Homilies on the Psalms — Homily 1 — Psalm 15 (LXX; MT 16), Homily I: vv. 1–6
Greek source: Origen's homilies on the Psalms, preserved in a single manuscript (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. graec. 314, 12th century), from the reading text of L. Perrone et al. (eds.), Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, Origenes Werke XIII (GCS NF 19; Berlin, 2015), pp. 73–90. Psalms are numbered as in the Septuagint. This English translation is released into the public domain.On the 15th Psalm, Homily 1
1. There are certain letters written on living steles, "not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God", and written "not on tablets of stone", nor on hearts of stone, unyielding and hard toward the words of God, such as was the heart of Pharaoh, who was hardened in it. These letters are written on a heart that is tender and yielding to the one who writes, and †indeed for this reason fleshly. These letters written on a fleshly stele, being holy, make what has been written bear the heading "stele-inscription". Therefore the psalm that has been read is entitled "A stele-inscription for David".
If you wish to know how many psalms have this title, together with certain other words added to "the stele-inscription", learn that they are the fifty-fifth, the fifty-sixth, the fifty-seventh, the one after it, namely the fifty-eighth, and the fifty-ninth. This one, then, is "A stele-inscription", he says, "for David", but each of those has certain additions. For example, the fifty-fifth: "To the end, on behalf of the people who have been removed far from the holy things, for David, for a stele-inscription, when the foreigners seized him in Gath"; and the fifty-sixth: "To the end, do not destroy, for David, for a stele-inscription, when he was fleeing from the face of Saul into the cave". So that we need not recite these things, which you can find by reading them over for yourselves, we say that the others have "stele-inscription" in the title together with other words added to the "stele-inscription", but this one alone has nothing else in the title than the "stele-inscription".
"You shall not make", then, "for yourself a stele, which things the Lord hated". But if you understand what has been said, you will see that the one who entitled psalms "stele-inscription" has not acted against the law. And pay attention to the letter of the law, which says: "You shall not make for yourself a stele, which things the Lord hated". If what is written were meant more simply, it would have been said thus: "You shall not make for yourself a stele, for the Lord hated steles," or "You shall not make for yourself a stele, which (ἥν) the Lord hated." But as it is, having first spoken in the singular, he adds a plural, saying: "You shall not make for yourself a stele, which things (ἃ) the Lord hated".
I think that what is being legislated is something like this: each of those who do anything whatsoever makes a stele for himself. If, then, he lives badly, he makes for himself "a stele, which things the Lord hated", since in the stele there is sin and "the works of the flesh": "fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry", and the rest. But if someone lives well, he does not break the law in making a stele. For he makes a stele of the things which the Lord loved, and the letters are part of his own stele, and in them are written the things which the Lord loved; and his life is part of a stele which the Lord loved. It is not simply, then, that one must not make a stele for oneself, since then David breaks the law in writing a "stele-inscription"; rather, one must not make "a stele, which things the Lord hated".
And Jacob too honors Rachel with a stele when she departed from life: "This is the stele of Rachel's tomb until this day". And surely he did nothing contrary to the law of God, with which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob lived, since he had been taught it by nature, according to what is said by the Apostle. By the Apostle it is said thus: "For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law". Abraham, then, did by nature the things of the law. Therefore, before the law was written with ink, the law of God had been written upon his heart. For indeed he was justified as one who had done all the ordinances and the statutes and the commandments of God, as is written in Genesis. So Jacob too does not break the law in making a stele of Rachel's tomb, so that Rachel's good things might be manifest to the one able to contemplate them. These things, then, have been said for the present about the title.
