life he renounces this right in the name of higher interests, which we will see later. And if this happens in the external clash of a Christian with the evil will of man, then all the more completely and joyfully is such a renunciation of one's own for the sake of love for God and neighbor. "Whosoever one of you," teaches the Lord, "who does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple"[62]. Why is that? Therefore, there is no doubt that life in following Christ is a life according to the law of love, which always renounces everything that is yours for the sake of the beloved, not excluding life itself[63]. Therefore, we cannot be surprised at all by the persistent Gospel call addressed to the disciples of Christ to give away their possessions. The general law of this distribution is a simple and clear law: to everyone who asks you, and from him who takes what is yours, do not demand it back[64]. It is clear, without much reasoning, that the observance of this law is tantamount to the actual renunciation of property. And in the Gospel such renunciation is directly required of all who wish to follow Christ. He calls His apostles, and they immediately leave all that they possessed[65] and follow Him. Christ gives the same advice to all the young flock that is ready to follow Him: "Sell," He commands, "your possessions and give alms"[66]. He gives the same advice to the rich young man in particular: "If thou wilt," the Saviour says to him, "to be perfect, go, sell thy possessions and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me"[67]. The young man departed with sorrow, not having the determination to fulfill Christ's commandment, and could no longer follow Him, just as no one can, according to the Lord, serve two masters: God and mammon[68]. In the Lord's words to the rich young man, we see a direct indication that the renunciation of property is one of the conditions for moral perfection. We will have to return to this instructive story when we have a discussion of the Christian view of wealth and poverty; for the time being, let us note the indisputable, in our opinion, circumstance that such a renunciation was required by Christ the Savior from all His closest followers. Whether this renunciation was carried out in the form indicated by the Lord to the rich young man and others seeking salvation,[69] or in another form, for example, in the form of service from one's possessions to the Lord Himself and His disciples,[70] but, in any case, the whole spirit of Christ's preaching spoke of the fact that concern for acquisition cannot enter into the Christian consciousness as a norm of life, the preservation and multiplication of property in the form of personal possession of the goods of the land. In addition to the direct commandment to do good to all and to lend without waiting for repayment,[71] which is inevitably connected with a constant readiness to renounce one's own for the sake of one's neighbors, the very ideal of the Christian mood in relation to the world and its blessings completely excluded even the possibility of speaking on the part of believers about the right to own property and about the duty to protect this right. These are the words of the Lord in which, with touching simplicity and at the same time, the truly Christian attitude to everything that is usually the object of possession in this world is depicted. "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal, for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also... No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for the one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your soul what ye shall eat or drink, nor for your body what ye shall wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into the garner, and your Father who is in heaven feeds them. Are you not much better than them? And who among you, by care, can add even one cubit to his height? And what do you care about clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: they do not work, nor spin; but I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like any of them; but if the grass of the field, which is there today, and tomorrow will be thrown into the furnace, God dresses it in such a way, how much more than you, you of little faith! Do not be anxious, therefore, and say, What shall we eat? or what to drink? or what to wear, because the heathen seek all these things; and because your Father who is in heaven knows that you have need of all these things. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of its own, and each day will have enough of its own care." It is enough, I think, to read these words to make it clear that with such a view of the world and its benefits, it is impossible to speak of one's right to own anything. For one who inwardly renounces all that he has[73] there can be no fear of losing his property; just as there can be no thought about his right to possess his own in one who has accepted in his heart the teaching of Christ: to everyone who asks you, give[74]. In the consciousness of a Christian, one idea reigns: we have one Heavenly Father and one Teacher, Christ, and we are all brothers to one another[75]. This idea of Christian equality and brotherhood makes it so that if in personal life the guiding principle in relation to property is the renunciation of it in favor of the poor, then in the life of the Christian community such a principle must naturally be the communion of possessions. Of course, just as in personal life there can be no place for the enslavement of property in one hand, so in the life of the Christian community there is no place for such enslavement, but its property serves all those in need, as the life of the primitive Church has proved. Nevertheless, in the depths of the church community, the principle of communion of property is most definitely realized. In a concrete form, with a certain organization of the distribution of material resources, we encounter such communion in the primitive Church.