2. Let us look at the psalm too, having first said this: the person in the psalm is that of our Lord Christ Jesus. In the case of some psalms, if we say that the person in a psalm is, by way of prophecy, that of our Lord, whether because we find it or apply our minds to it or are enlightened or are conjecturing, we speak soundly or unsoundly. But in the case of some we learn the person from the Scriptures, as in the case of this psalm. For it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that the words "You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you give your holy one to see corruption", which stand in this psalm, were spoken from the person of the Savior. At any rate Peter, interpreting together with the other eleven apostles, says this: "For David says with reference to him: 'I foresaw the Lord before me always, for he is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced. Moreover my flesh too will dwell in hope, for you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you give your holy one to see corruption. You made known to me ways of life, you will fill me with gladness with your presence.' Men, brothers, it is permitted to speak with boldness to you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is among us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath to set one from the fruit of his loins upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades nor did his flesh see corruption". In these words, then, he says clearly that Jesus did not see corruption and that his soul was not left in Hades. He had gone down there because of the dispensation: since all places needed the sojourn of Christ Jesus, even the region under the earth itself, he went down into Hades. For he who ascended is also himself he who descended, that he might fill all things. And the other sayings set out by Peter in the Acts of the Apostles will also show that the psalm is spoken from the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. "Guard me, Lord, for in you I have hoped; I said to the Lord": the Savior recounts to us his own prayer, so that by recounting it he may teach us too to pray. For he prayed to the Father, saying: "Guard me, Lord", since the Savior is in need of the Father, and only the God of the universe is without need and has need of nothing. But the Savior, even if he is in need, has something exceptional, for he is in need of the God of the universe alone. Moses, on the other hand, if he is in need, is in need of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit and of the angels who help him and stand by him. And the lower we are, the more beings we need, since no one is capable of being benefited by God alone. If, then, I say that the Savior, Christ the Wisdom, is in need, do not take offense at what is said. I do not say that he is in need in the same way as you or anyone who requires help from those who are under God. I say that he is in need of the one God and Father, to whom he prayed both through the prophets, as now, and in the Gospels, where he used to withdraw into the deserts and, as one in need of God, pray to him.
But if ever I wish, as one in need of God alone, to pray to God as the Savior does, and I offer my prayer without the Savior, I pray an imperfect prayer. For my prayer, even if it is sent up to God, must be sent up through Jesus Christ, "the high priest and protector of our souls". For the Father will not accept the prayer if I offer it without making use of the High Priest, since it cannot reach him without Jesus Christ, who offers it. To him God said with an oath: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek", even if our Lord needs guarding from the Father when he says: "Guard me, Lord, for in you I have hoped", recounting this to us and saying that he has said it to the Lord. He himself, then, also needs guarding; without the Father's guarding I do not know what he would suffer.
But I can also explain in another way, more reverently and in a manner that pleases many, how the Savior says "Guard me, Lord, for in you I have hoped". For I say that he said this to his Lord and Father concerning those who are his members. And I say this: one who prays about his own body prays not about another but about himself. For example, if I pray about my head, I pray about myself; if I pray about the members of my body, I pray about myself. In the same way, understand, I pray you, that the Savior too, since "you are" members "of Christ, and members in part" and "you are the body of Christ", when he prays and says "Guard me, Lord", is praying about you and speaking about himself. For you are his body, you are his member, unless you wish to be separated from him. The Savior is composite because of you. You are composite, having a body inferior to the substance of your soul and to the nature of your spirit. But my Savior and Lord is composite because of the church, which is his body; he prays for it, since it needs guarding, and says: "Guard me, Lord". For this reason too, referring all things likewise to his body, he says: "I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink", as if I too were to say: "If you gave food to my body, you gave it to me; if you gave drink to my body, you gave drink to me."
If, then, we do anything to the body of Christ, the church, and to the members of Christ, our brothers, we do it to Christ. For if we do evil to one who believes in Christ, we insult Christ, we speak evil of Christ, we despise Christ; and if we act well, we do good to Christ, when we feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty. For this reason, when you do good or evil to your neighbor, do not think that what you risk concerns a human being: what you risk concerns Christ himself. "If a man sins grievously against a man", says Eli in the first book of Kingdoms, "they will also pray for him; but if he sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?" Do not think that you sin against a human being when you sin against a Christian; for in sinning against a Christian you sin against Christ. When you sin against a Gentile, you sin against a human being.
But do not be contemptuous even when you sin against a Gentile. Even if you sin against a Gentile, see how his origin came about in the words "Let us make man according to our image and likeness". Sinning against a Christian and sinning against a human being include sinning against everyone who is "according to the image of the one who created", and among these are also angels and thrones and dominions. If you take these away, sin no longer exists. If you take away sinning against a human being, sinning against a brother, sinning against one who is "according to the image of the one who created", then do what you like to the irrational animal: slaughter it, sacrifice it, and you do not sin against the irrational animal. For the nature of sin does not even reach the irrational animal, so that one could say: "I have wronged the irrational animal, I have defrauded the irrational animal, or I have done some such thing." "For I will require your blood of your souls from every brother and from every beast". Therefore you, the human being, can be wronged; but the irrational animal is not by nature such as to be wronged.
These things by way of a brief digression, on account of "Guard me, Lord".
4. The reason why I must be guarded by the Lord is: "for in you", he says, "I have hoped". I am bold to say to the Lord: "Guard me, Lord, for" in him "I have hoped". I am bold to say that it is fitting concerning the one of whom he says "Guard me", and that I too, his member, hope in God through him. And we indeed need much guarding from the Lord, and at every moment. If we are not guarded, but are left even for a short while at any time, at once we fall into temptations, and at once, being left, we perceive that the Lord has in some way forgotten us, as we explained the other day. But the one who is tempted "will not be forgotten to the end": "persecuted", for, he says, "but not forsaken". We need so much guarding that he even commands his angels, lest our foot strike against a stone.
We need guarding as we journey: "there will encamp", you see, "an angel of the Lord round about those who fear him, and he will deliver them". We need angelic help, so that we may say: "the angel who delivers me from all evils".
And why do I speak of angelic help in this case? Let us look at the whole: "God who has nourished me from my youth, the angel who delivers me from all evils, bless these children". What angel delivers from all evils? I do not believe that Michael or Gabriel or any of the holy angels can "deliver from all evils". With difficulty can one deliver from a single evil; let it be even from a second. Whom, then, do I seek who delivers from all evils, if not the one who has authority also to bless Ephraim and Manasseh? Who is this "angel who delivers from all evils"? Christ Jesus, whose "name is called angel of great counsel".
And do not suppose that I diminish Christ in calling him an angel, just as I do not diminish him in calling him, for your sake, a man, lower than the angels. For it was of his love for humanity not to consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped, but to become a man in form, to humble himself, and to become obedient unto death, even death on a cross. So too it was a work of his love toward the angels that he should become an angel. He adorned the race of human beings by becoming a man, and it would not have been adorned or perfected had Christ not become a man. Just so, since the race of angels was deficient, the Christ of God adorned it by becoming an angel and by filling up through himself the deficiency of that race too. Thus the Christ of God adorned all things by becoming an angel, and he adorned all things solely by being God: he was adorned, having become God from the Father's divinity.
5. "You are my Lord, for you have no need of my goods". "There are", indeed, "many gods", as the Apostle says, "and many lords". But even if there are many gods, "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we unto him"; and even if there are many lords, yet for us there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him". And among the many gods are also those to whom the word says: "I said: you are gods". While there are many lords, this one Lord, whom the Savior too names Lord when he calls the Father so, has something exceptional compared with the many lords. For the other lords have need of the goods which those under them bring to them, but this Lord alone has no need of the goods of any of those over whom he is Lord. Therefore the Savior, as if referring something exceptional to his Father as Lord, says: "'I said to my Lord: You are my Lord, for you have no need of my goods'. For this reason 'you are' my 'Lord, for you have no need of' my 'goods', for you are not in want of them."
I shall begin from things below, so that you may contemplate what concerns the passage. The master has need of the goodness of the household slave, that he may serve him gratefully. He has need of his service, since, being a human being, he cannot be self-sufficient without that of which he has need: for example, the farming of a slave, the building of a slave, the serving of food done by a slave. And a human master cannot say to his slave: "I have no need of your goods", nor can a slave say to his master (for he is not naming God as lord): "You have no need of my goods", for a human being has need. Just as, then, in the case of a human being you have understood how the master has need of the slave's goods, ascend by reason and you will see that the other lords too, of whom the Apostle speaks, have need of goods, such as belong also to the words "the slaves of the lords, going to their own lords".
But I say that another lord of mine has need of my goods, unless I am so great as to be under the Savior as Lord or even under God as Lord. The God of the universe alone is the one who hears from the Savior: "'You are my Lord, for you have no need of my goods'. For this reason you are my Lord, since you have no need of my goods."
6. As if, hypothetically, you had need of my goods, consider what follows: "For the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful". The Father does not display wonders to all, but only to the holy ones, and to these not when they are outside his land but when they are in his land. If you can go up to the true land which God promised, of which this Judea on earth was a symbol, go up to that land. Then you will see that so long as you have not yet reached the land that is truly land, the land that is truly vast, the land that truly flows with milk and honey, so long as you have not yet come into the inheritance of the meek, according to what was said by the Savior, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land", you do not yet see the wonders of God. Even if you seem to see the wonders, like those who saw them in the time of Moses, as Moses himself saw them, you see wonders outside the land of God, through a mirror and in an enigma, not the wonders face to face.
But seek to see the good things of God! And who comes to be in the land of God, if not the one who has come out of the land of Egypt and has become worthy that his limbs should not fall in the desert? He has not sinned the sins which those who came out of the land of Egypt sinned before they reached the holy land. If you wish to come to the holy land and see the wonders of God, become Caleb the son of Jephunneh, become Joshua the son of Nun, become Eleazar the priest, become Phinehas the zealot, son of Eleazar the priest! For thus you will come, so that you may see the wonders of God in the land.
The discourse is about to venture something, and to venture something great, which could give offense to one who does not wait carefully for the whole contemplation of the good. The people saw the wonders of God in the plain of Tanis; how, then, is it true that "For the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful"? The people saw the wonders of God in the desert land, those recorded in Exodus, in Leviticus, in Numbers; how, then, is it true, as something exceptional, that "For the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful"? But judge the wonder that took place through Joshua when he was already in the holy land, which he was just on the point of taking as an inheritance. Then you will see that the wonder in the holy land is not to be compared with the wonders in Egypt, in the plain of Tanis, and the wonders in the desert. What was so great in the desert, what was so great in Egypt, as the wonder through Joshua: "Let the sun stand still over Gibeon and the moon over the ravine of Aijalon"? What wonder was so great when the Red Sea was divided as the wonder when the river Jordan, a sweet river, was divided? And if you can compare all the wonders with the wonders, those through Moses with those through Joshua, you will see that it is true: "For the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful".
And just as, if you compare allotment with allotment, that through Moses with that through Joshua, the allotment through Joshua is much greater and more divine than the allotment through Moses. For the allotment through Moses took place across the Jordan and beyond, and it took place for those who had many cattle: the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh. The allotment through Joshua was no longer to these. It went to the royal tribe of Judah, and to the tribe of Ephraim because of Joshua, and to the remaining tribes, and to the tribe of Benjamin, where the temple of God is. Just as, then, allotment compared with allotment differs greatly, in the same way "for the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful" for those.
If you wish to hear in another way how God, for those "in his land, made wonderful", but does not do wonders for those outside his land, understand, I pray you, the land of God figuratively now as the church. If you are within the borders of the church, you enjoy the wonders of God; but if you go out of the borders of the church, and you go out of them as often as you sin, you do not taste the wonders of God. Therefore it has been said: "For the holy ones who are in his land the Lord made wonderful all his wishes in them". In which "them"? "In those who are in the land of God: not some of my wishes in them and some not in them."
Whether, according to the second explanation, "all the wishes" of God are in those who stand in the church, or, according to the former and loftier one, "all the wishes" of God are in those who have come to be in the holy land, where "the Lord made his wishes wonderful". For now, with respect to what is perfect and exact, not yet are "all the wishes" of God "in them". Hear why not "all the wishes" of God are here, before they reach the holy land: because "we know in part and we prophesy in part". How, then, are "all the wishes" of God in one who knows in part? "All the wishes" of God appear "when the perfect comes and what is in part is abolished". Therefore "for the holy ones who are in his land he made wonderful", and "all my wishes", he says, "are in them".
7. Next, something obscure seems to be said here; pray together with us about its obscurity: "Their weaknesses were multiplied", he says, "afterwards they made haste". Whose "their"? Those in the holy land. For of those who are going to come into the holy land, or of those who are in the holy land, according to both explanations, "their weaknesses were multiplied, afterwards they made haste". Power is made perfect in weakness, and when the holy one is weak, then he is strong, and the righteous man is well pleased in weaknesses, in insults and in necessities, in persecutions and distresses, and "many are the afflictions of the righteous". If so, it is clear that "there were multiplied the weaknesses" of the righteous. But when the weaknesses of the righteous are multiplied, those who journey toward the good things make haste toward God, for these things work together toward making haste. For this reason, if you wish to make haste in journeying toward the good things, do not shrink from being well pleased in weaknesses and from being such as to say: "When I am weak, then I am strong". "Their weaknesses were multiplied", since "many are the afflictions of the righteous", and "afterwards they made haste": after the many weaknesses, "afterwards they made haste".
"I will not gather their assemblies of blood": "I must gather these, whose 'weaknesses were multiplied', who 'afterwards made haste'. But you men of blood, whom the Lord abhors ('a man', you see, 'of blood and deceitful the Lord abhors'), know that, being sinners, you are not gathered. 'Not', indeed, 'will I gather their assemblies of blood'." One who is to be gathered under the person of Christ must be pure of blood and of defilement, of murders, of wounds. In these words, how is it not clear that the person is that of Christ, who gathers the "assemblies" that are not "of blood", the person that says: "Not", indeed, "of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God" were the saints "born"?
"I will not", then, "gather their assemblies of blood, nor will I remember their names through my lips". Granted that "their weaknesses were multiplied", that they were saved because of God, that "afterwards they made haste", and granted the words "I will not gather their assemblies of blood": how will "nor will I remember their names through my lips" be rendered consistently with these? "I will not remember superficially those who are to be saved; I will remember them in the heart and in the depth." For you see how the lips are set down for what is superficial in "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". "I, then, will not remember with the lips those whom I shall gather. I will not remember with the lips those whose 'weaknesses were multiplied' and who 'afterwards made haste', but in the heart, in the depth, I will remember them."
8. "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; you are the one who restores my inheritance to me". The Savior has two inheritances, one in what is higher and the other in what is lower. In what is higher he has God, so that he may be benefited by him and receive benefits from the Father. In what is lower he has his saints, so that he may give the most beneficial things he receives from the Father to those who are benefited. That these are the two kinds of the Savior's inheritance, attend to the wording: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; you are the one who restores my inheritance to me. Lines have fallen to me among my best; for indeed my inheritance is best for me". You see: "Lines have fallen to me among the best": "not in God, but wherever there is something best and choice on earth, there my inheritance has fallen." The line is taken from the example of those who measure land with lines. The word occurs also in Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided nations, whom he scattered, the sons of Adam, he fixed boundaries of nations according to the number of the sons of Israel, and his people Jacob became the Lord's portion, Israel the measured lot of his inheritance". My measuring by line, then, that is, the measure of the inheritance, fell "among the best".
You will understand how "the lines" of Christ fell "among the best" when you see "the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the people for his possession". For example, look, I pray you, at the soul of Paul as a land, being a portion of Christ, and see whether the Savior will not reasonably say of him: "Lines have fallen to me in this best one." Add to him Peter, John, the apostles: see whether you will not say "Lines have fallen to me among the best", so that of each one you may say: "Lines have fallen to me among the best". If, then, the lines of Christ fell to him among the best, know that unless you are best, unless you are strongest, unless you are noblest, Christ's measuring line has not fallen in you. "For indeed my inheritance is best for me"; "the Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup".
9. We almost left out the cup! "The Lord is the portion of the inheritance" of the Savior "and of the cup" that is his. We drink the Savior and we eat the Savior, for the Word is "living bread, come down from heaven", and "the true vine". We eat him and his flesh, to which he exhorts us when he says: "Unless you eat my flesh"; and we drink his blood, if indeed we obey him when he says: "Unless you drink my blood", you have no life in yourselves. Yet surely it is not the case that, because of this, the Savior suffers anything from us. For the Word remains whole even if we eat him, and remains whole even if we drink him. Just as, then, he himself is our food and our drink (and "This is my blood of the new covenant"), and concerning himself he promises, saying: "I will not drink it until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God", so he himself has the Father as food and has the Father as drink.
"Me", you see, "they have forsaken, the spring of the water of life", says the Father, as one who can be drunk. The Father, then, is his cup, the cup of one who is blessed, blessed too as the one who drinks. But what need is there to speak also of what is drunk? What blessedness shall we speak of in the case of the Father? You, then, are "the portion of my inheritance and of my cup". Concerning this cup he says: "You have prepared a table before me in the face of those who afflict me". And the Savior drinks "your cup, inebriating as the best", for he is not without need, as I said before.
Food and drink sustain us. In the body, bodily food sustains: take it away, and we do not live. In the body, bodily drink sustains: remove it, and we do not live. Just so, pass over by reason to the soul as well, and give it the word: "Not", indeed, "by bread alone shall a human being live, but by every word that proceeds through the mouth of God shall the human being live". Give the word, and my soul lives. If you take away the word, the soul dies; for by the removal of the word, which is food, the soul dies. Concerning this soul it is said: "The soul that sins, it shall die". And every sinful soul is dead, since it is not ever nourished by the word of God.
Pay attention, you who neglect always to nourish the soul! It is shameful that each day you sometimes eat twice, and some perhaps even three times (or if not, all of you at least once), but in the case of the soul you do not give it its proper food. Prayer is food of the soul, especially when one prays with the mind as well. A word of teaching that enters the hearer is food of the soul: a word of wisdom and a word of knowledge. Just as, then, in the case of the body, reason has shown that without food and drink the body dies, so too the soul, if it is not nourished and does not drink, dies the death of the soul.
Some, not having understood this, through their great lack of learning say: the souls of the unjust die completely. For this, they say, is meant in "The soul that sins, it shall die". And they bring forward texts to show that the soul dies, as if we did not know that it is written "that a soul dies". They do not see that there is another death of the soul: the soul that does not live to God is dead. For example, the soul of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob lives, according to what was said by the Savior: "Have you not read" what was said at the bush by God, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but he is not God of the dead, but of the living"? But the soul of Pharaoh and of the sinful Egyptians has died, and has died through being deprived of food.
Therefore, so that I may not forget the matter before us: the body is nourished and dies without food; the soul is nourished by its proper food, it is nourished by Christ himself, and it dies without food. My Savior and Lord is nourished and drinks: "For you are 'the portion of my inheritance and of my cup'," he says to the Father. But I have often neglected my food, and as often as I neglected it, in proportion to the neglect, I either fell sick or died. My Savior, however, never neglects his own food, but is always awake and is nourished by the Father. If, hypothetically, he were not nourished, I do not know what would follow. But the Savior is nourished, and always nourished, by the Father.
For this reason I will venture to state something that is a question in the Apostle, setting it out for examination to those who are able to listen to Scripture. The Apostle says somewhere about God: "who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light". O Paul, does the Father then "alone have immortality", and no one else? No, he says: for his immortality is not acquired, but belongs to him by nature. Nothing can happen to God such that he would not be immortal. But the Savior is immortal because his immortality is sustained for him. At any rate, he says that he partakes of the Father, to whom he said: "You are the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; you are the one who restores my inheritance to me".
"Restoring the inheritance": what does "restoring" (ἀποκαθιστῶν) signify? If anyone can, let him gather its meaning from elsewhere too, as from "until the times of the restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) of all things of which God spoke". Have my bones now each been restored to its joint? For at one time they were out of joint, but in the resurrection that is spoken of and recorded, a bone is restored to its joint. If you have understood what restoration signifies, run back and look, I pray you, at the principles of the beginning in "You are the one who restores my inheritance to me". Look at the principles of the restoration also in the words: until only "the times of the restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets".
"You", then, "are the one who restores my inheritance to me; lines have fallen to me among the best": this I explained in anticipation. For indeed, of my inheritance he did not say: "is best"; the "for me" (μοι) is a great addition. "For indeed my inheritance is best for me": with me as judge, it is best. It is not just anyone who judges that the inheritance is best; rather, I say of the inheritance that "the inheritance is best". Christ says it, to whom belong the glory and the might to the ages of ages. Amen.